The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoevsky Collection
>
Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Week 1 - Part I, Books One and Two
Mod
Actually, it was my very lame attempt at trying to be facetious. It seems that I have failed miserably. I was playing off of Everyman warning me that the narrator was completely unreliable.
Nemo wrote: "I think John 12:24 is "Christianity In a Nutshell". I'm not sure whether people are seriously interested in in-depth discussions about religion."It would certainly be a shame if they weren't, Nemo, since "Grand Inquisitor" is probably one of the greatest discussions of religion in modern literature, and perhaps all time. Not to mention that Dostoyevsky's Christian identity is essential for a multifaceted appreciation of the book.
Mod
Christopher wrote: "John wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Ye Gods, you people have entirely too much time on your hands if you're ferreting out these little nuances about who the hell the narrator is. I guess that I am ju..."Speaking of authorial tone, that would be the second time today that I've misread what someone else was trying to say. Patrice can claim the first.
I hope that you didn't find my posted questions an intrusion into the discussion, and that people will either ignore them totally or use them as signposts in their own internal dialogue of what's going on in the book.
message 56:
by
Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.), Founder
(last edited Nov 09, 2010 08:34PM)
(new)
-
added it
Mod
Not at all, John. You are doing just fine here. Carry on, carry on, please. I am simply 'clueless in Seattle' when it comes to nuance in this novel (so far). I'm a slow learner, but once I get up a head of steam, look out.
John wrote: "Christopher wrote: "John wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Ye Gods, you people have entirely too much time on your hands if you're ferreting out these little nuances about who the hell the narrator is. ..."
Feel free to dive in John. As you've probably figured out by now we tend to be outspoken and free ranging. All previous attempts to corral this herd have been unsuccessful, but the resulting discussions are worthwhile anyway. :)
Feel free to dive in John. As you've probably figured out by now we tend to be outspoken and free ranging. All previous attempts to corral this herd have been unsuccessful, but the resulting discussions are worthwhile anyway. :)
Adelle wrote: "Great info. BTW, my translation is also Constance Garnett."If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winning and deservingly so. Garnett wore a lot of prejudice on her sleeve, not to mention just plain eliding some of the passages she didn't know how to translate, or making them more colloquial.
Kate wrote: "John wrote: "Christopher wrote: "John wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Ye Gods, you people have entirely too much time on your hands if you're ferreting out these little nuances about who the hell the n..."To paraphrase Will Rodgers, "I don't belong to an organized book club, I'm a member of The Readers Review!"
Please forgive the housekeeping. I'm moving folders around and renaming them before Chris catches me and takes away my moderator hat. Hope this isn't too disruptive. :)
Mod
What precisely are you doing, Kate? ;-)
John wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Great info. BTW, my translation is also Constance Garnett."
If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winn..."
Feel free to browse through this thread and the other one on BK. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the various translations. We're using a mix and the differences will probably provide some interesting points of debate as we get further in.
If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winn..."
Feel free to browse through this thread and the other one on BK. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the various translations. We're using a mix and the differences will probably provide some interesting points of debate as we get further in.
Christopher wrote: "Kate wrote: "Please forgive the housekeeping. I'm moving folders around and renaming them before Chris catches me and takes away my moderator hat. Hope this isn't too disruptive. :)"
What precis..."
Putting Karamazov and Bede into their own folders instead of the generic "Group Reads" which was getting cluttered.
What precis..."
Putting Karamazov and Bede into their own folders instead of the generic "Group Reads" which was getting cluttered.
Patrice wrote: ".I'm not sure what you're getting at here.."
I guess I'm looking for something to explain Fyodor. Something to explain why he's such a terrible person.
As we see him now, he's so irreligious that I can't imagine him visiting the monastery or the elder...except perhaps to make that 1000 rubles donation, but that would have been fairly recently, and it was made to the monastery.
Yet Fyodor says he knows the elder's residence, the hermitage, is on the other side of the grove, but that he hasn't been there in a long time and has forgotten the way.
Maybe, as Everyman suggested, Fyodor had visited the elder a long time ago kind of touristy-like.
It is possible that the monastery itself might be a place for him to have seen, though the narrator says "it had not been distinguished by anything in particular". It seems one goes to the elder, at the hermitage, for a reason. "Pilgrims flocked" The Fyodor I see is no pilgrim.
So I wonder---smile, maybe too much---if there was some crises a long time ago in Fyodor's life that prompted him to go see the elder. I have to wonder if at some early point in his life Fyodor was religious enough to go see the elder. Obviously Fyodor hasn't been living as a man with any religious leanings for a long time. Did he have some terrible crisis in his life a long time ago? What might it have been?
OK, she said laughingly, I'm possibly reading too closely between the lines. But that passage snagged my attention and made me question. If Fyodor wasn't born evil, maybe this was a clue as to what had shaped him.
OK, I'll look at John's posted questions. BTW, I appreciated how he ended his post: "Note them, too," as the narrator on more than one occasion used the same wording: "this, too, should be noted" (21), "I beg the reader to note this" (24), etc.
I guess I'm looking for something to explain Fyodor. Something to explain why he's such a terrible person.
As we see him now, he's so irreligious that I can't imagine him visiting the monastery or the elder...except perhaps to make that 1000 rubles donation, but that would have been fairly recently, and it was made to the monastery.
Yet Fyodor says he knows the elder's residence, the hermitage, is on the other side of the grove, but that he hasn't been there in a long time and has forgotten the way.
Maybe, as Everyman suggested, Fyodor had visited the elder a long time ago kind of touristy-like.
It is possible that the monastery itself might be a place for him to have seen, though the narrator says "it had not been distinguished by anything in particular". It seems one goes to the elder, at the hermitage, for a reason. "Pilgrims flocked" The Fyodor I see is no pilgrim.
So I wonder---smile, maybe too much---if there was some crises a long time ago in Fyodor's life that prompted him to go see the elder. I have to wonder if at some early point in his life Fyodor was religious enough to go see the elder. Obviously Fyodor hasn't been living as a man with any religious leanings for a long time. Did he have some terrible crisis in his life a long time ago? What might it have been?
OK, she said laughingly, I'm possibly reading too closely between the lines. But that passage snagged my attention and made me question. If Fyodor wasn't born evil, maybe this was a clue as to what had shaped him.
OK, I'll look at John's posted questions. BTW, I appreciated how he ended his post: "Note them, too," as the narrator on more than one occasion used the same wording: "this, too, should be noted" (21), "I beg the reader to note this" (24), etc.
Christopher wrote: "Ye Gods, you people have entirely too much time on your hands if you're ferreting out these little nuances about who the hell the narrator is. I guess that I am just taking Everyman's word and rel..."
As I, too, am into nuance, lol, I appreciate all the religious references (God, hell, prayer) in your declaration. Nicely done.
As I, too, am into nuance, lol, I appreciate all the religious references (God, hell, prayer) in your declaration. Nicely done.
Mod
Hmm, glad to oblige. I never thought of it that way. I think that it is a bit of Fyodor Pavlovich rubbing off on me--you know, the "buffoon" part. ;-)
John wrote:Why do we need to be told who the hero is? Is Alexei really such an ineffective hero that he needs to be identified?
..."
I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? Yes, I'm fairly sure he's the main character, as the book begins with him (made me think of Aeshylus putting the most important word as the very first word).
..."
I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? Yes, I'm fairly sure he's the main character, as the book begins with him (made me think of Aeshylus putting the most important word as the very first word).
message 68:
by
Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.), Founder
(last edited Nov 09, 2010 09:15PM)
(new)
-
added it
Mod
..."
I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky a..."
Having become quite the student of Aeschylus, I am interested in what you consider the "most important word as the very first word." I just looked at several translations of "The Oresteia" that I own, and I don't get your drift. Is this literally? or metaphorically? Help me out.
John wrote: "On the very first page of Chapter One, Dostoevsky talks about role-playing. This idea will recur throughout the novel. Why is it important?
..."
I did notice that and found it intriquing.
The story of the girl who committed suicide, in part, perhaps, because it fit her image of herself; Adelaide marrying Fyodor... I loved that line, "Adelaide's marriage was also, no doubt, an echo of other people's ideas" (18).
Fyodor with his self-awareness that he's "playing" the fool, the buffoon.
It seems to me that Dostoyevsky has quite effectively drawn these characters for us early in the novel, so that Zossima's statement, posted somewhere above--- ["Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others" (49)]---strikes the reader deeply.
Importance? mmmm. I might venture that to the degree that the characters are living a role, a lie, "an echo of other people's ideas," to that degree they are not living their own lives, they are not living as individuals in a true sense...they're posing their way through life, trying, perhaps, to escape the responsibility of being themselves. ???
Like the agreements that Ivan made of his own free will without having made the effort to learn the facts of his finances, the characters, maybe, might be viewed as having agreed to roles/to live with the blinders of self-deception, because it's easier than making the effort to truly look at themselves, to shape themselves. A somewhat rough analogy: Even if the road isn't going where you want to go, it's easier to follow the road then carve out a path for yourself.
I would just add, that if the characters, the brothers specifically, are symbols, then they aren't individuals. That might be an important point, too.
..."
I did notice that and found it intriquing.
The story of the girl who committed suicide, in part, perhaps, because it fit her image of herself; Adelaide marrying Fyodor... I loved that line, "Adelaide's marriage was also, no doubt, an echo of other people's ideas" (18).
Fyodor with his self-awareness that he's "playing" the fool, the buffoon.
It seems to me that Dostoyevsky has quite effectively drawn these characters for us early in the novel, so that Zossima's statement, posted somewhere above--- ["Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others" (49)]---strikes the reader deeply.
Importance? mmmm. I might venture that to the degree that the characters are living a role, a lie, "an echo of other people's ideas," to that degree they are not living their own lives, they are not living as individuals in a true sense...they're posing their way through life, trying, perhaps, to escape the responsibility of being themselves. ???
Like the agreements that Ivan made of his own free will without having made the effort to learn the facts of his finances, the characters, maybe, might be viewed as having agreed to roles/to live with the blinders of self-deception, because it's easier than making the effort to truly look at themselves, to shape themselves. A somewhat rough analogy: Even if the road isn't going where you want to go, it's easier to follow the road then carve out a path for yourself.
I would just add, that if the characters, the brothers specifically, are symbols, then they aren't individuals. That might be an important point, too.
I am interested in what you consider the "most important word as the very first word." I just looked at several translations of "The Oresteia" that I own, and I don't get your drift. Is this literally? or metaphorically? Help me out.
Literally. (Pause while I look up the word "metaphorically.") Literally...maybe.
Yeah, I don't know Greek, so I got this information from the footnotes: "Aeschylus likes to begin a play with a solemn and resounding word: [Agamemnon begins with 'The gods']; Suppliants starts with 'Zeus' (Zyuse)" (Lloyd-Jones 27).
Mmm, maybe NOT the most important word. I have to admit that I was thinking, especially, of The Illiad which begins with the word "anger," [and that seemed such an important aspect of the play to me] but I rememberses now that that wasn't Aeschylus, it was Homer.
Thanks for asking for clarification. Apparently it helped clarify matters for me, too!
Literally. (Pause while I look up the word "metaphorically.") Literally...maybe.
Yeah, I don't know Greek, so I got this information from the footnotes: "Aeschylus likes to begin a play with a solemn and resounding word: [Agamemnon begins with 'The gods']; Suppliants starts with 'Zeus' (Zyuse)" (Lloyd-Jones 27).
Mmm, maybe NOT the most important word. I have to admit that I was thinking, especially, of The Illiad which begins with the word "anger," [and that seemed such an important aspect of the play to me] but I rememberses now that that wasn't Aeschylus, it was Homer.
Thanks for asking for clarification. Apparently it helped clarify matters for me, too!
John wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Great info. BTW, my translation is also Constance Garnett."
If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winn..."
But I already spent that 75 cents, she whined.
(Also, I'm enjoying it. However, should I read TBK again some time, I'll search out the P&V translation at the library. Thanks for the recommendation.)
If it's not too late for anything, I would heartily recommend Pevear and Volokhonsky's translationm which is prize-winn..."
But I already spent that 75 cents, she whined.
(Also, I'm enjoying it. However, should I read TBK again some time, I'll search out the P&V translation at the library. Thanks for the recommendation.)
message 72:
by
Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.), Founder
(last edited Nov 09, 2010 10:29PM)
(new)
-
added it
Mod
In my humble opinion, some of that 'first word' business was perhaps more related to getting people in their seats and to shut up, than to make some profound statement.
For example, in "Agamemnon", the watchman on top of the roof (e.g., Fagles translation) probably screamed out, at the top of his lungs, "Dear Gods,...set me free from all the pain," more to get people settled in the amphitheatre than anything else.
Having said all of this though, Adelle, I take your point. In The Iliad it is RAGE that is the dominant word and emotion that opens Book One. The Iliad could be equally be entitled "The Rage of Achilles" couldn't it? Again, you bring up a wonderful literary relationship here--could there, in fact, be a relationship among one or more of the brothers with their father that borders on that rage felt by Achilles?
Great comments everyone and a very good start to this complex novel! Kudos! Patrice wrote: "Life humbles us and suffering is a great equalizer. It can motivate us to become better people...."
That is a religious concept and one which was popular at the time but I don't agree that suffering can makes us into better people and his spell in Siberia certainly didn't make Dosteovsky into a better person, according to his contemporaries. Beating children or making them go to bed without food was once thought to 'do them good' but we now know otherwise. In general, people have grown kinder towards each other since ordinary life became easier and less 'dog eat dog'.
As Kate pointed out in post 58 on the Epigraph 'the post WWII western world wasn't one that found value in suffering, nor was it particularly interested in questions of faith' so this concept of suffering being a good thing, which is one which Dosteovsky labours, is one that some of us may have difficulty in coming to terms with. Dosteovsky was writing of a Hobbesian world when 'the life of man [was] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short', when the Rights of Man and the 'pursuit of happiness' had not yet been written into Constitutions.
.
Adelle wrote: "..."I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? ..."
In Chapter 3 D writes:-
'It is of that brother Alexei I find it most difficult to speak in this introduction. Yet I must give some preliminary account of him, if only to explain one queer fact, which is that I have to introduce my hero to the reader wearing the cassock of a novice.
Adelle wrote: "Patrice wrote: ".I'm not sure what you're getting at here.."I guess I'm looking for something to explain Fyodor. Something to explain why he's such a terrible person.
As we see him now,..."
Adelle, this is a very thoughtful post. And, from what you've written, I don't believe I am quite as far along as you are (I only started this evening, and just finished Book I).
However, I must say that I don't see Fyodor as an irreligious man at all. Dostoyevsky stresses several times that, even though he calls him a "buffoon," that he's not stupid. I thought the conversation that he had with Aloysha about "hooks" in Heaven was very telling. I think Dostoyevsky might be trying to say that Fyodor has pondered those old Scholastic questions ("How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?") and come to his own conclusions. If he IS irreligious, he's certainly not thoughtlessly so. If he isn't, perhaps he just doesn't have the existential courage of his convictions like Alyosha seems to have.
MadgeUK wrote: "Great comments everyone and a very good start to this complex novel! Kudos! Patrice wrote: "Life humbles us and suffering is a great equalizer. It can motivate us to become better people...."
..."
I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one, and isn’t even particularly religious. Thinkers as secular as Susan Sontag have suggested it throughout their writing, though I don’t think that many religious traditions are wrong to emphasize it, too. You mention the case of children. You’re right: suffering doesn’t make children “better people.” Why is this? Because children can’t see past the “pain” or the “suffering.” They’re not sophisticated enough to be able to look it in the eye, incorporate it into their own experience, and try to transcend it.
I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel concept, which conditions people to accept suffering and not to fight against it. It conditioned Victorians (and 19C Russians), for instance, not to fight against the inhuman conditions that they were living under on the pretext that all was ordered by God - the 'rich man in his castle/the poor man at his gate/God made them high or lowly/And ordered their estate'. Children perhaps instinctively know better until they are brainwashed to the contrary.
Dosteovsky suffered more than most people - his father was murdered, his young son died, his wife died young, he was exiled in Siberia and was forced to do military service for the rest of his life - by this token he should have emerged a 'better' man but the evidence is that he didn't, he emerged a disturbed and tortured soul. Just as a spell 'suffering' in prison often makes recividists out of criminals today. Isn't the hero of TBK, Alexei's, message contrary to the idea of suffering making people better - that it is love which improves us, from childhood onwards?
John wrote: However, I must say that I don't see Fyodor as an irreligious man at all..."
You make a good point. And I agree whole-heartedly with you on the "hooks in Heaven" conversation. It would appear that Fyodor has given the matter some thought from a religious point of view. And, too, Fyodor said, "I've always been wondering who would pray for me" (32).
John, as you forced me to go back and re-read, I've developed a more nuanced view of Fyodor. As the narrator doesn't allow me to see Fyodor's thoughts, I...perhaps hastily...based my belief on Fyodor's actions. The drinking, the women, the drinking, the women, the disregard he had for his sons...but that may very well go back to the drinking.
But in re-reading, I notice no mention is made of Fyodor's drinking, dissipation, or disreputable lifestye until after his first wife, Adelaide "ran away from Fyodor Karamazov with a destitute divinity student." Might that have been a turning point in Fyodor's life?
You know, I'm much more interested, at this point anyway, in Fyodor than in Alexei.
And speaking of Alexei, I just learned (Book II, Chapter 3) that Alexei is a name with religious associations: "What was [the child's] name?" "Alexei, Father." "A sweet name. After Alexei, the man of God?" (55). Was Fyodor's Alexei named after "the man of God"? And if he was, was it Fyodor's wish to name him so, or was it his wife's choice? Sophia had the holy images in the corner of her room. She prayed fervantly. So Fyodor was then either religious himself or at least tolerated religiousity in thier home.
Mmm. Chapter 4, page 32. Fyodor half drunk, his tongue loosened, vocalizing terms like "my gentle boy," "my angel," exhibiting a surprisingly solid knowledge of monks and how they live. Specifically he knows great detail about one monastery in which the monks have "wives," knowing even that "there are no French women there. Of course they could get them fast enough, they have plenty of money" (32).
Mmmm. I'm about to post pure supposition here...and if anyone gave even a cursory read to an introduction this will contain no spoilers...ALERT.
The intro DOES mention a fourth son, an illegitimate son. I had assumed that this was a son conceived sometime after the death of Fyodor's second wife. But now I wonder (note, I do wonder as I read), might Fyodor himself have been a monk at this monastery? "I have been there myself"(32). Might the illegitimate son have been conceived while Fyodor was a monk? Too far fetched?
You make a good point. And I agree whole-heartedly with you on the "hooks in Heaven" conversation. It would appear that Fyodor has given the matter some thought from a religious point of view. And, too, Fyodor said, "I've always been wondering who would pray for me" (32).
John, as you forced me to go back and re-read, I've developed a more nuanced view of Fyodor. As the narrator doesn't allow me to see Fyodor's thoughts, I...perhaps hastily...based my belief on Fyodor's actions. The drinking, the women, the drinking, the women, the disregard he had for his sons...but that may very well go back to the drinking.
But in re-reading, I notice no mention is made of Fyodor's drinking, dissipation, or disreputable lifestye until after his first wife, Adelaide "ran away from Fyodor Karamazov with a destitute divinity student." Might that have been a turning point in Fyodor's life?
You know, I'm much more interested, at this point anyway, in Fyodor than in Alexei.
And speaking of Alexei, I just learned (Book II, Chapter 3) that Alexei is a name with religious associations: "What was [the child's] name?" "Alexei, Father." "A sweet name. After Alexei, the man of God?" (55). Was Fyodor's Alexei named after "the man of God"? And if he was, was it Fyodor's wish to name him so, or was it his wife's choice? Sophia had the holy images in the corner of her room. She prayed fervantly. So Fyodor was then either religious himself or at least tolerated religiousity in thier home.
Mmm. Chapter 4, page 32. Fyodor half drunk, his tongue loosened, vocalizing terms like "my gentle boy," "my angel," exhibiting a surprisingly solid knowledge of monks and how they live. Specifically he knows great detail about one monastery in which the monks have "wives," knowing even that "there are no French women there. Of course they could get them fast enough, they have plenty of money" (32).
Mmmm. I'm about to post pure supposition here...and if anyone gave even a cursory read to an introduction this will contain no spoilers...ALERT.
The intro DOES mention a fourth son, an illegitimate son. I had assumed that this was a son conceived sometime after the death of Fyodor's second wife. But now I wonder (note, I do wonder as I read), might Fyodor himself have been a monk at this monastery? "I have been there myself"(32). Might the illegitimate son have been conceived while Fyodor was a monk? Too far fetched?
MadgeUK wrote: That is a religious concept and one which was popular at the time but I don't agree that suffering can makes us into better people ...etc."
..."
Deserves a response.
..."
Deserves a response.
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: "..."
I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? ..."
In Chapter 3 D writes:-
'It is of that brother Alexei I find it most d..."
Ah! Thank you. That's why I love the long discussion period with multiple posters. I miss so much, and only through going back to find sections, lol, or having passages pointed out to me, do I really start to absorb the novel.
Thanks, Madge.
I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? ..."
In Chapter 3 D writes:-
'It is of that brother Alexei I find it most d..."
Ah! Thank you. That's why I love the long discussion period with multiple posters. I miss so much, and only through going back to find sections, lol, or having passages pointed out to me, do I really start to absorb the novel.
Thanks, Madge.
Adelle wrote: "You make a good point. And I agree whole-heartedly with you on the "hooks in Heaven" conversation. I..."Great post Adelle! Thanks for alerting us to another side of Fyodor and the illegitimate son. Of course, this is a pre-Freudian period and the idea of alcoholism as an addictive illness had not emerged so Dosteovsky exhibits little sympathy for him, perhaps because he had suffered himself at the hands of his alcoholic father?
Patrice wrote: "Dostoyevsky tells us right at the beginning that Alexie is the hero of the story. That he's an unusual hero.Well, what is a hero? Usually, they are men of action. They are models of the ideal..."
Nevertheless, there may be those who do not admire the hero or this particular ideal. It could be that Dostoevsky in naming the hero so early in the novel is setting him up to be questioned and that other hero-figures will emerge. (Although I suspect that Dostoevsky's religious beliefs about good/evil/suffering etc are at play here.)
I do not acknowledge Achilles as the hero figure in The Iliad either - I am fonder of anti-heroes than heroes, wherever they occur. Yossarian in Catch 22 for instance. In TBK I find Ivan to be an anti-hero I can admire because he has more passion and guts than Alexei and engages with life. Alexei is too good and therefore, for me, unbelievable.
I also have some sympathy with Chris's feelings about Fyodor. At least he mocks the entire system and it needed knocking at a time when the church had too much sway over the lives of the people. When reading of Father Zossima and Alexei, I keep thinking of Rasputin and the unhealthy influence he had on Czarina Alexandra at the time leading up to the Bolshevik Revolution.
Wow people were busy on this thread last night. Lots of interesting posts. I agree with Adelle that it helps to have multiple eyes on this one. It's easy to overlook something important, especially this early in the novel when I don't have a good "feel" for how the various pieces fit together. Thanks, all of you!
Patrice, Madge: I also prefer Hector to Achilles. In fact I find Achilles rather irritating. But then, many heroes are...
Patrice, Madge: I also prefer Hector to Achilles. In fact I find Achilles rather irritating. But then, many heroes are...
MadgeUK wrote: "I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel concept, which condit..."
Madge, if you try hard enough, you can take almost any concept, look at its use throughout history, and find that it’s been used to for wholly bad ends. This is exactly why I find it sort of “easy” to dismiss the idea of suffering being able to bring about some sort of self-transcendence. You’re right to being up Dostoyevsky. If you haven’t already, you should read “House of the Dead” in which he discusses his years in a Siberian prison camp for political dissidents. If you give it a careful reading, it’s not all about “Oh, woe is me!” He looks suffering in the eye and does a really good job of coming to terms with it and seeing it as something other than to be avoided at all costs.
I would never argue that he would come out a more “likeable” person, as you point out that he didn’t. But then again, that’s not what I’m trying to point out.
Also, “suffering” and “love” aren’t mutually exclusive. Ask anyone whose partner has left them.
Patrice wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel conce..."
Patrice, you said that “I think that he [Nietzsche] was saying was that the poor and suffering have created religion as a way of promoting their superiority. They are better and good because they suffer.” Yes and no. Nietzsche was no fan of the weak and the poor generally speaking, but I would imagine he would have despised much more the facile bourgeois appropriation of religion by the middle classes who use it as a moral cudgel than he would have the soulful Christianity (which he never really came to terms with in his own philosophy).
Mod
Kate said, "Patrice, Madge: I also prefer Hector to Achilles. In fact I find Achilles rather irritating. But then, many heroes are..."
I used to like Hector better too, but after my good go through of "The Iliad" and Malouf's "Ransom" I have come to the conclusion that I really, really like Achilles. He is a deeply flawed human being, who learns a lot, has matured greatly, and ultimately finds redemption. He is the best Greek, by far, in my humble opinion.
John wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...
Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel conce..."
I thought Madge was objecting to the concept of making a virtue out of suffering. There is a huge difference between that position, which it seems to me that Dostoevsky comes to on some level, and the idea that individual suffering can (possibly) bring about some useful self knowledge. Or self-transcendence if you are someone who looks for that.
Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel conce..."
I thought Madge was objecting to the concept of making a virtue out of suffering. There is a huge difference between that position, which it seems to me that Dostoevsky comes to on some level, and the idea that individual suffering can (possibly) bring about some useful self knowledge. Or self-transcendence if you are someone who looks for that.
Patrice wrote: "Also, think about that statement of his, given the choice between the truth and Christ he'd choose Christ.To be forgiven? And the idea of communal guilt. Wouldn't that make sense if he was a mur..."
It’s difficult to imagine just how fully and deeply nineteenth century Russia was steeped in notions of Christian soteriology and eschatology. The mindset, as I understand it, hadn’t changed much, even consider the Petrine reforms. We live in a political and moral world today that is almost wholly secular (even if particular certain people within it are religious). Ideas of “salvation” were not only religious, but also cultural. This may go just a little way insofar as his choosing Christ over truth.
Kate wrote: "John wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong an..."
Kate, last night I mentioned the idea of finding transcendence through suffering and she said implicitly, if not explicitly, that she found the notion to be a twisted one.
I said, “I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one…” to which she responded, in part, “I still think that it is a wrong and cruel concept…”
Christopher wrote: "Kate wrote: "Wow people were busy on this thread last night. Lots of interesting posts. I agree with Adelle that it helps to have multiple eyes on this one. It's easy to overlook something impor..."
But Hector wasn't a Greek :)
But Hector wasn't a Greek :)
John wrote: "Kate wrote: "John wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "I think the idea that suffering can make us a better person is still a rather common one...
Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it ..."
I'll let Madge answer for herself. I think we see her comments a bit differently.
Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it ..."
I'll let Madge answer for herself. I think we see her comments a bit differently.
I did let her answer for herself. I didn't put words in her mouth. Here's the post in full:"Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel concept, which conditions people to accept suffering and not to fight against it. It conditioned Victorians (and 19C Russians), for instance, not to fight against the inhuman conditions that they were living under on the pretext that all was ordered by God - the 'rich man in his castle/the poor man at his gate/God made them high or lowly/And ordered their estate'. Children perhaps instinctively know better until they are brainwashed to the contrary.
Dosteovsky suffered more than most people - his father was murdered, his young son died, his wife died young, he was exiled in Siberia and was forced to do military service for the rest of his life - by this token he should have emerged a 'better' man but the evidence is that he didn't, he emerged a disturbed and tortured soul. Just as a spell 'suffering' in prison often makes recividists out of criminals today. Isn't the hero of TBK, Alexei's, message contrary to the idea of suffering making people better - that it is love which improves us, from childhood onwards?"
From what part of her post are you drawing an alternative interpretation?
John wrote: "I did let her answer for herself. I didn't put words in her mouth. Here's the post in full:
"Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel concept, which cond..."
I read that post. My takeaway from it was that:
1) suffering isn't a virtue and it is wrong to accept it as one, although that has often been the result of religious/social conditioning.
2) Dostoevsky's suffering did not result in making him a better man, but instead made him a more tormented one.
Since Madge is a stated atheist who doesn't identify with the concept of self-transcendence, she wouldn't find that a compelling reason to embrace suffering. In fact, it would make her more likely to reject it.
"Yes, religious concepts are very pervasive. I still think it is a wrong and cruel concept, which cond..."
I read that post. My takeaway from it was that:
1) suffering isn't a virtue and it is wrong to accept it as one, although that has often been the result of religious/social conditioning.
2) Dostoevsky's suffering did not result in making him a better man, but instead made him a more tormented one.
Since Madge is a stated atheist who doesn't identify with the concept of self-transcendence, she wouldn't find that a compelling reason to embrace suffering. In fact, it would make her more likely to reject it.
And as I replied:1) I never claimed, nor would I ever that suffering qua suffering is a virtue.
2) Also, I never said that it would somehow turn you into a better, let alone "more likeable" human being.
3) Believe in the absence of a God and believe in transcendence are not mutually exclusive, not least because I never mentioned the idea of "God."
John wrote: "And as I replied:
1) I never claimed, nor would I ever that suffering qua suffering is a virtue.
2) Also, I never said that it would somehow turn you into a better, let alone "more likeable" ..."
This is really diverging from the topic and I'd like to end this, since it seems we're really talking for Madge and she is very well able to explain herself.
I am not conflating belief in God with belief in transcendence, merely restating something Madge has said many times before about her personal view of the world. As a result of knowing a little more about her, I read her comments differently than you did.
1) I never claimed, nor would I ever that suffering qua suffering is a virtue.
2) Also, I never said that it would somehow turn you into a better, let alone "more likeable" ..."
This is really diverging from the topic and I'd like to end this, since it seems we're really talking for Madge and she is very well able to explain herself.
I am not conflating belief in God with belief in transcendence, merely restating something Madge has said many times before about her personal view of the world. As a result of knowing a little more about her, I read her comments differently than you did.
John wrote: " If you haven’t already, you should read “House of the Dead” in which he discusses his years in a Siberian prison camp for political dissidents. If you give it a careful reading, ..."I have given House of the Dead, and most of Dostoevsky, a careful reading.
Thanks Kate for post 133, you have explained my p.o.v. very well indeed. Thanks for remembering! I do my best to put things from my personal atheist perspective and hope that folks will try to understand that, as much as I try to understand their religious perspective. Such books as TBK pose a lot of problems for me as there is so much there with which I strongly disagree or disbelieve. Although Dostoevsky questioned his religion from time to time, in an intellectual way, there is no doubt that, after his Siberian experience, he became deeply religious and felt that atheists were bound to suffer for their disbelief, as he makes Ivan do. He believed that 'in Christianity alone..the salvation of the Russian land from all her afflictions lies.' In Notes from the Underground, written in Siberia, he wrote that he 'planned to advocate Christian faith as a means of attaining moral freedom' and all his subsequent work was devoted to that end, so it is not surprising that I rebel against much of his evangelising!
I was not, in fact, answering John's point about self-transcendance but Patrice's one that 'Life humbles us and suffering is a great equalizer. It can motivate us to become better people.....'. But you were right to say that I do not believe in transcendance, or the soul or in any of these 'spiritual' things. Or in the idea that suffering of any kind can make you a better person in the religious sense - make you closer to God or heaven or whatever. Suffering pain or mental anguish was once something that people had to put up with because there were no adequate remedies and so IMO these religious ideas took hold. Now, thank goodness, we place more value in relieving suffering by medical and/or psychiatric means. Not many people nowadays would tell a suffering cancer patient that their pain was a 'trial' sent by God and that the stoic bearing of it would lead to heaven/salvation but that was the sort of thing in which Dostoevsky believed. About his theme for Crime and Punishment he wrote 'The criminal himself resolves to accept suffering and thereby atone for his deed.' As we shall see later in TBK Dostoevsky's salvation-through-suffering theme is relentless and that is why I put down an early marker of my position on this. Dostoevsky (through the mouths of his characters) seems to invest suffering with some spiritually regenerative power and I utterly reject this.
You're arguing against straw men, Madge. And, with all due respect, you haven't addressed any of the points that I've made in response to what you've said.
Patrice wrote: "So do I. However, I think that there is something in the psychology of human beings that he may be tapping into. Masochism? People are so self destructive in so many ways that there must be a dr...""The religious position" (whatever that is) sounds "medieval" to you? That's, to say the least, quite bizarre. You do realize that religion has been the rule, not the exception, over the vast swaths of human history.
Christopher wrote: "Why do we think that Zosima prostrates himself and bows his head to Dmitri Fyodorovich? What the heck is going on here?"It's weird, isn't it? I haven't thought about it enough yet.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Notes from Underground, White Nights, The Dream of a Ridiculous Man, and Selections from The House of the Dead (other topics)The House of the Dead (other topics)
Crime and Punishment (other topics)
The Idiot (other topics)
The House of the Dead (other topics)
More...
I'm not sure that this is as subtle as you might think it is. Authorial voice is critical in trying to determine meaning and significance of the narrative overall. Think about how differently you would think about the novel if the exact same words had been written by Fyodor or one of his wives.