Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Dostoyevsky, Demons
>
Week 4: Part II, chapters 1 and 2
date
newest »
newest »
Adelle wrote: "And yet...This is not in synch w the book... but in "Night," Alexei Yegorovich, the valet, enters Nikolai's study...and I couldn't help myself...I pictured him with a British accent, "Very good, ..."
They were separated at birth.
LOL. But I thought about it overnight.
You know, even as I wrote that, I knew it seemed "out of place." And yet it had seemed important enough to me to write. But why?
This morning, I'm thinking it's that the relationship between Nikolai and Alexei evokes something emotionally of the relationship between Alfred and Bruce Wayne.
In both cases, the young men were, in fact or in effect, orphans. Stepan emotionally abuses Nikolai. His mother seldom speaks with him and stares morbidly at him. Alexei has been the long-time family servant who has "formerly taken care of Nikolai V and used to dandle him in his arms" (231). Alexei has spent much time with Nikolai V "in the garden.... the winding paths they both knew by heart." {Might this symbolize the winding paths of Nikolai's life... That he hasn't always walked the 'straight and narrow path,' but Alexei's heart has been with him through it all?)
Alexei may well be the only significant influence on Nikolai towards Russian religious matters. Stepen is too sophisticated to be a believer. He's probably an atheist. Varvara attends church...but she's not there for God. She's there to be seen and for her position in the community to be affirmed.
But Alexei... "a serious and stern man, who liked hearing and reading about things divine." He's the ONLY person thus far who has invoked God's name in a form in which he is calling on God for action.
"God bless you, sir, but only setting out upon good deeds.'
Nikolai pauses. Will Alexei's words make a difference in Nikolai's actions this night?
One more thought. Symbolically, Outside, there's "exceedingly heavy" rain, there's mud and the streets are "intolerable," the wind howls and sways the trees, the paths...the "narrow paths' we are commanded to walk are "swamped and slippery," and it's dark, dark, dark (230).
This represents Nikolai's life right now. How will he manage to find his way through?
Maybe with the influences of Alexei. "Alexei Yegorovich went just as he was, in a tailcoat and bareheaded, lighting the way for some three steps ahead with the lantern."
You know, even as I wrote that, I knew it seemed "out of place." And yet it had seemed important enough to me to write. But why?
This morning, I'm thinking it's that the relationship between Nikolai and Alexei evokes something emotionally of the relationship between Alfred and Bruce Wayne.
In both cases, the young men were, in fact or in effect, orphans. Stepan emotionally abuses Nikolai. His mother seldom speaks with him and stares morbidly at him. Alexei has been the long-time family servant who has "formerly taken care of Nikolai V and used to dandle him in his arms" (231). Alexei has spent much time with Nikolai V "in the garden.... the winding paths they both knew by heart." {Might this symbolize the winding paths of Nikolai's life... That he hasn't always walked the 'straight and narrow path,' but Alexei's heart has been with him through it all?)
Alexei may well be the only significant influence on Nikolai towards Russian religious matters. Stepen is too sophisticated to be a believer. He's probably an atheist. Varvara attends church...but she's not there for God. She's there to be seen and for her position in the community to be affirmed.
But Alexei... "a serious and stern man, who liked hearing and reading about things divine." He's the ONLY person thus far who has invoked God's name in a form in which he is calling on God for action.
"God bless you, sir, but only setting out upon good deeds.'
Nikolai pauses. Will Alexei's words make a difference in Nikolai's actions this night?
One more thought. Symbolically, Outside, there's "exceedingly heavy" rain, there's mud and the streets are "intolerable," the wind howls and sways the trees, the paths...the "narrow paths' we are commanded to walk are "swamped and slippery," and it's dark, dark, dark (230).
This represents Nikolai's life right now. How will he manage to find his way through?
Maybe with the influences of Alexei. "Alexei Yegorovich went just as he was, in a tailcoat and bareheaded, lighting the way for some three steps ahead with the lantern."
I forgot to include that the "narrow paths' were of "sand.'
Sand shifts. Nikolai lacks a firm foundation on which to walk.
Sand shifts. Nikolai lacks a firm foundation on which to walk.
Oh, man! I so want to re-read this book in a few years!
Adelle wrote: "LOL. But I thought about it overnight.You know, even as I wrote that, I knew it seemed "out of place." And yet it had seemed important enough to me to write. But why?
This morning, I'm thinking..."
How does Stepan Trofimovich emotionally abuse Nikolay Vsevolodovich? Did he do it in his childhood?
Roger wrote: "How does Stepan Trofimovich emotionally abuse Nikolay Vsevolodovich? Did he do it in his childhood?."
Yes, I was referring to Nikolai's childhood---from when Nikolai was 10 to when he was 16; and Stepan T was (from my reckoning) 33 to 38 or 39. Stepan T..." constantly in need of a true friend" (40) ... "he did not hesitate to make a friend of such a small being."
"More than once he awakened his ten- or eleven-year-old friend at night only to pour out his injured feelings, not noticing that this was altogether inadmissible. They used to throw themselves into each other's embrace and weep."
"But in any event it was good that the youngling and the mentor, though none too soon, were parted in different directions" (41).
After Nikolai V has been away at school, he was somehow more reserved; "he obviously refrained from talking with [STV] about ... memories of the past" (41).
His mother enrolls him in the Horse Guard.
And then he seems to begin acting out.
Yes, I was referring to Nikolai's childhood---from when Nikolai was 10 to when he was 16; and Stepan T was (from my reckoning) 33 to 38 or 39. Stepan T..." constantly in need of a true friend" (40) ... "he did not hesitate to make a friend of such a small being."
"More than once he awakened his ten- or eleven-year-old friend at night only to pour out his injured feelings, not noticing that this was altogether inadmissible. They used to throw themselves into each other's embrace and weep."
"But in any event it was good that the youngling and the mentor, though none too soon, were parted in different directions" (41).
After Nikolai V has been away at school, he was somehow more reserved; "he obviously refrained from talking with [STV] about ... memories of the past" (41).
His mother enrolls him in the Horse Guard.
And then he seems to begin acting out.
Adelle wrote: "Roger wrote: "How does Stepan Trofimovich emotionally abuse Nikolay Vsevolodovich? Did he do it in his childhood?."Yes, I was referring to Nikolai's childhood---from when Nikolai was 10 to when h..."
I see, thanks.
So...no spoilers. This is a book that generates theories and suppositions. I feel these are supported as possible by the text. But they may be "too far out there" and you might want to skip them. But they ARE my thoughts on the book.
(view spoiler)
Regarding "corners." 1) So I'm reading I'm reading Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward, and there's a character reading from Tolstoy... a story about a shoemaker and his apprentice. A squire comes by to order shoes, but tells the shoemaker that if the shoes are wrong, the next leather comes out of the shoemaker's own skin. The apprentice gave a strange smile "because he had seen something over there in the corner behind the squire's back."
The apprentice goes and cuts the leather. Too small...The shoemaker is worried. But word comes that the squire died on his way and no need to make the boots. Make smaller slippers instead for the corpse.
A demon or spirit in the corner? It struck me because Tolstoy was also a Russian author.
(view spoiler)
Regarding "corners." 1) So I'm reading I'm reading Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward, and there's a character reading from Tolstoy... a story about a shoemaker and his apprentice. A squire comes by to order shoes, but tells the shoemaker that if the shoes are wrong, the next leather comes out of the shoemaker's own skin. The apprentice gave a strange smile "because he had seen something over there in the corner behind the squire's back."
The apprentice goes and cuts the leather. Too small...The shoemaker is worried. But word comes that the squire died on his way and no need to make the boots. Make smaller slippers instead for the corpse.
A demon or spirit in the corner? It struck me because Tolstoy was also a Russian author.
The novel seems to have a lot of sidebars that don't advance the plot. They seem to be there just to reveal character. They take up a lot of space.
Roger wrote: "The novel seems to have a lot of sidebars that don't advance the plot. They seem to be there just to reveal character. They take up a lot of space."
They do take up space...but I think the novel is about the influence of Western ideas and influences on the Russian character, and I think it's also about renewal--- (references to "a new man," etc.). And it's about authenticity ... and how not being authentic ... corrupts or degrades a person. Alexei Y "went out just as he was" (230), So many of the other characters are playing roles... Pyotr says so outright. Varvara P is concerned with her image... Stepan has his own self-narrative going about who he is.
And it's about redemption in some religious sense, I think. There are so many times various characters exclaim, "It's not my fault!"/"It's someone else's sin."/etc. (36, 80, 105, 147, 157, more).
And I don't think they can be healed/redeemed/"saved" until they admit they admit their guilt. Isn't that the religious premise? At this point, I wonder about Stepan T. He's proclaimed at least twice "It's not my fault!" But then on page 92, Stepan says, "I'm so guilty!" So...maybe there's hope for him.
They do take up space...but I think the novel is about the influence of Western ideas and influences on the Russian character, and I think it's also about renewal--- (references to "a new man," etc.). And it's about authenticity ... and how not being authentic ... corrupts or degrades a person. Alexei Y "went out just as he was" (230), So many of the other characters are playing roles... Pyotr says so outright. Varvara P is concerned with her image... Stepan has his own self-narrative going about who he is.
And it's about redemption in some religious sense, I think. There are so many times various characters exclaim, "It's not my fault!"/"It's someone else's sin."/etc. (36, 80, 105, 147, 157, more).
And I don't think they can be healed/redeemed/"saved" until they admit they admit their guilt. Isn't that the religious premise? At this point, I wonder about Stepan T. He's proclaimed at least twice "It's not my fault!" But then on page 92, Stepan says, "I'm so guilty!" So...maybe there's hope for him.
Thinking about Kirillov.
Kirillov is the happiest person in the book. His home has "light shining and laughter could be heard" (232). Real laughter--- not the bitter or cynical laughter of some of the other characters.
Kirillov says "Everything is good." And that "Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy." Kirillov says he's happy.
And he waxes poetic about the little green leaf with life (Reminded me of Brothers K.)
And yet he's says he'll commit suicide at the convenience of others.
Why?
Kirillov is the happiest person in the book. His home has "light shining and laughter could be heard" (232). Real laughter--- not the bitter or cynical laughter of some of the other characters.
Kirillov says "Everything is good." And that "Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy." Kirillov says he's happy.
And he waxes poetic about the little green leaf with life (Reminded me of Brothers K.)
And yet he's says he'll commit suicide at the convenience of others.
Why?
Adelle wrote: "Thinking about Kirillov. Kirillov is the happiest person in the book. His home has "light shining and laughter could be heard" (232). Real laughter--- not the bitter or cynical laughter of some o..."
I perceive Kirilov as the saddest character in the book.
Kirilov says he's happy because he wants to convince himself he's happy.
At the first glance it makes sense from an existentialist perspective. Our happiness is created by our consciousness, so knowing or believing we're happy makes us happy.
He's fabricating his happiness with this circular reasoning and he's completely aware of it. It doesn't work like this. His awareness is like a mirror showing him that his happiness is only a trick.
Anyway that's just my (current) opinion, I may be wrong.
Emil wrote: "I perceive Kirilov as the saddest character in the book...."
So you "forced" ;-) me to go back and re-read that section. Twice as it were. So I've tried to read sad because I loved your reasoning.
On the "sad" side, I notice that "Kirillov squatted down in front of his suitcase in the corner, which was still not unpacked" (235).
"...his black, lusterless eyes" Maybe the fact that he gives equal attention to the woman sick for three days and to the ball from Hamburg. And that he says he loves children---but spoke "quite indifferently" That's quite a bit that could be sad.
But I still return the beginning of V. "The entryway and the first two rooms were dark, but in the last room, where Kirillov lived and took his tea, light was shining and laughter could be heard"--- And he's not playing a role there for an audience. And there's been no light or real laughter in the book until now. (232). And he's playing ball with the baby. "Kirillov ran to pick it up." Kirillov "confirmed with pleasure" that the tea was hot. He "never noticed his destitution." The leaf...
It could very well be that Kirilov pays special attention to the life-affirming aspects of life because he knows life will be over for him. Sad.
And then...he "says" he's happy and truth seems important to Kirillov. {Later, he presses for the truth in his back-and-forth with PSV.}
I think Plato or Socrates (?) had made an argument that when man wasn't good, it was because man didn't know what the good was. Kirillov's argument about the good reminded me of that.
But perhaps he isn't happy, as he ends his argument upset, with an exclamation point. "That's the whole thought...there isn't any more!"
Who's the girl and who wants to possibly violate her?
Liza? Or the lame girl? Why?
:-) I find myself asking "Why?" repeatedly in this book.
So you "forced" ;-) me to go back and re-read that section. Twice as it were. So I've tried to read sad because I loved your reasoning.
On the "sad" side, I notice that "Kirillov squatted down in front of his suitcase in the corner, which was still not unpacked" (235).
"...his black, lusterless eyes" Maybe the fact that he gives equal attention to the woman sick for three days and to the ball from Hamburg. And that he says he loves children---but spoke "quite indifferently" That's quite a bit that could be sad.
But I still return the beginning of V. "The entryway and the first two rooms were dark, but in the last room, where Kirillov lived and took his tea, light was shining and laughter could be heard"--- And he's not playing a role there for an audience. And there's been no light or real laughter in the book until now. (232). And he's playing ball with the baby. "Kirillov ran to pick it up." Kirillov "confirmed with pleasure" that the tea was hot. He "never noticed his destitution." The leaf...
It could very well be that Kirilov pays special attention to the life-affirming aspects of life because he knows life will be over for him. Sad.
And then...he "says" he's happy and truth seems important to Kirillov. {Later, he presses for the truth in his back-and-forth with PSV.}
I think Plato or Socrates (?) had made an argument that when man wasn't good, it was because man didn't know what the good was. Kirillov's argument about the good reminded me of that.
But perhaps he isn't happy, as he ends his argument upset, with an exclamation point. "That's the whole thought...there isn't any more!"
Who's the girl and who wants to possibly violate her?
Liza? Or the lame girl? Why?
:-) I find myself asking "Why?" repeatedly in this book.
Adelle wrote: "So you "forced" ;-) me to go back and re-read that section. Twice as it were. So I've tried to read sad because I loved yo..."I had to carefully re-read the section in the light of your comment.
I’ve labeled every sentence and I found pride, goodness, cynicism, indifference, despair and melancholy. Not soooo much sadness. I guess the feeling I perceived was only my own sadness while reading this section.
I’m trying to objectively describe his state of mind and I suppose that what he sees as happiness is actually contentment. I still believe that his theory cannot make him genuinely happy. It looks like he also forgot his reasoning, so his present state of mind cannot last for long:
“When did you find out you were so happy?”
“Last week, on Tuesday, no, Wednesday, for it was Wednesday by that time,
in the night.”
“By what reasoning?”
“I don’t remember;
Regarding the laughter heard from his room, I thought it belongs to the little girl:
“It had only just been taken out of the cradle. It seemed to have just been crying; there were still tears in its eyes. But at that instant it was stretching out its little arms, clapping its hands, and laughing with a sob as little children do.”
Anyway I'm looking forward to meeting him again, maybe our questions would be answered in the end.
Emil, you've done brought me 'round to your perspective!
Through your quote of the little girl "laughing with a sob" (232).
My translation reads "laughing ....with a choke in its voice."
Ha. You know those drawings that show two different things---like the old woman/young woman...but the viewer only sees one or the other? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f1G6...
I saw the shining light and the laughter... and read the rest of that section with that perspective. I didn't see Kirillov as ha, ha happy... but... as something like philosophically "happy"... centered.
Before, I read "Here nothing was locked, or even closed," and I had read it as Krillov as not going to live in fear... lol, like the Buddha probably doesn't lock his doors.
NOW, I read it as Krillow doesn't lock them because he can't bring himself to really care if someone uninvited comes in, come what may.
Before, I read "The entryway and the first two rooms were dark, but in the last room, where K lived, light was shining" as emphasizing that where K was, his being there lightened life.
NOW, I read it as the entry and other rooms were dark because K doesn't care or finds it not worth the effort to light the house.
Before, I read the laughter as coming from K and the "strange little cries" as coming from the little girl.
NOW, with your emphasis, it occurs to me that K himself was not laughing.... but that the cries AND the laughter all came from the little girl.
And yes, seeing the opening differently then shapes how I read the rest of that section. I still see him as "philosophical"... but differently than I had.
Through your quote of the little girl "laughing with a sob" (232).
My translation reads "laughing ....with a choke in its voice."
Ha. You know those drawings that show two different things---like the old woman/young woman...but the viewer only sees one or the other? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f1G6...
I saw the shining light and the laughter... and read the rest of that section with that perspective. I didn't see Kirillov as ha, ha happy... but... as something like philosophically "happy"... centered.
Before, I read "Here nothing was locked, or even closed," and I had read it as Krillov as not going to live in fear... lol, like the Buddha probably doesn't lock his doors.
NOW, I read it as Krillow doesn't lock them because he can't bring himself to really care if someone uninvited comes in, come what may.
Before, I read "The entryway and the first two rooms were dark, but in the last room, where K lived, light was shining" as emphasizing that where K was, his being there lightened life.
NOW, I read it as the entry and other rooms were dark because K doesn't care or finds it not worth the effort to light the house.
Before, I read the laughter as coming from K and the "strange little cries" as coming from the little girl.
NOW, with your emphasis, it occurs to me that K himself was not laughing.... but that the cries AND the laughter all came from the little girl.
And yes, seeing the opening differently then shapes how I read the rest of that section. I still see him as "philosophical"... but differently than I had.
Adelle wrote: ..."Ha. You know those drawings that show two different things---like the old woman/young woman...but the viewer only sees one or the other?I really like your analogy. FMD is playing tricks on us, we've gathered so much information but we still have no idea whats going on.
LOL, We're over halfway through and we STILL don't know what's going on.
Great book.
Great book.
Adelle wrote: "Great book."While reading your and Emil’s comments, I thought the same thing. Dostoevsky wrote the first two parts with such depth and ambiguity to keep his readers interested in his motivation-mystery play and draw them in. The fact that you two can read a section and justify very different readings of a character (and I feel like both readings of Kirillov have merit) shows that he succeeded.
Aiden wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Great book."While reading your and Emil’s comments, I thought the same thing. Dostoevsky wrote the first two parts with such depth and ambiguity to keep his readers interested in h..."
And why D is a very demon to read, to understand, to comprehend for my mind! Sort of like the concocted rebuttal videos used in the impeachment defenses today. Or Russian history itself.
Lily, But engaging, yes? I find in reading mysteries I generally try to read quickly and my main question is "And then what?" I'm not trying very actively to determine Who Done It?
But with this book, D has really drawn me in and forces me to engage and my perpetual question seems to be "What does it mean?" [Man's Search for Meaning, right?]
D forces me to engage in labor.
But with this book, D has really drawn me in and forces me to engage and my perpetual question seems to be "What does it mean?" [Man's Search for Meaning, right?]
D forces me to engage in labor.
Adelle wrote: "D forces me to engage in labor..."To what end? (purpose? objective?)
Lily wrote: "Adelle wrote: "D forces me to engage in labor..."
To what end? (purpose? objective?)"
To discover what one thinks.
When one has to struggle with the meaning of a book---such as this one where one is not simply reading quickly, quickly, Tell me more, Tell me more, one inevitably constructs/draws/mines some sort of meaning from reading. Perhaps not the meaning the author had intended. Perhaps a meaning the reader himself wasn't aware of before reading.
(Also, you know.... I'll remember the book better. The De Vinci Code ... A FAST read. I don't remember the characters in much detail and not much of the plot in detail....I never find myself thinking back on either... . I'm mostly left with the sensation ("the feels"): That was a good read. I.E. a fun read.)
To what end? (purpose? objective?)"
To discover what one thinks.
When one has to struggle with the meaning of a book---such as this one where one is not simply reading quickly, quickly, Tell me more, Tell me more, one inevitably constructs/draws/mines some sort of meaning from reading. Perhaps not the meaning the author had intended. Perhaps a meaning the reader himself wasn't aware of before reading.
(Also, you know.... I'll remember the book better. The De Vinci Code ... A FAST read. I don't remember the characters in much detail and not much of the plot in detail....I never find myself thinking back on either... . I'm mostly left with the sensation ("the feels"): That was a good read. I.E. a fun read.)
and I couldn't help myself...I pictured him with a British accent, "Very good, Master Bruce." I couldn't help seeing him as Batman's Alfred.