Week 3: Part I, Chapter 5

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "So Varvara Petrovna was planning to announce the engagement between Darya and Stepan Trofimovich? Makes sense, but what happened to that plan?"

I don't think Varvara was planning to announce it at that gathering, which seemed more improvised with a small group growing throughout Chapter 5. Shatov was there as a sort of family friend was my understanding, since his sister (Darya Petrovna Shatova) is Varvara's ward. He is also the former house serf of Stepan Trofimovich, a more personal situation than the average serf living on and working your land, I would guess.

As to what happened to the plans to announce the engagement, Pyotr Stepanovich effectively killed them with his "innocent" revelations about his father's letters to he and Nikolai both pleading for help to get him out of the engagement.

[Bigollo]

#7 in the Lame Girl starts:

"That 'Next Day' - that is, the same Sunday on which STEPAN TROFIMOVICH'S FATE WAS TO BE IRREVOCABLY DECIDED - was one of the most portentous days in my chronicle."

Well, seems to me obvious that ST was dressing up and then heading up to VP's on the account of his engagement or at least decisive solution on the fate of it. The narrator accompanying him seemed to be in the same state of mind. Of course, we don't know what was on VP's mind... Except that it was she who had invited him to come over on that day.
For me as a reader, as for ST, it was naturally expectable what that invitation was all about. ... /And, of course, of course, taking all this chronicle at face value./

[Bigollo]

Also, further in that #7:

"No sooner had we sat down than Shatov entered,..., ALSO CLEARLY ON OFFICIAL INVITATION."

Official invitation to see Darya, herself, and ST? No, not as a family friend, but as Darya's closest relative (which suggests so well the engagement deal). IMHO of course.

[Bigollo]

I know, the quotes I provided above is not a proof, just hints suggesting the engagement. It's just that there are so many of them. In the previous subchapters and in the beginning of the subchapter 7, ST is being preoccupied with just that - the engagement. He couldn't get the final word from VP --she just said - wait. And finally she officially invited him to come over on Sunday. Whatever was in VP's mind, there is little doubt in my mind that ST was expecting engagement and that VP knew that.

[[deleted user]]

And yet, I wonder at Varvara P... would she have brought the lame girl home with her on the day she planned to announce the engagement? (Maybe...She is described as having "notorious impetuousness" (154), and maybe showing up Yulia Mikhailovna is more important to Varvara P than the guests she has waiting at home. She does say, "Don't unhitch the carriage." Presumably to send the lame girl quickly on her way home. But then Varvara P invites her to sit right in the middle of the room.

Frankly, I'm confused.

[Jwig]

Adelle wrote: "The Wise Serpent. There are three possible indicators in this chapter.


A fourth indicator I noticed was "Liza, I noticed, for some reason suddenly jumped up from her chair ... Then she silently sat down again, but there was some convulsive movement in her face, as if she had touched some viper, " (184).

I'm inclined to think this reference implicates Nikolai, but it might also be argued that it refers to Marya or the couple together.

Good catch on Praskovya's finger pointing, I missed that initially!

[Jwig]

Adelle wrote: "And yet, I wonder at Varvara P... would she have brought the lame girl home with her on the day she planned to announce the engagement? (Maybe...She is described as having "notorious impetuousness"..."

I agree with the interpretation that the request regarding the carriage indicates some eventual intent to give Marya a ride home. The way I initially interpreted that request was given the context that she's requesting the cup of coffee in the same line. If the same footman had the duty of unhitching the carriage and also fetching coffee, maybe her request served to emphasize how urgently she wanted the coffee to help poor Marya warm up. Fussing over Marya's wellbeing (with her sitting front and center) to this extent in front of her guests could help uphold her reputation for charity.

[Roger]

Varvara Petrovna surely wants to impress the governor's wife with her piety, but I don't think she would bother trying to impress her close associates and dependents.

[[deleted user]]

Jwig wrote: "Adelle wrote: "The Wise Serpent. There are three possible indicators in this chapter.


A fourth indicator I noticed was "Liza, I noticed, for some reason suddenly jumped up from her chair ... Then..."

I think those words influence the reader on some level. Dostoevsky, I think in this book, does such a fabulous job there. "The Wise Serpent." Naturally the reader keeps part of his mind on the serpent that started it all in the Garden, right?

And then D weaves more into his novel to keep thoughts of lurking evil in our minds. STV "was hissed so mercilessly" (25); "Varvara P hissed venomously" (74); "Oh, how much venom is locked up" (121); more.

There are "grunts" and "squeals" throughout the book. To remind us, I'm thinking, of the passage from Luke. That the demons enter the unclean pigs. And maybe this shows us that there are a number of unclean characters in this book. Shatov, for instance, grunts frequently.

Characters are so often 'squeamish," too...but i haven't come to any solid theory on that. Only that when characters react "squeamishly,' perhaps they have some inner conflict in their souls.... That maybe a part of them knows they are moving in a direction that they shouldn't be moving in. I'm still uncertain.

Oh. I think there's a huge theme of good vs. evil. REPEATEDLY, the characters are "Oh, God..." or "the devil knows." Repeatedly. So i think that's definitely an aspect of the book.

I haven't got a hold yet of "the Russian God." It's come up a few times. How is the Russian God/ the Russian version of Christianity different from that of the West? And are the peasants (Alexai Y, for instance) more in touch with the Russian God than the more educated elites? And is this good or bad for Russia?

[Bigollo]

Adelle wrote: " ..."The Wise Serpent." Naturally the reader keeps part of his mind on the serpent that started it all in the Garden, right?..."

Adelle, I have finally to say this: You keep making very interesting observations and making 'extra dimensional' connections while reading this book; in this post and others. I can't read that way. I am reading this novel second time. What I keep doing is getting surprised once and again how much I missed or/and forgot at/since my first reading... I'm grateful to this group for becoming a better reader.

[Bigollo]

Adelle wrote: "I haven't got a hold yet of "the Russian God." It's come up a few times. How is the Russian God/ the Russian version of Christianity different from that of the West? And are the peasants (Alexai Y, for instance) more in touch with the Russian God than the more educated elites? And is this good or bad for Russia?."

It seems to me that FD has a very strong agenda in mind in this novel about the Russian God/Russian Christianity.
I am not a Christian or a historian, so I don't pick up those clues and allusions easily while reading. Plus, it's not what I am interested in the book in the first place. The book is multi-dimensional, and it seems every reader finds in it something good for him/her self. I am more interested in human psychology, and FD is exceptionally good at artistically displaying it.. inmho.

As for a basic fact on Russian Christianity.. and I'm sure in this forum there are people who can explain it much better than I can.. The Russian traditional Church, being the state religion for centuries (I don't know how it is currently) is the Greek Orthodox Church, the heredity/continuation of the Byzantine version of Christianity. Russia was not the only heir. Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Serbia were of the same tradition. I'm sure I missed some countries. And I am very bad in the modern history and politics so I don't know the exact status of it as of now.

[[deleted user]]

Bigollo wrote: "The book is multi-dimensional, and it seems every reader finds in it something good for him/her self...."

So true. Like the anecdote about reading: The author writes "There was a red barn." He visualizes a particular red barn. The reader reads "a red barn" and visualizes an entirely different red barn.

[[deleted user]]

Aiden wrote: "Adelle wrote: "which reminds us all that in Luke, when asked by Jesus who he was, the man replied, "Legion.""

I enjoyed your post, but just wanted to post the entire biblical quote that you mentio..."

I'm coming around to your perspective that we should consider they entire chapter and not simply the portion quoted at the beginning of the book.

[[deleted user]]

Bigollo wrote re "extra-dimensional connections ..."

No spoiler. Some thoughts possibly somewhat off topic. (view spoiler)[ This book group has wonderful discussions. And they read classics. I read classics differently than I read most modern books.

An analogy could be made to movies. I do love the old classic movies with all the character development that happens prior to an active “plot.” I love the new special effects movies, too, but there’s no character development---or if there is, it’s served up to the viewer such that he doesn’t have to make any effort. The viewer just sits there and enjoys the experience.

But what did Shatov tell Savrogin? “You need labor.” (He needs to struggle, and think his own thoughts and not be a “paper person” … defined by what others have taught him or what others expect of him, right? ) “You’re an atheist because you’re a squire, an ultimate squire. You’ve lost the distinction between evil and good because you’ve ceased to recognize your own nation. (I don’t know what Shatov means by that.) Listen, acquire God by labor; the whole essence is there, or else you’ll disappear like vile mildew; do it by labor… * Go, leave your wealth” (255).

(Mathew 19: Jesus to the rich young man: Go, leave your wealth. You can’t be saved with your wealth.)

Stepan V made the same point: “Don’t they understand that in order to acquire an opinion what is needed first of all is labor, one’s own labor, one’s own initiative and experience! … If we labor, we shall have our own opinion” (37).

One has to wonder, if these people have been possessed by demons, what made them vulnerable. The easy money, it seems to me, is one aspect---at least for some of them. Stavrogin’s mother sends him money all the time when he’s in school. She still seems to believe that money is the answer. (And her money came from a tax collector! “Render unto Ceasar,” etc.)

Yulia M “indulges” the young… “communists should be spared and appreciated” (300). Forgiven? She “accepted it as a rule to indulge young people and thereby keep then on the brink” (301) She thinks “by indulgence” society will keep them from the “abyss.” How’s that working out? Mmmm. “ —An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven” (Wiki). Is her position that society has replaced the Church/God and can forgive and issue indulgences?

The characters have to suffer and struggle with their issues in order to be healed. Just going from party to party won’t do it for them. I am in full agreement with you regarding Nikolai when you wrote, “Should we say too many demons are fighting in his heart for the supreme possession of his soul? :) It seems to me that his heart itself has not given up yet.”

Mmmm. Since Stavrogin “is the main thing”… we see more aspects of him. What weakened Stavrogin so that demons could enter him? I think about that every time I read more about him.

I do read between the lines. For me, that’s where the important story lies. All the whys. His mother weakened him, I think, with her money and indulgence. Stepan weakened him with his embracing and weeping with the young boy.

And, I have to say, at this point at think that Nikolai was sexually abused. Possibly not by Stepan---though certainly perilously close … they were separated “none too soon.” How much could D write directly in his time???

Supposition. But Nikolai was a small boy, and a small young man for his age. And SO attractive. Even at 25 he is strikingly handsome. Imagine him young. And he’s entered into the Horse Guard. Yes, the myths may not be true, but even in this day and age I know there were stories/myths about Catherine the Great and her Horse Guard. So I read Horse Guard and immediately I think sex.

And I have to wonder whether Nicolai, with his good looks and small body and his learned habits of sharing physically and emotionally with Stepan… Was he sexually abused? It would go a long ways towards explaining some of his anger. About halfway thru the book, I began to wonder, Did Nikolai begin to engage in duels in reaction to things that were said about him?

Well…. Could have been a smoother post, but … thoughts.

(hide spoiler)]

[Bigollo]

Adelle wrote: "No spoiler. Some thoughts possibly somewhat off topic. This book group has wonderful discussions. I read classics differently than I read most modern books..."

You wrote, "Well…. Could have been a smoother post, but … thoughts."

I appreciate the fact that we can afford here to not always be smooth and precise, but maintain a relaxed friendly conversation.

And I like your thoughts. Mainly because your reading style is very different from mine. I usually don't notice so many details and parallels as you do. Almost always, when I read a fiction piece, the aesthetics of the language is number one thing for me. And in this novel, I have found myself looking for and seeing ..can't find the right word.. stereotypes?.. invariants maybe?.. of human behavior regardless of time, place, or circumstance.. FD has as a knack for uncovering those 'invariants' in the human race, (..and what's important for me - not by mere descriptions, but by eventual building the feeling of the character; I think, mostly through crafty dialogues..). I read about ST and think about my relationship with my son.. I read about VP and recognize in her numerous people I've known.. (And it's not that there are de facto similarities, on the surface the people can be very different, yet there is something in their core very isomorphic). I've seen Shatovs, Verhovensky's the Jr.. I don't think I've ever met Kirillovs or Stavrogins.. . That also makes it interesting, maybe this book will help me prepare for the future encounter :).. Now I started to try to pay attention to the political/historical aspect of the novel... Well.. I see I'm really off the topic.. and I don't know how to hide it in the spoiler :)

[Lily]

To begin a spoiler: [spoiler] to end one: [/spoiler] but replace [ ] brackets by < >.

Play with it sometime? It can be useful.

Or, select (some html is ok) on upper right of comment box and scan down the choices for clearer suggestion; "spoiler" is the last one on the list.

I won't even begin to try to explain how I attempt to read D. (I just transcribed a list of the chapters in the 22 books of Augustine's The City of God ... I'm not convinced all books are readable in any adequately satisfactory way. But I greatly enjoy the sharing here on Western Canon.)

[[deleted user]]

Bigollo wrote: "…Mainly because your reading style is very different from mine..."

That's a lovely aspect of a book group. Different people read with different eyes. I learn so very much through reading other people's posts and then considering points I hadn't even thought of but which enrich the read.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: " I'm not convinced all books are readable in any adequately satisfactory way...."

:-) When I first read Henry James (NThe Wings of the Dove) I had to "translate" the first five chapters---even though they were written in English! I found him initially so difficult to follow.

[Bigollo]

Lily wrote: "To begin a spoiler: [spoiler] to end one: [/spoiler] but replace [ ] brackets by .

Play with it sometime? It can be useful.

Or, select (some html is ok) on upper right of comment box and scan do..."

Thank you for the tips, Lily. I should play with that at some point and stop excusing myself as 'technologically challenged' :).

[Bigollo]

regarding posts 67 and 69:

This reminded me an anecdote I heard from one American professor. His friend confided to him (somewhat shamefully) that he finally understood and appreciated one Shakespearian play (I think it was Hamlet) only after reading it in French. Assumingly it was modern French. Shakespearian English is considered to be Modern English, but the early stage of Modern English. Since then meanings of many words at least slightly have changed, and even the grammar (the most conservative part of human language) has given in here and there.
And, of course, it is a telling of a good knowledge of the English language history on the part of that French translator.

But Henry James? He's almost our contemporary. I have read nothing of him so far, but heard good reference. Maybe I should give him a try some day.

And regardless of the time of writing, some authors just seem to be hard. They're for a special taste. Maybe V. Nabokov is somewhat that way?
I prefer friendly writing. Among classics, I value Leo Tolstoy as the most friendly to his readers, easily to follow author.

PS On that Shakespearian play.. Come to think of it.. Maybe they were talking about not reading it, but watching on stage..

[Emil]

Tamara wrote: "This whole section strikes me like an act in a play with characters entering and exiting the stage. Also, Marya's behavior here is somewhat reminiscent of the fool's role in Shakespeare. She is gui..."

My thoughts exactly. What an act this chapter would make! I was sure that somebody aleady had the idea before, so I've goggled it. Looks like A. Camus wrote a quite successful play based on it - " Les Possédés". Imagine: Camus + Dostoevsky! I know what I'll read next.

[Tamara]

Emil wrote: "Looks like A. Camus wrote a quite successful play based on it - " Les Possédés". Imagine: Camus + Dostoevsky! I know what I'll read next..."

That's really interesting. Thank you for that. I'll look for it in
English since my French fell by the way side years ago.

[Donal]

Emil wrote: "Tamara wrote: "This whole section strikes me like an act in a play with characters entering and exiting the stage. Also, Marya's behavior here is somewhat reminiscent of the fool's role in Shakespe..."

Julie Vincent wrote a paper (in French) "Le mythe de Kirilov". The abstract is "In The Myth of Sisyphus and in his adaptation for the theater of Dostoevsky's Possessedy Camus presents Kirilov, the theorist of the logical suicide, as a brilliant philosopher who expresses the profound convictions of Dostoevsky himself. All the French critics have followed Camus in this interpretation. However, Dostoevsky was too much a Russian nationalist to choose as a spokesman a character who is incapable of speaking Russian correctly and who even despises his native tongue. Camus missed this stylistic clue because he read the novel in an elegant translation that masks Kirilov's language defects. A precise comparison of the Russian and the French texts shows how, thanks to the translators, Camus idealized Kirilov, creating a new tradition for the character."

Camus also refers to him several times in "The myth of Sisyphus".
The Vincent article includes the following:
"Camus sets out the problem which tortures Kirilov 'Existence is a lie, or it is eternal.'
...
Camus reduces this to a classical syllogism

If God does not exist, Kirilov is God
If God does not exist, Kirilov must kill himself
Hence, Kirilov must kill himself to be God

He clarifies the Kirilovian premise, "To become God is merely to be free on this earth, to not serve an immrtal being.,"

[Emil]

Donal wrote: "Julie Vincent wrote a paper (in French) "Le mythe de Kirilov". The abstract is "In The Myth of Sisyphus and in his adaptation for the theater of Dostoevsky's Possessedy Camus presents Kirilov, the theorist of the logical suicide, as a brilliant philosopher who expresses the profound convictions of Dostoevsky..."


My translation has the same problem, it failed to capture Kirilov language defects. Anyway, the matter is stated clearly in here:“And tell me, if I may ask, why is it you speak Russian not quite correctly?". I doubt that Camus missed it, and I also doubt he believed Dostoyevski was expressing his convictions through Kirilov.

I'm afraid that Julie Vincent failed to understand Camus. Yes he agreed with Kirilov: life is pain, it's meaningless and absurd. But that's it. There is no more meaning in death as in life, so suicide doesn't make any sense. Nevertheless, life can be enjoyed as long as we accept it's meaningless. He actually loathed nihilism.

I also agree with Kirilov on this: overcoming the fear of stone/death leeds to freedom. That's not something the nihilists came up with anyway, I've read the same idea in one of Seneca's letters.

Suicide is something else: it's deliberately letting the stone to fall on you.
It may be a singular act of freedom, but it doesnt lead to freedom, it leads to nothing.
After you're dead you're nothing, there is no freedom in nothingness because freedom needs existence and suicide denies it.