Week 9: Part III, chapters 3 and 4

[Bigollo]

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

I took it as another lie from PV, just to torment his father; he knew his soft spots.

I am more with Aiden's observation in m.44.

D's keen eye may have taken it from his observations of the real life. Some genetic tendencies strike it rich on a generation with favorable circumstance.

They indeed are two chatterboxes that acquired different forms due to different environmental influences.

[Bigollo]

On the dialogue.
I don't find it confusing, but it's changing. Less precise. First of all, the heat of passions is increasing. They more and more talk like cornered gangsters. Actually, it sounds more realistic than when done on stage. Maybe D's trying to make the dead line has also something to do with it. Kirillov out of a sudden started to speak better. Still short, but hard to see real grammatical errors. Well, to write a sentence with subtle grammatical errors in it takes time and effort. Definitely harder that shoot straight one's native tongue.

..And, I still enjoy the dialogue.. I feel like I'm on the street with 'tortured Russian souls', some angry, some depressed, some scared to death. If somebody recorded us secretly when speaking under stress.. oi mama.. we would be even more distressed..

[Gary]

Gary wrote: " ... narrator consistency in Parts II and III got left on the proverbial cutting room floor. It's an interesting conjecture.."

My bad ... I just realized that a discussion on narrator consistency had been going on 3 days ago in Part I, Chs 1-2, which I missed entirely till now. Sorry to have rehashed recently discussed ideas.

[Gary]

Here’s the full sentence that that quote is taken from: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

[Tamara]

Thank you both for the reference. I think Samuel Johnson may have also said it.

[[deleted user]]

Aiden wrote: "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."

I hadn't actually thought that Liza had any expectation of being rescued...indeed, she had seemed to have had a presentiment of some sort, telling Stavrogin that she was "a dead person," that she "had lived [her] hour in the world."

She didn't seem to be consciously courting death as she headed towards the burned town, but maybe it was a subconscious motivation?

I have to say, it had slipped my mind entirely that she had been among the group that went to see the suicide for entertainment. And, yes... surely word of that would have spread among the people and generated ill-will..ill-will toward her and Stavrogin who was also there and perhaps ill-will toward the young elites in general. And maybe, too, they remembered how she had caused something of a scene... perhaps a mockery... when she and others had gone to have "great fun" at the holy fool's. {You know, it wasn't clear to me from the book...but it SEEMED to me, that when Semyon Yakovlevich, the holy fool, turned and said, "F--- you, f--- you!" that it was Lizaveta to whom he was addressing himself. News of that would have spread, too.}

Edit added. Thinking about Chapter 5: I, "Before the Fete" Thank you, Aiden. It was good to re-read. No spoiler.

(view spoiler)[ I had initially taken it as a generous act when Liza donated her diamond earrings at the icon.

But there's another perspective. News had "swept through town of an ugly and outrageous blasphemy" (323). People are upset. Large numbers of people from town had come and crossed themselves and paid their respects and donated. "The crowd was silent.--[they're thinking their truths] the faces significantly somber. A carriage of Liza's group pulls up. Two of her companions "forced themselves through the crowd, rather negligently pushing people aside. Neither took his hat off.. "Murmuring among the people, dull but disagreeable." [Resentment among the people...But what could they do?] One of the men, laughing and talking loudly threw a brass kopeck in.

There must be a good deal of resentment growing in the people.

And then Liza rides up. She "fell on her knees ...right on the dirt sidewalk.' She put her earrings on the plate. "May I?... To ornament the setting?"

She makes it obvious she's not donating to honor the icon. She actually says it's to ornament the setting." {In "A Finished Romance" she tells Stavrogin "my heart was brought up in the opera."}

The earrings are for show. The monks KNOW that she is not donating thru a religious feeling. She let them know. But the church has its corruption, too. Or their financial needs, depending on how one looks at it. (The donations at the holy fool's.) The monk told her it was "permissible...every gift is good."

But the people? "The people were silent., showing neither reproach nor approval."

The people might harbor ill-will towards those who force their way to the front and donate what proportionately costs them little...in effect mocking the gifts of the religious poor. The stories they would later hear of Liza's group at the suicide and at the holy fool's would further their ill-will and resentment.

And maybe Liza's falling on her knees and soiling her dress was a foreshadowing of her fall at Stavrogin's, her physical fall in the town.

Thank you, Aiden! In going back and re-reading the scene, it wasn't, I think, simply that "Stavrogin's woman" may have been the motivation for the murders, but that there may well have been a good deal of pre-existing enmity towards Lizaveta based on her actions back in "Before the Fete." (hide spoiler)]

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "(I would not call the omission of the chapter censorship, since it was an editorial decision of the publisher, rather than a government act.)"

Censorship is censorship, whether it's by the government, editor, publisher or anyone else who isn't the author. The author was forced to re-write his work because someone worried it would be too shocking. (Incidentally, it was obviously meant to be shocking.) If anyone but the author made the decision to change the work, the author has been censored.

[Roger]

Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "(I would not call the omission of the chapter censorship, since it was an editorial decision of the publisher, rather than a government act.)"

Censorship is censorship, whether it's ..."

Doesn't a magazine editor have a natural right to decide what appears in his magazine?

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "She didn't seem to be consciously courting death as she headed towards the burned town, but maybe it was a subconscious motivation?"

Aren't we all subconsciously courting death? I think Freud said something to that effect. Not that he's the most reliable of sources.

And thank you, too. This is why I love a good discussion. I hadn't connected the two events consciously until I was responding to your post.

(view spoiler)[As to both the holy fool and the suicide, I agree that the aristocratic attitude would have been noticed by the people as much by as it was by us. They might accept a system in which they are treated as inferior, but it had to create the usual class resentment. I think both scenes served as great examples of the motives for the mob's later actions.

Honestly, I think you make a good point about Liza, but even on my third reading I still can't say whether she is sincere or not. Perhaps she is sincere in her insincerity in the sense that she doesn't know her callous and performative actions are wrong because it's what's expected of her.

Even on my first read, though, she struck me as a tragic figure more than anything. Sometimes seems as mad as Marya, but she's in a higher class. She goes along like everything's fine, but her noted actions give the sense that she's doomed; which, of course, she is in her world because of her tryst with Nikolai. (hide spoiler)]

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "Doesn't a magazine editor have a natural right to decide what appears in his magazine?"

Of course, the editors and publishers can decide what is printed. As the people putting out the publication, censoring what goes in it is fully within their purview. In plenty of non-democratic places where free speech isn't politically sacred, the government also have a right to censor what gets printed within their sovereignty when it offends them. Just ask Hong Kong about the Chinese.

However, having a "right" to censor, doesn't make it any more or less censorship.

[Roger]

Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "Doesn't a magazine editor have a natural right to decide what appears in his magazine?"

Of course, the editors and publishers can decide what is printed. As the people putting out th..."

What is the difference between censorship and and editorial decision that a submission doesn't suit the publication?

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "What is the difference between censorship and and editorial decision that a submission doesn't suit the publication?"

I would say it’s possibly subjective; however, in this case, the original finished draft of the author’s work was refused, Dostoevsky rewrote the chapter to try to meet the editor’s (read: the government’s) moral standards and was still told it wouldn’t be printed even though the author maintained that it was necessary. Topped by this being so accepted that it has been standard for publishers to print the omitted chapter at the end with an explanation about why it was removed at the original publisher’s insistence.

Keep debating semantics if you want, but subjective or not, I don’t consider the above situation anything other than stifling what the author wanted to say to suit the narrow-minded views and laws of society. Call it what you want, that is what I call censorship.

Now I’m done with this topic.

[[deleted user]]

Aiden wrote @61: "I hadn't connected the two events consciously until I was responding to your post...."

I was glad, too, that your post had prompted me to go back and reread that section. Frankly, until I did, I had wondered whether there was any point to of the day gawking the suicide and having "fun' at the holy fool's. It had seemed to disrupt the flow without contributing towards to the ongoing narrative.

(I kept thinking that the holy fool would make some important 2nd appearance... Why else was he there?)

[Roger]

Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "What is the difference between censorship and and editorial decision that a submission doesn't suit the publication?"

I would say it’s possibly subjective; however, in this case, the..."

I think censorship is deciding what someone else can publish, not what one published oneself.

[[deleted user]]

Mmmm.... since I'm jumping in this morning...I would hold it to be censorship---perhaps justifiable from the publisher's perspective, i.e., the subject matter would be so controversial (??) that the public wouldn't buy the product... And profit being an essential aspect of the business.

[Tamara]

Roger wrote: "What is the difference between censorship and and editorial decision that a submission doesn't suit the publication?"

Roger wrote: "I think censorship is deciding what someone else can publish, not what one published oneself.

I think the distinction is based on goals.

An editor decides whether or not to accept your piece for publication by basing his/her decision on a number of factors: does it suit our press? Is it material that will appeal to the type of audience we have? Is it any good? etc. etc. Ultimately, the decision is based on profitability. Will the piece sell? If the editor rejects your piece, you are free to take it somewhere else to get it published.

Censorship is an entirely different ballgame. It is government-sponsored with the goal of silencing dissent, promoting a specific political agenda to the exclusion of all other ways of thinking and doing, and subjugating the masses by keeping them ignorant of alternatives. The ultimate goal of censorship is mind control of the masses. That is why one of the first actions of an authoritarian government is to squash freedom of speech and clamp down on the press if it doesn't promote the party line.

We don't have to look too hard nowadays to find authoritarian governments censoring the information that gets out to the masses while ruthlessly silencing dissent.

[[deleted user]]

I suppose there are a range of definitions. But certainly not only done by governments. I'd categorize suppression of relevant newstories, etc. by Big Tech as censorship.

From Wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
From Wikipedia.

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "... the subject matter would be so controversial (??) that the public wouldn't buy the product..."

Since it’s basically turned into an academic debate at this point, I would argue that controversy is actually one of the most effective forms of marketing. Look at D.H. Lawrence or more recently 50 Shades of Grey. If the book is available, people want to buy the book just to find the details of the controversy. The only way the book becomes unprofitable is if the government bans its printing and/or jails the publisher/confiscates their press. As we’ve seen in the novel, private printing presses were illegal. Violation of censorship rules lost you the right to a public one.

In this case, the publisher may have been more worried about being sent to Siberia for violating obscenity laws more than editorial considerations. Again, I’m not saying the publisher didn’t have the right or good reason, but that good reason was likely fear of government censorship, and its legal ramifications, in part at least.

[Lily]

I'm amazed. This is the first time I have seen trying to restrict "censorship" to a being a governmental only construct! I figure most of us have encountered it somewhere ourselves in our professional/personal lives if we have been at all forthright!?! Occasionally I even recognize when I should censor myself....

But I still love all the places this discussion has gone. Now if only I had whatever stomach or skills or interests it takes to read D! Oh, well....

[Emil]

Soooo we've opened Pandora's box of censorship. Nice.

All governments (democratic or not) would censor anything they would consider to be dangerous to society or to their institutions. That's something anyone would call censorship.
Any publisher would be reluctant to publish anything unprofitable or dangerous. You could call it editing, but it's also a form of censorship.

It's censorship sometimes necessary? Some would agree, but it's hard to draw a line.
"Huckleberry Finn" contains hundreds of instances of the "n" word and some publishers already removed them. Twain would disagree.
There are several antisemitic comments in "Demons", should we remove them as well?

We could ask John Stuart Mill about it, he has some pertinent opinions regarding censorship.

[Donal]

Emil wrote: "Soooo we've opened Pandora's box of censorship. Nice."

We're on the threshold of Godwin's Law. If the main foreign country in Demons had been Austria rather than Switzerland, I suspect we'd already breached it :-)