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 2 - Part I, Book Three
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Nov 14, 2010 07:50PM
Chris must be busy today. Here's the thread for everything up through Part I, Book 3.
reply
|
flag
Thanks Kate!Re Chapter 2 Book 3 Stinking Lizaveta was based on real 'idiot girl' on Dostoevsky's father's estate who was raped and had a child which soon died. He wrote: 'She spoke very little, unwillingly, incomprehensibly and in a disconnected fashion: one could only make out that she was constantly recalling the child that had been buried in the cemetery.'
In the novel Lizaveta is portrayed as a Holy Fool and a beggar and is the mother of Smerdyakov, 'son of the reeking one' and the illegitimate son of Fyodor Karamazov and half-brother of Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha. Because of Lizaveta's status and his illegitimacy, Smerdyakov is placed at the bottom rung of society and becomes a cook for his own father although Fyodor does pay for his culinary education and gives him access to his books. Because they are both atheists, he forges a bond with Ivan. The unlikeable, criminal character and parental background of Smerdyakov is yet another example of Dosteovsky showing that atheists come to no good end. Perhaps I should start worrying!
Ooh I don't think he would like you to think he was Ivan the atheist! He was much too devout for that:). Dmitri is nearer the mark because he repents, Alexei is too good. I think D was a brilliant storyteller and this murder mystery would do justice to the best crime writers of our day!
I am sure that in Siberia he saw many crimes being committed, including murder but we will never know whether he was complicit in one. Although when he became famous surely one of his fellow-prisoner-criminals would have crept out of the woodwork to say so and claim a reward?
Patrice wrote: "When he was in Siberia there was a fellow prisoner who was not guilty of the crime for which he was incarcerated. I think he got the idea for Dimitri from this prisoner.Dos. said that every pers..."
He became devout whilst in Siberia and wrote that all of his novels after that were to preach Christianity. From my TBK Notes:-
'While in Siberia, Dostoevsky’s political and philosophical views changed radically. In fact, his views began to mirror those of his father. Dostoevsky became a nationalist; he believed that Russia would become the primary world power within his lifetime. More importantly, he believed that Russia was a chosen nation, with a sacred future blessed by God. Dostoevsky became a religious zealot, telling all who would listen that suffering was the only way to purify a sinful soul. Russia’s suffering made the country pure. One very important note to students: do not confuse the writer with his characters. The existential ideas presented in Dostoevsky’s works are not his own, in fact they often conflict with his beliefs. Remember this, and it changes how one approaches his works. Walter Kaufmann describes Dostoevsky as follows:
"Dostoevsky himself was a Christian, to be sure, and for that matter also a rabid anti-Semite, anti-Catholic, and anti-Western Russian nationalist. We have no right whatsoever to attribute to him the opinions of all of his most interesting characters." (Existentialism; Kaufmann.)
I sincerely hope that he isn't in all of us because I do not think he was a very nice character at all - yes we all have good and bad within us but not, I hope, to the extent of his 'bad' characters or his own 'badness'.:(
As we come to the end of Books I & II where Dostoevsky, through Father Zossima, outlines he notions about suffering, I wonder if religious folks here agree with this author who feels that although suffering may have been good for D personally, his views 'do not square with NT teaching':-'There is much valuable grist for a Christian’s mental mill to be found within the sterling novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky. His presentation of God, Christ, and sin are generally aligned with the theological thought of Christian orthodoxy. Sadly, however, his crystallizations that relate to the subject of salvation in his novels often appear defective. Do we suffer for our sins, or (as the NT declares) has Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins (Heb 9:26-28; 1 Pet 2:21-24; 3:18)? Dostoevsky almost seemed to embrace an in-this-life purgatory. Suffering here on earth is purgative, regenerative for him, which does not square with NT teaching. Suffering did prove personally beneficial in Dostoevsky’s own life, so he probably read his NT through this experiential grid. But experience will not necessarily be prescriptive for exegesis.'
[My emphasis.]
MadgeUK wrote: "Thanks Kate!
Re Chapter 2 Book 3 Stinking Lizaveta was based on real 'idiot girl' on Dostoevsky's father's estate who was raped and had a child which soon died. He wrote: 'She spoke very little, u..."
Do you feel quite certain that Ivan is an atheist? I haven't quite made up my mind on that point. 'Though with further reading I've given up my supposition that perhaps Fyodor had once been a monk or novice. That has come to look most unlikely.
Re Chapter 2 Book 3 Stinking Lizaveta was based on real 'idiot girl' on Dostoevsky's father's estate who was raped and had a child which soon died. He wrote: 'She spoke very little, u..."
Do you feel quite certain that Ivan is an atheist? I haven't quite made up my mind on that point. 'Though with further reading I've given up my supposition that perhaps Fyodor had once been a monk or novice. That has come to look most unlikely.
MadgeUK wrote: "As we come to the end of Books I & II where Dostoevsky, through Father Zossima, outlines he notions about suffering, I wonder if religious folks here agree with this author who feels that although suffering may have been good for D personally, his views 'do not square with NT teaching':-
..."
I may have to rethink this, I'm not a religious scholar, I never even benefited from a comparative religious class, but my immediate reaction would be that I don't see any contradiction.
Do we suffer for our sins, or (as the NT declares) has Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins (Heb 9:26-28; 1 Pet 2:21-24; 3:18)?
Yes, we suffer for our sins, I think. What kind of human would we be if we didn't? Wouldn't that make us some sort of psychopaths? And yes, Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins. And because He did, there is for us forgiveness for our sins. On one level, God forgives us. But on another level, knowing that God forgives us, accepting that Christ has suffered for our sins, we are then able to forgive ourselves. Isn't that where many people get stuck? Not being able to forgive themselves? But my understanding is that Christ's suffering obtains for us forgiveness. I don't think it follows that it removes the suffering. When I was a girl I broke the windshield on my dad's car. He told me that it was alright. And I believed him. But still, we had to drive with that cracked windshield for years and years until we got a different car.
I haven't finished the current reading assignment. I'd best to get back on track.
Oh, Shawn! I haven't any response as yet to your questions.
..."
I may have to rethink this, I'm not a religious scholar, I never even benefited from a comparative religious class, but my immediate reaction would be that I don't see any contradiction.
Do we suffer for our sins, or (as the NT declares) has Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins (Heb 9:26-28; 1 Pet 2:21-24; 3:18)?
Yes, we suffer for our sins, I think. What kind of human would we be if we didn't? Wouldn't that make us some sort of psychopaths? And yes, Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins. And because He did, there is for us forgiveness for our sins. On one level, God forgives us. But on another level, knowing that God forgives us, accepting that Christ has suffered for our sins, we are then able to forgive ourselves. Isn't that where many people get stuck? Not being able to forgive themselves? But my understanding is that Christ's suffering obtains for us forgiveness. I don't think it follows that it removes the suffering. When I was a girl I broke the windshield on my dad's car. He told me that it was alright. And I believed him. But still, we had to drive with that cracked windshield for years and years until we got a different car.
I haven't finished the current reading assignment. I'd best to get back on track.
Oh, Shawn! I haven't any response as yet to your questions.
I just started Chapter 6: Smerdyakov. I'm drawn to scenes.
What in the world happened 30 years ago? Back to wondering about Fyodor, I am.
"Though there was dining room in the house, the table was laid as usual in the drawing room..."
So it would seem that Fyodor had had the house built with a dining room; but hadn't bothered to use it for some very long period of time. Why?
"...furnished with old-fashioned ostentation"
So it hasn't been updated in years and years. Why not? And when Fyodor had the house built (maybe he bought it, but probably he had it built), he had it decorated with ostentation. He had wanted to show off. Not the Fyodor I see in the BK. What happened to change him?
"On the walls, covered with white paper which was torn in many places..."
No upkeep. No one cares.
"...there hung two large portraits--one of some prince who had been governor of the district thirty years before, and the other of some bishop, long since dead"
Large portraits cost money. It appears that 30 years ago Fyodor wanted these paintings in his home AND was willing to spend money on doing it. One of the paintings of "some bishop, long since dead." I'm backing to thinking there was a religious connection in Fyodor's past.
Dmitri is 27 or 28. So these paintings were from just about the time Fyodor married the first time.
"In the corner opposite the door there were several icons..."
So once upon a time in his life, Fyodor not only did not object to icons, but had a number of them in his house. And is so uncaring now of so much that he doesn't even bother to remove them.
What in the world happened 30 years ago? Back to wondering about Fyodor, I am.
"Though there was dining room in the house, the table was laid as usual in the drawing room..."
So it would seem that Fyodor had had the house built with a dining room; but hadn't bothered to use it for some very long period of time. Why?
"...furnished with old-fashioned ostentation"
So it hasn't been updated in years and years. Why not? And when Fyodor had the house built (maybe he bought it, but probably he had it built), he had it decorated with ostentation. He had wanted to show off. Not the Fyodor I see in the BK. What happened to change him?
"On the walls, covered with white paper which was torn in many places..."
No upkeep. No one cares.
"...there hung two large portraits--one of some prince who had been governor of the district thirty years before, and the other of some bishop, long since dead"
Large portraits cost money. It appears that 30 years ago Fyodor wanted these paintings in his home AND was willing to spend money on doing it. One of the paintings of "some bishop, long since dead." I'm backing to thinking there was a religious connection in Fyodor's past.
Dmitri is 27 or 28. So these paintings were from just about the time Fyodor married the first time.
"In the corner opposite the door there were several icons..."
So once upon a time in his life, Fyodor not only did not object to icons, but had a number of them in his house. And is so uncaring now of so much that he doesn't even bother to remove them.
*walks into the nearly empty room, looks around, and realizes she probably isn't the only one behind on her reading assignment*
Adelle wrote: "I just started Chapter 6: Smerdyakov. I'm drawn to scenes. What in the world happened 30 years ago? Back to wondering about Fyodor, I am.
"Though there was dining room in the hous..."
I think a separate dining room requires extra upkeep and heating and Fyodor probably hadn't bothered with it after he lost his wife? This was certainly the case in the Edwardian house I used to own, where we only used the dining room for dinner parties and ate in the large kitchen instead. Fyodor was doing the modern equivalent of having a TV supper by eating in the living room:).
House design these days seems to acknowledge our lack of servants and the expense of heating and so folks often have kitchen/diners. My roomy kitchen/diner has a patio window overlooking the garden so I rarely use my living room, which has become like an old fashioned 'parlour' where I occasionally give tea to visitors:- :D
http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/p...
(The descriptions of Fyodor's house reminded me of Wuthering Heights.)
Book III The Sensualists:- And I believe you don't, and that you speak the truth. You look sincere and you speak sincerely. But not Ivan. Ivan's supercilious.... I'd make an end of your monks, though, all the same. I'd take all that mystic stuff and suppress it, once for all, all over Russia, so as to bring all the fools to reason. And the gold and the silver that would flow into the mint!" In the 1850s there were thousands of mystics, spiritualists and mediums in Russia (and Europe) and although he showed an interest in the occult, Dostoevsky firmly rejected it:-
"...I think that a person who wants to believe in spiritualism cannot be hindered by anything, neither by lectures nor by entire commissions: and the disbeliever, if he really does not wish to believe, cannot be persuaded by anything. That is exactly the sort of persuasion I overcame at the February seance at A.N. Aksakov's, at least during the first strong impression. Since then, I have simply denied spiritualism, that is, in essence I have been indignant over the mystical aspect of its doctrine. (After reading the report of the academic commission's study of spiritualism, I could never be in a position to deny the spiritual phenomena which I have been acquainted with even before the seance with the medium and now, especially now.) But after that remarkable seance I suddenly guessed, or more so, suddenly realized, that it's not enough that I don't believe in spiritualism, but besides that, I don't want to believe - so no sort of proof will ever shake my position..."
In 1863 Dostoevsky attended a seance when the medium L.N. Livchak did a rope trick which caused several noted scientists considerable embarrassment. The botanist V.I. Butlerov wrote that the event was the result of an 'enormous technical operation that required significant mental power.' Later the medium admitted that his great "technical operation" was done simply by 'breaking a circled rope. Then, after tying the knots together, the broken parts were mended.' Evidently he Substituted the knotted rope for the unknotted when nobody observed. Dostoevsky himself said that there was probably a logical explanation.
Later in TBK there is an account of Ivan's nightmare about the Devil and in his Diary of a Writer Dostoevsky associated devils with spiritualism. He wrote that the basis of the devils' kingdom is discord, that their purpose is to sow discord amongst people and that evil spirits had already caused much trouble in the new science of spiritualism. He thought that the Russian people had already been persecuted because of their belief in the popular science. Dostoevsky also saw spiritualism as a false religion which contributed to the Russian people's loss of faith.
'Dostoevsky perceived his writings as part of a religious mission to provide the unity lacking in Russian culture after the Great Reforms [abolition of serfdom] through a suitably purified Orthodox Church. Since this was his goal, and since throughout the Diary Dostoevsky stressed the immanence of the Apocalypse, every soul that was deluded by Spiritualism was a soul that could not engage in Russia's holy mission to lead an Eastern revival [against Western decadence]. Spiritualists were therefore like devils who needed to be exorcised.' (Michael Gordin, History of Science, Harvard.)
In Book III, Chapter 9, "The Sensualists"
1) Yes, again, I'm really enjoying te P&V translation. In the Constance G translation, Dmitri kept repeating to Alyosha the words he wanted said to Katherine: "He sends his compliments."
But P&V has, page 140, Dmitri: "Say 'He bows to you---and he bows out!'" For me, this makes the bows by the various characters appear as more important than they had in my previous reading.
2) Also on page 140. (Guess what? I'm on page 140.)
The physical altercation between Dmitri and his father.
Dmitri: "I curse you and disown you completely!"
!!!
Isn't this an echo of the story that SmerdKv (supposed 4th son) just told a few chapters back?
If Dmitri says he curses and disowns his father, then according to Smerdkv's reasoning (and maybe here...I think back to what Dmitri had shouted in Book I: on the surface it looks 'true' or well-reasoned...but it's a lie)...........
so if we buy into Smerdkov's reasoning, then Dmitri has a split second earlier already thought about cursing and disowning his father.....
And if he's already thought it, then it's already true, and ... should it transpire that Dmitri kills Fyodor, then it's not patricide.
But of course it would be. In any court of law it would be. Doesn't this undermine, or expose the sophistic reasoning of Smerdkv?
And doesn't it bring up (hello Philosophy group)...doesn't it bring up the matter of free will. Probably we can't totally control our thoughts. Most esp. we probably can't control them in the heat of passion. [How often, when emotions are riled, do we say something that we later regret having said?]
But, I'm thinking that even if free will...in many circumstances that shape the course of our lives...is limited....Still, most of us have enough (free) will to bite our tongues and stop ourselves from saying whatever we happen to be thinking.
Mmm. Even when we say things we later regret...even at those times ... (I speak from experience) ... even at those times we could stop ourselves from saying what we say. But we don't. Because the pleasure of saying them gives us a larger psychological payoff than not saying them.
And here I think back to Dmitri in the back alleys, relating his secret story to Alyosha. He wanted to take Katherine....and offer to marry her the next day. He wanted to spurn her and humiliate her. He wanted more than either of those choices to preserve his honor...his self-construct had him a man of honor. He kissed his sword.
Just thoughts.
1) Yes, again, I'm really enjoying te P&V translation. In the Constance G translation, Dmitri kept repeating to Alyosha the words he wanted said to Katherine: "He sends his compliments."
But P&V has, page 140, Dmitri: "Say 'He bows to you---and he bows out!'" For me, this makes the bows by the various characters appear as more important than they had in my previous reading.
2) Also on page 140. (Guess what? I'm on page 140.)
The physical altercation between Dmitri and his father.
Dmitri: "I curse you and disown you completely!"
!!!
Isn't this an echo of the story that SmerdKv (supposed 4th son) just told a few chapters back?
If Dmitri says he curses and disowns his father, then according to Smerdkv's reasoning (and maybe here...I think back to what Dmitri had shouted in Book I: on the surface it looks 'true' or well-reasoned...but it's a lie)...........
so if we buy into Smerdkov's reasoning, then Dmitri has a split second earlier already thought about cursing and disowning his father.....
And if he's already thought it, then it's already true, and ... should it transpire that Dmitri kills Fyodor, then it's not patricide.
But of course it would be. In any court of law it would be. Doesn't this undermine, or expose the sophistic reasoning of Smerdkv?
And doesn't it bring up (hello Philosophy group)...doesn't it bring up the matter of free will. Probably we can't totally control our thoughts. Most esp. we probably can't control them in the heat of passion. [How often, when emotions are riled, do we say something that we later regret having said?]
But, I'm thinking that even if free will...in many circumstances that shape the course of our lives...is limited....Still, most of us have enough (free) will to bite our tongues and stop ourselves from saying whatever we happen to be thinking.
Mmm. Even when we say things we later regret...even at those times ... (I speak from experience) ... even at those times we could stop ourselves from saying what we say. But we don't. Because the pleasure of saying them gives us a larger psychological payoff than not saying them.
And here I think back to Dmitri in the back alleys, relating his secret story to Alyosha. He wanted to take Katherine....and offer to marry her the next day. He wanted to spurn her and humiliate her. He wanted more than either of those choices to preserve his honor...his self-construct had him a man of honor. He kissed his sword.
Just thoughts.
Kate wrote: "*walks into the nearly empty room, looks around, and realizes she probably isn't the only one behind on her reading assignment*"
Yes!
Yes!
MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I just started Chapter 6: Smerdyakov." Madge: I think a separate dining room requires extra upkeep and heating and Fyodor probably hadn't bothered with it after he lost his wife?..."
Exactly. For some reason after the death of his wife, or after his wife abandoned him, he no longer felt it was worth the effort to maintain the place or dine "properly" in the dining room. He's a wealthy man, so it wasn't the money in an of itself that altered his routine. It was something else. I suppose we never find out in this book. If there were a prequel called "Fyodor Karamazov"...but there's not. But that story is trying to write itself in my mind.
Exactly. For some reason after the death of his wife, or after his wife abandoned him, he no longer felt it was worth the effort to maintain the place or dine "properly" in the dining room. He's a wealthy man, so it wasn't the money in an of itself that altered his routine. It was something else. I suppose we never find out in this book. If there were a prequel called "Fyodor Karamazov"...but there's not. But that story is trying to write itself in my mind.
MadgeUK wrote: "Book III The Sensualists:- And I believe you don't, and that you speak the truth. You look sincere and you speak sincerely. But not Ivan. Ivan's supercilious.... I'd make an end of your monks, thou..."
As always, thank you for the background information. It does contribute towards a deeper understanding of TBK.
As always, thank you for the background information. It does contribute towards a deeper understanding of TBK.
"Brother"
Towards the end of Chapter 10, The Senualists
"Brother," ... Alyosha exclaimed. (p142 PV).
"Brother" (143)
"They shook hands firmly, as they had never done before. Alyosha felt that his brother had stepped a step towards him..." (143).
Maybe it's simply because I've switched to a different translation, but this is the first I've noticed any of Fyodor's sons thinking of another of Fyodor's sons as a brother. The first instance, I think, in which one of the Karamazov sons addresses/thinks of another in terms of relationship rather than by name.
Is this Dos. way of nudging us to think of what our relationships one with another should be? Is it a reference back to Cain and Able? Am I my brother's keeper? Are all men brothers?
Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha....they haven't been raised together as brothers....Some of them are meeting for the first time...Do we "owe" brothers anything special if we are blood related, but haven't any face to face relationship? Is blood connection alone a factor to consider?
If we've never met our brother before, wouldn't he be a stranger to us? But we try to treat him as a brother?
Then what about Smrydv? If he is a brother---by blood, but is not treated as a brother?
So blood alone doesn't seem to be enough.
So if all men are strangers to us, is Dos. asking us to regard them as our brothers?
(Until I find my own book that I can write in, I guess I'm scribbling questions here.)
Towards the end of Chapter 10, The Senualists
"Brother," ... Alyosha exclaimed. (p142 PV).
"Brother" (143)
"They shook hands firmly, as they had never done before. Alyosha felt that his brother had stepped a step towards him..." (143).
Maybe it's simply because I've switched to a different translation, but this is the first I've noticed any of Fyodor's sons thinking of another of Fyodor's sons as a brother. The first instance, I think, in which one of the Karamazov sons addresses/thinks of another in terms of relationship rather than by name.
Is this Dos. way of nudging us to think of what our relationships one with another should be? Is it a reference back to Cain and Able? Am I my brother's keeper? Are all men brothers?
Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha....they haven't been raised together as brothers....Some of them are meeting for the first time...Do we "owe" brothers anything special if we are blood related, but haven't any face to face relationship? Is blood connection alone a factor to consider?
If we've never met our brother before, wouldn't he be a stranger to us? But we try to treat him as a brother?
Then what about Smrydv? If he is a brother---by blood, but is not treated as a brother?
So blood alone doesn't seem to be enough.
So if all men are strangers to us, is Dos. asking us to regard them as our brothers?
(Until I find my own book that I can write in, I guess I'm scribbling questions here.)
From Book III, Chapter 10, "The Two Together"
"One main, fateful, and insoluble question towered over everything like a mountain..." (143 P&V).
Reference back to Smydkv thoughts on the faith that can move mountains and how man doesn't have such faith.
If we haven't the faith to move mountains, we have to live with the mountains where they are. We can only move shovel-fulls, or cartloads of the mountain... but never we move all, not even much, of the mountain.
We have to live with the seemingly insoluble problems we have and make only such small adjustments as we are capable of making.
Or, is Smydkv wrong? CAN we move mountains?
"One main, fateful, and insoluble question towered over everything like a mountain..." (143 P&V).
Reference back to Smydkv thoughts on the faith that can move mountains and how man doesn't have such faith.
If we haven't the faith to move mountains, we have to live with the mountains where they are. We can only move shovel-fulls, or cartloads of the mountain... but never we move all, not even much, of the mountain.
We have to live with the seemingly insoluble problems we have and make only such small adjustments as we are capable of making.
Or, is Smydkv wrong? CAN we move mountains?
Book III, Chapter 10, "The Two Together"
Towards the end of the first paragraph:
"...and his brother Dmitri, now feeling himself dishonest and without hope, would of course not hesitate at any further fall" (144).
Might this be a reference to the Biblical Fall? Man/(mankind) is a fallen creature?
Also, Dmitri---feeling himself dishonest with himself---cut off from what he sees as his true self---inflexible----not being able to forgive himself and not having access to a God who can forgive him....will now let himself go completely.
Is that what happened to Fyodor?
Towards the end of the first paragraph:
"...and his brother Dmitri, now feeling himself dishonest and without hope, would of course not hesitate at any further fall" (144).
Might this be a reference to the Biblical Fall? Man/(mankind) is a fallen creature?
Also, Dmitri---feeling himself dishonest with himself---cut off from what he sees as his true self---inflexible----not being able to forgive himself and not having access to a God who can forgive him....will now let himself go completely.
Is that what happened to Fyodor?
Patrice wrote: "Great. Just realized why D. uses the term "falling sickness" rather than epilepsy."
AH! I never saw that! What a great connection. Thanks for posting.
AH! I never saw that! What a great connection. Thanks for posting.
Regarding Everyman.
I don't know whether or not the first words in the book were written by Dostoevsky, but in the P&V translation, before the title page:
Everyman,
I will go with thee,
And be thy guide,
In thy most need
To go by thy side.
Is this a direct shout out from Dostoevsky to Everyman?
I don't know whether or not the first words in the book were written by Dostoevsky, but in the P&V translation, before the title page:
Everyman,
I will go with thee,
And be thy guide,
In thy most need
To go by thy side.
Is this a direct shout out from Dostoevsky to Everyman?
Book III, Chapter 10, The Two Together
Facts? Facts?
It seems to me that Dostoevsky shows us that we don't live by facts. (A weakness of strict rationality.) We are interpretive creatures. Cain slays Able....because of his own personal interpretation of the facts. We "see" into the lives of others...but the windows of their lives are dirty or smeared or the glass has distortions....and our own interpretive glasses are broken or bleary. We can never know another.
{ You'll never know the hurt I suffered
nor the pain I raise above
and I'll never know the same about you,
your holiness nor your kind of love
and it makes me feel so sorry.}
[couldn't find a link on Youtube.
"Idiot Wind" from Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks] An album I should play more often.
Consider.
Alyosha's first impression (and isn't so much of life "impressions"?) of Katerina: "Alyosha ... had perceived a great deal very clearly....He was struck by the imperiousness, the proud ease, the self-confidence of the arrogant girl" (145 P&V translation)...."and all that was unquestionable."
Yet later, after hearing Dmitri's confession and "seeing" Katerina through Dmitri's eyes..." he now saw only a courageous, noble energy and a certain clear, strong faith in herself" (145 P&V translation).
Facts? Facts?
It seems to me that Dostoevsky shows us that we don't live by facts. (A weakness of strict rationality.) We are interpretive creatures. Cain slays Able....because of his own personal interpretation of the facts. We "see" into the lives of others...but the windows of their lives are dirty or smeared or the glass has distortions....and our own interpretive glasses are broken or bleary. We can never know another.
{ You'll never know the hurt I suffered
nor the pain I raise above
and I'll never know the same about you,
your holiness nor your kind of love
and it makes me feel so sorry.}
[couldn't find a link on Youtube.
"Idiot Wind" from Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks] An album I should play more often.
Consider.
Alyosha's first impression (and isn't so much of life "impressions"?) of Katerina: "Alyosha ... had perceived a great deal very clearly....He was struck by the imperiousness, the proud ease, the self-confidence of the arrogant girl" (145 P&V translation)...."and all that was unquestionable."
Yet later, after hearing Dmitri's confession and "seeing" Katerina through Dmitri's eyes..." he now saw only a courageous, noble energy and a certain clear, strong faith in herself" (145 P&V translation).
MadgeUK wrote: House design these days seems to acknowledge our lack of servants and the expense of heating and so folks often have kitchen/diners. My roomy kitchen/diner has a patio window overlooking the garden so I rarely use my living room, which has become like an old fashioned 'parlour' where I occasionally give tea to visitors:- :Dhttp://home-and-garden.webshots.com/phot...
Lovely, Madge! I have a collection of Portmeirion pottery Botanic Garden dishes that I use every day.
Adelle wrote: "Regarding Everyman. I don't know whether or not the first words in the book were written by Dostoevsky, but in the P&V translation, before the title page:
Everyman,
I will go with thee,
..."
I'm not sure, but I think that is part of Everyman Editions tradition; in other words, it is the P/V publisher's motto.
Laurele wrote: "I have a collection of Portmeirion pottery Botanic Garden dishes that I use every day. ..."Me too Laurel! How nice to think that we are both using the same crockery!:)
This is what it looks like folks:-
http://www.portmeirion.co.uk/template...
MadgeUK wrote: "Laurele wrote: "I have a collection of Portmeirion pottery Botanic Garden dishes that I use every day. ..."Me too Laurel!"
It was such a jolt to see that scarlet pimpernel is orange.
In Book III Chapter 6 Dostoevsky refers to the painting Contemplation by Kramskoy - here is a blog about it and some other interesting Dosteovsky links:-http://dostoevskycriticaljournal.blog...
Laurele wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Regarding Everyman.
I don't know whether or not the first words in the book were written by Dostoevsky, but in the P&V translation, before the title page:
Everyman,
I will go w..."
It is as you suggested: "Everyman's Library."
I don't know whether or not the first words in the book were written by Dostoevsky, but in the P&V translation, before the title page:
Everyman,
I will go w..."
It is as you suggested: "Everyman's Library."
Patrice wrote: "How much guilt do we have for thinking bad thoughts? For wanting bad things to happen? When I started reading the book I didn't think we had any. But now I'm not so sure. D. seems to have invented the concept of the unconscious before Freud. ..."I think the idea was put about by St Augustine and Aquinas long before Dostoevsky or Freud. Nemo or Laurel might be able to help here. Nietzsche wrote about the origin of the 'bad conscience' and like Freud thought it was part of our psychological make-up.
*passing on a hug to MadgeUK*
I had to look up Balaam's Ass. My take was as yours, that Smerdykov had been mostly silent, and then began to speak. Also, it seemed to me that Fyodor was using it as an insult, calling Smerdykov "an ass" as I suppose he could have used the less insulting term "donkey." Probably Dos. has an additional meaning. ?
MMM, I'm just conjecturing all over the place, but the wikipedia description says that the donkey in effect saved the master from the angel. Since Fyodor would seem to be Smerdaykov's "master," and since Fyodor refers to Alyosha as "angel," might Smerdykov somehow advert disaster for Fyodor, disaster that would come through Alyosha:????
I know, Dmitri is the one making violent threats...but I'm trying to see if there might not be a another meaning involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balam_(d...
MMM, I'm just conjecturing all over the place, but the wikipedia description says that the donkey in effect saved the master from the angel. Since Fyodor would seem to be Smerdaykov's "master," and since Fyodor refers to Alyosha as "angel," might Smerdykov somehow advert disaster for Fyodor, disaster that would come through Alyosha:????
I know, Dmitri is the one making violent threats...but I'm trying to see if there might not be a another meaning involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balam_(d...
issue of how much control do we have over our thoughts and are our thoughts "bad"
Again, just conjecture here.
The issue of truth and lies seems to be a major theme.
Father Zosssima, Don't lie to yourself.
Dmitri, Asserting that what was said on the surface might be true, but that it was lies underneath.
Smerdykov, in reading that book that Fyodor had lent him: It's all lies. Fy
Fyodor with blatent lies. Ivan with ... ambiguous truth... which I think comes down to clever lies.
Maybe an aspect of "submission" as well. If this makes sense, and I don't have a firm enough grasp of where I want to go to articulate it well...
Maybe, sometimes, a bow is no more than an acknowledgment. A formal bow between two gentlemen might mean no more than that each is acknowledging the other ("There you are. I admit that I see you.""in fact now that I see you and have taken your measure I will have a better technique for fighting against you.")...The bow wouldn't necessarily mean "I accept your ideas and I shall follow them."
Likewise, perhaps, with ideas. A thought pops into our heads. If we acknowlege that it's there, that we see it, THEN we can decide what our intention towards that idea might be.....Is our intention going to be to submit to that idea...to follow it....or is our intention going to be to fight against that idea....because we have made the decision that "that's not the kind of person I am."
Whereas if we refuse to ackowledge the idea, if we pretend we didn't think it, if we try to suppress the idea...then the idea/the thought (say, "I want to kill Father.") can't be fought and defeated. Instead, because we've suppressed the idea, it continues to grow and grow...but in our unconscious (?) (our subconscious?)... until it has grown so strong that when it resurfaces in our conscious, we haven't the strength to defeat it anymore.
Again, just conjecture here.
The issue of truth and lies seems to be a major theme.
Father Zosssima, Don't lie to yourself.
Dmitri, Asserting that what was said on the surface might be true, but that it was lies underneath.
Smerdykov, in reading that book that Fyodor had lent him: It's all lies. Fy
Fyodor with blatent lies. Ivan with ... ambiguous truth... which I think comes down to clever lies.
Maybe an aspect of "submission" as well. If this makes sense, and I don't have a firm enough grasp of where I want to go to articulate it well...
Maybe, sometimes, a bow is no more than an acknowledgment. A formal bow between two gentlemen might mean no more than that each is acknowledging the other ("There you are. I admit that I see you.""in fact now that I see you and have taken your measure I will have a better technique for fighting against you.")...The bow wouldn't necessarily mean "I accept your ideas and I shall follow them."
Likewise, perhaps, with ideas. A thought pops into our heads. If we acknowlege that it's there, that we see it, THEN we can decide what our intention towards that idea might be.....Is our intention going to be to submit to that idea...to follow it....or is our intention going to be to fight against that idea....because we have made the decision that "that's not the kind of person I am."
Whereas if we refuse to ackowledge the idea, if we pretend we didn't think it, if we try to suppress the idea...then the idea/the thought (say, "I want to kill Father.") can't be fought and defeated. Instead, because we've suppressed the idea, it continues to grow and grow...but in our unconscious (?) (our subconscious?)... until it has grown so strong that when it resurfaces in our conscious, we haven't the strength to defeat it anymore.
You may be on to something.
I wasn't struck with the importance of the bow in Father Zossima's cell intially. Didn't even go back to re-read the scene until someone (Zeke? John?) brought it up. Don't really know what they mean; but know they mean something.
More noticable it seems in the P&V translation...which, yes, I'm continuing to read even though I finally found my book.
I wasn't struck with the importance of the bow in Father Zossima's cell intially. Didn't even go back to re-read the scene until someone (Zeke? John?) brought it up. Don't really know what they mean; but know they mean something.
More noticable it seems in the P&V translation...which, yes, I'm continuing to read even though I finally found my book.
Patrice wrote: "Everything in this book is based on hearsay and Dos. does a brilliant job of allowing us to get sucked into believing the hearsay as fact. "That's an excellent point. We get multiple views of all the characters. I get pulled this way and that trying to decide on their characters. Just like real people, D's characters are complex and inconsistent. Frustrating but fascinating!
Adelle wrote: ""Though there was dining room in the house, the table was laid as usual in the drawing room..."So it would seem that Fyodor had had the house built with a dining room; but hadn't bothered to use it for some very long period of time. Why? "
First, I don't recall whether he actually built the house, or whether it was a family home. But either way, I'm not that surprised. Wealthy people in that era usually had large, formal dining rooms, but they were mostly used for formal occasions, and normal family meals were eaten in less ostentatious rooms. It wold seem that as his marital lives developed he probably didn't do much formal entertaining, so the dining room would have been largely unused.
That's the way I'm seeing his home and home life, anyhow.
Adelle wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Great. Just realized why D. uses the term "falling sickness" rather than epilepsy."AH! I never saw that! What a great connection. Thanks for posting."
I'm not sure what you are saying here? 'Falling sickness' was a common term used for epilepsy in former times. It was used a lot when I was young and, of course, described the fact that many fits begin by people suddenly falling to the floor.
Patrice wrote: "So good! The issue of bows and what they mean recurs throughout the book.
The way I understand it, (and it's not so easy to be clear about these ideas) true submission of the self, truly honor..."
Yes, I posted a link elsewhere about the significance of bows in the Russia Orthodox Church, Zemnoy poklon, but I like your point about the Nietzchean aspect of false bows.
I also wonder whether D is commenting on the schism which occurred over what is known as the Old Rite:-
http://www.synaxis.info/old-rite/0_ol...
Everyman wrote: "First, I don't recall whether he actually built the house, or whether it was a family home. But either w..."In the chapter on the Servant's Cottage, the house is described as being 'rather old', 'built for a large family, and there was room in it for five times as many people, masters and servants but at the time of our story only Karamazov and Ivan lived in it, and in the cottage [which was across a courtyard] there were only three servants.' That seems to indicate that it was not built by Fyodor himself. In an earlier chapter he is described as being fond of getting invites to his friends' dinners but not reciprocating so that is another reason for not using his dining room.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: ""Though there was dining room in the house, the table was laid as usual in the drawing room..."
So it would seem that Fyodor had had the house built with a dining room; but hadn't b..."
Oh you're totally right about that. I didn't read anything as to whether he had the house built or whether he bought it or whether he had inherited it either. But I have to fill in the blanks as I read. My feeling is that half of a book is usually between the lines. Anyway, it is for me. There's little point in reading a fiction book if I'm not interacting with it. At some point, I'll have to decide whether or not I think that Smerdykov is actually Fyodor's son.
OK, Everyman, Madge. You pushed me to go back and re-read. I guess I was seeing this through my own experiences, my own interpretation. I don't have a dining room in my home...so for me, the question of where we eat doesn't come into play. My childhood home had a dining room. And my mother most often had us eat meals in that room. With the table properly set. But since my father passed away... the dining room wasn't used anymore for dining...and paperwork began to stack up on the table...
I doubtless read some of my own life into TBK and wondered if his abandonment by his wife, or the death of his wife, had brought about a why-go-through-the-extra-effort similiar to that which seemed to have happened in my mother's case.
Perhaps the more important aspect, in my reading of that scene, was the descibed shabbiness of the drawing room, the disrepair, the disregard...the owner no longer cared. Why?
The room had silk, and fanciful frames, and gilt, and hung-paper.... but Fyodor hasn't had proper care taken of the room, he hasn't had proper care taken of his sons, I don't think he particularly cares about himself either. Why?
So it would seem that Fyodor had had the house built with a dining room; but hadn't b..."
Oh you're totally right about that. I didn't read anything as to whether he had the house built or whether he bought it or whether he had inherited it either. But I have to fill in the blanks as I read. My feeling is that half of a book is usually between the lines. Anyway, it is for me. There's little point in reading a fiction book if I'm not interacting with it. At some point, I'll have to decide whether or not I think that Smerdykov is actually Fyodor's son.
OK, Everyman, Madge. You pushed me to go back and re-read. I guess I was seeing this through my own experiences, my own interpretation. I don't have a dining room in my home...so for me, the question of where we eat doesn't come into play. My childhood home had a dining room. And my mother most often had us eat meals in that room. With the table properly set. But since my father passed away... the dining room wasn't used anymore for dining...and paperwork began to stack up on the table...
I doubtless read some of my own life into TBK and wondered if his abandonment by his wife, or the death of his wife, had brought about a why-go-through-the-extra-effort similiar to that which seemed to have happened in my mother's case.
Perhaps the more important aspect, in my reading of that scene, was the descibed shabbiness of the drawing room, the disrepair, the disregard...the owner no longer cared. Why?
The room had silk, and fanciful frames, and gilt, and hung-paper.... but Fyodor hasn't had proper care taken of the room, he hasn't had proper care taken of his sons, I don't think he particularly cares about himself either. Why?
MadgeUK wrote: "I'm not sure what you are saying here? 'Falling sickness' was a common term used for epilepsy in former times. It was used a lot when I was young and, of course, described the fact that many fits begin by people suddenly falling to the floor
I'..."
When pointed out, the term "falling sickness" suddenly clicked for me. Suddenly, to my mind, Dostoevsky was referencing Man's Fall....Garden of Eden like... Biblically. I thought that way cool.
And I wonder, too, now, if epilepsy is inherited, is Dostoevsky also bringing up the question of original sin? mmm. And again, I know this has been brought up before, does it again force the reader to consider how much of a person's self/personality is "inherited/shaped/influenced" by his parent.
That certainly looks to be a legitimate question in regard to Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, Smerdykov. I can very easily imagine that they might have been different people had they been raised in other circumstances...say in a loving household with a loving, caring set of parents. Indeed, Alyosha, who seems to have received the most loving environment, seems, at this point anyway, to be of a rather better character than his brothers who were not similiarly blessed.
What are blessings? Can we bless others through our own actions?
I'..."
When pointed out, the term "falling sickness" suddenly clicked for me. Suddenly, to my mind, Dostoevsky was referencing Man's Fall....Garden of Eden like... Biblically. I thought that way cool.
And I wonder, too, now, if epilepsy is inherited, is Dostoevsky also bringing up the question of original sin? mmm. And again, I know this has been brought up before, does it again force the reader to consider how much of a person's self/personality is "inherited/shaped/influenced" by his parent.
That certainly looks to be a legitimate question in regard to Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, Smerdykov. I can very easily imagine that they might have been different people had they been raised in other circumstances...say in a loving household with a loving, caring set of parents. Indeed, Alyosha, who seems to have received the most loving environment, seems, at this point anyway, to be of a rather better character than his brothers who were not similiarly blessed.
What are blessings? Can we bless others through our own actions?
MadgeUK wrote: "I also wonder whether D is commenting on the schism which occurred over what is known as the Old Rite:-
..."
Oh, wow! I would never have imagined that bows, proper bows, lack of bows, could have so much importance.
..."
Oh, wow! I would never have imagined that bows, proper bows, lack of bows, could have so much importance.
Patrice wrote: "In "notes" p. 783 Pevear. l.3.6 Smerdyakov3. falling sickness: Dostoyevsky prefers this old term for epilepsy.
Now I'm wondering if the translators are correct? Was he really choosing this t..."
I don't why the translators won't be correct as it was such a common term for epilepsy. As Adelle says, it is an excellent analogy for the Fall so it makes sense for D to use it. The other possible reference is to posssession and witchraft:-
http://www.epilepsy.com/articles/ar_1...
The other common term for epilepsy was petit mal which means 'small seizure'.
MadgeUK wrote: "Everyman wrote: In the chapter on the Servant's Cottage, the house is described as bei.. ......
In an earlier chapter he is described as being fond of getting invites to his friends' dinners but not reciprocating so that is another reason for not using his dining room.
."
That's a good point, I think. That perhaps in his early years Fyodor was dining where he could get a meal --- and not have to pay the expense himself --- because he was poor.
Perhaps in the years that followed, Fyodor continued to not invite guests to his home....either because they wouldn't come to his home....or because wealth has become his god (his overriding goal and the focus of his life)[I'm back between the lines. Did his first wife --- who might or might not have physically beat him --- might she also have verbally abused him? Denigrated him for his lack of money? Belittled his manhood because he couldn't properly provide for her by her standards?](Did he thank God because she was dead? AND cry because he had loved her so?)
In an earlier chapter he is described as being fond of getting invites to his friends' dinners but not reciprocating so that is another reason for not using his dining room.
."
That's a good point, I think. That perhaps in his early years Fyodor was dining where he could get a meal --- and not have to pay the expense himself --- because he was poor.
Perhaps in the years that followed, Fyodor continued to not invite guests to his home....either because they wouldn't come to his home....or because wealth has become his god (his overriding goal and the focus of his life)[I'm back between the lines. Did his first wife --- who might or might not have physically beat him --- might she also have verbally abused him? Denigrated him for his lack of money? Belittled his manhood because he couldn't properly provide for her by her standards?](Did he thank God because she was dead? AND cry because he had loved her so?)
Patrice wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Great. Just realized why D. uses the term "falling sickness" rather than epilepsy."
AH! I never saw that! What a great connection. Thanks f...".
OK, just made my way down to this post. Guess you've already answered the question.
Yes. I didn't run across "falling sickness" until I started reading the P&V translation. Not sure whether I saw it in the text or in the footnotes.
AH! I never saw that! What a great connection. Thanks f...".
OK, just made my way down to this post. Guess you've already answered the question.
Yes. I didn't run across "falling sickness" until I started reading the P&V translation. Not sure whether I saw it in the text or in the footnotes.
I doubtless read some of my own life into TBK and wondered if his abandonment by his wife, or the death of his wife, had brought about a why-go-through-the-extra-effort similiar to that which seemed to have happened in my mother's case. Perhaps the more important aspect, in my reading of that scene, was the descibed shabbiness of the drawing room, the disrepair, the disregard...the owner no longer cared. Why?
I see some of my own life here too Adelle, so understand your p.o.v. My grandmother was a great cook and hostess who gave lots of parties and dinners. When she died my grandfather no longer used the dining room at all and just used the kitchen, where the table was perpetually set with a large cheese, pickled onions, bread and butter and a pot of jam! My father too lived a very simple life after my mother died. Fyodor is just reflecting his changed circumstances, especially at a time where women were the ones involved in cooking, entertaining and the upkeep of a home. A man who fussed over such things would perhaps be thought of as less masculine. Had he not had servants he might have ended up like my grandfather:).
Not being religious, I think of 'blessings' as loving and being loved by someone, or more than one person.
I cam across this description by George Steiner of the 'dramatic strategies' used by Dostoevsky:-'Dostoevsky imported a wide range of fundamental principles from drama into his novels, including the centrality of conflict, the revelation of characters at the climatic moment in the action, the primacy of dialogue culminating in gesture, and the concentration of action within a brief time span.' Steiner focuses particularly on 'tragedy and Gothic melodrama, which serve as general model for most of Dostoevsky's novels. For instance The Idiot and The Possessed are constructed in a virtually tragic mode, while Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov feature a transformed melodramatic 'happy ending' in the form of spiritual redemption. Dostoevsky's seemingly relaxed control over his characters is consonant with the nature of drama and facilitates the independent dynamics of the action.'
Comments anyone? I find the novel somewhat Gothic in its entirety and there are many melodramatic moments, perhaps the first one being when Father Zossima throws himself at the feet of Dimitri, which we discussed earlier.
Yes, he was like Dickens and Hardy wasn't he - he had to create pot-boilers! They remind me of those old black and white melodramas with the cinema pianist thundering away! I can almost hear the piano as I read... Melodramas were also popular stage entertainments in D's time so maybe he was appealing to that audience too.
http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/melodr...
It looks like the 1958 film was pretty melodramatic too:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHtzZ1...
This 1969 Russian one was more stylised - the Russian wounds wonderful though!:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXLQl3...
Patrice wrote: "OK, once again D. has made me flip-flop. I'm dizzy from all of these flip flops! I think that D. as an anti-enlightenment kind of guy, is saying, "forget reason, feel". It is the heart that kno..."
I'm only through book 3, so keep that in mind, but one of the things that has struck me is how very very Russian this book feels. The melodrama is part of that, so is the obvious conflict between looking to the West for ideas and then rejecting them, as Russia has always tried to be part of Europe but only if she is accepted on her own terms. I get this pervasive feeling of rejectionism and resentment toward Europe. Not just the rationality of the Enlightenment, but the failure of the Christian world to recognize the Russian Orthodox church as the successor to Byzantium.
D's arguments seem to be more of an argument of why Europe doesn't fit the Russian soul than a wider argument about faith, religion, socialism, etc. For him (and lots of Russians of his day) China, India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire are just black holes. No ideas flow across those borders.
I'm only through book 3, so keep that in mind, but one of the things that has struck me is how very very Russian this book feels. The melodrama is part of that, so is the obvious conflict between looking to the West for ideas and then rejecting them, as Russia has always tried to be part of Europe but only if she is accepted on her own terms. I get this pervasive feeling of rejectionism and resentment toward Europe. Not just the rationality of the Enlightenment, but the failure of the Christian world to recognize the Russian Orthodox church as the successor to Byzantium.
D's arguments seem to be more of an argument of why Europe doesn't fit the Russian soul than a wider argument about faith, religion, socialism, etc. For him (and lots of Russians of his day) China, India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire are just black holes. No ideas flow across those borders.
I get this pervasive feeling of rejectionism and resentment toward Europe. Not just the rationality of the Enlightenment, but the failure of the Christian world to recognize the Russian Orthodox church as the successor to Byzantium.Yes, this is certainly the case Kate and it was Doestoevsky's personal 'beef'against the Enlightenment and the West. He held a very different p.o.v. to Tolstoy and many of his other contemporaries, I suppose we could call him an arch-conservative. It was thinkers like this, including, of course the Tsar himself, and the church, who hindered Russia's progress at this time and who, because they were against all the proposed reforms, paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution, just as the intransigence of the catholic church and Louis XVI had paved the way for the French Revolution earlier. Something had to give:(.
Patrice wrote: "But then how do we explain Fyodor?"Doesn't Fyodor represent the father who doesn't listen (the Tsar) thereby encouraging and playing a part in the decadence into which his family (and Holy Russia) are falling?
I can't remember where I picked this quote up from but I rather liked the analogies:'It was said of Turner that he "invented" the London fog and caused people, for the first time, to really see it, so it was that Dostoevsky who revealed to us the labyrinthine depths of the human psyche. Similarly, Tolstoy's prose is like the sun filled canvasses of the Impressionists and Dostoevsky's reminds us of the paintings of Rembrandt with their dark shadows and chiaroscuro.'
