‘Dostoevsky has developed what might be called a theology of writing’ according to Williams. Perhaps he has. But it is as unclear in rhetorical expression as is the modish theological vocabulary used by Williams to convey its meaning throughout his book, and it will accordingly be incomprehensible to most readers. Williams does observe that it is ‘the theologically minded’ who will ‘see the kind of otherness that exists between author and character in the Dostoevskian world’. It is a good thing somebody can. He later continues:

This suggests that the taking of responsibility for the other that emerges already in this novel [Karamazov] as a major theme involves the responsibility for making responsibility possible for the other, not merely a resigned acceptance of the other’s load.

What on earth is this all about? Later still we read, ‘The sexual other is not just to complete my erotic fulfilment; sexual otherness is more than that’. Well that’s all right then: it is helpful to have the Archbishop of Canterbury’s assurance on sexual satisfaction. His book ends (‘finally and importantly’, as he insists) by asking readers ‘whether they can conceive that humanity is only itself when it [is] a sign of what is other’. After persisting through all this many readers may well suppose themselves ready for a bit of ‘the other’.

Blackwell Bookshop

Purchase your copy here, 10% off RRP