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 4 - Part II, Book Five
date
newest »
newest »
John wrote: "Just seems to be to be one of the doubting sections, not a case for atheism. "Not sure what 'one of the doubting sections' means... Who is doubting?
Everyone does. Not in that particular section, but throughout the novel, everyone that has faith doubts it in some way or another. And every doubter has moments in which they doubt their lack of belief. Hence my earlier comment about the paradoxical nature of some of the characters. I think there's a big difference between writing about characters who have existential angst about their belief and making a case for atheism.
MadgeUK wrote: "In Chapter 39 there is this hope that the Russian people will turn away from atheism' (a frequent theme of Dostoevsky):'One who does not believe in God will not believe in God's people. He who believes in God's people will see His Holiness too, even though he had not believed in it till then. Only the people and their future spiritual power will convert our atheists, who have torn themselves away from their native soil."
I'm really having trouble with this line of argument. This statement is made (perhaps) by one fictional character (Zosima). It is then (according to another fictional character, the narrator), filtered through another fictional character (Alyosha), who has recalled and reconstructed it some time after the event. If this is, in fact, Dostoevsky's opinion, why would he be going to such lengths to distance himself from it?
This book is a work of fiction and any meaning that it may have is bound up with the way in which the fiction is constructed. Dostoevsky's use of multiple layers of narration HAS to mean that he does NOT expect us to take any of it at face value. Every time we get any statement like the one you have quoted, it is undercut and contradicted by its context. As a piece of literature, I am finding this book extremely complicated and to lift out brief quotes and treat them as if they have no surrounding context does not really get to the heart of this book as literature.
But ... but ... but why would someone want to consider the context when all they want to do it read it with their own rose-colored glasses? Context would actually mean someone might have to think. Mindless ideology is so much more fun!
Got you, you can delete it if you wish ... but I don't think it would really offend anyone. :)
Kathy wrote: I'm really having trouble with this line of argument.... Every time we get any statement like the one you have quoted, it is undercut and contradicted by its context........to lift out brief quotes and treat them as if they have no surrounding context does not really get to the heart of this book as literature...... OK but I am not arguing or trying to get to the heart of the book, nor am I putting a case for/against atheism or socialism etc etc, I just extrapolated some brief quotes which show the views which Dostoevsky himself had, as stated in his Diaries and elsewhere and which other critics and biographers have discussed. (Views which are repeated in all of his novels.) Of course TBK is a work of fiction but it is also a work in which he debates certain ideas he had in an attempt to convince his readers of his strongly held p.o.v., just as Dickens put forward ideas which he hoped would change his society. Contradicting himself via his characters is a valid form of debate, of dialectic and is a method used in many works of literature. Dostoevsky was worried that Holy Russia was going the way of Western Europe and embracing atheism and socialism and by debating certain issues in his novels he hoped to persuade people to draw back from that.
MadgeUK wrote: "OK but I am not arguing or trying to get to the heart of the book, nor am I putting a case for/against atheism or socialism etc etc, I just extrapolated some brief quotes which show the views which Dostoevsky himself had, as stated in his Diaries and elsewhere and which other critics and biographers have discussed."Well, you may be right, and I await with interest to see how that rabbit is going to be pulled out of the hat by the end of the book. I am merely stating that at this stage in the novel I have no way of knowing what Dostoevsky thinks because (a) he hasn't stated it; (b) the characters who have stated something like that viewpoint are being portrayed as 'shriekers', fools and hypocrites; (c) as far as I can tell so far, the atheists have the best arguments.
Thankyou Kathy: I agree that this is the position so far and I look forward to your comments later in your reading. Do you think that readers who are atheists might read the book one way and readers who are believers might read it another? BTW what is a shrieker? I only know that word as a description of someone who screams.
(What is the weather like in your neck of the woods? We had a blizzard in Herts last night but there is not much snow on the ground now, although it is frozen solid.)
Keep it on-topic, Madge. Take your inquiries about the weather elsewhere. Dostoevsky only!
Yes we are. I have two translations by me, the Garnett and the Magarshack. And yes there was a lot of mysticism and spiritualism about in D's time and although he went into it, attended seances etc., he came to dislike it. I posted something about his experiences and views on this in the Resources thread.
MadgeUK wrote: "Thankyou Kathy: I agree that this is the position so far and I look forward to your comments later in your reading. Do you think that readers who are atheists might read the book one way and reade..."Madge, it seems that you are wanting to discuss issues that only come out in the latter part of the book and so it might be easier if you either mark some of your posts as spoilers or put your comments on the threads about later chapters. I definitely think that readers could read this book in a particular (perhaps biased) way if they start off by thinking that they already know what Dostoevsky's position is. My reading of the first third of the book leads me to believe that it is written in such a way that we can't possibly guess what the author thinks (though I am willing to accept the possibility that he might make this clearer to us later on). You having such a definite opinion about what Dostoevsky intends doesn't tally with what I've read so far.
Way back upthread:"PSE at the LSE"
*faints*
Kathy wrote:Madge, it seems that you are wanting to discuss issues that only come out in the latter part of the book and so it might be easier if you either mark some of your posts as spoilers or put your comments on the threads about later chapters...."Sorry about that Kathy. To explain: We have been reading this book as a group since November and you have come to the discussion late so as no-one was still participating I thought I would answer some of your comments, just to be sociable. This thread is about the Grand Inquisitor chapter and covers up to and including Part II Book 5, to which most of my remarks were addressed. If one has read the book a couple of times and has also read biographies, as some folks here have done, then it is difficult not to have opinions about Dostoevsky or the book. However, I will now leave you to it. Happy reading and Happy Xmas.
MadgeUK wrote: "Kathy wrote:Madge, it seems that you are wanting to discuss issues that only come out in the latter part of the book and so it might be easier if you either mark some of your posts as spoilers or p..."Thanks, Madge. I will join in the next thread when I have read the next section of the book. I am gradually catching up! We have snow here today. I have posted a picture on my profile, if you want to take a look.
Kathy, you look remarkably like a tree, or the trusses of some barn-like structure. Though I'm not sure a picture of your face is on your profile. Maybe new pictures need to be pre-approved.
John wrote: "Kathy, you look remarkably like a tree, or the trusses of some barn-like structure. Though I'm not sure a picture of your face is on your profile. Maybe new pictures need to be pre-approved."You want a picture of a tree? Okay. (The barn pictures are for readers of Far From the Madding Crowd.)
Just seems to be to be one of the doubting sections, not a case for atheism.