Background and General Information

[Theresa]

Nemo wrote: ".One can judge a person by the authors s/he keeps company with..."

I don't know about judging them, but certainly that knowledge could help to complete the jigsaw portrait you spoke of up there.

Sometimes influence is a bit random at certain times in our lives. For example, somebody shoves something like "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" into your hands days after a particularly shattering experience and because you are feeling so bewildered and impressionable at that time you use the book as a template to explain the experience.

[Nemo]

Theresa wrote: "Nemo wrote: ".One can judge a person by the authors s/he keeps company with..."

I don't know about judging them, but certainly that knowledge could help to complete the jigsaw portrait you spoke o..."

Well, one has to judge whether and where the pieces fit, especially when recommending books to people going through hard times. to restore the shattered portrait, so to speak.

Someone asked Mark Twain which book he would read if he were stranded on an island alone, he replied, "How to make a boat".

[Mark]

Cool Twain quote! I read novels to be entertained, not necessarily to be edified. For me the experience of "great" art is spiritually up-lifting. Of course every author in some sense is a prisoner of his own particular time and culture; and what is acceptable or even relevant changes constantly. Twain used the "n-word" a lot and today, for unimpeachable reasons, that is totally un-acceptable. But did he do it to be racist or just to be realistic and should these words be expunged or should we try more carefully to understand what his reasons may have been?

[Nemo]

Mark wrote: "But did he do it to be racist or just to be realistic and should these words be expunged or should we try more carefully to understand what his reasons may have been? "

If every unacceptable words must be expunged, I'm not sure how much that is written today will remain intact 100 years from now. We might as well preemptively expunge them now. Come to think of it, could that be the motive behind the infamous "autocorrect" feature? I just read an article on how Microsoft Excel has autocorrected names and figures in spreadsheets, and caused errors in many peer-reviewed journals.

[Theresa]

Mark wrote: " For me the experience of "great" art is spiritually up-lifting. . . Of course every author in some sense is a prisoner of his own particular time and culture."

For me, it has to be more than spiritually uplifting to be considered "Great" in my mind. Every author might be a" prisoner of his own particular time and culture" but some less imprisoned than others. The ones that can transcend centuries and still speak to people of the 21st century in a way that more people can relate to on a personal level...seem "greater" in my book. When I read T.S. Eliot's line "humankind cannot bear too much reality" I am right inside the poem with him and not stepping aside to make excuses for his "time and place" by stopping to mentally whisper to myself "mankind" "I think he means me too".
I haven't read Twain, but from what I know of Huck Fin from popular culture, I think it would be tedious for a child of colour to read it and try to relate to it without feeling conflicted, excluded, and possibly offended.

One of the reasons I had, at first, a hard time reading The Odyssey, is that I didn't realize it was the story of the adventures of a Man (not mankind, not humankind, but...a Man). Once I realized that, it made more sense to me. I learned this in a coursera course (which happened to be mentioned in the thread on Demeter, same instructor and course, I was too late to participate in that thread). The professor teaching the course made it clear from the beginning that it was the story of a man.

[Rhonda]

Someone asked about the value of Russian currency in the mid 19th century and I ran across some data which I will try and synthesize. 1860's Russia was a period of huge inflation due to tremendous debts from the Crimean War (1853-56.) It cost Russia over 500 million rubles, which was a huge sum for the time. Unfortunately, to combat the problem, Russia just printed more paper money. After all, foreign loans were difficult to find. No one, it appears, loans money to the loser. Russia also minted silver coins of lesser and lesser purity but this simply made matters worse.
As far as the buying power of the ruble, there doesn't seem to be a lot of raw data and what there is seems to vary across what is a huge area. The reforms which freed the peasants, however, did not really leave them better off financially as they were essentially aimed at greater industrialization and taxed the poor peasant unmercifully. It might fairly be said that Russia lost the Crimean war despite a numerical advantage because they had no roads and they had no railroads.
With that said, in 1860's rural Russia, the annual income of a peasant family might have been as low as 200 rubles and as high as 700. This appears to have been enough to sustain a small family from what information I am able to glean. As there was no apparent rise in the mortality rates during this time, I have to conclude that the family was able to provide for itself, albeit meagerly.
If this is true, then one can only imagine what kind of a party Dmitri had with 2500 rubles or how long Fyodor Pavlovich might live in high style with his small fortune. Additionally, Katerina's 80,000 rubles would have been more than enough for a married couple to live very well.

[Lily]

Rhonda wrote: "Someone asked about the value of Russian currency in the mid 19th century and I ran across some data which I will try and synthesize. 1860's Russia was a period of huge inflation due to tremendous ..."

Thank you for the research and the synthesis, Rhonda!

One of the questions that now runs through my mind is whether, as a writer, Dostoevsky was careful, in the realistic sense we would expect of writers today, about assigning wealth to his characters. Or did he just grab a point or range that seemed to convey what he desired. (Surely, if significant, a scholar/critic exists has explored the topic, but, quite possibly one writing in Russian rather than English. I've had that experience with Tolstoy -- the English critic R.F. Christian saying on certain topics the best analyses are in Russian sources.)

[Rhonda]

Lily wrote: "One of the questions that now runs through my mind is whether, as a writer, Dostoevsky was careful, in the realistic sense we would expect of writers today, about assigning wealth to his characters."
That is definitely an excellent question which I can't directly answer. However, Dostoevsky was familiar with his father's holdings which included owning two small villages so perhaps he had some idea of what wealth might have been in, at least, one rural setting. Fyodor Pavlovich seems to have been based, at least in part, on his father and, of course, Dmitri has a whirlwind military career, replete with profligate spending, borrowing money from "home" and partying, very much like Dostoevsky himself.

The more I think of this issue, the more I believe that Dostoevsky set this book at this time period for the reason that this was the pivotal point in Russian change from the backwards agrarian society to the much more modern industrial state it became by 1900. It was not only an economic change, but a social change and perhaps this was presenting new possibilities of new moral paths which Dostoevsky saw.

Much in the same way that the Karamazov brothers universally represent both the unification of both a Russian person (physical, intellectual and spiritual,) and a Russian nation at the same time, so did this pivotal point in Russian history present a path which could be chosen for the right or wrong way to proceed. As I have argued elsewhere, Smerdyakov is the great social warning for what may happen to a nation's soul when it has forgotten its duties to one another, especially to those less fortunate.

[Lily]

Rhonda wrote: "he great social warning for what may happen to a nation's soul when it has forgotten its duties to one another, especially to those less fortunate...."

My own sense at this point is that Dostoevsky is more concerned about pointing at those great sweeping issues than being accurate about the specific details behind them. Not unlike some today, will be my comment. Reminds me of Tony Blair talking about the distrust of those who must deal day in and day out with the picayune details of governing.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: ".. Dostoevsky is more concerned about pointing at those great sweeping issues than being accurate about the specific details behind them..."

He is quite precise about the details of psychology behind those great issues, which are as relevant today as they are in 19th century Russia, to each of us as individuals and nations as a whole. The relationship between science, morality and religion, and conditions of human well-being / "flourishing".

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "He is quite precise about the details of psychology behind those great issues, which are as relevant today as they are in 19th century Russia, to each of us as individuals and nations as a whole. The relationship between science, morality and religion, and conditions of human well-being / "flourishing"...."

Went over my head on that one, Nemo. Give me an example and maybe I can relate it to others in the book. I may agree, but I'm not sure....

[Nemo]

What kind of example are you looking for?

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "What kind of example are you looking for?"

One that illustrates your statement.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "What kind of example are you looking for?"

One that illustrates your statement."

One example is Snegiryov and the 200 roubles, which illustrates the great issue of how (not) to alleviate the sufferings of the poor and and sick among us. Reason tells Snegiryov that money can provide his family food, medical care and education, but he feels humiliated accepting money from the Karamazovs, and rejects Alyosha's offer, who probably learns a religious lesson through the experience, "though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor but have not love, it profits me nothing".

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "...but he feels humiliated accepting money from the Karamazovs, and rejects Alyosha's offer, who probably learns a religious lesson through the experience..."

Do you think this is universally, psychologically "true"? Or is it influenced by a number of cultural factors? (I ask that from considerations of refugee camps worldwide with the huge dislocations caused by wars and natural disasters. Or even based on the experiences I have seen locally on willingness of families and even single seniors and veterans to use food bank resources. Are the successful efforts somehow ameliorating the sense of humiliation and providing a sense of offering love, or at least, human caring?)

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Do you think this is universally, psychologically "true"? Or is it influenced by a number of cultural factors?."

Both. What is universally true can take on a variety of forms in different cultures.

I know there are people in many ages and cultures who would rather starve than accept handout, because of the humiliation that comes with it, not unlike Cato the Younger, who would rather commit suicide than accept Caesar's pardon, or Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death".

Are the successful efforts somehow ameliorating the sense of humiliation and providing a sense of offering love, or at least, human caring?

It depends on what you would consider "successful efforts". I think Zosima would say that if people we profess to love are relying on food bank to survive, we would have to admit we failed our responsibility as human beings.

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: " I think Zosima would say that if people we profess to love are relying on food bank to survive, we would have to admit we failed our responsibility as human beings. ..."

Placed in the position to do so, I might respond to Zosima that I think providing food banks (or places of refugee sanctuary) can be some of the ways we meet our responsibilities as human beings and even show our love. Especially the latter (refugee sanctuary) is taking a lot of political will these days, oft times in opposition to, ..., shall I say lack of love, or should I say, lack of popular support.

(A sidebar, but we tend to forget how much the stories of migration are foundational stories of mankind, whether of Moses or escape in times of persecution or natural disasters, or search for new opportunities.)

[Nemo]

Providing food banks and refugee camps are better than doing nothing. Absolutely. But does it meet the golden rule? If one of our children or parents lived in a refugee camp, would we say that we've met our responsibility as human beings?

(Migration of peoples are often settled by war in the past, whether it be the Exodus or the founding of the New World. By comparison, the refugees have much less power and resources and less likely to cause large-scale disturbance, and their resettlement and integration more peaceful. However, their arrival still causes consternation among some of the local people. )

[Lily]

Nemo wrote: "(Migration of peoples are often settled by war in the past, whether it be the Exodus or the founding of the New World. By comparison, the refugees have much less power and resources and less likely to cause large-scale disturbance, and their resettlement and integration more peaceful. However, their arrival still causes consternation among some of the local people. )..."

In what senses do you consider the "founding of the New World" to have been "settled by war"? Do you consider the indentured Hebrews leaving Egypt to have been the result of "war"? What about New Orleans during Katrina? Or the refugee camps in Africa resulting sometimes from drought, sometimes war, sometimes both?

And I don't know the answers to your questions, Nemo, in a world that is believed to have the resources (land, water, seeds, human and machine power) to be able to feed the world, and yet does not. Certainly I look in amazement at the men, women, and children, including pregnant women, that are taking the risks they do to escape conditions they clearly deem intolerable. Yet, some will say they should stay and turn things around where they have been living. Which demonstrates "the golden rule"?

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "In what senses do you consider the "founding of the New World" to have been "settled by war"? Do you consider the indentured Hebrews leaving Egypt to have been the result of "war"?."

What I have in mind is, for the founding of the New World, the American Revolutionary War and Indian Wars, where the settlers battled the British on the one hand and the native peoples on the other; for the Exodus of the Israelites, the war between them and the Egyptians (at the Red Sea) on the one hand, and the war between them and the Canaanites on the other.

some will say they should stay and turn things around where they have been living.

They might be right, but that doesn't relieve them of the responsibility of helping the people where they have been living before they were forced to migrate.

[Theresa]

Thomas Wrote: The discussion is open through the end of book 3, so a comment regarding the end of book 3 would not be considered a spoiler. Comments on anything beyond that would be problematic...."

Alright then, since you answered my question in week 3 I'll assume the discussion in this thread is open to the current week's reading. I've been avoiding this thread as I am not always up to date with my reading.

[Theresa]

Nemo wrote: "I think Zosima would say that if people we profess to love are relying on food bank to survive, we would have to admit we failed our responsibility as human beings. .."

But we (in Canada and other countries) largely rely on collective, "free" water to survive. In any case, it is quite cheap and every bit as necessary as food. From what I recall of our discussion of that incident in the related thread, it was pointed out that the captain is willing to take the money until he finds out there is a connection to Dmitri - then he doesn't want it.

[Theresa]

Rhonda wrote: "With that said, in 1860's rural Russia, the annual income of a peasant family might have been as low as 200 rubles and as high as 700. This appears to have been enough to sustain a small family..."

In the thread in which we were discussing this, I ventured that 200 rubles might be equivalent to 10-20 thousand in our money. From what you've researched, and from what the captain claimed the 200 would buy him...it seems about right. You could get a car nowdays for 20 thousand or you could live off of it in some very rural isolated area with very low real estate prices or rentals (it is difficult to reckon this when you consider the cost of shelter/real estate these days since most people don't own right out but are carrying a large mortgage). the captain considers it a small fortune, something he can use to get himself back on his feet, maybe buy a horse a cart to get around in with a little left over. For a minimum wage person in our time, in a rural part of the US or possibly for a poor family in Russia, I think it would still need to be about 15,000 USD to be equal to what the captain thinks it can buy.

[Nemo]

Theresa wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I think Zosima would say that if people we profess to love are relying on food bank to survive, we would have to admit we failed our responsibility as human beings. .."

But we (in Can..."

Disposable items are also free, but they are not valued highly by their owners. I might be wrong, but I don't think anyone would donate the Armani clothes they just bought from the store to the Salvation Army.

Snegiryov was on the point of accepting the money when Alyosha made the "mistake", as he himself put it, of offering more from his own pocket. I think Snegiryov realized just how disposable the money, and by association he, was to his "benefactors". Hence the intensified feeling of humiliation.