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
date
newest »
newest »
Patrice wrote: "That's good. Wait, didn't D. love the tsar? Hard as it is to believe.Do you think it's a hidden agenda? Something he couldn't say outright for fear of his life?
Fyodor was full of himself and ..."
Yes, he loved the Tsar (and the church) but was nevertheless critical of what was happening to Russia. And yes, openly criticising the Tsar could have landed him in jail again.
Patrice wrote: "Yes, this is a running argument in my class. My classmates and I are kind of overwhelmed by the Russian-ness. My prof keeps pointing us back to the universal. She says that if we focus on the his..."Why does your Prof want you to create such distance? Understanding the period by immersing yourself in it should help not hinder your reading. One of the reasons I read the classics is to do this so as to escape the pressures of everyday life.
Kate wrote: "Patrice wrote: "That's good. Wait, didn't D. love the tsar? Hard as it is to believe."D. loved the Tsar in the abstract, as a necessary apex of the social order. But couldn't he do this and stil..."
Excellent points Kate. Yes, Fyodor is a bit of a buffoon and this perhaps tempers our judgement of him as a father, which might otherwise be too harsh.
Oh well, there you go. You should be both distanced from it by placing it within its historical context, and at the same time absorbing it on a personal level. Dostoevsky would have to approve of that sort of duality.
Or put another way, people with a passion for something can be both inspiring and frustrating at the same time.
Sorry. I'll stop now. Don't want to add to your somersaults. :D
Or put another way, people with a passion for something can be both inspiring and frustrating at the same time.
Sorry. I'll stop now. Don't want to add to your somersaults. :D
I find that even though I immerse myself in the historical period I am nevertheless reminded of how certain aspects of a book apply to my own times. Good authors are always universal I think, that's what keeps them in the best seller lists. In the US you could be reminded of the divide which is opening up politically, in the UK there is a new schism in the CofE...
I don't agree with her though Patrice - Dostoevsky made it clear that it was about what was happening to Russia, which preoccupied him when he came out of prison, as well as being about good and evil.
Kate wrote: "Oh well, there you go. You should be both distanced from it by placing it within its historical context, and at the same time absorbing it on a personal level. Dostoevsky would have to approve of ..."Good one, Kate.
Sorry, I am reading a French translation and I wonderwhich book, which part?
Thanks
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,
..."
Hi, Danielle,
To tell you the truth, I was joking---trying to joke?---with the Everyman who posts on Goodreads.
The words are not actually part of TBK as written by Dostoevsky.
Sounds a bit lame writing this.
I switched from the Constance G. translation to the Pevear/Volokhonsky.
The P/V translation is published under a label called "Everyman's Library." And the words "Everyman..." are printed in the book before the title page.
Truthfully, I was just trying to make a little joke. Hopefully, my posting that didn't cause you to spend too much time looking for the quote.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
To tell you the truth, I was joking---trying to joke?---with the Everyman who posts on Goodreads.
The words are not actually part of TBK as written by Dostoevsky.
Sounds a bit lame writing this.
I switched from the Constance G. translation to the Pevear/Volokhonsky.
The P/V translation is published under a label called "Everyman's Library." And the words "Everyman..." are printed in the book before the title page.
Truthfully, I was just trying to make a little joke. Hopefully, my posting that didn't cause you to spend too much time looking for the quote.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Well, I'm up to the end of Book 3 and still laughing like a drain. The fight between Dmitri and Fyodor was pure Punch and Judy. The description of Grushenka made her sound like a meringue that would at any moment collapse to reveal a withered old crone. Alyosha is definitely identified as one of the shriekers. And I'm starting to think that in the epithet 'holy fool' the word 'fool' is more important than the word 'holy'. I'm very interested in how Smerdyakov is going to develop, as I think he's the only one so far who isn't telling us a lot of big fat lies. Maybe the only way not to be a liar in this book is to say nothing!But on a more serious note, I think that the mention of Jesuits and casuistry is a very interesting clue as to what is going on here. I learn from the introduction to this book that it was subject to censorship and this would, of course, mean that the author is not free to tell us what he really thinks. This happened in Shakespeare's time and the answer that the Jesuits came up with was 'equivocation' (i.e. ambiguity). Basically, they adopted the policy that you aren't obliged to tell the truth to a regime that is evil. And it was permissible for Roman Catholics to adopt the outward behaviour of the Protestant church (so as to save themselves from persecution), so long as, inside their heads, they were faithful to the Catholic church. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine... )
Because of the unreliable narration of this book, there are loads and loads of ambiguities. A perfect illustration occurs in this exchange:
'Alyosha, do you believe that I'm not just a buffoon?'
'I believe that you are not just a buffoon'.
(second page of Chapter 8)
What's Alyosha saying? That Fyodor is not a buffoon? Or that he's not JUST a buffoon (i.e. he IS a buffoon, but he's a lot of other things as well)?
D. loved the Tsar in the abstract, as a necessary apex of the social order. But couldn't he do this and still see the weakness and danger of a weak and self indulgent one? I think so.
And think back to book 2 when Zossima is talking about the man who loves humanity in the whole but detests individuals he is forced to deal with. Same kind of conflict between the ideal and immediate reality.
Or when Fyodor mourned and celebrated the death of his wife at the same time.
D. has lots of this where two apparently contradictory ideas exist in the same person at once, but I think he's forcing people away from the easy choice of either/or and making us see complexities.
ETA: All that said, Fyodor seems like this blackly humorous farcical character to me. In a weird way he both contributes to and lightens up the bleakness of the story.