How did Dostoevesky abuse his talents? The problem that Leftists or most types of ideologically inspired people have is that art has to be "tightly coupled" (to use a computer systems expression) with their particular ideology. It was the psychologist Maslow (I believe..maybe it was someone else) who said something like, "Give a child a hammer and the whole world becomes a nail." This is the way it is with a lot (not all) Marxists. They just see class conflict everywhere and in everything. It impoverishes their vision.
^^^^
CB: (apologies to Doug for accidently sending the initial post to the wrong list !)
I can understand what you are saying, Thomas. My response is ( and I say this friendly) that the point in argument, as I see it, is exactly whether it is correct or incorrect to _look for_ the impact of "class conflict everywhere and in everything". You are asserting as true one side of the question in debate. I'd like to see you argue _why_ everything and everywhere should not be investigated for its class conflict implications. Also, there are other important political "domains" related to class struggle - male supremacy, racism, the "personal".
^^^^^^^
And this is true not just of marxists. Look at Tolstoy. True, he became a much nicer person after his conversion to a sort of radical Christianity. What did he write of the greatness of his earlier works? Nothing. His religious message tainted everything and did not permit him to investigate the world authentically. The world got mediated through the prism of his ideology/religion.
^^^^^ CB: I don't put all "ideology" in the same bag on this. That's sort of the point in dispute. Frankly, I call my theory "wisdom" ,not "ideology". It is what my experience has taught me to be certainly true. I don't say that to be arrogant, but to be honest that I think it is legitimate ( and necessary) to have a certain amount of self-esteem for one's own theory. Put it this way: sometimes you question your own thinking. Sometimes you proceed as if what you think _is_ true. It is important to hold fast to principle sometimes. Non-religious thinking has moments of certainty, and such moments are _not_ dogmatic. If I adhere strictly to Darwinism in the face of religious assault , I am not being a dogmatist. When I hold fast to Marxism in the face of "geniuses" from the right, I am not being dogmatic or religious or "ideological", rather I am thinking critically. Criticizing Bellow is critical ,not dogmatic thinking.