Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Dostoyevsky, Demons
>
Week 4: Part II, chapters 1 and 2
message 1:
by
Roger
(last edited Jan 20, 2021 05:33AM)
(new)
Jan 20, 2021 05:09AM
Chapter 1, "Night": Shatov, Stepan Trofimovich, and Nikolay Vsevolodovich mostly stay home for 8 days. Pyotr Stepanovich visits a lot; he has become popular in society. The Lebyadkins move to a suburb across the river. Lizaveta Nikolayevna has become engaged to Mavriky Nikolayevich. And a new story begins: Pyotr visits Nikolay; they talk darkly about their "cause." That evening, Nikolay sneaks out after dark and goes to ask Kirillov to be his second in a duel with a fellow GARGANOV who has been insulting him. He wants the duel to happen as soon as possible and under unusually dangerous rules. They discuss suicide, which Kirillov has been contemplating. Then Nikolay goes to see Shatov. Nikolay warns him that Pyotr may be planning to kill him--it seems that all three are members of the same secret society, which Shatov has asked to leave. Nikolay also says that he has been legally married to Marya Timofeyevna for four and a half years. With great emotion Shatov berates him for his former nihilism and his atheism. He says he struck him "because you meant so much to me"; evidently Shatov had been bewitched by the nihilism. Nikolay endures the attack. Shatov talks excitedly about Slavophilism and Orthodoxy. Nikolay does not deny an accusation that in Petersburg he belonged to a secret society practicing "bestial carnality"; he also does not deny having dismissed any difference between good and evil. Shatov tells him he must "acquire God through work" and advises him to go visit a spiritual advisor, the retired bishop Tikhon. As Nikolay leaves, he asks Shatov to look after Marya.
reply
|
flag
Chapter 2, "Night (Continuation)": As he walks home preoccupied, Nikolay Vsevolodovich is accosted by FEDKA THE CONVICT, a ruffian who got the idea from Pyotr Stepanovich that he could be of service to him. Nikolay angrily sends him away. Nikolay goes to the Lebyadkins' new lodgings. Lebyadkin receives him with fear and obsequiousness. He has been making out his will. It seems he was also a member of the secret society, passing out leaflets for them, and is afraid Pyotr Stepanovich suspects him of informing and wants to kill him. He says Nikolay "meant so much" in his life. Nikolay tells him to deny everything, then goes in to see Marya Timofeyevna. She talks about the emotional Sunday at Varvara Petrovna's: "So much wealth and so little joy." She alternates between fear and self-assertion. Nikolay asks her to move to a mountain in Switzerland with him and live in chaste isolation. She refuses. It turns out she takes him for an imposter. He flees. Walking home, he runs into Fedka again, who tells of robbing Lebyadkin in his sleep and hearing him mumble about getting money from Nikolay. Fedka asks for 3 rubles to keep quiet. Nikolay throws a wad of bills at him and leaves laughing, while Fedka scrambles for them in the mud.
Oy. Can Dostoyevsky really expect us to keep track of all these details, hints, and allusions?
Opening question: What is Nikoay Vsevolodovich's state of mind now? What is he thinking about? Is he courting death, or perhaps contemplating suicide?
I see Nikolai as neither courting death nor suicidal but more somewhere in between at indifference but an indifference which is still honor bound.
How complicated for Nikolai V. Married to Marya T, and has told his mother he will propose to Lizavetta N in five days, but she is said to now be engaged to Mavriky N but not yet announced.
The “Night” chapters are nothing less than a virtuoso multilayered narrative. In Night:VI and VII, for instance, we find Shatov in fear for his life because of the slap at the Sunday gathering. Still, we discover that he idolizes Stavrogin as a superior man and is in awe of him. Marya Timofeevna's story advances too as Stavrogin acknowledges the marriage and asks Shatov to take care of her in light of his own foreboding that something (like the duel) may go terribly wrong. Salted in with the rest of the narrative are first insinuations and then talk about a violent secret society that has a hold on Shatov and, in some ambiguous way, on Stavrogin. There’s also a layer about Shatov’s own story, his time in Switzerland, his trip to America, his turning to Russian orthodoxy led there by Stavrogin, his desperate need to believe, and his perhaps not entirely Platonic love for Stavrogin. And at the same time, we are picking up more on Stavrogin’s complex character. The past, the present, the future. Layer upon layer upon layer ... I am in awe of Dostoevsky.
Roger wrote: "... Can Dostoyevsky really expect us to keep track of all these details, hints, and allusions?"I wonder about this too. It seems to me (as of now) the answer is – NO.
It seems that that is not how D. chooses to write. He is more like building bit by bit a certain impression, mostly by inciting certain set of emotions, for the reader. And at some point, we may find ourselves feeling that we know something for sure. At the same time, it may be hard (maybe sometimes impossible at all) to go back and find exact evidence for that in the text. The impression just has been gradually built up.
And even more, I sort of sense, that readers with different temperaments and inclinations may develop different impressions even about the factual events described in the chronicle, exactly because our mind construct them out of those hints and allusions and not from hard presented data.
Some skill on the part of D, huh? Though sometimes it feels like he is leading us by the nose. I don’t mind, his dialogues are superb, the nose been pinched or not.
Roger wrote: "Oy. Can Dostoyevsky really expect us to keep track of all these details, hints, and allusions?"The intricacies are almost baroque in their detail. Viewed from one angle the narrative is beautifully ornate, from another angle it's a grotesque puzzlement. I keep going back and forth between amazement to frustration and back again. And I agree with Bigollo that the dialogues are superb. He might have made an even better playwright than a novelist.
Mike wrote: "I see Nikolai as neither courting death nor suicidal but more somewhere in between at indifference but an indifference which is still honor bound."I completely agree with the indifference, but I'm curious about the honor part. He doesn't seem to me to have any sort of code by which he lives, let alone an honorable one. I can't figure out what he cares about, or why. He's fascinating in that way. Why, for example, is he so drawn to Marya Timofeevna, when she appears to be completely bonkers?
Thomas wrote: "Mike wrote: "I see Nikolai as neither courting death nor suicidal but more somewhere in between at indifference but an indifference which is still honor bound."I completely agree with the indiffe..."
Marya has innocence, honesty, and contentment--all things Nikolay lacks.
Thomas wrote: "Why, for example, is he so drawn to Marya Timofeevna, when she appears to be completely bonkers?"Roger wrote: "Marya has innocence, honesty, and contentment--all things Nikolay lacks."
Then there's Shatov's take on why Stavrogin married her:
“Do you know why you married so disgracefully and basely then? Precisely because here the disgrace and senselessness reached the point of genius! Oh, you don't go straying along the verge, you boldly fly down headfirst. You married out of a passion for torture, out of a passion for remorse, out of moral sensuality. It was from nervous strain. The challenge to common sense was too enticing! Stavrogin and a scrubby, feebleminded, beggarly lame girl!”Then there's what Stavrogin himself says to Lebyadkin about the marriage:
"Didn't I marry your sister then, when I wanted to, after a drunken dinner, on a bet for wine ...?"
Roger wrote: "Oy. Can Dostoyevsky really expect us to keep track of all these details, hints, and allusions?"The method Dostoyevsky employs in Demons makes it a challenging read. First of all, the narrator is a bit actor in the story who can only tell us what he himself has heard first-, second-, or third-hand, and only what he surmises after-the-fact from actions of others. Without an omniscient narrator, without the writer's commentary, without even interior monologues, we don’t know what the characters are thinking or feeling. We see them only as they choose to reveal themselves in spoken words or in actions, and as other characters see them. We know for a fact that some lie. We know that some hold back what later proves to be crucial information. We sense, but don’t really know, what unexpressed emotions lie beneath the surface. And then, the bit players that come and go to advance the action can be a jumble, but they prove to be incidental, nothing more.
I think that this kind of writing better reflects "real" life than a novel written to entertain. In life we too don’t really know what other people are thinking or feeling, except as they tell us, or show us, or as we surmise from their actions. We have to engage with this uncertainty to make some sort of (often flawed) sense of it. So too with Demons.
Gary wrote: "Without an omniscient narrator, without the writer's commentary, without even interior monologues, we don’t know what the characters are thinking or feeling. We see them only as they choose to reveal themselves in spoken words or in actions, and as other characters see them..."Your post and Thomas' comment (#9) that Dostoevsky may have made a better playwright than a novelist have helped me understand why I keep getting the sensation I'm watching a play.
All we have as an audience to go on is what we see and hear. We don't get any soliloquies that reveal what a character is thinking or what he/she is hiding or planning. There is nothing reliable to hold on to or to give us a sense of what is actually happening. All we seem to know is there is more going on than meets the eye.
I like your observation that this kind of writing better reflects "real" life. But it does make for a challenging read.
Gary wrote: "Then there's Shatov's take on why Stavrogin married her:“Do you know why you married so disgracefully and basely then? Precisely because here the disgrace and senselessness reached the point of genius!"...
The context of this discussion is interesting because it consists of Shatov and Nikolai each trying to pin down what the other believes. Nikolai presses Shatov to admit that he believes in Russia and "her Orthodoxy", including the "body of Christ" but that he doesn't quite believe in God. (Shatov says he *will* believe, whatever that means.) The point seems to be that Shatov's convictions are at least suspect.
In response, Shatov brings up Nikolai's prior involvement with a "secret society of bestial sensualists," which Nikolai does not deny except to the extent that it involved corrupting children. The charge is that Nikolai, at that time at least, was a sensualist with no regard for good or evil. The implicaiton is that his initial interest in Marya was rather perverse. (Though it now seems now to have evolved into something else.)
I'm not sure why Shatov looks up to Nikolai, but in a lot of ways they seem similar. Perhaps it has something to do with their mutual involvement with the society that is now after them both. I'm still not sure how Nikolai disappointed Shatov, or what the "lie" was that precipitated Shatov hitting him.
Roger wrote: "Oy. Can Dostoyevsky really expect us to keep track of all these details, hints, and allusions?"Wikipedia says, . . .first published in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1871–72. If I am not mistaken, the time span there indicates this work was serialized and published in installments. If Dostoyevsky intended to periodically create enough details to keep his readers guessing and conjecturing with each other, almost to the point of gossiping about the characters in order to both maintain interest and tease out what is going on, I think the comments here seem to bear out his success. Bravo to Dostoyevsky and all the commenters.
David wrote: "Wikipedia says, . . .first published in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1871–72. If I am not mistaken, the time span there indicates this work was serialized and published in installments...."Perhaps that explains the plethora of details and allusions. It might also explain the shift in point of view.
The first person narrator is Govorov. How does he know of the discussion between Pyotr Stepanovich and Nikolay Stavrogin when he wasn’t present at their meeting? Or of the discussion between Shatov and Nikolay Stavrogin? He wasn't present in either meeting.
It as if Dostoevsky shifted from first person point of view to limited omniscient with no explanation as to why the shift took place. If there was an explanation, I couldn't find it.
The discussion between Shatov and Nikolay was confusing. Shatov was very animated and frustrated throughout while Nikolay was pretty cool and let him vent. I couldn't figure out why Shatov was getting so riled up. And then, toward the end of chapter 1, Shatov says:Stavrogin, why am I condemned to believe in you through all eternity? Could I speak like this to anyone else? I have modesty, but I am not ashamed of my nakedness because it's Stavrogin I am speaking to. I was not afraid of caricaturing a grand idea by handling it because Stavrogin was listening to me.... Shan't I kiss your footprints when you've gone? I can't tear you out of my heart, Nikolay Stavrogin!"
"I'm sorry I can't feel affection for you, Shatov," Stavrogin replied coldly.
Is it possible Shatov's heated outburst is simply a case of unrequited love? Could that be why Shatov punched Nikolay in the first place? Is he frustrated because Nikolay doesn't return his love? And does his characterization of Nikolay's marriage as disgraceful stem from jealousy?
When D introduces us to Fedya, I groaned--not someone else to keep track of!Really, though, I thought the most challenging part of this section was the conversation between Shatov and Nikolai. Perhaps there is some kind of unrequited love here, but I would have thought myself that Nikolai has stirred up a kind of idealism in Shatov, something that's possessed him and driven him--though it's not exactly clear to me now exactly how or what this idealism consists of. I think the reason Shatov hit Nikolai had nothing to do with his sister, as I first did--now I think it has to do with Shatov's belief that Nikolai has rejected that earlier position and it's shaken Shatov's idealism to its core.
Tamara wrote: "Is it possible Shatov's heated outburst is simply a case of unrequited love? Could that be why Shatov punched Nikolay in the first place? "An interesting possibility! Could Nikolai be Shatov's "man-God"? As he is Marya's "Prince Charming"? (Night (continued) §3: another confusing dialogue, with Marya talking to Nikolai about Nikolai in the third person. If it were'n't for the shawl I wouldn't have figured that one out at all.)
Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure why Shatov looks up to Nikolai..."I think it's more than "looking up to" and that Stavrogin has some kind of hold over not only Shatov, but other characters as well.
P. Verkhovensky: “I, too, am a man ready for anything, in all senses, whatever you like, and am completely at your service.”Whatever this is, it's more than just influence. Does Stavrogin have a charisma that draws others and inspires their devotion? Or is it his ruthless thinking and doing that drives their deference?
Kirillov: “Remember what you’ve meant in my life, Stavrogin."
Shatov: “I cannot tear you out of my heart, Stavrogin!”
Cpt. Lebyadkin: “So you will now decide my fate and … that unfortunate woman’s, and then … then, as I used to in the old days, I’ll pour everything out to you …”
And what, really, happened in Switzerland? Much of the mysteriousness we are reading about seems to be traceable back to their time in Switzerland.
Tamara wrote: " ... does his characterization of Nikolay's marriage as disgraceful stem from jealousy?"That could well be so, in part. However, by the standards of the time the marriage was indeed shocking and disgraceful. There's not only the difference in class, there's also the blunt reality that Stavrogin and Marya have a (perhaps) legal marriage but do not have one in any other way, physical, mental, emotional, social, or economic. At this point in the story Marya does not even know who he is. When Stavrogin says to her, "Would you like to live with me all your life, only very far from here? It's in the mountains, in Switzerland ... Everything you want that is possible, you will be given ... I also won't stir from the place for all my life," I don't believe it for a minute. He's toying with her for his own amusement, just as he said a few minutes earlier to her brother, " ... why shouldn't I proclaim it [the marriage] aloud ... if it now amuses me?"
The contrary view would be that Stavrogin feels a committed responsibility to Marya. Given what else we know about Stavrogin, that seems pretty unlikely to me. I find him completely amoral, a seeker of emotional sensations, who gets his kicks by toying with other people's emotions and lives. More on this later.
Tamara wrote: "It as if Dostoevsky shifted from first person point of view to limited omniscient with no explanation as to why the shift took place. If there was an explanation, I couldn't find it."Just as a reminder, the entirety of Demons, including the epigraph, is a story being told by Gororov who was present for some events, but not inside the scandal. He begins the story with Stepan Trofimovich, because it is Stepan, Gororov’s close friend who has filled him in on the details he knows of the “strange events” that made their town notable. STV is a main actor, albeit a seemingly unreliable one.
This is the way FMD begins Book II:
”Eight days passed. Now, when everything is over and I am writing my chronicle, we know what the situation was, but at that time we knew nothing, and it was natural that various things struck us as being strange.” (emphasis added)
Presumably, Gororov is reconstructing events he knows happened, like where people went and who they spoke with, but filling in things he can’t know with the benefit of hindsight and with the help of STV, like a historical fiction writer. At least that’s how I read it. The fact that the narrator is also a minor character allows Dostoevsky to tell his story in an omniscient fashion, but it can’t be forgotten that this is a story as seen from the outside and through the biased prism of a participant, not an author.
I think FMD used the unreliable narrator so that he could adjust POV to the situation while retaining the overarching fact that this is an outsider’s view with the occasional reminder like the one above. He tells us the story chronologically, but signals that the reader isn’t meant to fully understand until the end because even the narrator didn’t. It’s basically a political mystery novel.
Aiden wrote: "It’s basically a political mystery novel. "I like that characterization.
Tamara wrote: "Is it possible Shatov's heated outburst is simply a case of unrequited love?”While I’m not sure a case for homoerotic love can’t be found in the text, I’m pretty sure Shatov is speaking of love more as the revolutionary-brothers-in-arms type of love.
I read it more as Shatov having greatly admired Nikolai for his ideals, which was what these types of shady organizations were about; ideology. More disillusioned hero-worship than romantic disappointment.
Gary wrote: "And what, really, happened in Switzerland? Much of the mysteriousness we are reading about seems to be traceable back to their time in Switzerland."A nice observation. One to remember until the end.
Gary wrote: "Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure why Shatov looks up to Nikolai..."I think it's more than "looking up to" and that Stavrogin has some kind of hold over not only Shatov, but other characters as well. P..."
We can add Stepan Trofimovich, whose affection for the child Nikolai is highly unusual:
"More than once he awakend his ten or eleven-year-old friend at night only to pour out his injured feelings in tears before him, or to reveal some domestic secret to him, not noticing that this was altogether inadmissible."
There are a lot of weird psychological things going on here.
Thomas wrote: "We can add Stepan Trofimovich, whose affection for the child Nikolai is highly unusual ..."The description of STV's actions brings to mind the Gororov's comparison in Book 1, Chapter 2 of Stepan Trofimovich as Falstaff to Nikolai's Prince Harry (allusions from Shakespeare's Henry IV).
The future Henry V was still a boy when he fought in the Battle of Shrewsbury (Henry IV, Part 1) and still under the strong influence of the big-talking drunkard. Falstaff, who not only undermans his "pupil" for his own gain, but then takes the credit for killing the rebel Hotspur after he watches Prince Harry actually defeat Harry Percy.
After Falstaff insists that he killed Percy, the 16-year-old Prince Hal laughs it off and agrees to go along because he still cares about Falstaff. Falstaff talks a big game, but it's just talk. STV espouses the radical liberal ideals of a "man of the 40s," to the young Nikolai, but like Falstaff's bravado it's just idle, drunken talk for STV. He doesn't follow the thoughts through to what happens when the next generation demands reforms; this is, revolution.
Nikolai is older when the events of Demons take place, but like Prince Hal, he's spent years cavorting with the lower classes and gotten up to pointless mischief. Like Falstaff, STV has now been cast out of the household of his former protégé. However, Nikolai's disposition doesn't seem to match the confident Henry V. His talk with Shatov seems to indicate that he's confident, but his idealism and purpose appear to be waning. Or are they? What does Nikolai believe in?
I think part of the key to understanding Nikolai is what effect STV's unorthodox (to say the least) upbringing had on Nikolai. What happens when you raise a child (or children) with frantic talk of reform and revolutionary ideas and the child takes your words and their passion at face value? The world is what we make of it, after all.
It's interesting that Stepan Trofimovich did more to raise Nikolay Vsevolodovich than he did for his own son Pyotr.
Thomas wrote: "Gary wrote: "Thomas wrote: "I'm not sure why Shatov looks up to Nikolai..."
I think it's more than "looking up to" and that Stavrogin has some kind of hold over not only Shatov, but other characte..."
True. I just went back and re-read the beginning chapters last night.
And it was more than STV pouring out his injured feelings. There are suggestions of a Michael Jackson situation going on here.
"One may suppose that when the friends wept, throwing themselves into mutual embrace at night, it was not always over some little domestic anecdotes...... But in any event it was good that the youngling and the mentor, though none too soon, were parted in different directions" (41).
We also learn that STV called forth in Nikolai V a love of anguish... "which the chosen soul, having once tasted and known it, will never exchange for any cheap satisfaction" (41).
I think it's more than "looking up to" and that Stavrogin has some kind of hold over not only Shatov, but other characte..."
True. I just went back and re-read the beginning chapters last night.
And it was more than STV pouring out his injured feelings. There are suggestions of a Michael Jackson situation going on here.
"One may suppose that when the friends wept, throwing themselves into mutual embrace at night, it was not always over some little domestic anecdotes...... But in any event it was good that the youngling and the mentor, though none too soon, were parted in different directions" (41).
We also learn that STV called forth in Nikolai V a love of anguish... "which the chosen soul, having once tasted and known it, will never exchange for any cheap satisfaction" (41).
Adelle wrote: "We also learn that STV called forth in Nikolai V a love of anguish... "which the chosen soul, having once tasted and known it, will never exchange for any cheap satisfaction" (41)."Let me add the next line from the one you quoted, Adelle: "(There are lovers of this anguish who cherish it more than the most radical satisfaction, if that were even possible.)" Is this, at least in part, what motivates Stavrogin, this seeking after debasement and anguish by transgressing social or moral norms? The social degradation he took upon himself by marrying Marya of course comes to mind.
To quote Richard Pevear, in his "Foreword" to the P/V translation: ""Stavrogin is everything," Dostoevsky wrote in a note to himself dated August 16, 1870." [Pevear's italics]
Aiden wrote: "The description of STV's actions brings to mind the Gororov's comparison in Book 1, Chapter 2 of Stepan Trofimovich as Falstaff to Nikolai's Prince Harry ... "Thank you for bringing this up. This is no casual allusion, but an explicit reference made by Stepan Trofimovich to describe his relationship with Stavrogin. Dostoevsky knew and admired Shakespeare's work and it's very likely he had it in mind when writing the novel.
Gary wrote: "Adelle wrote: "We also learn that STV called forth in Nikolai V a love of anguish... "
..."
Nikolai's father died when Nikolai was 8. STV was his primary male model. Nikolai's mother rarely speaks to him... stares at him morbidly. Varvara: "What could be stupider than someone who is stupid and kind?" (59). There's seemingly no one who will teach him to be kind.
And what does he learn from STV's group? "Liputin started bringing [an exiled Polish priest} and for a time we received him on principle, but later we even stopped receiving him" (33). Because never let principles get in the way of what one wants to do??
STV educates/trains/shapes both Nicolai and Shatov from a young age. Of importance, I think, is "habits." "What will habit not do to a man?" (8).
Varvara P to STV: "you've acquired some impossible habits" (61).
V to STV: "God, you're so full of impossible habits" (62).
"bad habits"
V says to Dasha that STV has "base habits"
Mmm. And four years ago keeps popping up as significant. What happened four years ago with Dasha when she was 16? Dasha's governess, "Miss Criggs, who lived in her house until the ward was sixteen years old, but for some reason was suddenly dismissed" ... her French teachers was "as if thrown out'... STV taught Dasha. He taught Lizaveta Nikolaevna Tushin, too.
..."
Nikolai's father died when Nikolai was 8. STV was his primary male model. Nikolai's mother rarely speaks to him... stares at him morbidly. Varvara: "What could be stupider than someone who is stupid and kind?" (59). There's seemingly no one who will teach him to be kind.
And what does he learn from STV's group? "Liputin started bringing [an exiled Polish priest} and for a time we received him on principle, but later we even stopped receiving him" (33). Because never let principles get in the way of what one wants to do??
STV educates/trains/shapes both Nicolai and Shatov from a young age. Of importance, I think, is "habits." "What will habit not do to a man?" (8).
Varvara P to STV: "you've acquired some impossible habits" (61).
V to STV: "God, you're so full of impossible habits" (62).
"bad habits"
V says to Dasha that STV has "base habits"
Mmm. And four years ago keeps popping up as significant. What happened four years ago with Dasha when she was 16? Dasha's governess, "Miss Criggs, who lived in her house until the ward was sixteen years old, but for some reason was suddenly dismissed" ... her French teachers was "as if thrown out'... STV taught Dasha. He taught Lizaveta Nikolaevna Tushin, too.
Gary wrote: "The social degradation he took upon himself by marrying Marya of course comes to mind.
..."
It does. I'm wonder about Stavrogin though. Mostly he seems totally bad... I had hoped that how solicitous he was of Marya, returning her home in the carriage, might have been a true trait... that maybe there was a little 'good' in him. And then the more I read, the more I came to suspect he was setting her up for some big disappointment later... so he could better enjoy how it crushes her. But yet a small part of me wonders... I don't think he would have married her on a dare had he been sober. But he was drunk. And as he was drunk, might he have been in touch w a something of what was still decent in himself? His facial expressions... he seems often to be struggling from some internal discord--- unless his discord is at having to maintain a mask of decentness---the narrator having written twice ... after all was known... that the beast's claws came out... and referred to him as "a monster"... so i suppose he probably is.
..."
It does. I'm wonder about Stavrogin though. Mostly he seems totally bad... I had hoped that how solicitous he was of Marya, returning her home in the carriage, might have been a true trait... that maybe there was a little 'good' in him. And then the more I read, the more I came to suspect he was setting her up for some big disappointment later... so he could better enjoy how it crushes her. But yet a small part of me wonders... I don't think he would have married her on a dare had he been sober. But he was drunk. And as he was drunk, might he have been in touch w a something of what was still decent in himself? His facial expressions... he seems often to be struggling from some internal discord--- unless his discord is at having to maintain a mask of decentness---the narrator having written twice ... after all was known... that the beast's claws came out... and referred to him as "a monster"... so i suppose he probably is.
Is Nikolay Vsevolodovich serious when he offers to take Marya Timofeyevna to live in Switzerland with him? If not, what is he up to?
Maybe yes. Maybe what she symbolizes for him is important.....and maybe Nikolay V thinks Switzerland might be a safe place for him from the Russian authorities...should they want him arrested. Nikolay tells Marya that he would then never leave Switzeralnd.
I put that forward based on information from the "Prince Harry" chapter:
Pytor SV apparently "had taken part in the composing of some anonymous tract and was implicated in the case. Then he suddenly turned up in Switzerland, in Geneva--- might have fled there for all we knew" (76).
I put that forward based on information from the "Prince Harry" chapter:
Pytor SV apparently "had taken part in the composing of some anonymous tract and was implicated in the case. Then he suddenly turned up in Switzerland, in Geneva--- might have fled there for all we knew" (76).
I’m probably missing something (probably, a lot of somethings), but I don’t see Nicolai as the culprit here. Nicolai certainly attracts more attention and seems to be the center around which the characters revolve. But exactly what has he done wrong? He gets drunk and marries a woman beneath his social class. He sends money to her brother for her upkeep—money which the brother spends on drink. He plans to announce the marriage and offers to take her to live with him in Switzerland. He is honest with Shatov by telling him he cannot love him. He warns Shatov that he might be killed. He also cautions Shatov to lower his voice because Pyotr may be listening to their conversation:
One of the things Pyotr Verhovensky came here for was to settle your business once for all, and he is fully authorised to do so, that is at the first good opportunity, to get rid of you, as a man who knows too much and might give them away.
I know there is a lot of stuff swirling around about Nicolai, but so far, I’m not sure exactly what he has done to warrant suspicion.
Personally, I am far more suspicious of Pyotr.
Pyotr embarrasses his father by revealing the contents of the letter in which he bemoans his upcoming nuptials—an action which prompts Varvara to throw him out of the house. He visits Nicolai, tries to ingratiate himself, vows allegiance to him, and talks incessantly. I got the impression he is hiding things and is trying to trick Nicolai into revealing something. Nicolai is obviously suspicious of him and his motives. Pyotr comes across as obsequious, duplicitous, and deceptive. Lebyadkin suspects Pyotr wants to kill him. And he sets Fedka to spy on Nicolai.I think Pyotr comes across as dangerous, manipulative, and with some sort of political agenda in mind, although what that is I have no idea yet.
What kind of service is it that Fedka the Convict thinks he can do for Nikolay Vsevolodovich? My first thought was that it would be rubbing out Shatov for striking him.
Tamara wrote: " ... I don’t see Nicolai as the culprit here."My takeaway from your interesting post is a caution, that is, not to rush to judgement about a character — which I find myself doing — when not even at the middle of the novel.
Yes, Pyotr Verhovensky is definitely a piece of work and will bear watching. I expect there's quite a lot ahead for Pytor — and for Nicolai too.
Tamara wrote: "I’m probably missing something (probably, a lot of somethings), but I don’t see Nicolai as the culprit here. Nicolai certainly attracts more attention and seems to be the center around which the ch..."This is a great point, because Nikolai hasn't done anything wrong, though there are some ominous foreshadowings. Earlier Adelle said that she wanted to like Nikolai, and that struck a chord with me. I want to like him too. I want him to be a Prince Hal... but he's not, and it looks increasingly unlikely that he will blossom into King Henry. It's really unclear where Nikolai's heart is -- he seems to have left behind his wild Petersburg days when the Marquis de Sade could take lessons from him, but who is he now? Marya tels him he's an impostor, a false prince, and he throws her violently away from him.
Gary wrote: "My takeaway from your interesting post is a caution, that is, not to rush to judgement about a character — which I find myself doing — when not even at the middle of the novel.."Duly noted. Thank you.
Tamara wrote: "I’m probably missing something (probably, a lot of somethings), but I don’t see Nicolai as the culprit here. Nicolai certainly attracts more attention and seems to be the center around which the ch..."
Intriguing post. I'm open to Nicolai not being totally bad---there are rumors...which may or may not be true... He's been in duels...killed one, severely injured the other... demoted in the ranks... probably affairs... so he's no choir boy.
And yet regarding Pyotr... I don't trust him. Lots of little bits along the way...but mostly that conversation between Nicolai V and PSV in the "Night' chapter. Pyotr says to Nicolai V "I was clowning mainly for you, because I was trying to catch you and wanted to compromise you. I mainly wanted to find out how afraid you were" (222).
Then there's page 227: Pyotr SV too causal... "Ah, what's the matter with me?" He suddenly turned back. "I complete forgot the main thing. {Note: I don't believe him. I think he's set up the whole conversation for this point.} I was just told that our box has come from Petersburg."
And then, something of the "real"/more deadly Pyotr shows itself.
Nikolai makes a remark about Pyotr S taking riding lessons. Is this a cut by Nikolai regarding class and status. A very non-egalitarian remark. And it seems to really touch a nerve with Pyotr. Because he's a true believer in the revolution??
"in a quivering and faltering voice, 'you know, Nikolai V, with regard to persons, we'll drop that once and for all, right? You may, of course, despise me as much as you like, if you find it so amusing, but still it would be better not to be personal for a while, right?"
That's where i got a strong feeling that Pyotr is a dangerous man.
See, I'm influenced by the narrator, of course. And I'm influenced by D's remark in the introduction that "Stavrogin is everything."
And yet part of me thinks that perhaps Stavrogin is everything because D will show him as healed in the end... as the man in Luke who is freed of the demons is healed. Part of me thinks that D will develop Stavrogin, in the end, as "a true Russian.'
Of course, because he's Russian, he'll have to suffer a great deal first. Someone somewhere in the book spoke of Russians and suffering.
Intriguing post. I'm open to Nicolai not being totally bad---there are rumors...which may or may not be true... He's been in duels...killed one, severely injured the other... demoted in the ranks... probably affairs... so he's no choir boy.
And yet regarding Pyotr... I don't trust him. Lots of little bits along the way...but mostly that conversation between Nicolai V and PSV in the "Night' chapter. Pyotr says to Nicolai V "I was clowning mainly for you, because I was trying to catch you and wanted to compromise you. I mainly wanted to find out how afraid you were" (222).
Then there's page 227: Pyotr SV too causal... "Ah, what's the matter with me?" He suddenly turned back. "I complete forgot the main thing. {Note: I don't believe him. I think he's set up the whole conversation for this point.} I was just told that our box has come from Petersburg."
And then, something of the "real"/more deadly Pyotr shows itself.
Nikolai makes a remark about Pyotr S taking riding lessons. Is this a cut by Nikolai regarding class and status. A very non-egalitarian remark. And it seems to really touch a nerve with Pyotr. Because he's a true believer in the revolution??
"in a quivering and faltering voice, 'you know, Nikolai V, with regard to persons, we'll drop that once and for all, right? You may, of course, despise me as much as you like, if you find it so amusing, but still it would be better not to be personal for a while, right?"
That's where i got a strong feeling that Pyotr is a dangerous man.
See, I'm influenced by the narrator, of course. And I'm influenced by D's remark in the introduction that "Stavrogin is everything."
And yet part of me thinks that perhaps Stavrogin is everything because D will show him as healed in the end... as the man in Luke who is freed of the demons is healed. Part of me thinks that D will develop Stavrogin, in the end, as "a true Russian.'
Of course, because he's Russian, he'll have to suffer a great deal first. Someone somewhere in the book spoke of Russians and suffering.
Adelle wrote: "And yet regarding Pyotr... I don't trust him."That's a good instinct to follow and I think it's one that FMD's original audience would have felt as well. I know that I felt like Pyotr was very slippery and dissembling in his speech on my first reading (and still do). Pyotr bombards his audience, whether a crowd or a single person, with long rambles with frequent non-sequitur asides in which he presumes agreement that isn't necessarily there and shifts the focus toward what he wants rather than what his audience wanted to know.
Regarding the character of Nikolai, I think you're definitely seeing his complexity, which I'm sure is what FMD would want. Knowing everything that is revealed about Nikolai in the novel, I still can't unequivocally call him good or bad. I'm not sure FMD would have wanted to either, but he definitely saw the characteristics in a significant portion of the Russian people.
I think it's really interesting that some of us, and maybe all of us, find ourselves not believing what certain characters say.
As a couple of posters have already written about... there are indications--both obvious and subtle---concerning the probably corrupting foreign influences... ideas, certainly; the events abroad (Switzerland); the affectation of Stepan Trofimovich's heavy use of French.
Possibly the names themselves. i can't be sure, not knowing Russian customs, but when the young are speaking to and referring to one another outside of proper social settings they seem to speak more casually...a foreign influence??? using only one name rather than the two. Pyotr has taken it the farthest. In an earlier chapter he's described as writing instructions to his father as a landowner would write to his serf.
LOL. the worthlessness of foreign influences compared to Russian values even affects the poor:
Fedka the convict reports that "Nicholas the Wonder-worker's pure silver getup went for nothing: they said it was similor" (280),
From the Notes: "Similor" (originally French) is a yellow brass used in making cheap jewelry.
LOL, A true Russian religious artifact would have been pure gold...and valuable.
Possibly the names themselves. i can't be sure, not knowing Russian customs, but when the young are speaking to and referring to one another outside of proper social settings they seem to speak more casually...a foreign influence??? using only one name rather than the two. Pyotr has taken it the farthest. In an earlier chapter he's described as writing instructions to his father as a landowner would write to his serf.
LOL. the worthlessness of foreign influences compared to Russian values even affects the poor:
Fedka the convict reports that "Nicholas the Wonder-worker's pure silver getup went for nothing: they said it was similor" (280),
From the Notes: "Similor" (originally French) is a yellow brass used in making cheap jewelry.
LOL, A true Russian religious artifact would have been pure gold...and valuable.
Thomas wrote at 42: "but who is he now? Marya tels him he's an impostor, a false prince, and he throws her violently away from him *
..."
Wasn't that just a fascinating scene!
..."
Wasn't that just a fascinating scene!
I'm thoroughly enjoying the conversation here. It is almost encouraging me to return to doing battle with this text, which has been languishing for some other "necessary" (view spoiler) reads. Thank you all!
Things really seem to take a dark turn in Book II, don't they? Nikolay Vsevolodovch wants to fight a duel. Kirillov wants to kill himself. Nikolay thinks Pyotr Stepanovich wants to kill Shatov. And Lebyadkin is also afraid of being killed by Pyotr. Death is all around.
