Week 9: Part III, chapters 3 and 4

[Roger]

Chapter 3, "A Romance is Ended": It's the morning after, and Lizaveta Nikolayevna realizes that Nikolay Vsevolodovich does not love her and she cannot stay with him. She ran off with him on a whim after Pyotr Stepanovich told her that Nikolay did not disdain her but was preoccupied with a great idea bigger than all of them; Nikolay received her because she was a light to him. Then Pyotr arrives and asks for a private word with Nikolay. Nikolay asks him, "Have they been burnt? Their throats cut?" Pyotr blames the murder on Fedka the Convict, and also denies organizing the arson. He lets Nikolay know the crowd suspects him of murdering his wife. Lizaveta overhears that Marya Timofeyevna is dead, comes in and asks Nikolay if he is responsible. Nikolay admits that he failed to prevent the murder and leaves. Pyotr follows him out and pulls a gun on him, but Nikolay is unafraid. He tells Pyotr to come again the next day. Lizaveta starts walking home and runs into her fiancé Mavriky Nikolayovich, who has been waiting outside all night in the rain. She asks to go see the murder victims. On the way they run into Stepan Trofimovich, who is setting out on a long journey on foot. He kneels before her to say farewell. Lizaveta and Mavriky arrive at the crowd at the murder site. She is recognized as she pushes through the crowd. She is struck, falls to the ground, and is taken away.

[Roger]

Chapter 4, "A Final Decision": At a get-together at Gaganov's the next day, Pyotr casually blackens Yuliya Mikhaylovna's name and reveals her confidences, while playing the fool. However, he is shocked to hear that Nikolay Vsevolodovich has left for Petersburg. That evening he attends a meeting of the revolutionaries--they are upset with him because they were not prepared for the murder and arson. Pyotr browbeats them and lectures them on the need for revolutionary discipline, displaying intimate knowledge of their private affairs from his network of spies. He tells them they are all about to be denounced by Shatov and arrested, and outlines a plan to murder him while Kirillov takes responsibility in a suicide note. They agree, and Pyotr and Liputin go to visit Kirillov. (The narrator mentions in passing that Lizaveta Nikolayevna has died.) Liputin hates Pyotr for his arrogance, but still follows him. Pyotr tells Kirillov that he is to shoot himself the next day. Kirillov holds Pyotr in contempt, but will go through with the deal. Pyotr is surprised to discover that Fedka the Convict eating dinner there. Fedka also holds Pyotr in contempt; he has discovered that Nikolay neither ordered nor wanted the murders. (He also mentions that he cared for Pyotr as a child.) Pyotr pulls his gun on him, but Fedka knocks him down and leaves. Liputin runs home and prepares to flee the country, but somehow finds he cannot leave until after Shatov is murdered. In the morning he learns that Fedka has been found murdered, it is said by an accomplice over money stolen from Lebyadkin.

[Roger]

Opening question: Pyotr Stepanovich has strange powers of persuasion and dissimulation, and many people come to dislike and even despise him. He is often surprised by events. But his schemes keep going forward, and he still commands credence from society and obedience from his fellow-conspirators. What explains his powers?

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Pyotr Stepanovich has strange powers of persuasion and dissimulation, and many people come to dislike and even despise him. He is often surprised by events. But his schemes keep g..."

Good question, and not easy to answer. All I can come up with is based on my experience of Pyotr as a reader, and my experience with the novel as a whole so far. Pyotr is a very entertaining bad guy. He's funny (sometimes) and he's interesting. I expect he draws people to him the way that this book draws readers in, with energy and fascination. This is not necessarily a good thing, and this sensational energy doesn't necessarily make this a good book in my opinion -- but it does keep me reading. I want to see where he's going next, even though I'm sure it's not going to be a morally edifying experience. I suspect that the people around Pyotr are drawn to this negative energy as well.

[Mike]

Perhaps Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky and his followers represent a cult of personality.

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "...I suspect that the people around Pyotr are drawn to this negative energy as well. ..."

I have seen Pyotr (or at least Nechayev) compared with Charles Manson in terms of nefarious charisma.

[Roger]

Mike wrote: "Perhaps Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky and his followers represent a cult of personality."

Pyotr seems to want Nikolay Vsevolodovich to be the titular leader of a cult of personality, as Ivan the Tsarevich.

[Emil]

ORoger wrote: "Opening question: Pyotr Stepanovich has strange powers of persuasion and dissimulation, and many people come to dislike and even despise him. He is often surprised by events. But his schemes keep g..."


His 'powers' are not so efficient on stronger characters like Nikolay or the narrator. I don't think he has tremendous persuasion powers, he's just very good at recruiting weak or vulnerable people.

[Roger]

A lot of scenes in this book seem hilariously satirical--I'm thinking of the revolutionary meeting a in Part II, Chapter 7. But what kind of satire has innocent creatures like Marya Timofayevna brutally murdered?

[[deleted user]]

By and large, he seems to know "who" he has to be with the various characters---although it was noted somewhere that one of his weaknesses was that once he had determined upon his "take" of someone, he never went back and revised it... it simply kept accepting it was true. (I guess he had persuaded himself, too.)

Yulia M, he flatters her and builds her opinion of herself up. She loves it.

Liza, he tells her want she desperately wants to hear... that Nikolai may love her.

Many he controls with the impression that he has powerful connections back in Petersburg.

Liputin (yes?), who might have fled, he convinces thru the murder of Fedka... Liputin realizes the violent retribution Pyotr S is capable of.

I think he's more than Nikolai's sometime right-hand man...but I don't know what.

[[deleted user]]

Back with Varvara, Marya T was given a black shawl; she ends up dead.

Liza has a red shawl; reminds us she's now a scarlet woman.

I feel it was dishonorable of Nikolai to ask, "Why did you ruin yourself in such an ugly and stupid way, and what is to be done now?"


Liza had Nikolai's help in the ruin.


And again, _What Is To Be Done?_

"At the far end of the room the door opened a tiny bit'... stuck there at the threshold where demons might lurk.

"They're burned? Killed?" Oh, no! And I read on in sadness.

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "A lot of scenes in this book seem hilariously satirical--I'm thinking of the revolutionary meeting a in Part II, Chapter 7. But what kind of satire has innocent creatures like Marya Timofayevna bru..."

The death of Liza Nikolaevna is mentioned parenthetically, as if it didn't matter. She's not a major character, but it strikes me as heartless of Govorov to pass over the death of a character so blithely.

Perhaps the satire in the novel is distancing in the way that irony often is, and one of the consequences of this distancing is moral numbness.

[Gary]

Thomas wrote: "Perhaps the satire in the novel is distancing in the way that irony often is, and one of the consequences of this distancing is moral numbness."

This is, I think, an insightful comment. Perhaps Pyotr Stepanovich believes in the "cause," but more likely he's into pulling puppet strings, and his moral sense, if he ever had one, is missing. Nikolay Vsevolodovich, due to his adventurism, spurning of convention, and recklessness is morally numb. This, as much as anything, is what makes these two characters ghastly. I keep looking for redeeming social virtues in these two, but so far haven't found any.

[Roger]

And yet Nikolay makes several attempts to take care of his wife, and refuses to abandon or forget her.

[Gary]

Roger wrote: "And yet Nikolay makes several attempts to take care of his wife, and refuses to abandon or forget her."

There is that. Yet he acknowledges that he acquiesced in her murder, and expresses no regret or sorrow about it. And then takes the next train out of town. Is he capable of love?

[Roger]

We hear that Nikolay left town in Chapter 4. Is he distraught and running away?

[Gary]

Roger wrote: "We hear that Nikolay left town in Chapter 4. Is he distraught and running away?"

It seems I see Nikolay as more callous than others may. I suspect that Marya is a sort of a pet project for Nikolay. He married her not for love but on a bet. Perhaps there's a sense of noblesse oblige here ... but it'd be shallow, like Nikolay. Or perhaps it's a kind of cruel running joke that amuses him, and we know he can be cruel. After one effort to house her in a safe place, he stands by while she's stuck with her alcoholic abusive brother. Yes, he sends an allowance but the money, we've seen, means nothing to him. It's hard for me to see him as distraught at Marya's death. More likely relieved. After all, he did nothing to protect or even warn Marya and her brother about their imminent murder. To my way of thinking, it's most likely he runs to escape from the murder investigation, and maybe to get away from Pyotr too. He runs to avoid and likely in fear, not sorrow.

[Emil]

Thomas wrote: "The death of Liza Nikolaevna is mentioned parenthetically, as if it didn't matter. She's not a major character, but it strikes me as heartless of Govorov to pass over the death of a character so blithely...."

Interesting observation. The narrator is spending tens of pages on the failed fête but barely mentioned that Liza was lynched. She's not a major character but Govorov used to have a "crush" on her, so his apparent indifference is quite peculiar.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "(The narrator mentions in passing that Lizaveta Nikolayevna has died.)”

In passing is right. I had forgotten it was even mentioned with Gororov speculating that Pyotr believed that Shatov would not be able to handle “the death of Liza, the death of Marya” (III.4.2) and had to be killed before he denounced. The narrator barely records Liza’s fate after the mob attacks her viciously.

Given that, as Alice LaPlante wrote, every story with a first person narrator is that narrator’s story, I wonder what his casual mention that a primary character has died, juxtaposed with the report of a lame madwoman’s death, says about Gororov’s feeling about Liza.

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "I feel it was dishonorable of Nikolai to ask, "Why did you ruin yourself in such an ugly and stupid way, and what is to be done now?"

Liza had Nikolai's help in the ruin."

Your observation brings to mind Strindberg’s Miss Julie with the “noble” woman being caught in dalliance with a lower sort and being casually left to hang herself while the valet walks off nonplussed.

[Aiden]

While Dostoevsky definitely deployed his dry, dark humor in describing events that he thought foolish, I think it would be a mistake to read Demons as satirical in the Swiftian sense. Irony is definitely an important theme, but I think it’s a satire closer in character to anticipating the 20th century’s Absurdist fiction. A very cynical sort where pointless, grisly murder is ridiculous rather than horrific.

[Tamara]

I don't know if anyone else senses this, but I just feel the dialogue throughout the novel has been very stiff and unnatural. It's as if the characters are talking at cross purposes--talking at each other instead of to each other. In Chapt. 3, for example, I kept getting the sense that there are gaps in the conversation between the characters--gaps that interrupt the natural flow of dialogue. Either that or they are talking in a code that I don't understand.

Of course, it could be that something is lost in the translation. Alternatively, maybe I'm the only one that senses this and the rest of you don't have the same impression.

[Tamara]

Thomas wrote: "The death of Liza Nikolaevna is mentioned parenthetically, as if it didn't matter. She's not a major character, but it strikes me as heartless of Govorov to pass over the death of a character so blithely."

He also excuses the men who murdered her on the grounds that they were drunk--as if alcohol is a legitimate excuse for their barbaric behavior.

I too, as a spectator, though at some distance, had to give evidence at the inquest. I declared that it had all happened entirely accidentally through the action of men perhaps moved by ill-feeling, yet scarcely conscious of what they were doing—drunk and irresponsible. I am of that opinion to this day.

The narrator is not only unreliable; he is also pretty disgusting.

[[deleted user]]

Roger wrote: "And yet Nikolay makes several attempts to take care of his wife, and refuses to abandon or forget her."

It seems to me that he does make attempts ... and yet also takes no active measures to block her murder.

The actions he takes on her behalf don't seem to engage his heart in the least. ( As Gary pointed out, Nikolai leaves her to live with her abusive, alcoholic brother.)

His marriage was prompted by a bet---but I get the sense that that's not the full measure of his marriage. My sense is he married her---and asked her to move to Switzerland with him---because he believes that thru her he can obtain some sort of absolution. She's his hair shirt, if you will. He makes sure that he wears it, but he doesn't love it.

(It has to do, somehow, I think, with her lameness. 1) She IS lame. 2) Varvara was taken aback when she learned Marya was lame "What! You're lame!" Varvara Perovna cried out, as if totally frightened and turned pale (158). . 3) Leb., the Captain, wrote the poem, "In Case She Broke Her Leg" and Stavrogin responds, "Wha-a-at?" 265. 4) And Liza had made some remark that Stavrogin would be more interested in her if she had a damaged limb.

However, she, Marya, has said that she won't move to Switzerland with him. And back in her quarters he had spoken tenderly to her... but she had a sense of 'horror" about him... "in an instant his face changed." And when she made a move with her hand as though to protect herself, Nikolai "cried out almost in rage.' She called him an impostor and Nikolai left upset. --- And maybe at this point Nikolai realizes he's never going to get what he needs from Marya... and so she's no longer quite the... needful thing... she had been in his life. Maybe the demons DO enter him on the walk home, and he throws the money at Fedka... He objects about the murder to Pyotr.... "technically." But he's aware that the murder will go forward. Nikolai's hands won't be dirty. But his soul will.


Nikolai's saying that he had been against the murder, but hadn't stepped forward to stop it, was, I thought akin to those in earlier chapters who didn't bother to warn others...'Really, what business is it of mine?" The attitude has pervaded the society.

[[deleted user]]

Ah, Aiden, it makes me sad. From a religious perspective---which is a perspective of the book---no one can be 'saved' until they admit their guilt. And here's Stavrogin, pushing any responsibility away from himself... holding that Liza ruined herself....

And was it the sexual act itself that has ruined her? Or is it the public knowledge and what it will do to her reputation?

And IS this their 2nd attempt at love?? Were they previously lovers?

Nikolai: "We'll leave together, this very day, right?'
Liza: "Where...? To 'resurrect' somewhere again?. No, enough trying..." (521).

[Roger]

Tamara wrote: "I don't know if anyone else senses this, but I just feel the dialogue throughout the novel has been very stiff and unnatural. It's as if the characters are talking at cross purposes--talking at eac..."

I too often have trouble following the conversation. Maybe it's because they're tortured Russian souls and not quite coherent, or maybe it's because they're alluding obliquely to things I haven't yet figured out.

[[deleted user]]

Tamara wrote: "I don't know if anyone else senses this, but I just feel the dialogue throughout the novel has been very stiff and unnatural. It's as if the characters are talking at cross purposes--talking at each other instead of to each other. In Chapt. 3, for example, I kept getting the sense that there are gaps in the conversation between the characters--gaps that interrupt the natural flow of dialogue. Either that or they are talking in a code that I don't understand...."

I haven't found the conversations unnatural. But there quite distinctly ARE gaps.

My thinking is that Dostoevsky was making the point of how alone people are at the core. As one character had early observed, [paraphrase]: "Of course, I only saw him from the outside."

There are long, long silences over and over... time during which the characters sit inside themselves with their truths and think about how much truth of themselves they are willing to share with the other....the lies and half-truths seem to roll out of their mouths rather easily at times [Liza: "It was all untrue... but how well he lied to me then"].

Repeatedly, exclamations "escape" from characters, or they "cry out"... when they share something of themselves they would have preferred not to have shared. They often "mumble" and "mutter"... sharing voluntarily...but reluctantly. "the beads began spilling out'

[[deleted user]]

Tamara quoted the narrator:

"I, too, as a spectator, though at some distance, had to give evidence at the inquest. I declared that it had all happened entirely accidentally through the action of men perhaps moved by ill-feeling, yet scarcely conscious of what they were doing—drunk and irresponsible. I am of that opinion to this day.



My take is that the narrator is speaking of all of us/condemning all of us. I think the narrator is maybe speaking of people in crowds, in mobs...ordinary people...caught up in "movements"---"perhaps moved by ill-feeling"/irrationality/emotions---acting "scarcely conscious of what they are doing.'
.
Could be mistaken, but that's how it seems to me.

[Tamara]

Adelle wrote: "My take is that the narrator is speaking of all of us/condemning all of us."

I don't see any condemnation in his statement. He says it "happened entirely accidentally," i.e. no one is to blame. He says men were "scarcely conscious of what they were doing." How can you beat someone to death and be scarcely conscious of what you're doing?

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "And here's Stavrogin, pushing any responsibility away from himself... holding that Liza ruined herself.... "

If it’s acceptance of responsibility from Nikolai you’re looking for, I think that problem will be resolved by the novel’s end. If not sufficiently, the Appendix chapter “At Tikhon’s” that was meant to go at the end of part II contains a lengthy section commonly referred to as “Stavrogin’s Confession” in which NVS is unsparing in his (arguably well-deserved) self-castigation.

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "My take is that the narrator is speaking of all of us/condemning all of us."

I’m actually starting to see the narrator as a pseudo-naive storyteller in the sense that Pyotr is pseudo-naive as he casually reveals other’s confidences. Gororov is very sympathetic to his friend Stepan Trofimovich, but tells the story in such a way that the perceptive reader can look at a character’s behavior and judge for themselves who this character is, sincere or disingenuous, by the results. It seems to me that Gororov was very much a part of the “solon” group and was happy to be even after they started killing each other because now he got to write a tell-all and volunteer as a witness at trial.

Dostoevsky, on the other hand, I do believe was showcasing his pessimistic view of the course of Russian society, especially his despair at the rampant nihilism. Perhaps he does this best by making the narrator “one of the gang” and letting us view the rotten situation from the inside?

Honestly, as I watch half of America will itself out of democracy by undermining voter confidence, it looks like the same nihilism and I share Dostoevsky’s despair.

[Roger]

I see Pyotr Stepanovich as a manipulative and pathological liar.

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "I see Pyotr Stepanovich as a manipulative and pathological liar."

So do I.

[Gary]

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to re-visit our discussion of several weeks ago about the narrator. Ostensibly the novel is chronicle by G__v (Gororov), a third person limited narrator, and initially I took Dostoevsky at his word about this. But Tamara pointed out in Week 4 that the narration changes at times to third person omniscient. This is certainly what happens and there are in fact two narrators. That Dostoevsky changes narrators without transition or context has been criticized as a “narrative irregularity,” and while these contextless changes may be technical flaws, Dostoevsky effectively uses them to "narrow and widen his focus." https://www.jstor.org/stable/23263854... I notice the change whenever my reading radar happens to tell me, in whichever scene, that G__v could — or could not — know what's going on.

[Aiden]

Gary wrote: "This is certainly what happens and there are in fact two narrators. That Dostoevsky changes narrators without transition or context has been criticized as a “narrative irregularity,”

I agree that it's valid to criticize Gororov/FMD's change of style in Part II; however, I don't agree with the two narrators theory. It seems to me that these critics ignore Dostoevsky's explicit use of an intimate and admittedly inexperienced narrator who is shown to be unreliable-- or, at least, biased-- from the very first paragraph:

"As I embark on a description of the very strange events that recently occurred in our town, which until then had not been notable for anything, I am compelled, owing to my lack of experience, to begin in a rather roundabout way, namely, with a few biographical details concerning the talented and much-esteemed Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky." -Maguire tr.

The P&V translation brings some clarity in style, but I think Maguire captures the clumsiness of Gororov's introduction better. In any case, he praises STV, then goes on to tell of STV's actual life and numerous failures which makes him seem far from talented and esteemed and more like a windbag. After that, I don't expect a journalistic account.

The intimacy with which he describes STV suggests that he knows him well and has for quite some time, even knowing about secret letters between he and Varvara. We know STV loves to hear himself speak. I believe it's fair to assume that Gororov is describing the details in Part II as they were related to him by STV and others as it was related to them.

Perhaps Gororov insufficiently signaled this by assuming the third person omniscient point of view, but it seems only natural for relating events he wasn't present for but has learned about. I'm more inclined to write it off to FMD having to make significant changes to Part II after his publisher refused "At Tikhon's" to end that part.

[Tamara]

Aiden wrote: "Perhaps Gororov insufficiently signaled this by assuming the third person omniscient point of view, but it seems only natural for relating events he wasn't present for but has learned about...."

He does more than just relate events he wasn't present for but later learned about. He gets inside another character's head--something that cannot be done in first person narrative. We can't know what goes on inside a person's head unless he/she tells us. Even then, they may not be revealing the truth.

Gororov tells us what others feel, what they think, their interiority. First person narrator cannot possibly know that. He can tell us what people say, what they do, what others have said, i.e. the external stuff. The only point of view able to wander about inside the heads of others is omniscient.

[Tamara]

Gary wrote: "I notice the change whenever my reading radar happens to tell me, in whichever scene, that G__v could — or could not — know what's going on..."

My reading radar bonks me on the head every time it detects an unnecessary shift in point of view.

I can't remember who said consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. If it's true, I plead guilty as charged because the lack of consistency in POV bothers the heck out of me and makes me wonder if Dostoevsky had control of his material.

[[deleted user]]

@29,Tamara Agha-Jaffar | Adelle wrote: "My take is that the narrator is speaking of all of us/condemning all of us."

I don't see any condemnation in his statement. He says it "happened entirely accidentally," i.e. no one is to blame. He says men were "scarcely conscious of what they were doing." How can you beat someone to death and be scarcely conscious of what you're doing?



I can’t negate what you write---how CAN one “accidentally” be beaten to death…?; I’m rather tenuously trying to work out my thoughts as I’m “reading” in this passage.

I’ll try again to find my way through---and perhaps I’m on shaky ground, and perhaps I should have held off posting until I was more sure where I was going. In thinking it through further, it’s likely, I see the condemnation coming from the author, not narrator. The narrator himself is being condemned, I think. But narrator could well be anyone.

The narrator said, ”"I, too, as a spectator, though at some distance, had to give evidence at the inquest. I declared that it had all happened entirely accidentally through the action of men perhaps moved by ill-feeling, yet scarcely conscious of what they were doing—drunk and irresponsible. I am of that opinion to this day.”.

Kinda on one level, the narrator has the people/the crowd/the mob “scarcely conscious of what they were doing.” Epigraph. Their minds weren’t quite working properly…and others were drunk… conditions perfect for demons to enter them and possess them. The mob—not thinking---became something of an animal… and an animal will react without thinking and can do great damage… We don’t morally blame the animal. That’s what animals do. The narrator here seems to be of the opinion that the mob did what a mob will do. Rioters going to riot. And…that opinion removes him further --- in his own self-narrative --- from any responsibility.

But if one steps back a level further, the author seems to be pointing out/(I had used the word “condemning”… and I still “sense” condemnation.) What kind of society does one have if people refuse to step-up?

The author has the narrator describe himself as a “spectator.” IS the narrator a mere spectator in the lives of these characters? Has he no moral duty to participate in life? Does his describing himself as a “spectator” absolve him of any responsibility? He says that he was “at a distance.” Isn’t that convenient for him? Could he not have hurried forward to try to protect her? Could he not have raised a voice on her behalf? “Wait! We don’t know the facts!!” Could he not at least have appealed to “the great majority [of the people who] went on listening silently and motionlessly?” (539). There were perhaps a few moments when the tide might have been turned. I remember there is a chapter entitled “Someone Else’s Sin.” I remember characters proclaiming, “It’s not my fault!” “And really, it was none of my business.”

How much responsibility did Stepan T have regarding Fedka? “Changed my destiny.” For what? So that Stepan could continue to lose at cards like a gentleman?

Yulia had begun to hold herself responsible for some of her actions, but Pyotr talked her out of it. “What, finally are you to blame for? Why go taking blame on yourself?” (498). He gave surface assurance, too, to Nikolai: It’s not your fault.

Pyotr may have mixed in some truth, however, when he said, ”society protects itself…. And what do our fathers of families, wives [etc.] do in such circumstances? Keep mum and sulk. There’s not even enough social initiative to restrain the prankster” (498).

[Tamara]

Adelle wrote: "I’ll try again to find my way through---and perhaps I’m on shaky ground, and perhaps I should have held off posting until I was more sure where I was going. .."

Don't feel you have to be on firm ground before posting, Adelle. We're all trying to find our way through this somewhat unwieldy novel. It's proving to be quite a challenge.
It's interesting to follow your train of thinking as you struggle to make sense of the reading.

[Lily]

I love following you "guys" discussion. I gave up. As one reviewer I finally turned to for another sanity check said, twice over two separate parts: "People don't do this!" But, as duly noted, they do.

And, hard as it is for me to accept, that is part of the awful brilliance of D's voice, even if he did often write to deadlines for that paycheck and may not have provided much more sanity check on his story telling than his characters did on their lives?

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Pyotr Stepanovich has strange powers of persuasion and dissimulation, and many people come to dislike and even despise him. He is often surprised by events. But his schemes keep g..."

Maybe Pyotr's power over others is because he is above them in the organization. He has access to information (or, at least claims to) that is denied them. Since information is power, he exerts his power over them and they follow his orders--albeit reluctantly.

[Emil]

Adelle wrote: "In thinking it through further, it’s likely, I see the condemnation coming from the author, not narrator. The narrator himself is being condemned, I think. But narrator could well be anyone....."

I think we've met most of the characters already. How many of them would you describe both as 'strong' and 'decent human beings'? I really can't find any, it looks like the plot is pushed forward only by wickedness and villainy and the few decent fellows (like the Governor) are incapable of influencing the events.

Does the author holds such a dark view on human nature or it's just that D. is exposing only the dark side of society to express his ideas?

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "I remember there is a chapter entitled “Someone Else’s Sin.” I remember characters proclaiming, “It’s not my fault!” “And really, it was none of my business."

I'd second Tamara's sentiment that you don't need to be on solid ground to post your thoughts. I often find myself posting opinions that I'm completely unsure will hold up, but it continues the discussion.

I liked your comparison of nobody intervening in Nikolai's scandal to nobody intervening to stop the mob. It does seem like aristocratic attitude was to watch situations unfold disinterestedly rather than doing anything, so why should Liza expect someone to risk their life for her now?

It also brings to mind the callousness of the group, including Lizaveta, who go to view the scene of a fresh suicide for entertainment in II.5.2. It makes the mob's supposition of why Liza is there plausible at least.

[Aiden]

Tamara wrote: "Maybe Pyotr's power over others is because he is above them in the organization."

That is probably true of the revolutionaries and fellow travelers, but he does seem to be influential on everyone. I think his influence on other people has to do with a combination of fast talking, threats and his impeccable reputation with the (I assume) fictional Count K who the aristocrats trust since he is one of them.

Essentially, Pyotr knows how to play people to get them to believe about him whatever he wants by telling them what they want to hear. It actually seems like a perfection of his father's skill of getting important people (or at least Varvara) to believe he is a great scholar and thinker despite laziness or drunkenness being his biggest accomplishment.

[Roger]

Could the national revolutionary organization that Pyotr Stepanovich represents just be the product of his imagination, something he made up to give himself power over other people? Remember back in Part II, Chapter 6, he said to Nikolay Vsevolodovich "The central committee is me and you."

[Gary]

Roger wrote: "Could the national revolutionary organization that Pyotr Stepanovich represents just be the product of his imagination, something he made up to give himself power over other people? Remember back i..."

I think the "organization" is a fiction that Pyotr uses to promote his image and authority with his "five." Is there just the one "five" or are there others? It almost doesn't matter because his position, whether with one or more, is still a lie — and the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed. Likewise, his position with the Lembkes is built on the lie of his relationship with Count K.

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "Could the national revolutionary organization that Pyotr Stepanovich represents just be the product of his imagination, something he made up to give himself power over other people? Remember back i..."

Liputin seems to suggest something similar in Part III, Chapter 4:

I even think that instead of many hundreds of quintets in Russia, we are the only one that exists, and there is no network at all," Liputin gasped finally.

[Gary]

Tamara wrote: " ... the lack of consistency in POV bothers the heck out of me and makes me wonder if Dostoevsky had control of his material. "

I feel the same way.

Aiden wrote: “I'm more inclined to write it off to FMD having to make significant changes to Part II after his publisher refused "At Tikhon's" to end that part.”

Dostoevsky may have taken shortcuts just to get the novel over with after a key chapter was hacked off by the censors. He was writing under deadline and had a publisher's schedule to meet. Maybe he cut corners, and narrator consistency in Parts II and III got left on the proverbial cutting room floor. It's an interesting conjecture.

[Gary]

By the way, did anyone else notice a while back that Pyotr suggested to Stepan Trofimovich that he is not his biological father?

[Roger]

We'll be discussing the omitted chapter, "At Tikhon's," in week 12, a couple of weeks from now. Then we'll see if it changes our understanding of Nikolay Vsevolodovich. (I would not call the omission of the chapter censorship, since it was an editorial decision of the publisher, rather than a government act.)