Week 5: Part II, chapters 3, 4, and 5

[Roger]

Chapter 3, "The Duel": Nikolay Vsevolodovich and Gaganov exchange three shots. It seems that Nikolay misses deliberately. He is very slightly wounded. Gaganov is unhurt, and leaves ashamed and just as enraged as he was before. On the road home, Kirillov tells Nikolay that he should have either not challenged or killed his man. "You're not a strong person," he says.

[Roger]

Chapter 4, "All Wait Expectantly": After the duel, Nikolay Vsevolodovich becomes very popular in society. The governor's wife, YULIYA MIKHAYLOVNA VON LEMBKE, is planning a subscription event to benefit governesses--literary readings, lunch, and a ball. Varvara Petrovna agrees to help with the event. Pyotr Stepanovich visits his father Stepan Trofimovich to tell him Yuliya wants him to read at her gala. While there, he goes out of his way to be insolent and insulting; Stepan grows angry. We then learn a little about the background of the governor, ANDREY ANTONOVICH VON LEMBKE. He comes from a middle-class background, but went to a very good school and made connections. At 38 he married the 40-year-old Yuliya, who is much more ambitious and somewhat controlling. Hard thinking is difficult for him and has been forbidden by doctors. Now he is annoyed because Pyotr has become a favorite of Yuliya's. He tries to engage him in friendship and is rewarded with insolence and condescension.

[Roger]

Chapter 5, "Before the Gala": A circle of young people has formed around Yuliya Mikhaylovna and Pyotr Stepanovich. They are involved in planning the gala, and also do a lot of partying and traveling around. Liputin and Lyamshin are prominent, especially in bad jokes and tasteless pranks, which gets them banned by Yuliya. A icon is vandalized; Lizaveta Nikolayevna donates her diamond earrings to the repair. The narrator is asked to join a group of young folks on a lark; Pyotr, Nikolai, Lizaveta, Mavriky Nikolayevich, and Lyamshin are there. First they visit the scene of a recent suicide and view the body, then they visit a local holy fool/soothsayer. Lizaveta almost slaps Nikolay when he gets hear her. Varvara Petrovna summons Stepan Trofimovich to her country house, where she is preparing a grand ball to show up Yuliya. Varvara informs Stepan that she will support him with 3000 roubles a year, and that he should stay away. She now despises their 20-year relationship. She no longer believes in art or charity, only in new ideas. She advises him to read something lighthearted and short at Yuliya's gala. Stepan says he will spurn her support and go live on his own or starve. She dares him to.

[Roger]

Opening question: Varvara Petrovna seems to have gone through a great change. What has caused this? Is it for the better, or for the worse?

[Gary]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Varvara Petrovna seems to have gone through a great change. What has caused this? Is it for the better, or for the worse?"

The change seems to be mainly in her relationship with Stepan Trofimovich, but this is a change we’ve seen coming. At the infamous Sunday gathering, Varvara Petrovna, exasperated by Stepan’s underhanded letters to Nikolai, Pyotr, and Darya "suddenly turned to him, her eyes flashing, 'please be so good as to leave us right now, and henceforth never step across the threshold of my house.'" Though she’s been frustrated and angry with him before, he crossed a line by thwarting her will. From her perspective “unforgivable” offenses of his such as making moon eyes at her are one thing, this is quite another.

Throughout, Varvara Petrovena cares most for one thing — her prestige, high reputation, and influence in provincial society. So far her patronage of Stepan Trofimovich as her resident intellectual has been an ornament to her standing. But now that Julia Mikhaylovna has made the “new ideas” fashionable, Varvara must change with the times. She thinks Stepan is not up to it; after all, he discouraged her from dedicating herself to a new Petersburg magazine. This is ironic in that it was Stepan Trofimovich as tutor who introduced these same new ideas to Nikolai, Shatov, and Darya. He even has a collection of new idea radical tracts but he’s lazy and has never read them.

Is the change for the better or the worse? Varvara’s relationship with Stepan has been unravelling for long time, so perhaps it’s best the cord is cut. Will the break last? Given their 20-year history together and Varvara's changeableness, I have to wonder about that.

[Mike]

I think the change in Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina is related to her patronage of artists coupled with her unforgiving nature and something to do with Pyotr Stepanovich for which she is holding Stepan Trofimovich responsible.

[[deleted user]]

Roger wrote: "Chapter 3, "The Duel": Nikolay Vsevolodovich and Gaganov exchange three shots. It seems that Nikolay misses deliberately. He is very slightly wounded. Gaganov is unhurt, and leaves ashamed and just..."

1) It almost seemed that Nikolai V was looking for, or was accepting of the idea of, "suicide by duel." Back in "Night," after a "long, three-minute-long, thoughtful silence" Nikoalai V said to Kirillov, "I, of course, understand shooting oneself" (235).

Yet he also says that if there were no duel, he would simply end up killed by Gagavov---a man who seems to look for and embrace and treasure being offended. A Russian man at odds with being Russian---couldn't bear Russian history; the dueling rules are seemingly French.... Kirillov suggests Gaganov doesn't need to follow French rules. Gaganov rejects that suggestion.

Does "The Duel" also bring in the dual cultures---Russian and French/Western---of the upper class?

So why wouldn't dead simply killed someway by Gaganov suffice? Does Nikolai V want death on his own terms? Does he see more honor in death by duel some other death? Does his self-regard demand it?

(2) Roger, regarding the quote, 'You're not a strong person." That surprised and puzzled me. i had thought Stavrogin WAS a strong person.

Every chapter seems to leave me with more questions.

[Gary]

My previous thoughts about Stavrogin seem to have been rash. In this week’s reading he appears to be a proper and well-born gentleman. At the duel, where I expected him to be hard-hearted and murderous, he was civil and peaceable. During the visit to the holy fool and the side stop at the hotel, he was reserved, respectful and well-behaved compared to others in the party. Even the town folk who had judged him harshly after the ear-biting incident (which was after all the grounds for the duel), now see him as a noble (not-to-mention, wealthy) local aristocrat. I’ll be surprised if that impression lasts among the townspeople, but for now there it is.

[Thomas]

Kirillov points out that Nikolai is seeking a burden, and that is why he refused to fire at Gaganov. Nikolai is surprised that Kirollov understands this about him, but neither really explains what the "burden" is, or why he is seeking it. ("The Duel" section III)

I'm not sure what the burden is, but this is not the first time Nikolai has made life more difficult for himself by going against the grain.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "My previous thoughts about Stavrogin seem to have been rash. In this week’s reading he appears to be a proper and well-born gentleman. At the duel, where I expected him to be hard-hearted and murde..."

LOL. But we only know what we know.

It's akin to baking a cake following step by step the directions...
But the directions read: "Pour mixture into a baking pan."
So we do that...
And then next line reads, "But FIRST add 2 eggs to the batter.'
So we have to keep going back to correct.

[[deleted user]]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Varvara Petrovna seems to have gone through a great change. What has caused this? Is it for the better, or for the worse?"

I like Gary's take on Varvara P's umbrage when people don't give in to her will. (I think she earlier was angry when Darya was not sufficiently "grateful.")

And I like Mike's take, too. Pyotr S seems to be spreading disinformation. (But, oh, so charmingly.)

Yet people have complex motivations. I think another aspect is the immense relief Varvara P feels when Yulia M speaks regarding Nikolai.

Recall Varvara P has been carrying dread for some time. When she learned that the young woman she invited into her carriage was "lame,"...."she cried out as though totally frightened and turned pale" (158).

Now, after Yulia's statement building Nikolai up, the lame girl is no longer an issue in society. ":Let there be a hundred lame girls---we were all young once!" (299).

First the general changed expectations of Nikolai, and then Yulia M's statement further changed expectations and changed society's view of him... he's now "the new man" (298) and" Varvara P was most triumphant of all!"

I think an aspect of her change is that she's so grateful. Yulia's words "had lifted much anguish from her heart" (300).

Question. At the start of the chapter, "Lizaveta N herself answered directly that she was engaged." It's assumed..."incidentally...[without] any doubts"... that she was engaged to Mavriky N. Yet Liza doesn't actually address that. Might Liza believe herself engaged to Nikolai?

[Gary]

Varvara dismisses Stepan at the end of Chapter 5 with a nasty zinger about Stepan's 2,000+ letters: "Your every letter to me was not written for me but for posterity. You were a stylist, not a friend, and friendship is merely a glorified word, essentially a mutual outpouring of slops ... " That had to hurt : (

[Bigollo]

Yes, Varvara was especially cruel to ST in that dialogue (some dialogue!).
The letters. And the money! She was basically throwing it at Stepan and then even daring him not take it, seemingly just for mere humiliation and degradation of ST.
Though, the narrator says, "Who knows, perhaps she wanted to cry, but indignation and caprice once again got the upper hand".
And once again one wants to ask, who pulls the strings on all of us?..

[Bigollo]

Gary wrote: "Varvara dismisses Stepan at the end of Chapter 5 with a nasty zinger about Stepan's 2,000+ letters: "Your every letter to me was not written for me but for posterity. You were a stylist, not a frie... friendship is merely a glorified word, essentially a mutual outpouring of slops ...."

If I'm not mistaken, she is quoting here Pyotr, with exact same word 'slops'.

[Roger]

Consider the suicide that the group goes to see in Chapter 5. It's a young man who was entrusted with a large amount of money by his family. He blows it all in couple of days of riotous living and then shoots himself. Was he a nihilist?

[Thomas]

I read the suicide as a comment on the heartlessness of LIzaveta, Nikolai, Pyotr, Lyamshin, et al -- the crowd that gathers to gawk. The suicide is an entertainment for them, just as the visit to the holy fool is. The one intelligent comment (made by an unnamed lady in the group):

"Why have we got so many people hanging or shooting themselves as if we'd jumped off our roots, as if the floor had slipped from under everyone's feet?" The raisonneur was given unfriendly looks.

[Gary]

Thomas wrote: "Kirillov points out that Nikolai is seeking a burden ... Nikolai is surprised that Kirollov understands this about him, but neither really explains what the "burden" is, or why he is seeking it."

The burden is intriguing. What is it? Here are some thoughts about it.

Stavrogin escaped death in the duel and chose to go on living. Is living itself the burden? Kirillov, who has already made his peace with death, says the burden is easy for him, but harder for Stavrogin. The counter to the idea the burden is living is that Stavrogin says others expect him to carry burdens they do not.

By letting Gaganov live Stavrogin has made a bitter enemy even more bitter and more dangerous. Another "officer and gentleman" would have taken the shot and relieved himself of a vindictive enemy. Is this his burden?

Is the burden more general and only incidentally related to the duel? A number of central characters look to Stavrogin for inspiration, leadership and direction; in my opinion he seems to have a kind of hold over them. Is this a part he is condemned to play, but also seeks? Could this be the burden?

From what was recounted to us of Stavrogin’s former life, we have been led to believe that he was amoral, a profligate, a sensualist (perhaps even a sadist), a thrill-seeker, a gambler, and a philanderer. Does he seek, perhaps even need, sensation, even shame and anguish, and is that his burden?

Or is the burden yet to be revealed? We are still in the dark about what happened in Switzerland. Is Stavrogin carrying some responsibility from, or guilt about, what happened there? Is this the burden others expect him to carry?

Any other ideas?

[Tamara]

I'm wondering if Nikolai harbors some sort of morbid death wish. Maybe his burden is he wants to die but is unable/unwilling to take his own life. Maybe that's why he intentionally does not aim at Gaganov in the duel. Does he want/hope that Gaganov will relieve him of his misery by ending his life? He certainly sounds depressed and carries a lot of guilt about past behavior.

[Bigollo]

I am not sure if the word 'burden' in English has very close connotation as it does in Russian, so maybe I will say something trivial - then you'll forgive me, and if not - then just for the sake of extra clarity:

In Russian, in this context, the closest synonym to the word 'burden' is 'the cross', the very cross Jesus once was carrying, and now we all have our own symbolic crosses (or burdens) through life -Our own problems, our roles in this life , if you will.

In colloquial Russian a dialogue may happen, 'How you doing?' "Well, ... ", and the other person starts complaining about this and that, about his/her life essentially. "Well, we all are doomed to carry our burden (or cross), don't we?". Isn't it same way in English?

Nikolai maybe feels plenty of strength inside but does not know how and where to apply it. So far his strength brings trouble to others. And because of that he is suffering. Burden is also suffering, but at least it has a purpose, the best we can hope for in this life. And yes, other people (Pyotr) seem to know what Nikolai's destiny is here, or want to ascribe it to him (for their own goals). Nikolai does not want to buy it, and does not want any resolute moves in the flow of life, so that not to hurt somebody again inadvertently. Under the circumstances, in the duel, his actions were the best choice he could come up with. That's more or less how I feel about it.

And if Kirillov does not care if he's dead or alive, no wonder there's no heavy burden for him. Had he had a family, for instance, a suicide wouldn't be that easy for him as well, or HE would be a monster, not Stavrogin. Even if he performed it as an accident.

[[deleted user]]

Thank you, Bigollo. I was raised Baptist, and heard often, "Everyone has his cross to bear." Probably others recall it as well. I don't think it's as common anymore. In any case, I hadn't made the association of burden with the cross, so thank you much.

[Bigollo]

Adelle wrote: "Thank you, Bigollo. I was raised Baptist, and heard often, "Everyone has his cross to bear." Probably others recall it as well. I don't think it's as common anymore. In any case, I hadn't made the ..."

It's not that common in modern Russian as well. But I'm sure in the time of the novel it was very common. The idea of the cross can also be associated with the concept of repentance/punishment. Maybe that's what Nikolai meant saying, "... seeking a burden"? Note that he was laughing saying that, as if he was a bit ashamed of saying that, being a nihilist or what not, but not a Christian.

[Roger]

I suppose nihilists have no burdens, because nothing matters to them.

[Bigollo]

Roger wrote: "I suppose nihilists have no burdens, because nothing matters to them."

Yes. True nihilists (existing probably only in our idealized constructs). And who is Stavrogin? We still are only guessing. I thought that maybe that line of his indicated that some 'christian' thought/feeling was knocking in his heart.

That's the problem, I think, that was bothering FD in general. We, humans, can't be that simply identified: This one is a nihilist, that one is a Christian etc. People escape any strict definition. Our being is just very contradictory in itself. What's more with FD, it seems to me, through his characters, he is trying to show that people mostly don't really know who they are, they sort of are always in the process. And moreover, they often don't even understand their actions, and explain them afterwards only to feel good about it. Some characters know who they are, what they want, and almost always in control. And, it's funny, those characters, at least in the realm of FD, are monsters.

[Thomas]

Bigollo wrote: "I am not sure if the word 'burden' in English has very close connotation as it does in Russian, so maybe I will say something trivial - then you'll forgive me, and if not - then just for the sake o..."

Very interesting. I think it has been pointed out that one of the words in his name, "stauros", means cross. When Nikolai takes the slap from Shatov, he turns the other cheek; he refuses to fire at Gaganov because he doesn't want to kill, and his tenderness for a lame girl all look like Christian or at least charitable actions. But he never expresses Christian or charitable reasons for doing these things. On the contrary, he may be doing them for self-destructive or masochistic reasons.

[Roger]

Maybe Nikolay Vsevolodovich tried to be a nihilist but just wasn't very good at it. Maybe he wasn't strong enough.

[Jen]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Varvara Petrovna seems to have gone through a great change. What has caused this? Is it for the better, or for the worse?"

Has she, though? At the beginning, she's offering money to Darya, but putting conditions on it and telling her exactly how she expects her to spend it. Now she's offering ST 3000 rubles to go away. Her goal may have changed, but she still seeks to control people through money.

[Bigollo]

Thomas wrote: "I think it has been pointed out that one of the words in his name, "stauros", means cross. When Nikolai takes the slap from Shatov, he turns the other cheek... he may be doing... ... for self-destructive or masochistic reasons."

Yes, Aiden mentioned that the root of the name Stavrogin comes from the Greek word 'stavros' - cross. Taking into account that Russian traditional Christianity is a continuation/heredity of the Byzantine (Greek speaking nation) Orthodox Christianity, that makes sense.

And yes, Stavrogin seems to be one of the most complex characters (they all sort of are) in the novel. I think we won't be able to put a definite label on him until very end of the book, if at all. 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. The duel was won by her (his heart) imho... Self-distructive/masochistic causes are probable too.. We'll see..

[Roger]

Who vandalized the icon? Isn't Lizaveta Nikolayevna's piety and humility charming, kneeling in the mud in front of it and taking the diamond earrings off her ears to help pay for its restoration?

[Aiden]

A word about 19th century Russian nihilism, because I think it may be misunderstood as simply caring about nothing. Below are three definitions from Miriam-Webster of “nihilism”:

1a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

I think that all three are useful, since the nihilistic atmosphere can be understood in all three ways in Demons. In general, the Russian population demanded change in the 1840s and that forced the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 as well as other reforms. After the reforms, Russia was left with a weakened aristocracy and an increasingly unsatisfied and emboldened populace. This is the context for the nihilism in the novel.

While most people agreed that the system had to change in the ‘40s, they didn’t agree on plenty else. What replaced the slave economy/society was a secondary concern and that’s where political doctrines come into play as more than theory in the 1860s (the next generation) with Marxism, capitalism, socialist utopias and various other thoughts coming in from the West and spreading internally.

Some people, anarchist revolutionaries especially, were political nihilists in the 2 sense of the word. They saw a corrupt system built on corrupt foundations and wanted to destroy it just to get rid of it. It’s not that they didn’t care about anything or have any beliefs, so much as that they didn’t let the lack of coherent plan following their goal of bringing down the tyrants stop them.

There were also people who were very certain of what they wanted to follow, but dismissed traditional values for their future system. These were political/moral nihilists in the 1b sense who reject the possibility of objective truth, but are determined to create their own “truth” to form their better future. This sometimes went astray as with Nietzsche’s Super-man who forges his own reality without care for others.

The 1a definition is probably the most commonly thought of when people hear nihilist, but the existential nihilistic belief that life is meaningless and pointless isn’t the only way it should be thought of here. I would say Nikolai’s actions in the duel showed nihilism in the philosophical sense, but Gaganov’s rage might be more nihilistic in general with his inability to see sense in life or death matters.

I read the duel and Gaganov as a sort of parody of Russian aristocracy. The powerful (Gaganov, Varvara, Praskovya Ivanovna, the von Lembkes) were outraged at how their fortunes had changed with loss of land and free labor. However, much like Gaganov’s complaint that Nikolai hasn’t satisfied him with an apology because he doesn’t think Nikolai took his outrage seriously, their offense cannot be redressed to their satisfaction because they would rather die than accept their new situation. They couldn’t articulate why they should have so much control and respect, but they were outraged at their loss and found it unacceptable. Nikolai, unlike his mother, seems to simply not care.

To the talk of Nikolai’s burden, consider how difficult it must be to continue to live when you believe life is suffering without meaning.

[Roger]

Kirillov seems to be nihilistic in sense 1a, with all his talk about suicide.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "Kirillov seems to be nihilistic in sense 1a, with all his talk about suicide."

I’m not sure I would call his suicide nihilistic because he is just fulfilling a goal (apparently, he didn’t want to live past a useful age). However, I agree that metaphysical nihilism does seem consistent with his words and actions. He doesn’t even care whether his own suicide has meaning. Seems to just be ready to get it over with.

[Gary]

Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "Kirillov seems to be nihilistic in sense 1a, with all his talk about suicide."

I’m not sure I would call his suicide nihilistic because he is just fulfilling a goal (apparently, he d..."

Kirillov is still something of a mystery to me. His intention to kill himself strikes me as an entirely intellectual one. He logically arrived at the conclusion that he should die by his own hand, whether for a cause or not is incidental. His clarity is appealing, but I wonder if an intellectual decision by itself is enough to actually do the ultimate deed.

[Thomas]

Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "Kirillov seems to be nihilistic in sense 1a, with all his talk about suicide."

I’m not sure I would call his suicide nihilistic because he is just fulfilling a goal (apparently, he d..."

He appears to be an imperfect nihilist if he has a goal (yet to be revealed, I assume.) I'm still not sure what nihilsim is in this context, but it seems a prime subject for satire. Kirillov strikes me as a kind of clown anyway, a Shakespearean fool who speaks truth to those blinded by egotism. e.g., admonishing Nikolai for not firing at Gaganov because, well, it's improper and disrespectful not to fire at your opponent in a duel.

[Gary]

Roger wrote: "Who vandalized the icon? Isn't Lizaveta Nikolayevna's piety and humility charming, kneeling in the mud in front of it and taking the diamond earrings off her ears to help pay for its restoration?"

Speaking of not understanding a character ... we keep getting mixed messages about Lizaveta. She seems to be one thing on the surface in society, but there are other currents that run deep in her. It's my view that she tries to conform to social expectations, but not always successfully. Her engagement to Mavriky Nikolavich is an instance of the former, but is likely not where her heart lies. It seems that she and Stavrogin are somehow connected, probably more so in her mind than his. I'm thinking there's tragedy ahead for this threesome.

[Tamara]

Gary wrote: "It seems that she and Stavrogin are somehow connected, probably more so in her mind than his.."

I think you're right in thinking there is a connection between Stavrogin and Lizaveta.

Stavrogin seems to me to be the clue behind the other characters. They all revolve around him. We know the connection between him and Marya, but it's still not clear to me why he married her. Winning her in a bet doesn't seem much of a reason. Also, the conversation between him and Darya was totally confusing to me. They seem to have some sort of understanding with each other, but I have no idea what it was about.

[Aiden]

Thomas wrote: "He appears to be an imperfect nihilist if he has a goal..."

Kirillov is enacting certain principles of nihilistic philosophy by determining "with sound mind" to end his life for arbitrary reasons. I'll leave further discussion on that for later though, since his overall actions/plans are more clearly articulated in later sections.

I should also note that there were revolutionaries who called themselves Russian Nihilists during these times. These would I think bear the "imperfect nihilist" label well. Basically, they were more like committed anarchists than political nihilists, but they co-oped the label to adopt an air of ambiguity.

[Bigollo]

I have a question on Kirillov, a popular figure in this thread.

He speaks funny. Maybe somewhat resembling a foreigner, but not in terms of accent, he's accent is presumably all right, he's Russian after all. Yet he butchers grammar sometimes, confuses word order, modalities, tenses - exactly how one who learned another language when adult. And his butchering is usually very slight and speech understandable (I hope as my writing in English here is). And not all the time, but in waves, time and again. One might think that maybe the Broca's area in his brain is ever so slightly compromised.

And here is my question: Do you, reading the book in English, notice that?

It's very hard to translate. I have a copy in English translated by P/V couple for reference.. I checked Kirillov's lines in that translation a couple of times - did not see any flaws. Maybe I chose the wrong lines, maybe my English is not good enough to detect the distortion. I was thinking of checking more lines of Kirillov's, but then it dawned on me - it would be much more interesting and quicker to ask you guys.

And, of course, the second question, more to the spirit of this forum, follows from the first one: Why do you think FD would endow this particular character with such.. idiosyncrasy?

[Roger]

Bigollo wrote: "I have a question on Kirillov, a popular figure in this thread.

He speaks funny. Maybe somewhat resembling a foreigner, but not in terms of accent, he's accent is presumably all right, he's Russia..."

I for one noticed nothing unusual about Kirillov's language.

As for why it should be slightly off--clearly because a demon has entered him.

[Gary]

Bigollo wrote: " ... Kirillov, a popular figure in this thread ... he butchers grammar sometimes, confuses word order, modalities, tenses - exactly how one who learned another language when adult. And his butchering is usually very slight and speech understandable ..."

This is a nuance that doesn't come through in the P/V translation. Kirillov's speech patterns would be yet another element in his portrait. Thank you for pointing out something we would otherwise miss in translation.

[Thomas]

Bigollo wrote: "I have a question on Kirillov, a popular figure in this thread.

He speaks funny. Maybe somewhat resembling a foreigner, but not in terms of accent, he's accent is presumably all right, he's Russia..."

Kirillov in the P/V translation speaks in abrupt sentence fragments, almost non-discursive, like he doesn't want to be bothered with speaking in whole sentences. I don't hear anything foreign in his language though. He has the tone of an impatient man, someone who has no doubts about what he thinks and he is annoyed by anyone thinking otherwise. That's the impression I get anyway.

Thanks for the interesting detail, Bigollo.

[Tamara]

Bigollo wrote: "I have a question on Kirillov, a popular figure in this thread.

He speaks funny. Maybe somewhat resembling a foreigner, but not in terms of accent, he's accent is presumably all right, he's Russia..."

I have both the Garnett and the MacAndrew translations. I didn't notice anything odd about his speech patterns, either. It's a pity the difference in speech patterns is not evident in the translations. It might have given us a clue as to understanding his character. I wonder if it's significant.

[Aiden]

Presumably this type of loss in translation is why Garnett is often criticized for losing the prose styles of the Russian masters in favor of her own. She might not have even noticed the loss.

Given how skilled a writer FMD was, it’s likely that more such subtleties would be noticed by a Russian-speaker reading a Russian copy of his work. Feel free to point them out when you see them. I’m with other commenters in finding it a great benefit to the discussion.

Incidentally, I didn’t notice anything unusual about Kirillov’s word choice either. He is; however, a rather important character, so the more tools we have to understand him, the better. We know Kirillov has returned from living abroad to die in Russia. If his speech seems foreign to Russian ears, it could definitely be intended.

[Bigollo]

Aaah, I’ve found something (no wonder I felt itchy in the depth of my memory).

It’s at the end of Chapter 3(VIII). Govorov and Kirillov (from P/V version):

“And tell me, if I may ask, why do you speak Russian not quite correctly? Can it be you forgot in your five years abroad?”
“Do I, really, incorrectly? I don’t know. No, not because of abroad. I’ve spoken this way all my life… it makes no difference to me.”

Isn’t "I’VE SPOKEN THIS WAY ALL MY LIFE" noteworthy?

Anyway, perhaps it does not add much, but I feel better now that it’s not just me – Govorov noticed that too.

[Tamara]

Great catch, Bigollo!

[[deleted user]]

Nicely done!

[Aiden]

You called our group’s attention to something FMD obviously wanted to be noticed, Bigollo. I thank you. We should definitely consider it when we get to the book as a whole to puzzle out its significance.

[Donal]

Dostoyevsky attended the International Peace Congress Geneva in 1867 and had some interesting things to say.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=vLvq...

Marthe Robert quotes him as also saying "revolutionaries of all shades are all the same, and liberals, however refined, seductive, or benign they might have appeared in his time, were ultimately accomplices in the odious and stupid crimes committed or preached by the present apostles of nothingness (néant) ”.

[[deleted user]]

Donal wrote: "ultimately accomplices in the odious and stupid crimes committed or preached by the present apostles of nothingness (néant) ”.
o ..."

Dostoevsky indicts them quite strong in Chapter 7 "With Our People"

(view spoiler)[ The major, a liberal, "I confess I rather adhere to a humane solution," the major said {thereby virtue signally he's a humane man with the proper feelings}, but since it's all, I'll be with the rest...it's solely not to disrupt" (408). Why does he not stand up for his stated principles, but instead, simply cave, and go along with the group?

Mmmm. He doesn't wish to "disrupt" a group of twenty, but is willing to go along with disrupting the lives of millions??? (hide spoiler)]