This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
English literature within its labyrinth has reserved several literary genius and scholars who has given the language of English and its literature a completely separate dimension and dynamism to the said realm. One of the most noted scalars of all times will be Dostoevsky, whose last three final novels shows a rather uniqueness in the way the protagonist characters or the heroes of the novels have been depicted. In fact broadly speaking the last three novels that were the worker of the mentioned author was really quite different in which the way they had created the image of their heroes or the central characters of the plots. The essence of writing of Dostoevsky did quite elementarily change the image and the scoops of a hero in a story or a novel. The novels of Dostoevsky, especially the Brothers Karamazov did portray its leading man’s character in such a way that would leave the audiences or the readers bound to think, that whether the character was really the hero of the novel or not. In fact the author in the very beginning of the tale where he did introduce his hero or the central character did reveal that the hero of his novel was actually not a great man. In fact the character of the protagonist person was quite inadequate and incomplete in a number of respects. Once again we see that the character did not develop throughout the scope of the novel and also the fact that the character did not really contribute much to the plot of the novel or the formation of some of the key or the most important notions or concepts or the ideas of the novel that really gave the plot of a novel a definite direction. Once again we see that as compared to the central character of the novel Brothers Karamazov (1879), the other characters who were depicted as the supporting characters did seem to be all the more established, well defined and did possess some attributes and personal dimension that did add to the vigor and depth of the novel. These supporting characters were the elements that did much to develop the scope and the plot of the novel as compared to the hero.
The novel or the writing style of Dostoevsky did happen to be very different. This style that the author had was the most different from the other authors that we have seen in the arena of English novel writing. One thing that we all know is that every plot or story of a novel happens to develop around certain ventral characters who life and journeys does play to be an integral part of the novel or happens to be the heart or the central theme of a novel that develops the plot and also takes it to further levels ultimately reaching the climax. In certain very well known novels we see that the scope of the book follows the various events and developments that occurs in the life of the central character and finally ending with a climax. This is the notion that gives rise to the context or the concept of heroes and the central or the protagonist characters. However in the writing and the presentation style of Dostoevsky we see that everything is a lot different. The central character or the hero of the plot plays a more eminent role as a mere connector of the various events that are continuing to emerge and develop in the different parts of the novel that together and in an integrated form helps to progress the story line rather than emerging with trends and events that will be determining the course of the story plot. It seems that the author had from the very first decided that his hero or the central character will be more of a titular head rather than the spearhead of the story plot. In fact it is with this same gesture that the author did introduce his hero on a rather pessimistic note wherein the author said that his hero though the central character of the plot was certainly no great man. This as a move could have had created a negative effect on the minds of the audience. Once again we see that the author had created such a personality that will be having a number of short comings even oddness in his character and nature. In order to effect the same the author instead of providing the hero with the positive and powerful attributes that would make him better than his peer and contemporaries did reveal the others, the hero’s brothers in this case, we see that the author did elucidate some very important and interesting aspects to the other characters such as greatness and solidarity of intellect or for that matter brutal physical attraction element. None of the same was present in the case of the hero of the novel.
As an audience in a plot, I would like to look for a purpose, or a certain beginning, development o events and situations that will be giving the story a certain orientation and a final maturing of events leading to a climax, at the end of which the novel should come to a definite conclusion. This conclusion could both be a happy ending o that which comes tinged with loss and sorrow. Whichever way the story plot does develop, a novel or a plot can never be imagined with a certain single or a group of central characters.
It has been noticed in maximum cases that the emergence or the development of the events or the situations of the novel that ultimately leads to the thickening of the plot is mostly focused on these central characters. The difference between the central and the side characters is generally underlined by the proportion of the contribution of each of the characters to the plot of the story or bringing the story to its final closure. In the process we see that a story which is lead by a group of characters and on the basis of a string of events happens to be the most successful as a novel. Its plot becomes successful in engaging its audience and readers throughout the course of its storyline. In the event of this engagement we see the central hero or the protagonist character of the storyline emerges. Popularly we see that this is a character that has the potential of carrying the story on his shoulders. Generally a hero of a story has to be a character that not juts belongs to the plot and era of the novel setting a perfect harmony with the backdrop of the novel scenario but also is pretty much identifiable by the readers of the novel. The main story develops centered around this character who finally the main element that givrs the story a purpose, a direction and finally a conclusion. It is the character of the hero that brings solidarity to a particular story plot and narration design. Often we see that a third character narration style is adopted to not just unravel the plot but also to introduce the central character. Or many times the story is told by the central character itself. A hero of the novel could be either a man or women who will be the centrifugal element of the storyline. Again the central character, often referred to as the “hero” could again be both negative and positive. Although popular trend says that heroes are mainly characters with positive attributes but there are again very popular examples in English Literature like the novel “Wuthering Heights” by Emily Bronte where the central character of Heath cliff has a prominent negative shade to itself.
The central concept of this part of the discussion is that to determine that the hero or the central character of the novel must have a particular and definite essence or quality about himself. In all practical purpose a hero is generally a leader who has to be at the center focus of the audience. He or she has to be the shoulders who not just merely connects facts and events and characters of the novel, he or she has to be the protagonist element of the novel the pivot or focal point who has the strength and depth of character so that the novel could be based on the life and experiences of the hero. A hero to the society and the audience or the readers of the novel is that person who through his or her life has the potential of giving a certain valuable insight into life and human characters to the audience. Generally a hero is that person who has such attributes to himself which a common man or woman would want to possess in life. It could be said that a hero has to be both identifiable as well as adorable from the perspective of the audience.
In the case of the novel Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky did create a hero just for the same of a character who could tie the various loose ends of the story line. In fact the author himself did proclaim that his hero has no special qualities and by no means was a great man. In this context we could say that the many times a novel has a common man as the central character who is identifiable by the readers., But the position that he has or the kind of situation with which he duels in the novel makes him the central character. It is not mandatory that a hero must be having special and valiant features but his or her position in the novel has to be elementary and significant. In the case of the give novel we see that Dostoevsky has give rise to the central character of his hero who is by no means indispensable for the story line. Not just that he does not possess any special qualities, he also has no special or crucial role to play in the development of the events in the story plot. This is one idea that I find very inappropriate and if such has to be the situation, the said character of the hero could have as well passed for any other side and insignificant character of the novel. The purpose of declaring him as the central character of the novel stands unclear and vaguely explained.