Week 1: Part I, chapters 1 and 2

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

I thought I'd re-read these chapters, maybe pick up on some things I'd missed, or reinforce my familiarity with the characters and their situation. One thing that struck me which I didn't say anything about before was just how entertaining this first chapter is. That was not what I was expecting at all from Dostoyevsky--I'd always felt rather detached from his writing before. Either this is different, or I am, one of the two. Makes me want to give The Idiot another look, now.

[Tamara]

Julia wrote: "I’m surprised at the almost one-sided characterization of Varvara Petrovna (as an abuser). She isn’t the only culpable party in the dysfunction of the relationship. Stepan Trofimovitch AGREES to th..."

As David suggested in #51, it takes two to tango in the relationship.

In this case, Stepan is weak, vulnerable, and dependent; Varvara is strong, wealthy, and has the upper hand. You're right when you say Stepan agrees to the terms and admits his weakness. But who is more culpable in a situation like this? Is it the one who is weak, vulnerable, and dependent? Or is it the one who exploits that weakness?

In a case like this, I tend to side with the weak and dependent. I think it is possible for someone in Varvara's position to help Stepan without being so controlling. She wants to control his speech and movements, choose his clothes, and tell him who to marry.

There has to be more compassionate ways of helping the weak and vulnerable of this world.

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "I don't if the characters are so real--there are lots of puzzling obscure motives and outbreaks of tongue-tying emotion I don't quite get. But I certainly find myself caring about what is going to ..."

I feel the same way. It's as if the characters are only half-formed, like a half-finished painting with a lot of empty space. I don't know if they will be fleshed out as the novel progresses. For example, I just don't get that whole bit about Nicolai kissing Liputin's wife or his response. I felt it's supposed to be significant somehow. Otherwise, why would it be included? But I couldn't figure it out.

Maybe some of this will become clearer as the novel progresses.

[David]

Tamara wrote: "I just don't get that whole bit about Nicolai kissing Liputin's wife or his response. I felt it's supposed to be significant somehow."

We will have to see how things play out, but as long as we are talking about controlling personalities and their opposite I was at first tempted to say Liputin was made a cuckold. However, I do not think that quite covers it as well as, pwned, as the gamers say.

PWNED has its origins in video game culture and is a leetspeak derivation (typo) of the word "owned", due to the proximity of the "o" and "p" keys. It's typically used to imply that someone has been completely dominated, controlled or compromised by another in any situation.

In that context, the event seems to make sense in a novel about the possessed.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

I believe it was Virginsky that was the cuckold.

[Aiden]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "I believe it was Virginsky that was the cuckold."

It wasn't. Nikolai kissed Madame Liputin on the lips three times, then Liputin saw him out without reproaching Nikolai. Liputin then sent his servant to tell Nikolai he is brilliant the next morning. I'll point out now that Liputin's reaction won't make sense until later.

Don't want to comment too much since this is a complex novel that reveals itself as you progress. I'm just going to try to keep us on the right track, which I think we are. I'll also mention that at least one of Nikolai's other "outrages" is significance to Part II..

[Thomas]

I take Liputin's response to be an attempt to cleverly take the moral high ground, but it falls flat because Nikolai doesn't recognize the morality of the situation. Clever because he's telling Nikolai, "You must be very intelligent to find my wife so attractive," with the implication that Nikolai has failed to offend Liputin, and therefore Liputin's response to do nothing is warranted. But Nikolai doesn't even recognize Liputin as a man who may be offended. He's simply taking what he wants, when he wants it, like an amoral animal, so Liputin's overture becomes a kind of joke.

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "I take Liputin's response to be an attempt to cleverly take the moral high ground, but it falls flat because Nikolai doesn't recognize the morality of the situation. Clever because he's telling Nik..."
Can't really unravel the dynamics, but I also felt as if Liputin's response had a back-handed thrust at his wife...?

[Roger]

We're told in Ch 1, part 8, that Virginsky's wife informed him that one Lebyadkin would be taking his place after less than a year of marriage. Virginsky accepted the situation, perhaps thinking it the noble and liberal thing to do, but after two weeks could stand it no longer and dragged Lebyadkin away by the hair.

[Bigollo]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "I often find Dostoyevsky's characters acting in what seems to me frankly baffling ways. There does not seem to be any kind of straightforward cause and effect...
Tolstoy's characters seem to me to act in a manner that you would expect, or at least seems believable, given the circumstances. Chekhov's characters may be crippled or warped, but he still makes them appear consistent. It's only Dostoyevsky that makes me scratch my head."

A modern reader may consider demons as a metaphor for our subconscious level of mind -- instincts.
If Tolstoy shows his characters’ mind processing on the conscious level, when they are trying to figure out what is going on, why we are here, what's the right way to act, what’s the meaning of all this in life in big and small, Dostoyevsky seems to be trying to convince the reader: No, no, reason is only a secondary tool of humans, the behavior starts from our subconscious level and dominate our actions, reasoning popping up only later if at all on the conscious level as a ‘justification’. At least I got this impression after reading several of his novels.
In this novel we have already been showed a number of ‘demonic’ behaviors of different types as expressed by different characters. Is Varvara Petrovna, a general, only a sabre missing at her belt, thinking? Or are all her calculations/manipulations done primarily by her instincts, her thoughts barely taking time to stop at the consciousness chamber?
I know, this is my reading from 21st century. Dostoyevsky shows all this artistically, especially through his superb dialogues.
In a way he is trying to say, we are more 'beasts' than we think we are not.

[Lily]

Bigollo wrote: "A modern reader may consider demons as a metaphor for our subconscious level of mind -- instincts...."

I don't know the story, but from a tiny smidgen of Russian history, might "demons" be ideologies infiltrating Russian people, ideologies that it should be possible to drive out. (I may be totally off-base on such speculations about the politics being laid out here as viewed by D -- too much dubbing unto one possible view of the U.S.)

[Bigollo]

Lily wrote: "...might "demons" be ideologies infiltrating Russian people, ideologies that it should be possible to drive out."

I'd say that your interpretation of 'demons' can be as good as anyone else's. As long as it can be shown derived from the text.. and maybe some historical circumstance.

Being Russian I still can't say that I know Russian history very well, especially the 19th century, but I don't think that ideologies are fundamental, I believe they are derivatives and not of the first order. Saying that, I still can see them (ideologies) real and powerful. And capable to be transformed from one society to another. But that's a whole other question... Though, it could be that that's what D. had in mind.. we'll see.

I believe that a great artistic work always implies multiple interpretations... despite even the intentions of the author.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Bigollo wrote: "Dostoyevsky seems to be trying to convince the reader: No, no, reason is only a secondary tool of humans, the behavior starts from our subconscious level and dominate our actions, reasoning popping up only later if at all on the conscious level as a ‘justification’. At least I got this impression after reading several of his novels.... ..."

Well said. I agree with this--though I still find his characters often baffling.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Aiden wrote: "Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "I believe it was Virginsky that was the cuckold."

It wasn't. Nikolai kissed Madame Liputin on the lips three times, then Liputin saw him out without reproaching ..."

As Roger mentions in message 62, Virginsky is the cuckold. Liputin's wife is never mentioned as having a relationship with anyone else.

[Roger]

In Ch. 1, part 8, we're told that Shatov was a former serf. I don't think Stepan Trofimovich was--all I can find about his background is that he went to the university, wrote a successful if arcane dissertation, and embarked on a career as a university lecturer.

[Aiden]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "As Roger mentions in message 62, Virginsky is the cuckold. Liputin's wife is never mentioned as having a relationship with anyone else.."

Sorry, you're right. I guess I didn't think of him being a cuckold because of how he is described manhandling Lebyadkin and then Lebyadkin disappearing from town soon after, but the description of how pathetic he was seen as being with his wife could only make him a cuckold.

Roger wrote: "In Ch. 1, part 8, we're told that Shatov was a former serf. I don't think Stepan Trofimovich was--all I can find about his background is that he went to the university, wrote a successful if arcane dissertation, and embarked on a career as a university lecturer."

Also, you're right. I think I assumed Trofimovich was a former serf because of the way he sponged off and was treated as an amusement to Varvara Petrovna, but he is never explicitly called a former serf as Shatov is, so he shouldn't be assumed to be.

Apologies.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

No apologies necessary!

[Tamara]

Bigollo wrote: "Is Varvara Petrovna, a general, only a sabre missing at her belt, thinking? Or are all her calculations/manipulations done primarily by her instincts, her thoughts barely taking time to stop at the consciousness chamber? ..."

I’m intrigued by your comment on Dostoevsky, and I’m trying to wrap my head around it to get a better understanding.

If Dostoevsky is demonstrating that we are all governed primarily by instinct, then, perhaps we can argue that Stepan and Varvara are governed by the same instinct—that of self-preservation. However, that instinct means different things to different people and is manifested in different ways.

Stepan wants to preserve his life-style. For him that means having someone else maintain him, pay his gambling debts, etc. etc. He submits to Varvara because she satisfies his instinct for self-preservation.

Varvara wants to maintain her status as someone of importance in the community. So she dictates the behavior of those she deems subordinate to her in order to maintain control and preserve her standing in the community. She includes Stepan, maintaining him as a social prop.

Stepan and Varvara operate under the same instinct--self preservation. But how they define self-preservation and the means to achieve it differ. My question(s):

Assuming they share the same instinct, at which point does reason come into play? Does reason tell Stepan you have to do A, B, C, etc. to survive? Does it tell Varvara you have to do D, E, F, etc. to survive? Or does instinct govern not only their goal of self-preservation but also how to achieve it? And if instinct governs all of that, does reason come into play after the fact to justify the goal as well as the behaviors used to achieve the goal? Or does reason kick in to guide the behaviors to achieve the goal instinct has pre-determined?

Sorry this is so convoluted, but I'm trying to understand the point because I think it's important to get a handle on the characters before going forward. If the characters’ goals and behaviors are governed primarily by instinct, aren’t we making a mistake in trying to discern a rational cause for their behaviors?

Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer to untangle my twisted way of thinking.

[Bigollo]

Tamara wrote: "...If the characters’ goals and behaviors are governed primarily by instinct, aren’t we making a mistake in trying to discern a rational cause for their behaviors..?"

Tamara, thank you for noticing my comment.

Well, yes, you have put many questions, all very interesting, and I am far from qualified to answer them better than any other average reader. I only expressed my impression from reading F. D. novels. But your questions did make me contemplate these issues further.

First off, the question I found easiest (still not trivial) in your comment:

“If the characters’ goals and behaviors are governed primarily by instinct, aren’t we making a mistake in trying to discern a rational cause for their behaviors?”

I think a mistake would be not trying to discern a rational cause, but making an assumption that there MUST be a rational cause for their behaviors, the cause that logically and clearly (for the reader) explains all the behaviors. Not to make that assumption is exactly the impression I got from D. He seems to be a very careful observer of life, trying to focus on most puzzling details of human behavior. Is there a rational component in it? Probably. But there is so much irrational (I first typed ‘irrussianal’ 😊 ) Can we explain the irrational component of it? Maybe. But not necessarily. And I don’t think we can hold the author accountable for that. Maybe he was puzzled no less than us; he just happened to have good observational and expressional skills; and those observations wouldn’t leave him alone, he had to put them in writing.
But I guess we still can look for that elusive rational cause, as long as we enjoy it, be it a mistake or not, it’s still part of the game, right?

Tamara, your comments about ‘instincts’ and logic behind them are much more difficult to debate here, we may go way astray from the ‘Demons’ discussion. Maybe eventually, one at a time.

First of all, my understanding of instincts are different from yours. I think Self-preservation is not the only instinct, and plus not the primary one. And hence, the behaviors of VP and ST could be dictated by different instincts, or better to say by different compositions of same basic instincts. I believe the primary instinct, the one that can’t be beat by something more fundamental is the Self-Preservation of our genes; hence, for instance, the instinct of leaving as much offspring as possible never mind cost and how the reason is against it is another one . And when we get older, our behavior can change dramatically, we can go hang ourselves for that matter, because our genes don’t care any longer, we are done for them. (Ah, no, our genes still may care, for we can care for our grandkids.)
And it’s not SELF- preservation, when we sacrifice ourself for our children, it is preservation of our own, that is – our genes. But except for genes there are other levels. How about wiring of our brain, caused by our genes, too, but then affected by the environment. Our instincts may develop so convoluted that we can sacrifice ourselves for the whole platoon, consisting of genetically distant people you are fighting with for the common cause; but can the burn in your heart at that moment be explained rationally?
And, of course, there are other instincts, whatever lives in our subconscious, or on the border of it. Shame, honor. How about a crave for power, for control. This instinct may forget where it’s coming from ( self-preservation?), and act on its own as a beast (I should say – demon) with high chance for destruction of the host.

[Bigollo]

P.S. Never thought I would participate in this thread.

Dostoyevsky is not my favorite author. The only novel of his I want to reread some day is 'Notes from Underground'. It’s not perfect, it has flaws, but somehow I like it very much… hmm, just wrote it and thought I should reread soon, it’s been a while.. First off, it’s short, and it seems to me D. basically said there all what he wanted to say; his later novels being somewhat lengthy and wordy, to my taste that is. They all still have excellent parts in them though!

I read Demons a few years ago and did not plan to reread. But this group is so engaging 😊.

As for ‘Notes from Underground’, time and again I find its influence on other authors, be it in spirit or in content… Lately, I’ve read this popular American novel – The Catcher in the Rye, found many parallels in it with the 'Notes', some being subtle and some not so subtle.
Anyway, if somebody finds D’s novels too long and wordy, but want the gist of D, I’d strongly recommend 'Notes from Underground'.

[Tamara]

Bigollo, thank you so much for your thoughtful response. You have given me much to think about, especially in reference to Dostoevsky's characters. I found what you said here particularly helpful:

I think a mistake would be not trying to discern a rational cause, but making an assumption that there MUST be a rational cause for their behaviors, the cause that logically and clearly (for the reader) explains all the behaviors. Not to make that assumption is exactly the impression I got from D.

Your clarification has given me a new way to look at the characters. You've been very helpful. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you took to respond to my jumbled thoughts.

Thank you, again.

[Tamara]

Bigollo wrote: "P.S. Never thought I would participate in this thread..."

I, for one, am delighted you decided to join us :)

[Bigollo]

Tamara wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "P.S. Never thought I would participate in this thread..."

I, for one, am delighted you decided to join us :)"

Thank you :)

[Donal]

In some ways it seems premature to speculate about the characters motivations. There's the narrator and the possibility of an omniscient/fallible author through whom they are being filtered. The "actual" events aren't even known yet

[David]

Donal wrote: There's the narrator and the possibility of an omniscient/fallible author"

That is a good point about the narrator, and his manner appears to me to be sympathetic toward Stepan.

[Donal]

For any narrative the questions "Who, what, where, when, why, how much" present themselves. And the initial Pushkin
quote explicitly poses all those except the Who. Then maybe Luke answers "Legion"?

[Tamara]

David wrote: "That is a good point about the narrator, and his manner appears to me to be sympathetic toward Stepan."

Maybe that's because Stepan confides in the narrator whereas Varvara does not, so we don't get her side of the story. Everything we know about her so far has been filtered through Stepan and the narrator--neither one of whom may be reliable.

[Roger]

There have been allusions to progressive politics, including Stepan Trofimovich's involvement. According to Wikipedia, Dostoyevsky himself was involved in a secret society that discussed such ideas when he was 28. The ring was broken, its members arrested, and Dostoyevsky and others sentenced to be shot. The first group of three had been tied to stakes and the firing squad had their rifles raised when a (pre-arranged) messenger arrived with a commutation of their sentences from the Tsar. Dostoyevsky was in the second group waiting to be be shot. He served four years at hard labor in shackles in Siberia, followed by six years in a Siberian army regiment.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "There have been allusion to progressive politics, including Stepan Trofimovich's involvement. According to Wikipedia, Dostoyevsky himself was involved in a secret society that discussed such ideas ..."

Yep. Dostoevsky described his experience of the mock execution memorably through Prince Myshkin, the protagonist in The Idiot. I think it makes this novel ring more true that he actually knew what it was like to be in a revolutionary organization with these new ideas (including the disillusionment with revolution that he later experienced and is found in some characters) and his ordinary criminal characters are more real because political prisoners like himself were put with common criminals in Siberia.

[Julia]

David wrote: "Donal wrote: There's the narrator and the possibility of an omniscient/fallible author"

That is a good point about the narrator, and his manner appears to me to be sympathetic toward Stepan."

Now, that I’m not so sure of. The narrator makes amused ironic statements about Stepan, really belittling him:
“Yet Stepan Trofimovitch was a most intelligent and gifted man, even, so to say, a man of science, though indeed, in science … well, in fact he had not done such great things in science. I believe indeed he had done nothing at all.”

And

“...he published (by way of revenge, so to say, and to show them what a man they had lost) in a progressive monthly review, which translated Dickens and advocated the views of George Sand, the beginning of a very profound investigation into the causes, I believe, of the extraordinary moral nobility of certain knights at a certain epoch or something of that nature.

Some lofty and exceptionally noble idea was maintained in it, anyway. It was said afterwards that the continuation was hurriedly forbidden and even that the progressive review had to suffer for having printed the first part. That may very well have been so, for what was not possible in those days? Though, in this case, it is more likely that there was nothing of the kind, and that the author himself was too lazy to conclude his essay.”

Additionally, all Stepan’s ineffectualness and his weeping and fawning make him a buffoon, not really a sympathetic character.

[Bigollo]

Julia wrote: "...Additionally, all Stepan’s ineffectualness and his weeping and fawning make him a buffoon, not really a sympathetic character..."

That could be how it feels to us, the readers. And the quotes you provided may be interpreted as criticizing of a very close friend or relative. This narrator, whoever this man without a face is (the most puzzling character in the book, to me anyway), seems to love and respect ST for something, he always hangs with him, and he is his confidante.

[Cass]

David wrote: "I wonder if Varvara being a rich and independent female patron to Stepan is a gender reversal of the expected norm in a rich patron? We laugh now, but I wonder if starting off in this upside down world will be shown to lead to the demons, devils, or the possessed in the title?..."

I am interested in this question, as I am really struggling with the sexist jibes from Dostoyevsky. I have read Crime & Punishment and thought it was the greatest book every written, but it was a long time ago, idk.

Perhaps there was nothing in it but the play of femininity on her side; the manifestation of an unconscious feminine yearning so natural in some extremely feminine types. However, I won’t answer for it; the depths of the female heart have not been explored to this day.

I know, a different era, yadda yadda, but it just annoys me to read stuff like this.

[Cass]

Tamara wrote: "I think Stavrogin is engaging in a form of psychological abuse—just another tool in the tool box she uses to control himc..."

I agree. She has a psychological hold over him - and it is an abuse that he keeps returning to. The letter writing, where is writes apologies that she refuses to reply to. He is just left guessing about whether he has offered satisfactory submission.

[Aiden]

Donal wrote: "Who are the "We" and more importantly, who is quoting Pushkin here - one would assume Dostoevsky, but it turns out to be a very nebulous "G-v"."

I'm pretty sure an epigraph is considered outside the novel it precedes to suggest the theme(s). To me, that would imply that the work's author (the one who is actually concerned about theme in a literary work) rather than the work's narrator(s) who are credited with the quotations.

You bring up interesting questions about the epigraph, which is always important to a work, and the question of who the "demons" of the title and Epigraph refer too is open to endless interpretation. I'm looking forward to discussing it more when we get to the "book as a whole" part of our reading. I only disagree that the quotations are to be interpreted as the writings of G---v, as they would be if they were part of a Prologue.

[Donal]

Yes, that's the standard way to treat an epigraph and I have no evidence to the contrary for Demons.

I've just come across Chapter 4 "Monsters Roam the Text" of Lewis Bagby's book "First Words: On Dostoevsky’s Introductions".

He also, without explanation, ascribes the epigraphs to G-v.
"Anton Levrentevich (not the implied author), is the one who selects the work's epigraph from The Book of Luke ... (including the novel's frame structure and its epitextural features)".

To help understand that statement, Chatman's diagram is useful
Real author → [Implied author → (Narrator) → (Narratee) → Implied reader] → Real reader

Dostoyevsky → [Authorial G-v → (Actorial G-v) → (Narratee) → All literate Russians?] → Us

I'd have chosen the Authorial G-v myself so maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

He goes on "Where the implied author labels his foreword, "instead of an Introduction', Anton Levrentevich G-v labels his 'introduction'. This is an aside to readers that they may approach the text at two discursive levels simultaneously keeping authorial audience identity (the community shared by the implied author and implied readers) separate from the narrative audience identity (Anton Levrentevich, his townpeople and the investigating authorities).

That I'll need to digest!

[Donal]

There are various drafts for the Introduction in Doestoyevskys' notebooks.. One quite long one is given in David Stromberg's
Narrative Faith: Dostoevsky, Camus, and Singer

https://books.google.ie/books?id=lek5...

[Kerstin]

Lily wrote: "I don't know the story, but from a tiny smidgen of Russian history, might "demons" be ideologies infiltrating Russian people, ideologies that it should be possible to drive out."

I’ve been thinking in this direction as well. Here are my thoughts:
In the epigraph Dostoyevsky quotes Luke 8: 32 – 36. This is out of Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac Lk 8: 26 – 39. To summarize, Jesus comes to the town of Gerasene and finds a possessed man. His name is Legion. Jesus heals him of the demons and he becomes sensible again. The demons beg Jesus not to destroy them but let them enter a herd of swine (unclean animals to Jews), and he lets them. The possessed swine then stampede over a cliff and drown in the sea. The people of the town see the man healed and are astonished.
Healing is a process from sickness to health. Only a healthy person is able to flourish, to reach his or her potential. Sickness, regardless whether it is physical, mental, or spiritual, inhibits human flourishing.
“Legion” is a Roman military term. A legion comprises 6,000 soldiers. The implication here, that this person was possessed by an overwhelming number of demons that they reduced him to be insensible, more animal than human.

If one moves away from the Biblical language and substitutes the word ‘demon’ with ‘influence’ or ‘agent’, one might ask, what is influencing the characters in our novel to behave in an insensible or irrational way? Why on earth would anyone bite into an ear of another like Nikolai did? There is some kind of agent at work here that upsets the normal order, making everyone “sick.”
Now Dostoevsky only put the concluding part of the Bible story in his epigraph, beginning at the demons entering the swine. This is the moment when the agent is loose about to create new havoc and destruction. It is not too much of a stretch, I think, that philosophical influences from Western Europe are implicated.

[[deleted user]]

VERY nice.

[Emil]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: What is the nature of the relationship between Varvara Petrovina and Stepan Trofimovich? She brought him in as a tutor, kept him as a domestic intellectual, and now uses him to ge..."


Your question already trigered some interesting discussions. It's a bit too late,  but I'll throw my two cents nevertheless.

I would describe their relationship as a symbiosis. They may use each other unscrupulously, but at the end of the day they cannot function separately.

I don't see it as a master-slave relationship. At the end of chapter 2 Stepan is cornered by Varvara: he has no other option than to marry Dasha. Varvara scheme is indeed egoistic but she's also interested in the wellbeing of her protégés.

I suppose Dostoyevski molded their relationship to show the interdependence between the classes they represent: the intellectuals and the 'idle rich'.

[[deleted user]]

Emil wrote: "I suppose Dostoyevski molded their relationship to show the interdependence between the classes they represent: the intellectuals and the 'idle rich'..."

That's an interesting perspective. Someone is bankrolling the intellectuals. Possibly, too, following the emancipation of the serfs, those who formerly "owned souls" --- I do like that wording --- are trying to reestablish their importance in the "new" society.

(view spoiler)[ Regarding Varvara P and Stepan T, I think there WAS an attraction between them.... Stepan T, later in the book says he loved her for twenty years. And I think Varvara would have married him had it not been for the differences in their social standing. Just as Nikolai cannot possible engage in a duel with Shatov due to social differences, Varvara cannot possible marry Stepan. NOTHING would induce her to change her name from Stavrogin. The "nobility and connections" (17) had come to her thru her marriage.

If true, how emotionally difficult it must have been to live with Stepan all these years. (hide spoiler)]

[Bigollo]

Emil wrote: "...I would describe their relationship as a symbiosis."

I think it's a good word to concisely capture what D himself said describing their relationship (Ch1.III):

"There are strange friendships: two friends are almost ready to eat each other, they live like that all their lives, and yet they cannot part. Parting is even impossible: the friend who waxes capricious and breaks it off will be the first to fall sick and die, perhaps, if it should happen."

[Aiden]

As I’m writing this we are on Week 9 of our discussion, chapters 3-4 of Part III, but I thought this observation properly belonged in this section as it involves the narrator, the first character we actually meet. I was reading The Making of a Story: A Norton Guide to Writing Fiction and Nonfiction and came across the following passage:

When you have a first person narrator, when you have a character telling a story-no matter how detached or impartial he or she seems to be--it's that person's story. Some how, it's the effect on that narrator that is the important thing-even when the events being observed are as dramatic as in The Great Gatsby-that, ultimately, is the point of the story or nonfiction piece, even if it's a subtle point. Otherwise, why not tell the story straight? Why filter it, unless there's a point to having it filtered? Why not just tell it from a straight third person point of view? -Ch. 6, “Whose story is it?” (emphasis mine)

Obviously the example of Fitzgerald is anachronistic to a discussion of Dostoevsky, but the reasoning holds. All of this is to say that maybe we should consider more fully the importance of the chronicler, G—-v (Gororov), and the fact that the entire story is told through his filtered lens when reading Demons.

[Roger]

I've been wondering where the narrator gets his information. He often reports long conversations where he was not present. I wonder if anyone has ever mapped out from whom he got his information for each scene, and when.

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "I've been wondering where the narrator gets his information. He often reports long conversations where he was not present. I wonder if anyone has ever mapped out from whom he got his information fo..."

I raised the same question a while back (see Week 4, #17). I think the lack of consistency in point of view may have to do with Dostoevsky losing track of the first person narrative because he wrote and published the book in installments. His unnecessary shifts from first person point of view to omniscient point of view, coupled with the unwieldy structure, may be due to a rush to get to publication to pay off debts.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "I've been wondering where the narrator gets his information. He often reports long conversations where he was not present."

I think because he is not present for all events-- and makes a point of saying he knows a lot of details from the accounts of others early on-- we must consider him an unreliable narrator. At least in relation to personal versus public scenes.

The novel takes a fictional form analogous to a modern-day memoir from a third party to historic events (e.g. tell-all books from former political officials). We may need to take Gororov with a grain of salt, but also consider why Dostoevsky chose to tell the story in that way.

[Tamara]

Aiden wrote: "I think because he is not present for all events-- and makes a point of saying he knows a lot of details from the accounts of others early on-- we must consider him an unreliable narrator. ."

I think he should be considered an unreliable narrator even for those events where he is present. He filters everything he sees and hears first-hand through his set of lenses, which may or may not be biased toward certain individuals.

[Kerstin]

I deleted my comment. I posted in the wrong group, lol!

[Thomas]

I'm interested in digging a little deeper into the nature of the narrator's filters. What motivates him to tell this story? And does he favor some characters and shade others? I am thinking of Liza Nikolaevna in particular.