Brothers Karamazov, The 2010/11: Week 1 - Part I, Books One and Two

[Everyman]

Christopher wrote: "I am simply 'clueless in Seattle' when it comes to nuance in this novel (so far). "

Please, Clueless in California. The Seattleites here are doing quite fine. No cluelessness allowed here!

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? "

It's not a matter of far enough. Does your edition not have the Author's Preface (or, as P-V translates it, "From the Author")? He begins it "starting out on the biography of my hero, Alexi..." then goes on to dither a bit about whether Alexi is really a hero, but concludes that at least he is the author's hero. If you skipped the Author's Preface, you might want to go back and read it -- I think it's important.

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "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.
"

A most excellent comment.

[MadgeUK]

John wrote: "You do realize that religion has been the rule, not the exception, over the vast swaths of human history.
.."

I think we all realise this!! There is nevertheless, as Patrice mentions, a medieval religious position in that the medieval church upheld many beliefs and practices which have since been rejected by Papal Bull and otherwise. The concept of stillborn children going to Limbo, for instance, which was only rejected by the Pope in 2006.

http://www.isands.ie/news-mainmenu-9/...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5406552.stm

[John]

Madge -

And the modernism that you praise brought about the death camps and eugenics. It's easy to see something as all-good or all-bad. It's quite facile. It doesn't take much critical thinking.

[Everyman]

MadgeUK wrote: "John wrote: "You do realize that religion has been the rule, not the exception, over the vast swaths of human history.
.."

I think we all realise this!! There is nevertheless, as Patrice mention..."

But when reading a book written in a time when Christianity was so important to the daily lives of the people, I think we need to incorporate that into the book and not try to understand it in terms of contemporary religion (or any lack thereof). There are certainly lessons we can take from any great book about how to live our lives today, and we can look at the concepts they raise in the light of later development of those concepts, but when it comes to the core environment of the book, I think that can't be rejected, any more than we can think of the events of the book taking place in modern day Russia (where are their cell phones?)

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: ""The religious position" (whatever that is) sounds "medieval" to you? That's, to say the least, quite bizarre. "

That doesn't mean Patrice's statement isn't a valid point of view. While religion is central to understanding Dostoevsky, we don't need to dismiss personal beliefs. This isn't the place for it.

[MadgeUK]

John wrote: "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."

I am not arguing at all John, I was enlarging upon the p.o.v. kindly put by Kate on my behalf. Which points in particular do you wish me to respond to? I thought my post 137 dealt with them and I do not particularly want to make this thread into a discussion of my beliefs rather than about Dostoevsky's beliefs as expounded in TBK.

[MadgeUK]

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..."

I very much agree with your post 138 Patrice and I agreed with Nabokov too, which is confirmed in Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground, about which I posted above.

There was much about the Russian Orthodox church which was superstitious and medieval at the time TBK was written and several Russian writers rebelled against it for those reasons - Tolstoy and Pushkin to name but two.

Did Christ perform miracles? Did he exist at all or was he a construct, an amalgam of several holy men/messiah? I have just been reading:-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nailed-Christ...

[John]

MadgeUK wrote: "John wrote: "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."

I am not arguing at all J..."

Well, the three that she brought up would be a nice start. Once again, they are:

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."

Many people are somehow interpreting what I'm saying as "any suffering is good," or "suffering for suffering's sake is admirable and healthy" or "everyone needs to suffer all the time." If you would like to respond to what I'm saying, consider the subtleties of what I'm saying. As someone with a largely secular and politically progressive viewpoint, I can certainly understand where you're coming from, Madge. But then again, I can see where Dostoyevsky's coming from, too. Being able to see both, instead of just seeing Dostoyevsky's Christianity as something incidental, nonessential and burdensome, is what I think will ultimately allow is to walk away from the novel having had a richer experience.

[John]

Isn't it obvious? You're praising the modernism that is anti-religious sentiment and anti-religious practice.

And, until now, you've been the one seeing something as all good or all bad - or at least that's what a reasonable person could deduce from reading your posts.

What "ad hominem attacks" have I made?

And not to point out the obvious, but again in this post you address nothing that I mentioned.

[John]

Finally. I'm only sorry it took so long.

Now if you'll kindly let me know where I issued any ad hominems, I'd be most grateful.

No one's telling you how to read anyone. All we've done is had a conversation about suffering in the religious experience. If you could point out where I did tell you how to read the novel, I'd be most appreciative.

[John]

Kate wrote: "John wrote: ""The religious position" (whatever that is) sounds "medieval" to you? That's, to say the least, quite bizarre. "

That doesn't mean Patrice's statement isn't a valid point of view. Wh..."

I never said it wasn't valid, did I?

[John]

MadgeUK wrote: "John wrote: "What "ad hominem attacks" have I made?
..."

'Death camps' and 'facile' come to mind.

I have dealt with your questions as much as I want to deal with them."

Which is ... not at all. Thank you. :)

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "But when reading a book written in a time when Christianity was so important to the daily lives of the people, I think we need to incorporate that into the book and not try to understand it in terms of contemporary religion (or any lack thereof). There are certainly lessons we can take from any great book about how to live our lives today..."

I thoroughly agree with you Everyman but we can still find some of the concepts difficult to accept - just as, say, we might find the racism or pro-slavery arguments of earlier authors difficult. I certainly believe that Dostoevaky has something to teach us about the psychology of human nature and he is rather a good crime writer to boot.

[Everyman]

John and Madge, that exchange was unpleasant for me, at least, to read, and perhaps for others. Not picking on either of you specifically, or assigning any fault, but stating a fact.

Sometimes I find that, for me at least, and perhaps for others, when I get into that sort of back-and-forth, it's good to go off and have a cup of tea before replying to a post that has riled my juices.

[John]

I, for one, have already been thoroughly scolded.

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "John and Madge, that exchange was unpleasant for me, at least, to read, and perhaps for others. Not picking on either of you specifically, or assigning any fault, but stating a fact. Sometimes ..."


I have had a cup of tea and have removed my responses. The book is 'bleak and dark' enough without anything or anyone making it worse:(. Bleak November weather is raging here too, with hectoring winds threatening to blow off my roof:O.

[Historybuff93]

Here's something I came upon when I was first began the book, and I thought that it might be helpful: "As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we oursleves too." (The last two sentences of Book I, Chapter 1) Perhaps I'm making it into something bigger than it was supposed to be, but it seems to me like this was Dostoevsky saying that the themes in his novel are, perhaps, more simple and universal than they seem? I can't say for certain right now, because we aren't through the book yet.

[Laurel]

Historybuff93 wrote: "Here's something I came upon when I was first began the book, and I thought that it might be helpful: "As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we sup..."

HB, I think that is a very perceptive catch.

[Nemo]

Where is everyone in their reading of BK on this 189th anniversary of Dostoevsky's birthday (and 155th anniversary of Kierkegaard's death, incidentally)?

I was away from this topic for a day, and had to catch up on 60 posts. The problem of suffering is a difficult one, and an essential theme in BK, if I'm not mistaken. Since I can't talk about it from much experience but only from an intellectual understanding of the Christian teaching, perhaps it's better for me to remain silent.

[John]

You forgot to add 100 to both of those numbers, Nemo. Whatever the case, I think Kierkegaard might have been a little too heady for Fyodor's brew!

I'm on page 60 of the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. What about you?

Also, just as urged last night by a very kind participant (and she knows who she is), please don't remain silent. I think I can confidently save that simply by the virtue of us being thinking human beings, we all have a few important things to say about this book.

[Nemo]

John wrote: "You forgot to add 100 to both of those numbers, Nemo. Whatever the case, I think Kierkegaard might have been a little too heady for Fyodor's brew!

I'm on page 60 of the Pevear and Volokhonsky tra..."

Corrected. Thanks :) It sure doesn't feel like they're more than a century away from us. I'm still wavering between starting BK and continuing reading Kierkegaard.

[John]

If your schedule affords you the time, Nemo, I would heartily recommend diving in head-first. I remember loving "Postscript," "Sickness," "Concept of Anxiety," and "Works of Love," though "Either/Or" sort of ... left me feeling flat. I don't know whether or not Dostoyevsky knew or read about Kierkegaard, but he definitely deals with religious doubt, and I might even so far as to say that Fyodor's faith insomuch as he has it, is fideistic.

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I may not have read far enough yet, but does Dostoyevsky actually tell us that Alexei is the hero? "

It's not a matter of far enough. Does your edition not have the Author's Prefac..."

No, no Author's Preface; and I'm on about page 50. I'll pick up another translation just so I can read the author's notes. Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: "I don't know whether or not Dostoyevsky knew or read about Kierkegaard, but he definitely deals with religious doubt, and I might even so far as to say that Fyodor's faith insomuch as he has it, is fideistic. "

WARNING: THIS IS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC :)

Being unfamiliar with the term "fideism", I of course had to do a quick check of wiki (which has a nice overview). Buried at the bottom of the wiki article is this gem:

Douglas Adams, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, uses his Babel fish to demonstrate a rationalist/fideist paradox:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Note to self: Must reread Hitchhiker's Guide.

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "I'm still wavering between starting BK and continuing reading Kierkegaard."

I think that reading Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard together might prove interesting. Following is a quote from a website on existentialism

Søren Kierkegaard died almost a decade before Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground appeared in print, but Dostoevsky never heard of nor did he read the works of Kierkegaard. There is no evidence Nietzsche read Kierkegaard's works, either. Kierkegaard stood very much apart from the other fathers of existentialism, until Karl Jaspers linked Kierkegaard and Nietzsche to form what would be called "existentialism."

Often compared to Dostoevsky, who was a literary revolutionary, Kierkegaard differs via his choice of narrators. Kierkegaard's narrators mirror his own beliefs; Dostoevsky dares to use characters in direct opposition to his own ideals. While Kierkegaard's literary style was experimental, even to the extent it startled his professors, the words of his narrators were still traditional. Kierkegaard's writings are a call for Christian morality; a defense of faith and religion. While a reader must separate Dostoevsky from his most intriguing characters, Kierkegaard's beliefs are always the primary focus of his works, regardless of the name on the book's cover.

It would be interesting to compare the two and it sounds as if they'd be very complimentary reading material. Depends on how much available time you have, of course. :)

[MadgeUK]

Historybuff93 wrote: "Here's something I came upon when I was first began the book, and I thought that it might be helpful: "As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we sup..."

Well spotted HB, as ever you have a wise head on young shoulders:). Dosteovsky also wrote: 'The soul is healed by being with children.' There is quite a lot about children in TBK and I look forward to your insights when we get to the part of the book when Alexei 'gets involved with Schoolboys'. You may also be interested in this online essay on Dostoevsky and the Theme of Children (contains Spoilers):-

http://community.middlebury.edu/~beye...

[MadgeUK]

There is a good example of the usefulness of unreliable narration in Chapters 6 and 7 at the end of Book Two: After the 'scandalous scene' between Fyodor and Dmitri in his cell, Father Zossima suddenly 'went down on his knees before [Dmitri]...Having knelt, the elder prostrated himself at Dmitri's feet with full, conscious deliberation and even touched the ground with his forehead.' Later Rakitin asks Alexei about 'That business of prostrating himself before your brother Dimitri. Knocked his forehead on the ground, he did!' Later Rakitin again says Father Zossima 'knocked his head of the floor'. Alexei then calls this same action 'bowing'.

This act of kneeling/bowing creates a great deal of consternation amongst the various characters, who all interpret its significance differently (underscoring the unreliability of the narration), even to the point of Rakitin foretelling that it means there will be a murder:

"There's nothing wonderful about it, of course, only the usual holy mummery. But there was an object in the performance. All the pious people in the town will talk about it and spread the story through the province, wondering what it meant. To my thinking the old man really has a keen nose; he sniffed a crime. Your house stinks of it.....It'll be in your family, this crime. Between your brothers and your rich old father. So Father Zossima flopped down to be ready for what may turn up. If something happens later on, it'll be: 'Ah, the holy man foresaw it, prophesied it!' though it's a poor sort of prophecy, flopping like that. 'Ah, but it was symbolic,' they'll say, 'an allegory,' and the devil knows what all! It'll be remembered to his glory: 'He predicted the crime and marked the criminal!' That's always the way with these crazy fanatics; they cross themselves at the tavern and throw stones at the temple. Like your elder, he takes a stick to a just man and falls at the feet of a murderer."

Later, Zossima explains that he bowed in acknowledgement of the deep suffering that Dmitri would endure (another foreshadowing).

Zosima's gesture comes in the middle of a violent argument between Fyodor and Dmitri and has the effect of instantly plunging everyone into silence. Subsequently, they all begin to feel ashamed of their behavior so we see that Zossima's action shifted everyone's awareness onto another level - they moved from feelings of violence to feelings of repentance. This is an extremely good piece of psychology on Dosteovsky's part (and perhaps on Zossima's too) on how to use a distraction to diffuse an argument or, as it would be called today, conflict management. From the p.o.v. of the crime novel, it is also a good example of how actions can be misinterpreted and misreported by witnesses.

Various kinds of obeisance are mentioned in TBK and bowing and prostration have particular significance in the Eastern Orthodox church:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zemnoy_p...

[MadgeUK]

Great thoughts Patrice - thanks!

[[deleted user]]

Patrice wrote: "I didn't think of the bowing scene as unreliable narration. I thought he was exposing Rakitin's character by the way he interpreted Zosima's action. Rakitin is insincere and so he projected his own.........But Zossima, I believe, is largely Dostoyevsky's voice, and I think he saw the bow as sincere and heartfelt"


I haven't got to the point where Rakitin remarks on the bow, but I very much appreciate your observation on how Dostoyevsky exposes Ratikin's character.

My personal feeling, too, is that Father Zossima is sincere and real. I'm seeing him as something of a Russian Dalai Lama.

[[deleted user]]

I haven't come to any solid conclusions yet about Fyodor Karamazov. Yes, his actions are despicable. And the narrator tells us he's evil:

"And he began blubbering. He was sentimental. He was evil and sentimental" (33).

But I haven't decided yet whether I think he's evil, or if it's only his actions that are evil. 'Though every time I read of his sly smile and the peculiar gleam in his eyes, I doubt more and more that he might have a reservoir of good somewhere deep inside him. The blubbering and occasional words of contrition look good ... on the surface [with Fyodor, it's difficult to see below the surface]. Or is it just an act?

[Nemo]

Kate wrote: "I think that reading Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard together might prove interesting. ... Kierkegaard's narrators mirror his own beliefs; Dostoevsky dares to use characters in direct opposition to his own ideals. ..."

Now that you mentioned it, I think I enjoy Kierkegaard exactly because reading his books is like getting to know him, his thoughts and feelings, even to the extent that I feel an affinity for him, whereas with Dostoevsky, I would have to spend much time and energy separating the fictional elements, which I don't care much about, from his philosophical / theological arguments that interest me. My life experience is so different from Dostoevsky's that I doubt I could really understand him after reading BK.

[Laurel]

Patrice wrote: "I think the idea is to understand yourself, not Dostoyevsky. I feel my life has been immeasurably enriched."

Exactly, Patrice.

[Nemo]

Patrice wrote: "I think the idea is to understand yourself, not Dostoyevsky."

I can't understand myself through reading Dostoevsky, unless I understand him at the same time. :)

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "Kate wrote: "I think that reading Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard together might prove interesting. ... Kierkegaard's narrators mirror his own beliefs; Dostoevsky dares to use characters in direct oppo..."

I would agree that Dostoevsky would be difficult to know or understand as a person. I don't think reading BK would get you any closer to that goal. But he's capable of removing himself from the frame he constructs and letting his characters make honest arguments from differing points of view.

I always like to see ideas played against each other, so this approach works for me where I find Kierkegaard too willing to project his own truths on the psyches of everyone else.

Obviously, it is really a matter of why one reads a particular author. Trying to understand an individual's unique philosophy is one thing and trying to fit what he has to say into a broader picture is another. They're both useful approaches, but lead you in different directions.

[John]

Patrice wrote: This is a question my husband keeps raising. Could Dostoyevsky be fudging on his true beliefs out of fear? He makes great arguments on both sides and I think he's being honest about his convictions, but did he have a choice? He may not have wanted to end up in Siberia again, for challenging the church. I don't really think so but the complete about face in his views after having spent time in prison ... no I don't think that's it. Has anyone else questioned his motives?
It did make me think of the "Stockholm Syndrome". The tortured captive ends up idealizing his captors.

I haven't questioned his motives at all. I see Dostoyevsky as being very honest. Just because he's a Christian doesn't mean that he can't have deeply abidding doubts and concerns about his faith. I know I have them about mine. Is anyone here of a particular faith tradition that they closely associate with, yet they still have some ambiguity toward? Does this aspect of Dostoyevsky speak to you as strongly as it speaks to me?

[John]

Nemo, you said that you don't care about the "fictional elements," but only the philosophical/theological ones. How can you separate the two? If Dostoyevsky would have wanted to right a treatise on religion or philosophy, I imagine that he would have. I don't think it's accidental that this is a novel instead of something else.

[John]

Patrice wrote: "Well, I've decided that the three brothers represent the three ways of "knowing". Dmitri is about the 5 senses, Ivan is reason and Alexie is spirit.

I've just found out that I have to finish th..."

Patrice, I think your understanding of Dmitri, Ivan, and Alexei is a good one. As Kierkegaard would have said it, they’re the “sensualist,” “rationalist,” and “religious.”

About Ivan’s atheist stance yet belief in “separation of church and state”: what part of the book is this in? I’m not sure I caught it. Anyhow, I think that Alexei might be cynical here in his attempt to use religious believe as a weapon to scare, punish, and reward. While he personally doesn’t believe, he knows that he’s very much in the minority. He wants to use something he knows to be false (religion) against everyone else simply for the purposes of “keeping them in line.” I think this is a very sly way Dostoyevsky is going about asking us: while the religious can be naïve and sentimental, is that any worse than being cynical and manipulative?

When Dostoyevsky says that “we can’t judge,” I don’t think he means to say that “we shouldn’t punish in order to deter crime.” I think he means to say that we should not judge the worth of the criminal, or their ability to gain salvation, simply because they committed a certain type of crime. I think he would be the first to admit that we all “fall short.” But the judge’s job is to mete out punishment – not to condemn him to Heaven or Hell in their own minds.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "I didn't think of the bowing scene as unreliable narration. I thought he was exposing Rakitin's character by the way he interpreted Zosima's action. "

Very, very, very slight spoiler, but perhaps worth mentioning since we're discussing the bowing scene.

Just happened to be reading in Book 6, Chapter 3, Conversations and Exhortations of Father Zosima, and in section h, he says "If the people around you are spiteful and callous and will not hear you, fall down before them and beg their forgiveness; for in truth you are to blame for their not wanting to hear you.."

Isn't this just what he is doing?

[[deleted user]]

I started doing a little background reading, and it seems to tie in so well here with what John and Patrice have been conversing about. lol I needed a quick background, so this information is from "Dostoevsky in 90 Minutes." Paul Strathern writes: "Dostoevsky...survived his ordeal with some remnent of his spirit intact. He would suffer lasting physical and pyschological scars, yet at the same time he would retain the conviction that somehow the core of his being had been revealed to him. He found faith in himself, and the strength to cling to his self-belief. He also found God--and a deep-rooted but nonetheless troubled relgious faith that would last throughout his life. He attempted to express this ineffable yet contradictory experience: 'I am a child of this age, a child of unbelief and doubts, even to this very day, and shall remain so (I know this) until the day I am laid in my coffin.' Still, 'to believe that nothing is more beautiful, profuound, sympathetic, reasonable, manly and more perfect than Christ.'" (31).

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: About Ivan’s atheist stance yet belief in “separation of church and state”: what part of the book is this in?

If I'm reading correctly, Ivan supposedly doesn't believe in such a separation....he doesn't think the two can't exactly fuse, but that the State should be absorbed into the Church.

Early in Chapter 5, "So Be It! So Be It!" the elder, Father Zossima, has been told of Ivan's article and is "looking keenly at Ivan.
'He takes a most interesting position,' continued the Father Librarian. 'As far as Church jurisdiction is concerned he is apparently quite opposed to the separtion of Church from State.' (64)

[[deleted user]]

Sorry, Patrice, I must have been typing while you were posting. I see you've alread got it...AND with a fuller explanation.

[[deleted user]]

John wrote: About Ivan’s atheist stance yet belief in “separation of church and state”: what part of the book is this in? I’m not sure I caught it. Anyhow, I think that Alexei might be cynical here in his attempt to use religious believe as a weapon to scare, punish, and reward. While he personally doesn’t believe, he knows that he’s very much in the minority. He wants to use something he knows to be false (religion) against everyone else simply for the purposes of “keeping them in line.”

I may be mistaken, but I'm thinking that you actually meant to write Dmitri instead of Alexei here....that Dmitri might be cynical, etc.

IF so, my take was that Dostoyevsky was trying to make us wonder whether Dmitri truly is an atheist. I based this on positioning/timing.

At the close of Chapter 5, Book 2,Peter Miusov quotes "an extremely influential person" who had said, "The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.' Peter Miusov adds, "These words struck me at the time, and now they have suddenly come back to me, gentleman."
......
....the door opened, and the guest so long expected, Dmitri Karamazov, came in" (70).

The way this was set up made me consider that Dostoyevsky wanted the reader to second guess himself, to wonder whether Dmitri was really an atheiist (which was the first impression I got) or if Dmitri is really a Christian who is only pretending to be an athesist (which is what I was open to at the end of Chapter 5).

[Nemo]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone read Dostoevsky's other works (e.g., The Idiot, Notes from Underground, House of the Dead, Crime and Punishment) before this? I'm wondering if it would be better to read his works in chronological order.

[John]

I've read all the longer novels that Pevear and Volokhonsky have translated together, but not the book of stories, nor "The Gambler" or "The Double." The latter looks like it's sort of an immature work, but the former looks interesting from the middle-late output. I just never got around to it.

They're especially good if you read Frank's biography of him as you read the novels.

[MadgeUK]

Everyman wrote: "but perhaps worth mentioning since we're discussing the bowing scene..."

Good catch. Although he says this well after the event so it was puzzling to those in the cell at the time. The reason I thought it was unreliable narration in Book 2 was because several different descriptions are given of what Z did.

It is interesting that D uses the word 'spiteful' because his contemporaries and his wives said he was a very spiteful man.

[MadgeUK]

Patrice wrote: "What do you think about this? It frightens me and reminds me of Jim Jones, the Moonies, Hitler, etc...Yet somehow this is seen as good. ...It does remind me of Sartre... the worst burden humanity has is his freedom. "

I agree Patrice. Dostoevsky has been called the first existentialist.

Perhaps 'The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist' because the totalitarian framework is already there and it was thought that a Christian could more easily exchange one set of values for another, one leader for another? Just a thought.

[MadgeUK]

Nemo wrote: "Just out of curiosity, has anyone read Dostoevsky's other works (e.g., The Idiot, Notes from Underground, House of the Dead, Crime and Punishment)..."

I have read these and others - I have a complete 1958 set of Dostoevsky translated by Magarshack. However, I recently bought another (Wordsworth) edition of TBK though because the font on my old Penguin editions is too small. It is a Garnett translation and one of the annoying things is that the Magarshack/Penguin translation lists both Book and Chapter headings, whereas the new Garnett/Wordsworth translation doesn't:(.

[Nemo]

MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps 'The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist' because the totalitarian framework is already there and a Christian can more easily exchange one set of values for another, one leader for another? Just a thought. ..."

Are you suggesting Christianity is a totalitarian framework?