Week 2: Part I, chapters 3 and 4

[Roger]

Chapter 3, "Another Man's Sins": Things get complicated, and also hard to summarize. Stepan Trofimovich withdraws from society for a week or so, resentful and ashamed that he must marry Darya Pavlovna. He's really infatuated with Lizaveta Nikolayevna, or maybe with Varvara Petrovna. The narrator runs into the great but has-been writer KARAMAZINOV, who is now in town. Liputin visits Stepan Trofimovich, who is scared of him, for reasons not perfectly clear. Liputin brings with him ALEKSEY NILYCH KIRILLOV, a civil engineer who has been abroad for four years and knows many of the personalities we've met. We hear that Varvara Petrova has asked Liputin his opinion on the mental stability of her son Nikolay Vsevolodovich. Also, we hear about the drunken Lebyadkin raving that Darya Pavlovna has withheld 700 of 1000 rubles she was supposed to deliver to him. Kirillov and Stepan Trofimovich are both very agitated; it's not clear why. Stepan sets out with the narrator to confront Varvara Petrovna about his forced engagement, but gets sidetracked when they run into Lizaveta Nikolayevna and her companion MAVRIKY NIKOLAYEVICH. Our besotted narrator volunteers to take a message from Lizaveta to Shatov. He can't find him, but he is invited to tea by Kirillov; they discuss suicide. Next he runs into Liputin and a very drunk Lebyadkin, who we learn has bought Nikolas Vsevolodovich's estate. Our narrator finally makes it back to Stepan Trofimovich, who has received a request from Varvara that he visit her on Sunday.

[Roger]

Chapter 4, "The Crippled Woman": Shatov and the narrator visit Lizaveta Nikolayevna. It seems she wants Shatov to help her in a huge and scatter-brained literary project--his name had been suggested to her by Pyotr Stepanovich. Shatov refuses. We learn that Lebyadkin has written Lizaveta Nikolayevna a poem and a wild marriage proposal. Lizaveta persuades our narrator to assist her fervent and unexplained desire to meet Lebyadkin's sister. He duly gets Shatov to take him to visit MARYA TIMOFAYEVNA LEBYADKINA, a quiet and cheerful holy-fool type living in squalor with her drunkard brother. On Sunday, the narrator and Stepan Trofimovich call on Varvara Petrovna as ordered, but she is still at church. Then Shatov arrives. Then Varvara arrives, accompanied by Lizaveta Nikolayevna and none other than Marya Timofayeva. The latter had thrown herself at Varvara's feet as she left church, and in pity Varvara had invited her home. Lizaveta had asked to come along.

[Roger]

Opening question: There's a lot going on, a lot of loose threads, and a lot of unexplained anxiety. It's hard to pick one thread to pull on. How about this: Why is Lizaveta Nikolayevna so eager to meet Marya Timofayevna Lebyadkina?

[Donal]

Lizaveta Nikolayevna wants to create a pre-computer Internet Archive / Wikipedia :-)

Edit:>
Now that I think about it, what she wants to do is to have Shatov act as Dostoyevsky, allowing her to act as his G-v as they together write an annual update to "Demons".

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "Chapter 3, "Another Man's Sins": Things get complicated, and also hard to summarize. Stepan Trofimovich withdraws from society for a week or so, resentful and ashamed that he must marry Darya Pavlo..."

I'm finding it difficult to keep track of all these characters. But at least the narrator has finally been properly identified. In Chapter 3, III, Stepan says,

"I seem to bore you Mr. Govorov." (That's my name.)

Now, if I can just keep track of the rest of them!

[Donal]

I could be totally wrong about this, but I thought that "Govorov" appeared in Dostoyevsky's notes but became only "G-v" in the final text?

Edit:> Googling suggests it's eventually revealed by "Stepan Trofimovich (74; I:3:iii)".

Edit:> Pevear/Volokhonsky have "Perhaps you're bored with me, G---v" (that is my last name).

Glad I didn't miss that!

[Tamara]

I'm using the MacAndrew translation, which is pretty old. His name appears as Govorov in that translation. It may appear as G-v in later translations.

[Bigollo]

incidentally, the name Govorov in Russian can be understood as 'The one who speaks'.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

A lot of unanswered questions in these two chapters. Since so many prior events are unknown to Govorov, we end up having reported to us a lot of reactions that seem puzzling, divorced as they are from their context.

I re-read the first two chapters during the week, and I might do the same for these two, just to help keep things straight. I have a feeling reading through just once I'll miss a lot. No doubt that after I've finished, I would probably pick up on a lot of things as well by re-reading, after knowing more of the characters' backstories. Still, I'm finding this pretty absorbing. I did not really expect to enjoy this as much as I have, but it does seem as though Dostoyevsky is throwing a lot of ingredients into the soup here.

Things get complicated, and also hard to summarize. Ha! I don't envy you that job.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Why is Lizaveta Nikolayevna so eager to meet Marya Timofayevna Lebyadkina? ..."

At this point, my guess is that Nikolai is the father of Marya's 'dream baby', who was a real baby. Liza either wants to confirm that, or has some other goal, but I think it revolves around her hope to have Nikolai as a match.

[Donal]

In part III G-v says that there was something about Stepan's irritation that offended him but not personally. He says he will explain later but I don't entirely trust that.

Has anyone any idea what it might be?

[Roger]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Roger wrote: "Opening question: Why is Lizaveta Nikolayevna so eager to meet Marya Timofayevna Lebyadkina? ..."

At this point, my guess is that Nikolai is the father of Marya's 'dream baby', who w..."

Nikolay Vsevolodovich being the father of Marya's child sounds like something Dostoyevsky would come up with. But I feel that Lizaveta Nikolayevna is too scatterbrained and innocent to come up with such a suspicion and investigate it so aggressively.

[Tamara]

I’m puzzled by some of the stuff in this section.

For example, when Lizaveta tells Shatov about her writing project to summarize and classify the events of a whole year in one volume, he seems to be on board with it. But as soon as she mentions Peter Verkhovensky recommended him to run the printing press, he freaks out and dashes off. Why? Has it got something to do with running a printing press? Was it illegal to run a non-state sanctioned printing press? Maybe the political nature of the materials he printed? Anyone have any ideas?

I get the feeling Dostoevsky is giving us only half the story. Maybe some of this stuff I find puzzling would have been obvious to his Russian audience. They could fill in the gaps whereas I'm finding it difficult to do so. In spite of that--or maybe because of it--I'm enjoying the novel and want to read more if only to see what he's going to do next.

[Donal]

Welcome to the puzzled club Tamara.

The printing press will feature quite soon (I'm counting in Doestoevsky units here.)

[Tamara]

Donal wrote: "Welcome to the puzzled club Tamara."

Thank you, Donal.
Club membership seems to be experiencing exponential growth :)

[Thomas]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Roger wrote: "Opening question: Why is Lizaveta Nikolayevna so eager to meet Marya Timofayevna Lebyadkina? ..."

At this point, my guess is that Nikolai is the father of Marya's 'dream baby', who w..."

Marya Timofayevna "supposedly had her honor seduced by somebody", for which Lebyadkin is receiving money. Lebyadkin is receiving money from Nikolai and yet he "suffers from his (Nikolai's) character. He also claims to be suffering from "someone else's sins." Is that how we get to Nikolai being the perpetrator of Marya's seduction?

Lizaveta had some sort of tryst with Nikolai in Switzerland, but they had a falling out. Is Marya the cause of this falling out, and that's why Lizaveta wants to see her? Is that the idea? I have no idea if I'm on the right track here with all the characters and I'm not sure if the timelines match up.

[Jen]

Tamara wrote: "I’m puzzled by some of the stuff in this section.

For example, when Lizaveta tells Shatov about her writing project to summarize and classify the events of a whole year in one volume, he seems to..."

This I do know: private presses did exist in Russia after 1783, but were subject to heavy censorship. Some of the regulations were relaxed in the 1860s, and more in 1905. They covered part of this in the excellent show The Great.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Thomas wrote: "Marya Timofayevna "supposedly had her honor seduced by somebody", for which Lebyadkin is receiving money. Lebyadkin is receiving money from Nikolai and yet he "suffers from his (Nikolai's) character. He also claims to be suffering from "someone else's sins." Is that how we get to Nikolai being the perpetrator of Marya's seduction? ..."

Well, as I said, it was just a guess. Here's another--it's actually Pyotr Stepanovitch who seduced Marya, and Nikolai is stepping in for some reason to make things right. Liza wants to find out the truth and clear any suspicion from Nikolai.

Just wildly speculating now. Somebody better stop me

[Donal]

Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Marya Timofayevna "supposedly had her honor seduced by somebody", for which Lebyadkin is receiving money. Lebyadkin is receiving money from Nikolai and yet he "suffers from his (Niko..."

Maybe Googling is cheating but to perhaps save people's time here's a potential spoiler from George Steiner (I have no idea of its factuality)
.
.
.
.
.
.
“The personage of Marya Timoffeyevna poses searching problems in critical tact. They have not always been resolved. Her family name contains an allusion to the theme of the pure white swan prevalent in the folklore of Russian heretical sects. She is a cripple, like Lise in The Brothers Karamazov, and feeble-minded in a more extreme measure than Prince Muishkin. Mysteriously, she is at once mother, virgin, and bride."

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

Okay, I'll stop

[Tamara]

Jen wrote: "This I do know: private presses did exist in Russia after 1783, but were subject to heavy censorship. Some of the regulations were relaxed in the 1860s, and more in 1905..."

Thank you, Jen.

[Roger]

Anyone have any guesses what Marya Timofayevna wants from Varvara Petrovna?

[Aiden]

Tamara wrote: "I get the feeling Dostoevsky is giving us only half the story. Maybe some of this stuff I find puzzling would have been obvious to his Russian audience."

Sorry that it has taken me until now to check this week's discussion, but you are definitely correct that there are facts that will not be apparent to modern readers not familiar with late 19th century Russian history that Dostoevsky's original audience would have been very aware of.

One of the most important things for understanding this novel is that, as Dostoevsky found out through his own mock execution and following imprisonment in Siberia, private printing presses in Russia were a treason-level crime since the Tsar wanted to maintain as much as he could of the Tsarist feudalism that ruled Russia before the serfs were officially freed in 1861. The events in the novel take place in 1869. Between 1861 and the Russia Revolution in 1917, political tracts advocating revolution were anonymously left where peasants would gather on a fairly regular basis.

One of the reasons the serfs were freed was because of growing unrest among the Russian population already (most of whom were not landowners) because of idea-spillover from the republicanism of the French Revolution and Marxist-like political theorists from circles in Germany. The revolutionary ideas of Marx, Engels and proponents of socialist utopia like Charles Fourier openly proposed overthrowing all monarchies.

Charles Fourier is the political revolutionary writer that Dostoevsky's Petrashevsky Circle of 13 were arrested on the charge of sedition by translating him into Russian. Had Dostoevsky not have been a known and respected Russian novelist already, simply translating Fourier's works from French to Russian so that they could be spread in pamphlets throughout Russia would likely have gotten him executed.

Fourier is also the writer that G---v notes that Stepan Trofimovich was caught in a scandal in Petersburg after his failure in Russia, an allusion to Dostoevsky's own scandal around the same time.

Basically, there was no free press. So if you were found with a printing press (especially a Western-made one used by revolutionaries), you were assumed to be traitors and part of a revolutionary group, so everyone around you would be suspected as well.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "Anyone have any guesses what Marya Timofayevna wants from Varvara Petrovna?"

I didn't read it so much as Marya wanting something from Varvara as her being in awe of this great society lady.

[Aiden]

I also think it's safe to note without worrying about spoilers that Dostoevsky used Demons to explore the variety of Russian "types" that he and the Russian people were trying to make sense of during the 1860s after the huge societal change of the serfs being freed.

Those types ranged from people who wanted to keep things as much like the old system as possible to those who didn't think freeing the serfs was enough and formed groups to try to foment rebellion and complete overthrow. It also included followers of nihilistic philosophers who just wanted to destroy.

[Tamara]

Aiden wrote: "One of the most important things for understanding this novel is that, as Dostoevsky found out through his own mock execution and following imprisonment in Siberia, private printing presses in Russia were a treason-level crime since the Tsar wanted to maintain as much as he could of the Tsarist feudalism..."

Thank you for this explanation, Aiden. It's very helpful in understanding the why and what is happening in the novel.

[Aiden]

Happy to help where I can.

[Thomas]

Donal wrote: [Steiner] "She is a cripple, like Lise in The Brothers Karamazov, and feeble-minded in a more extreme measure than Prince Muishkin. Mysteriously, she is at once mother, virgin, and bride."

Liza does seem to be fascinated with the fact that Marya is lame, and Varvara P's reaction when she discovers her lameness is something like shock: "What! You're lame!" Varvara Petrovna cried out, as if totally frightened, and turned pale... Liza told me later that Miss Lebyadkin laughed hysterically for all three minutes of the ride, while Varvara Petrovna sat "as if in some magnetic sleep.

There's also the puzzling matter of Marya's convent story involving "Mother Praskovya" whose daughter disappears for twelve years, and "Mother Lizaveta," who is set into the convent wall like somebody from a Poe story. Can those particular names be a coincidence?

[Bigollo]

Aiden wrote: "I also think it's safe to note without worrying about spoilers that Dostoevsky used Demons to explore the variety of Russian "types" that he and the Russian people were trying to make sense of during the 1860s after the huge societal change of the serfs being freed."

It seems so. Yet, I can’t get rid of the impression that D’s characters don’t represent an average sample of the Russian society of that time; D’s average character being psychologically off from what we would call ‘normal’ or average person. To put it simply: In D’s books there seem to be more sick people than in real life. Nothing wrong with that literarily, I guess, yet for my taste it is a bit too depressive (and even nightmarish at times).

Another comparison comes to mind inadvertently. 1805 -1825 years in Russia were tumultuous enough, too. In the War and Peace novel, we see an even broader spectrum of human types and classes, and still the characters seem as real as alive.
Tastes differ, of course. Maybe that's no more than that. And who knows, maybe it's me who has a very poor knowledge of real life, or human nature, to be more precise.

[Aiden]

I take your point, Bigollo. However, I think it might be Dostoevsky's tone that you have a problem with. It's true that his four late novels that are considered to be his greatest works (Demons, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot & The Brothers Karamazov) are pretty depressing stories, but I think they reflect his world view at the time they were written (post-prison) and what he was trying to say in writing them.

I read these later works, including the one we're discussing, more as idea-driven rather than character-driven novels. As such, the nature of the characters would be better viewed through the lens of what ideological group or subgroup that Dostoevsky saw tearing Imperial Russia apart; possibly even intended to be viewed as mere caricatures of those groups.

[Bigollo]

You must be right, Aiden (the tone - yes!). It's just that 'ideological passions' is not what I would normally pick up a fiction work for. But since I am already reading the book, I'll try to keep in mind that ideological lens you've mentioned about. And, anyways, I do appreciate and enjoy D's abilities to describe human emotions, in very subtle ways at times... //caricatures though is not my cup of tea at all..

[Roger]

The characters do not at all seem to me to be caricatures.

[Bigollo]

Same here. Not at all. Each individual is very real, as from life. I took Aiden's words as if maybe (but not necessarily) D intended to ridicule a certain ideological mood and while doing so he described some typical representatives of it, who, due to D's talent, came out very real as people.

At the same time the group made up of those individuals may be expected to come out as a caricature.

I think it's a risky business on the part of the writer to expect the fulfilment of the intentions guaranteed. Author's intentions is one thing, but once the work is published, it's up to the reader to interpret it. The author might be surprised, but who's the judge?

[Aiden]

Bigollo wrote: "Same here. Not at all. Each individual is very real, as from life. I took Aiden's words as if maybe (but not necessarily) D intended to ridicule a certain ideological mood and while doing so he des..."

Thank you for accurately clarifying my thought, down to the caveats. I wrote "possibly", because I think it's a valid topic of debate, but I meant it more as their instincts/actions being caricatures (or personified parody, to put it another way) of the prevalent ideologies in mid-19th century Russia.

Stepan Trofimovich is described as a "man of the 40s" (which is to say, of the period of reformist rhetoric that led to change) and his characteristics (such as the constant mixing of Russian and French in his speech) represents what Dostoevsky thought of that group of people. His son, Pyotr's, and Nikolai's generation are men of the '60s, after the reforms had actually begun and ramifications were being felt, when real revolution began to seem more imminent.

Pyotr and Nikolai (and their compatriots) are definitely very different characters which Dostoevsky does well to distinguish as individuals. However, their individuality is infused with the particular philosophy they represent. For instance, the descriptions of Nikolai's wild actions are seemingly inexplicable since he does not gain anything by causing senseless trouble for its own sake. On the other hand, viewed as the embodiment of the Russian nihilistic philosophies of the time, they begin to have some meaning to me.

Again, though, this is only one possible interpretation.

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "The characters do not at all seem to me to be caricatures."

They don't seem to me like caricatures either, but they lack substance, especially the men, and Stepan Trofimovich seems the most guilty of this with his anxiety and drama and love of gossip. At one point Shatov refers to "paper men," and that's what most of these men seem like to me. The only strong characters are the absurd ones like Kirillov. His philosophy of self-destruction is ridiculous, but at least he knows what he believes in.

[Lily]

Hmmm -- Bigellos comments "...Each individual is very real, as from life." and "At the same time the group made up of those individuals may be expected to come out as a caricature." sent me looking for the definition of "caricature":

"an exaggeration by means of deliberate simplification and often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics"

Source: "earlier caricatura, from Italian, affectation, caricature, literally, a loading, from caricare to load, from Late Latin carricare"

Having just finished Garnett's version of Chapter 3, I have very much a sense of D's having "loaded" his actors via both simplification and exaggeration, if not truly by "ludicrous distortion". Just a reaction. But then, over the years, Bigollo often has had a knack for putting into words what I have been feeling about a particular passage or author.

[Aiden]

Thanks for posting that definition, Lily.

I think the "caricature of ideologies" concept comes into clearer focus the further you read in the novel as the narrator reveals more about the main characters and their natures, but "loaded" does seem like a very apt way to describe FMD's characters.

[Emil]

Bigollo wrote: "Yet, I can’t get rid of the impression that D’s characters don’t represent an average sample of the Russian society of that time; D’s average character being psychologically off from what we would call ‘normal’ or average person.."

Valid point. It's because D is not your average purebreed realist. And I'm fine with it.

If you want to expose the faults of a society you can:

1. Take an average sample of the society and put them into extraordinary situations (Tolstoi method)

2. Take extreme specimens instead (Dostoyevski method)

I don't know which method is more accurate, but if I would have to choose I would rather invite Dostoyevski's characters to dinner. I know, I would probably get stabbed during that dinner.