|
Abstract When discussing the innovative nature of Dostoevsky’s novels, Bakhtin observed that artistic form—the most revealing object—was precisely what researchers had overlooked and long failed to elucidate. Clarifying this issue was the fundamental intention behind Bakhtin’s establishment of the theory of the polyphonic novel, and it is also the significance of revisiting this topic here. Literary studies have a long-held convention: in the presence of content as the protagonist, artistic form is merely a secondary or supportive role. Bakhtin, however, argued for the crucial importance of studying artistic form. The process by which an artist observes and depicts their object is always permeated by the artistic mode of that observation and depiction. Bakhtin’s particular focus on this problem does not mean he disregarded content; rather, his conception of content was different. If unique artistic form is the indispensable bridge to unique content, then the theory of the polyphonic novel once again demonstrates that Bakhtin was uniquely insightful in discovering the polyphonic novel. It is precisely through Bakhtin’s distinctive perspective that we discern, within the artistic form adopted by Dostoevsky, things previously unseen.
Bakhtin argued that Dostoevsky, unlike traditional novelists, was not only a writer who favored narration from an internal perspective, but also endowed this artistic perspective with unique expressive power. The internal perspective not only grants characters independence, but also allows the author to profoundly reveal the potential unfinalizability latent with them. This transforms the internal perspective into an artistic form enabling characters to express themselves from within, avoiding objectification. Many commentators have noted Dostoevsky’s preference for using inner monologue to depict the protagonist’s subjective image. However, only Bakhtin further discovered that these monologic utterances are filled with an inner dialogism—dialogue with oneself and with others—thereby transforming Dostoevsky’s characters from talked-about objects into self-speaking, conversing subjects.
In Bakhtin’s view, a key distinction between the polyphonic novel and the monological novel lies in the different ways the author manifests their ideas. Bakhtin classifies Tolstoy’s novels as monological precisely because they are essentially monophonic, where no second voice of equal importance emerges. The monologic nature of such novels is also evident in Tolstoy’s refusal to engage his characters in equal dialogue; the authorial voice within the work consistently plays the role of the finalized arbiter. Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novels, in contrast, broke with the long-established artistic conventions of the monological novel. It is crucial to note that while the author’s ideas do not dominate in the polyphonic novel, this does not imply the absence of the author’s advocated ideas. The author is still actively expressing their ideas, but this activity possesses a special dialogic quality. Here, the authorial voice is no longer an indisputable voice towering above the dialogue; instead, it becomes one voice among many—a voice that characters can dispute and engage with on an equal footing. This signifies a fundamental transformation in the relationship between the author and protagonist. In discussing this issue, this article adopts a distinctive methodological approach: it elucidates the characteristics of how Dostoevsky expresses his ideas through his meaningful depictions of his favored protagonists.
|
|
Published: 04 July 2026
|
|
|
|
