[Gallus]

You got that exactly backwards. Tolstoy pushes his private philosophy all the time in a tiresome way. He was the failed philosopher. If one has read Dostoyevsky's five major novels it's clear that the thoughts and words of the characters usually have nothing to do with the author's beliefs. Do you think he really thought murdering rich people was justifiable? (Crime and Punishment) Or that he was a destructive nihilist? (Demons) The indeterminacy of characterization is what D is famous for.

I don't agree with this. Dostoevsky's characters are philosophical archetypes, vehicles to express particular views or psychological states he wanted to explore. Tolstoy's characters are not such representations of ideas, but actual rounded human beings.

If you come away from reading The Idiot thinking "wow, what a tiresome, failed philosopher", with all of its multi-page mouthpiece rants from characters about how the Roman Catholic Church is evil or whatever, I can understand that. If you think the same after reading Anna Karenina, I don't really know what to say.

 

[Gallus]

What exactly is a "failed philosopher" anyway?

I don't know. It wasn't my phrase.

Do the same for Rogozhin and Vronsky. Who is more vivid?

Err, Vronsky obviously? Rogozhin is a crazed murderer who I will grant is compelling in what he represents as an antithesis to Myshkin's saintly renunciation of passion, but not really a three dimensional character like Vronsky is from the very opening pages.