In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS ing). Nevertheless, the analogies which Inside Modernism develops are well worth considering in themselves. Daniel Herwitz __________________ University of Natal Dostoevsky & England Peter Kaye. Dostoevsky and English Modernism, 1900-1930. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 242 pp. $59.95 CONSTANCE GARNETT'S translation of Dostoevsky's fiction between 1912 and 1921 led to a phenomenon which has been described as the "Dostoevsky cult." Although many leading literary figures had encountered the Russian writer before 1912 (often via French translations ), the increased accessibility of Dostoevsky's work generated a high degree of interest. Not everyone liked what they read; but virtually everyone was affected by it. Building on Helen Muchnic's seminal study of Dostoevsky's English reception, Peter Kaye has chosen to examine the response of seven Modernist writers: Lawrence, Woolf, Bennett, Conrad, Forster, Galsworthy and James. Following the introduction, the book begins with a chapter on Lawrence . Despite the fact that some critics saw parallels between his own work and Dostoevsky's, Lawrence rejected Dostoevsky as a "false prophet" and a "false artist." Kaye suggests that the antagonism displayed by Lawrence was compounded by a misreading of Dostoevsky's artistic technique. Although Woolf replaced Lawrence's hostility with her own ambivalence, she too failed to appreciate Dostoevsky's art. The theme of misreading is developed further in the chapter on Bennett, a figure who, in Kaye's opinion, "did more to promote Dostoevsky's works in England than anyone else, with the possible exception of the translator Constance Garnett." Although Bennett was a fan of Dostoevsky, Kaye explains that the view he promoted "eventually became inseparable from the dispute with modernism that characterized his later criticism ." After Bennett comes Conrad, who is said to have hated everything that Dostoevsky represented, including his "complete failure to assert control over the dark, brimming underworld within and without." Before drawing his study together with a brief conclusion, Kaye devotes one last chapter to Forster, Galsworthy and James, writers whom he links by virtue of their status as "gentleman writers." According to Kaye, "all three authors shared an inability to recognize him [Dostoevsky] as an artist in control." 471 ELT 43 : 4 2000 The common theme that runs throughout Kaye's book is that the English modernists failed to understand Dostoevsky's artistic vision. By failing to differentiate between the voice of Dostoevsky and the polyphonic voices of his novels, each writer misread the Russian novelist to some degree. Underlying Kaye's approach is the work of Bakhtin, as Kaye readily admits in his introduction: "Bakhtin remains an invaluable ally in our struggle to resist the legion of those who have discerned little or no artistry in Dostoevsky." One of the strengths of this book is the thoroughness with which the subject is examined. As a result, Kaye is in a position to trace the development of attitudes towards Dostoevsky. For example, his chapter on Woolf notes three distinct stages in her view of Dostoevsky: an initial ambivalence towards his power as a novelist; a subsequent appropriation of his work to advance the cause of modernism; and a final cooling off in response to what she perceived as his lack of control as an artist. Elsewhere, Kaye's detailed research reveals delightful comments such as the following quotation from Bennett: "'Scratch a serious novelist and you will find a preacher with a moral message. I doubt whether there is any exception to this rule.'" Another strength of Kaye's book is the way that he intersperses his study with close readings of literary texts. His readings of Lawrence's Kangaroo and The Escaped Cock as creative responses to The Grand Inquisitor is particularly interesting, as are his comparisons of Crime and Punishment with Under Western Eyes and Raw Youth with Princess Casamassima. Nevertheless, there are also some major problems with this book. Foremost among these is Kaye's tendency to overstate his argument. This can be seen from the chapter on Conrad where Kaye argues that Dostoevsky had a greater influence on Conrad than the Pole was willing to admit. At first, Kaye's argument seems quite measured: "Though the evidence of his creative response to the Russian rival is...

pdf

Share