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 3 - Part II, Book Four
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Nov 20, 2010 10:56PM
New thread for those who wish to discuss Book 4.
reply
|
flag
Ah here come the schoolboys (Chap 3) - where is HistoryBuff?:)On the question of the schoolboys, Dosteovsky has been accused of taking too keen an interest in young girls and youths and several of his books describe inappropriate sexual acts between older men and children. (Though not in TBK.) I have put some links about this controversial subject on the Resources thread.
I'm here, Madge! A bit behind though:(. I'll have to do some catching up this week over the school break. I've been quite busy lately, and haven't had a lot of time to read or be on the forum.
On how we believe what we already want to believe:
"He was strongly in favor of fasting, and it was not strange that one who kept so rigid a fast as Father Ferapont should "see marvels" (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 1, Father Ferapont CG page 160).
"The pinching of the devil's tail he was ready and eager to believe, and not only in the figurative sense (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 1, CG page 160).
Alyosha to Katerina, "...with an unreal love---because you've persuaded yourself" (CG 179).
"He was strongly in favor of fasting, and it was not strange that one who kept so rigid a fast as Father Ferapont should "see marvels" (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 1, Father Ferapont CG page 160).
"The pinching of the devil's tail he was ready and eager to believe, and not only in the figurative sense (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 1, CG page 160).
Alyosha to Katerina, "...with an unreal love---because you've persuaded yourself" (CG 179).
Because I'm semi-obsessed with Fyodor and his first wife...
(Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 2, "At His Father's House")
Fyodor speaking of the young women, of Grushenka, etc.
"They are poor creatures I tell you, those pale young ladies, very different from...." (CG page 165) And who are they different from? From Fyodor's wife?
(Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 2, "At His Father's House")
Fyodor speaking of the young women, of Grushenka, etc.
"They are poor creatures I tell you, those pale young ladies, very different from...." (CG page 165) And who are they different from? From Fyodor's wife?
What Katherine wants from Dmitri!!! (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 5, "A Laceration in the Drawing Room, CG page 177)
"I will be a god to whom he can pray." (She really does want to have the superior position in their relationship!) "He owes me for his treachery and for what I suffered yesterday because of him."
Are we really in the right in telling others what they owe us? Or isn't that really a decision that has to be made, in moral terms, by the person who "owes"...IF they owe?
I dislike Katherine in this scene.
EDIT: I guess I would amend that to: I dislike Katherine's actions in this scene.
"I will be a god to whom he can pray." (She really does want to have the superior position in their relationship!) "He owes me for his treachery and for what I suffered yesterday because of him."
Are we really in the right in telling others what they owe us? Or isn't that really a decision that has to be made, in moral terms, by the person who "owes"...IF they owe?
I dislike Katherine in this scene.
EDIT: I guess I would amend that to: I dislike Katherine's actions in this scene.
Adelle wrote: "What Katherine wants from Dmitri!!! (Part 2, Book IV, Chapter 5, "A Laceration in the Drawing Room, CG page 177)
"I will be a god to whom he can pray." (She really does want to have the super..."
So far Grushenka is the only interesting female character in the story. Katherine became more the caricatured hysteric as Book IV went on. She enjoys seeing herself as a romantic martyr.
"I will be a god to whom he can pray." (She really does want to have the super..."
So far Grushenka is the only interesting female character in the story. Katherine became more the caricatured hysteric as Book IV went on. She enjoys seeing herself as a romantic martyr.
Regarding the boys' with the stones and other hurtful scenes. How hurtful being hit with stones can be. How hurtful hearing the truth can sometimes be. I liked the following passage very much.
Ilushka....running along side his father and Dmitri. Crying. Begging.
"These psychic lacerations make the physical injury---from being struck above the heart by a stone---seem minor.......Now a poor father's words of anguish over the unjust sufferings of his child lacerate our hearts:
An ordinary boy, a weak son, would have submitted, have felt ashamed of his father, sir, but he stood up for his father against them all. For his father and for truth and justice, sir. For what he suffered when he kissed your brother's hand and cried to him, 'forgive daddy, forgive daddy" ---that only God knows --- and I, sir, his father.... But at that moment in the square, when he kissed his hand, at tham moment my Ilyushka had grasped all that justice means, sir, That truth entered into him and crushed him forever, sir. (BK 188)
The truth's power to crush, and injure is greater than that of any stone. {I loved that!} But truth's power to nourish is also greater than any bread. {Alyosha was eating a roll.} Once again, the dominant images cut both ways. {As pointed out by Patrice, others}
....{the captain] calls Alyosha 'sir' out of both respect and contempt. In each use of the word one emotion may outweigh the other; but both are present, and together they constitute his laceration; the word lacerates both ways.
The power of truth and stones to injure is counterbalanced in this scene by their power to heal as well. As Snegiryov recites the agonizing truth to Alyosha, they are approaching 'that great stone' (BKI 189) to which the captain and Ilyusha are in the habit of going in the evening. It is a place where they can speak the truth to each other. As Snegiryov and Alyosha reach the comforting (spirutally nourishing) stone, Sneigiryov's anguish and the power of his words reach their apex. He describes how the night before he and Ilyusha had 'reached the stone where we are now.'
(Robin Feuer Miller, on the BK, page 52,53)
Ilushka....running along side his father and Dmitri. Crying. Begging.
"These psychic lacerations make the physical injury---from being struck above the heart by a stone---seem minor.......Now a poor father's words of anguish over the unjust sufferings of his child lacerate our hearts:
An ordinary boy, a weak son, would have submitted, have felt ashamed of his father, sir, but he stood up for his father against them all. For his father and for truth and justice, sir. For what he suffered when he kissed your brother's hand and cried to him, 'forgive daddy, forgive daddy" ---that only God knows --- and I, sir, his father.... But at that moment in the square, when he kissed his hand, at tham moment my Ilyushka had grasped all that justice means, sir, That truth entered into him and crushed him forever, sir. (BK 188)
The truth's power to crush, and injure is greater than that of any stone. {I loved that!} But truth's power to nourish is also greater than any bread. {Alyosha was eating a roll.} Once again, the dominant images cut both ways. {As pointed out by Patrice, others}
....{the captain] calls Alyosha 'sir' out of both respect and contempt. In each use of the word one emotion may outweigh the other; but both are present, and together they constitute his laceration; the word lacerates both ways.
The power of truth and stones to injure is counterbalanced in this scene by their power to heal as well. As Snegiryov recites the agonizing truth to Alyosha, they are approaching 'that great stone' (BKI 189) to which the captain and Ilyusha are in the habit of going in the evening. It is a place where they can speak the truth to each other. As Snegiryov and Alyosha reach the comforting (spirutally nourishing) stone, Sneigiryov's anguish and the power of his words reach their apex. He describes how the night before he and Ilyusha had 'reached the stone where we are now.'
(Robin Feuer Miller, on the BK, page 52,53)
:) Hiya Madge! I just loved the stones/truth piece in message 8....But just in case there was any confusion, it wasn't me in Message 8. It was a quote from someone named Robin Feuer Miller who had written on TBK. But wasn't it cool! Especially in a Book called "Lacerations."
[Planning to get a jump on Thanksgiving and get some items made a day or two early.]
[Planning to get a jump on Thanksgiving and get some items made a day or two early.]
Adelle wrote: "But just in case there was any confusion, it wasn't me in Message 8. It was a quote from someone named Robin Feuer Miller w..."Is Robin Feuer Miller a Christian?
Nemo wrote: "Is Robin Feuer Miller a Christian?"
She's a professor at Brandeis, specializing in 19th C. Russian literature.
http://www.brandeis.edu/facguide/pers...
ETA: I know that doesn't answer your question, Nemo. Just giving you a starting point to look for information about her.
She's a professor at Brandeis, specializing in 19th C. Russian literature.
http://www.brandeis.edu/facguide/pers...
ETA: I know that doesn't answer your question, Nemo. Just giving you a starting point to look for information about her.
Nemo wrote: "Adelle wrote: "But just in case there was any confusion, it wasn't me in Message 8. It was a quote from someone named Robin Feuer Miller w..."Is Robin Feuer Miller a Christian?"
Why do you ask Nemo?
Kate wrote: Katherine became more the caricatured hysteric as Book IV went on. She enjoys seeing herself as a romantic martyr.
My sense is that there is some truth to what you say. But, thru my pov, though she now may enjoy seeing herself as a romantic martyr, I don't think that was her initial view of herself.
Conjecture: Throughout the book there is a theme of labeling. Labeling others. Labeling the self. Instead of being, instead of living, we too often play a role....one pinned on us from outside or one we've prescribed for ourselves....often, it seems, so we don't have to face an emotional pain in our lives.
Having read through Book IV, I look back on Katherine. I can understand why she may have come to label herself as a romantic martyr. From what I read in TBK, Katherine was a "good girl" from a "good family." She gets the note from Dmitri: Come to my rooms secretly or your father will be ruined. Think of the agony she must have undergone. To go to Dmitri would absolutely shatter her image of who she is. We can lie to ourselves....but it's much easier to lie to ourselves if we only have to change the interpretation....if we don't have to change the actual facts.
Katherine loves her father.
(Aside. Katherine, the child, tries to protect her father. Ilyushka, the child, tries to protect his father. Role reversal.)
She determines to protect her father from ruin. There is no way she can convince herself that she is giving herself to Dmitri as an act of passion. Think of the psychological trauma she must be suffering. 4000 rubles (5000?)is a lot of money, but whether she sells herself dear or sells herself cheap....she's selling herself....She's a whore.
How can she be the savoir of her father and not be a whore? It can't be done. It can't be done. She can't live with either of those labels (either of those self-constructs). She's a young woman who has grown up relatively protected. There is no one with whom she can discuss this situation. Not her aunts. Certainly not her father. She feels she has no alternative to actually going to Dmitri's room. That fact seems to her unavoidable. However, there might be alternatives as to how she interprets the act.
In a way, you have to give Katherine credit for coming up with a preferred label: She'll be a romantic martyr.
She hates Dmitri for having put her in that position. Mmm, perhaps I have to give Dmitri the credit for letting herself think of herself as a romantic martyr. For all I know, Katherine went to Dmitri's room with the knowlege that she was selling herself. Despising herself. Perhaps it was Dmitri's bow that allowed her to relabel herself from self-loathing prostitute to self-admiring romantic martyr.
{Perhaps bows---physical, verbal, emotional---towards others are something any of us can give one another...
Dos. with his shifting positions, the ambiguity of his scenes and stories.
Such bows ... seemingly such a simple thing to do... yet at the same time such a difficult thing to do for most of us (Dmitri with his head pressed against the ice cold glass of the window) ... perhaps??? because we're so tightly protecting our egos, our self images??? our interpretations of the facts???}
My sense is that there is some truth to what you say. But, thru my pov, though she now may enjoy seeing herself as a romantic martyr, I don't think that was her initial view of herself.
Conjecture: Throughout the book there is a theme of labeling. Labeling others. Labeling the self. Instead of being, instead of living, we too often play a role....one pinned on us from outside or one we've prescribed for ourselves....often, it seems, so we don't have to face an emotional pain in our lives.
Having read through Book IV, I look back on Katherine. I can understand why she may have come to label herself as a romantic martyr. From what I read in TBK, Katherine was a "good girl" from a "good family." She gets the note from Dmitri: Come to my rooms secretly or your father will be ruined. Think of the agony she must have undergone. To go to Dmitri would absolutely shatter her image of who she is. We can lie to ourselves....but it's much easier to lie to ourselves if we only have to change the interpretation....if we don't have to change the actual facts.
Katherine loves her father.
(Aside. Katherine, the child, tries to protect her father. Ilyushka, the child, tries to protect his father. Role reversal.)
She determines to protect her father from ruin. There is no way she can convince herself that she is giving herself to Dmitri as an act of passion. Think of the psychological trauma she must be suffering. 4000 rubles (5000?)is a lot of money, but whether she sells herself dear or sells herself cheap....she's selling herself....She's a whore.
How can she be the savoir of her father and not be a whore? It can't be done. It can't be done. She can't live with either of those labels (either of those self-constructs). She's a young woman who has grown up relatively protected. There is no one with whom she can discuss this situation. Not her aunts. Certainly not her father. She feels she has no alternative to actually going to Dmitri's room. That fact seems to her unavoidable. However, there might be alternatives as to how she interprets the act.
In a way, you have to give Katherine credit for coming up with a preferred label: She'll be a romantic martyr.
She hates Dmitri for having put her in that position. Mmm, perhaps I have to give Dmitri the credit for letting herself think of herself as a romantic martyr. For all I know, Katherine went to Dmitri's room with the knowlege that she was selling herself. Despising herself. Perhaps it was Dmitri's bow that allowed her to relabel herself from self-loathing prostitute to self-admiring romantic martyr.
{Perhaps bows---physical, verbal, emotional---towards others are something any of us can give one another...
Dos. with his shifting positions, the ambiguity of his scenes and stories.
Such bows ... seemingly such a simple thing to do... yet at the same time such a difficult thing to do for most of us (Dmitri with his head pressed against the ice cold glass of the window) ... perhaps??? because we're so tightly protecting our egos, our self images??? our interpretations of the facts???}
Thanks Adelle. That was a much more complete and thoughtful way to look at the situation. Mine was sort of knee jerk, partially because D.'s characterization of women leans heavily towards the hysteric.
I have no way of knowing what Katherine thought of herself before the extended view we have of her here in this chapter, but certainly D. gives his characters more than one facet. She is certainly quickly generous to help out the Staff Captain...but of course there are multiple layers of motive in that act as well.
I agree that D. not only looks at labeling but at acting. Many of his characters assign themselves roles and proceed to play that part. Fyodor is an obvious one, but so are Katherine, the Staff Captain (sorry don't have my book so I can't remember his exact name), Dmitri, Father Ferapont. Of course everyone acts a role sometime in our lives. We all have myths we believe about ourselves. D. does tend to hold up that mirror.
I have no way of knowing what Katherine thought of herself before the extended view we have of her here in this chapter, but certainly D. gives his characters more than one facet. She is certainly quickly generous to help out the Staff Captain...but of course there are multiple layers of motive in that act as well.
I agree that D. not only looks at labeling but at acting. Many of his characters assign themselves roles and proceed to play that part. Fyodor is an obvious one, but so are Katherine, the Staff Captain (sorry don't have my book so I can't remember his exact name), Dmitri, Father Ferapont. Of course everyone acts a role sometime in our lives. We all have myths we believe about ourselves. D. does tend to hold up that mirror.
Thanks to you, too, Kate. Frankly, I hadn't paid much attention or given much thought to Katherine until you had posted at 7. So many characters. So easy to think of some of peripheral.
Do you think that perhaps Katherine gets so hysterical (and she does) because when she believed that Grushenka (I'm with you on the difficult of remembering the Russian names) was virtuous, she started to identify with Grushenka, she could believe herself to be virtuous; and when Grushenka revealed herself in truer colors....Katherine started to come perilously close to thinking of herself again as a woman who would put herself up for sale? And perhaps she had the hysterical breakdown so she wouldn't have to think about it?
Do you think that perhaps Katherine gets so hysterical (and she does) because when she believed that Grushenka (I'm with you on the difficult of remembering the Russian names) was virtuous, she started to identify with Grushenka, she could believe herself to be virtuous; and when Grushenka revealed herself in truer colors....Katherine started to come perilously close to thinking of herself again as a woman who would put herself up for sale? And perhaps she had the hysterical breakdown so she wouldn't have to think about it?
Adelle wrote: "Kate wrote: Katherine became more the caricatured hysteric as Book IV went on. She enjoys seeing herself as a romantic martyr.My sense is that there is some truth to what you say. But, thru ..."
Beautiful, thoughtful post Adelle - thankyou.
Adelle wrote: "Thanks to you, too, Kate. Frankly, I hadn't paid much attention or given much thought to Katherine until you had posted at 7. So many characters. So easy to think of some of peripheral. ..."
Grushenka refused to enter into the role Katherine assigned her. So yes, it stripped away the pretense of virtuous behavior and forced Katherine to either confront the reality of her relationship with both Grushenka and Dmitri or to embrace a new dramatic role of victim and martyr. As you say, perhaps she cannot bear to look closely at herself so she takes refuge in drama and hysteria.
Grushenka refused to enter into the role Katherine assigned her. So yes, it stripped away the pretense of virtuous behavior and forced Katherine to either confront the reality of her relationship with both Grushenka and Dmitri or to embrace a new dramatic role of victim and martyr. As you say, perhaps she cannot bear to look closely at herself so she takes refuge in drama and hysteria.
Madge, thank you, but of course I have benefited from all those posters pointing out how psychologically Dostoevsky wrote this book. Links to Freud.
I believe I read somewhere the Sigmund Freud hated Dostoevsky's work. On another note of a thinker and Dostoevsky, I also remember reading that Nietzsche once said "Dostoevsky is the only psychologist I have learned something from."
On the contrary HB, Freud was a great admirer of Dostoevsky and thought he was one of the world's foremost authors. Freud also paid tribute to Dostoevsky's psychological insight and he studied his novels in depth, drawing upon them for his own work. He wrote a famous (and controversial) essay on what he thought was Dostoevsky's Oedipus complex and his subconscioius wish to kill his father but that was not criticism, just a psychological analysis based on what he knew of his childhood, epilepsy and gambling addiction etc. Here is a nice little summary of it by a blogger:http://resistancetotheory.blogspot.co...
Here is a piece about the thinking of both Nietzsche and Freud regarding Dostoevsky's work.
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/le...
Quite interesting, Madge. Nietzsche, I've found, is an interesting thinker to read--though I have to say that I don't really agree with him.
Historybuff93 wrote: "Quite interesting, Madge. Nietzsche, I've found, is an interesting thinker to read--though I have to say that I don't really agree with him."That's sort of a blanket statement. What precisely do you not agree with?
Pretty much everything:), John. Just to list a few things, I disagree with him on ethics and morals, the idea of the ubermensch, his certainty on that God is dead (Nietzche's atheism, though some have debated this), and the will to power (or my interpretation of it). I have only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, though I plan on reading more.
Historybuff93 wrote: "Pretty much everything:), John. Just to list a few things, I disagree with him on ethics and morals, the idea of the ubermensch, his certainty on that God is dead (Nietzche's atheism, though some h..."I was a quarter of the way through Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but has stalled for the past two months. I'm interested in your opinion on the book.
I'd be happy to discuss it, Nemo. Perhaps we should switch to another thread though, as this is a BK thread.
You could open a Nietzche thread under the authors section if you wish.
I think I will do that in the morning (a little late at night here). Oh and Nietzsche also fits into our time period too.
The Nietzsche thead has been posted.
But now he's gone off feeling terribly proud and triumphant though he knows that he's ruined himself.But isn't this the ancient sin of hubris? Also, he has not only ruined himself, he has ruined his family which could possibly lead to starvation in such a cruel environment. The saying 'Pride comes before a fall' seems apposite here. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride, especially if that means helping others, or those dependent upon you.
There were other anonymous ways of Aloysha helping this man, like having 200 roubles worth of clothing delivered to his children, or secretly paying 200 roubles towards his rent. And I also find this sort of pride another reason for the state to give benefits as of right, rather than people relying on charity from strangers. If I were faced today with such a situation, where, say, I knew an old lady was without fuel for her home because she had not claimed benefits, I would notify a social worker to make sure she got the heating allowance she was entitled to. Similarly if I saw children who looked underfed I would make sure that the school was giving them the free meals and milk they were entitled to. The state is much more anonymous than a charity worker like Aloysha, and therefore less likely to offend someone's false pride. (Sorry to bring social welfare back into the equation again Kate but Dostoevsky inveighed against socialism so I feel honour bound to defend parts of it.)
Aloysha is right to say that there should be no contempt for a person in need of charity but the guilt put upon people by the church and others led to this p.o.v. Neither a god nor any other person should make a needy human being feel guilty. My favourite religious saying in these circumstances is 'There but for the Grace of God, go I'!!
Thought provoking musings, Madge, Patrice.
I will have to go back and re-read that section when I finish Book Six this weekend.
Regarding "gifts" .... I thought this when I read Patrice's remarks on the other thread.
... I have a problem with the whole gratitude demanded aspect of "gifts." A good many people, myself included, are not truly able to give gifts. Like Mdm H., Lize's mother, we expect, nay we demand, something back in return for our "giving."
And I have received "gifts" that I am expected to pay for for the rest of my life. Spoken or unspoken those words are in the air, "Well, I gave you..."
Then it's not a gift.
I will have to go back and re-read that section when I finish Book Six this weekend.
Regarding "gifts" .... I thought this when I read Patrice's remarks on the other thread.
... I have a problem with the whole gratitude demanded aspect of "gifts." A good many people, myself included, are not truly able to give gifts. Like Mdm H., Lize's mother, we expect, nay we demand, something back in return for our "giving."
And I have received "gifts" that I am expected to pay for for the rest of my life. Spoken or unspoken those words are in the air, "Well, I gave you..."
Then it's not a gift.
MadgeUK wrote: "But now he's gone off feeling terribly proud and triumphant though he knows that he's ruined himself.
But isn't this the ancient sin of hubris? Also, he has not only ruined himself, he has ruined..."
Madge, this is a great post, and deserves a fuller response---after I re-read.
But there IS something to be said for ... I don't want to use the word "pride"; I want to use "self-respect." Without self-respect, what kind of man are you? Without the respect of your children, what kind of father are you? The Captain, if I remember correctly, wasn't to too proud to play the buffoon when he had to to try to earn ... that might be the word... to earn a living for his family. Only he knew what he could accept and what he couldn't accept.
Re, Alyosha. I absolutely agree with you. He COULD have found another way. Also, and this had bothered me as I was reading, didn't Alyosha say to the Captain that only the two of them would know? And then didn't he go back and discuss everything with Lize? I think that was a sin. He was breaking a confidence.
From my own childhood, my parents income was such that the family qualified for reduced-price lunches at school. But we just didn't eat lunches. We would chose to go hungry rather than eat those lunches. Mmmm. This position didn't help my parents very much because when we got home from school we were ravenous and headed straight for the frig.
Will continue. Very good points brought up.
But isn't this the ancient sin of hubris? Also, he has not only ruined himself, he has ruined..."
Madge, this is a great post, and deserves a fuller response---after I re-read.
But there IS something to be said for ... I don't want to use the word "pride"; I want to use "self-respect." Without self-respect, what kind of man are you? Without the respect of your children, what kind of father are you? The Captain, if I remember correctly, wasn't to too proud to play the buffoon when he had to to try to earn ... that might be the word... to earn a living for his family. Only he knew what he could accept and what he couldn't accept.
Re, Alyosha. I absolutely agree with you. He COULD have found another way. Also, and this had bothered me as I was reading, didn't Alyosha say to the Captain that only the two of them would know? And then didn't he go back and discuss everything with Lize? I think that was a sin. He was breaking a confidence.
From my own childhood, my parents income was such that the family qualified for reduced-price lunches at school. But we just didn't eat lunches. We would chose to go hungry rather than eat those lunches. Mmmm. This position didn't help my parents very much because when we got home from school we were ravenous and headed straight for the frig.
Will continue. Very good points brought up.
Just quick,
from a religious pov, we are all guilty.
"There but for the Grace of God," ... I don't think that's a religious statement, though said by lots of religious people. On the one hand, it does serve to remind one that they could very easily have been in the position that another is in.
On the other hand, I think it's a secret pat on one's own back, a statement of un-stated superiority: (Un-spoken, but implied: God's Grace was on me. That's really why I'm not were that guy is.)
from a religious pov, we are all guilty.
"There but for the Grace of God," ... I don't think that's a religious statement, though said by lots of religious people. On the one hand, it does serve to remind one that they could very easily have been in the position that another is in.
On the other hand, I think it's a secret pat on one's own back, a statement of un-stated superiority: (Un-spoken, but implied: God's Grace was on me. That's really why I'm not were that guy is.)
Adelle wrote: "Just quick, from a religious pov, we are all guilty.
"There but for the Grace of God," ... I don't think that's a religious statement, though said by lots of religious people. On the on..."
Oh, I didn't know about the second meaning - I wont use that phrase again! Thanks.
From my own childhood, my parents income was such that the family qualified for reduced-price lunches at school. But we just didn't eat lunches. We would chose to go hungry rather than eat those lunches.Did you choose because you did not like those lunches or because you were ashamed? There used to be a lot of stigma attached to the provision of meals and milk but governments have tried to overcome that by making the provision more discrete - no more vouchers etc. I would call some of these refusals (not in children, but parents) false humility or 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. IMO it is those who place the shame on the shoulders of needy people and children who are shameful, not those who accept help.
Yes, Aloysha's indiscretion with Lisa was just the sort of thing that used to happen over free school meals. People got to know the recipients through the indiscretions of dinner ladies, teachers etc. Now everyone is much more discrete because of this known stigma.
My attitude in general is that people do not choose to be born, they become citizens through fate and when their state fails them via bad economic systems, wars, famines etc then that state has a duty of care towards them. After all, the state needs labour to keep its administration and infrastructure going, it calls upon citizens in emergencies and wars. Citizens in general give far more than they take because they keep the whole darned edifice of nationhood and government going. Or as John Donne put it, so much better:-
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Interesting points. That business with the captain was one of those places where I found several different layers catching me as an outside observer.
First I had Madge's reaction. That Snegirov's response was appalling hubris and showed how willing people are to enganger themselves and others out of misplaced pride. (Madge, go ahead and discuss these kinds of social welfare issues. They are important and relate to Dos and to this book. I just didn't want us to get off into a digression of European vs. American socio-political systems on the other thread)
Secondly, I thought the whole scene was comedic, but I keep finding an amazing amount of humor, much of it very dark, that runs through the whole book. Dos. uses comedy a lot to dramatize the humanity of his characters.
Thirdly Alyosha is portrayed (again) as the sincere naif who is trying to do the right thing, but is too focused on his own desire to help to be aware of what he is doing to the helpee (new word). He understands the disaster he has perpetrated only as the captain stomps the rubles into the mud, but he also learns from that and figures out how to fix it. Alyosha grows in this story as he figures out how to love everyone.
Loved your comments on gifts and gratitude Adelle. Really astute and I know what you mean!
First I had Madge's reaction. That Snegirov's response was appalling hubris and showed how willing people are to enganger themselves and others out of misplaced pride. (Madge, go ahead and discuss these kinds of social welfare issues. They are important and relate to Dos and to this book. I just didn't want us to get off into a digression of European vs. American socio-political systems on the other thread)
Secondly, I thought the whole scene was comedic, but I keep finding an amazing amount of humor, much of it very dark, that runs through the whole book. Dos. uses comedy a lot to dramatize the humanity of his characters.
Thirdly Alyosha is portrayed (again) as the sincere naif who is trying to do the right thing, but is too focused on his own desire to help to be aware of what he is doing to the helpee (new word). He understands the disaster he has perpetrated only as the captain stomps the rubles into the mud, but he also learns from that and figures out how to fix it. Alyosha grows in this story as he figures out how to love everyone.
Loved your comments on gifts and gratitude Adelle. Really astute and I know what you mean!
Patrice wrote: ...there is the unintended consequence of a sense of entitlement that I can't accept. I honestly have to wrestle with this issue. I don't have a ready answer.I think it is a problem are all wrestling with Patrice, especially people of goodwill. What worries me is that we are in danger of throwing out a lot of needy babies with the dirty bathwater:(.
Anonymous giving is the highest form, definitely.
I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable about deciding what another person needed.
This is precisely what the early socialist/Victorian reformers decided when they conducted their huge surveys into the Life of the London Labouring Poor and it is why they thought that government provision would be the best, and more efficient because of the economies of scale.
(I don't believe that 'half the people in the US are taking food stamps' - it sounds like a massive overstatement to me. We get a lot of that in the tabloid press over here and the facts always prove them wrong. There is a great deal of misinformation/propaganda on this subject so we must beware and check the sources.)
Patrice wrote: "The last I heard half of the people in the US are taking food stamps."
According to a recent Reuters article 40 million people in the US were on food stamps in May of this year--a new record. 40 million/ 310 million is about 13% which isn't even all the families who are technically below the poverty line. I've seen elsewhere that 40% of families with young children have collected food stamps sometime this year, which is awful but not surprising since younger workers have been the hardest hit by layoffs and joblessness. Those numbers don't look to me like lots of people are abusing the system. Unfortunately you get a lot very public noise from certain places that our social programs support a lot of dead beats. The figures just don't bear that out.
According to a recent Reuters article 40 million people in the US were on food stamps in May of this year--a new record. 40 million/ 310 million is about 13% which isn't even all the families who are technically below the poverty line. I've seen elsewhere that 40% of families with young children have collected food stamps sometime this year, which is awful but not surprising since younger workers have been the hardest hit by layoffs and joblessness. Those numbers don't look to me like lots of people are abusing the system. Unfortunately you get a lot very public noise from certain places that our social programs support a lot of dead beats. The figures just don't bear that out.
Thanks Kate Mc - very useful stats. We get a lot of the same sort of thing over here and it is getting worse during the financial crisis. Those of us who read more and have more sense must take care to quell these nasty rumours whenever we can because it can lead to the sort of stigmatisation of the poor which was seen in earlier centuries, and in Dostoevsky's time. I am sure no-one here wants a return to the dark days of the Great Depression when poor and ragged people were begging in the streets or queuing at soup kitchens because there was so little social welfare. Those of us who can take care of our own should not begrudge those less fortunate. For many children a school meal is the only meal they have in a day because they have poor (or feckless) parents. Punish the parents by withdrawing benefits and we punish the innocent children. It is a dilemma.
Patrice wrote: "Yes, Madge, I do not read and I have no sense. Thank you for pointing that out."Oh Patrice, I wasn't referring to anyone here! I was saying that we all do read and have sense so we should do what we can to see that facts are reported accurately. I do not deny there are problems but as Kate has pointed out the statistics do not bear some of the reporting out.
And Father Zosimma bowed to all.
Patrice wrote: "Sorry for over reacting."That's OK Patrice,, we all have our 'touchy' moments as I well know! :)
Nice one Adelle!:).
I've been there, too; too often. Madge is right: We all have 'touchy' moments. Too true.
And as I'm in a good mood today, I'll throw a kiss back to Kate. :)
And as I'm in a good mood today, I'll throw a kiss back to Kate. :)
Patrice wrote: "Alyosha offers the Captain the desperately needed money and the captain throws it down and stomps over it. ... Alyosha analyses the psychology of this man so well."Do you think that Alyosha's interpretation of this event is one that we should accept? When it comes to human psychology, Alyosha seems to be totally inept. In the author's note, he describes him as 'a figure of an indefinite, indeterminate sort'. Alyosha is the kind of well-meaning idiot who intervenes in the fight between the schoolboys and ends up having BOTH sides throwing stones at him! The description of his initial encounter with the boys is telling:
'Alyosha began with this practical remark, without any premeditated guile, which, incidentally, is the only way for an adult to begin if he wants to gain the immediate confidence of a child, and especially of a whole group of children. One must begin precisely in a serious and practical way so as to be altogether on an equal footing. Alyosha instinctively understood this.'
The irony is, of course, that Alyosha's remark does NOT gain the confidence of the children and they immediately sideline him and continue throwing stones.
I also liked the final sentence of Book 4, after he has made such a pig's ear of giving the money to the captain:
'Having smoothed them out, he folded them, put them in his pocket, and went to report to Katerina Ivanovna on the success of her errand.'
SUCCESS?? Ha! Dostoevsky has such a sly way of revealing Alyosha's self-delusion.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The Currents of Space (other topics)Thus Spoke Zarathustra (other topics)
