Imagine Dostoevsky, a man considered to be (and self proclaimed) of new found faith, ripped to shreds of contradiction and falsehood because of a ridiculous man, and his dream. The crucifier is Wasiolek, who stems off the traditional train of sacrament, and demands the interpretation of The Dream of the Ridiculous Man to be different. Only a radically brave critic could accuse Dostoevsky of "placing some cherished truth in the mouth and being of a self-interested person," and be respected for it. Wasiolek's arguments and evidence behind his personal discoveries of Dream of a Ridiculous Man are merits that I find refreshing. Before reading his article, I too was a close minded traditionalist in believing the story as sacrament.

I would have found Wasiolek's views too generalized had he not established a difference between the character and the author himself. Even though most of his essay is implying...