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 8 - Conclusion and Final Thoughts
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Dec 29, 2010 05:33PM
This thread's for wrapping up the rest of the book or discussing topics related to The Brothers Karamazov as a whole.
reply
|
flag
Astounding book. I’m going to start it again in January.
“Dueling Banjoes.” The music fades in and out and threads itself throughout The Brothers Karamazov. Good vs. evil. “God and the Devil are joined in battle, and the battlefield is the heart of man.” Earthly desires vs. spirituality. Fathers and sons. And the duties and responsibilities they owe one another. “It is not flesh and blood, but heart which makes us *fathers and sons” ---Schiller. Human beings. And the duties and responsibilities we owe one another. “We are all responsible for everyone,” said Father Zosimma. But few of the populace believed it, and none of them lived it. It was a me-me-me world in which each was looking for his own advantage. And there was suffering.
Zosimma was one of the few who actually found his way to God. Or possibly God found him. Because Zosimma certainly wasn’t looking for God when he, like Dmitri was a swashbuckling soldier-man.
Zossima saw his brother in the face of Alyosha; he could see his younger self, I think, in Dmitri; but in Ivan, ah, in Ivan, he saw a searcher…Ivan’s the only character I see in the novel searching for God/wrestling with God.
Recall the words Father Zossima spoke to Ivan, “The question is still bothering your heart; it is still unanswered. But the martyr sometimes likes to divert himself with his despair, as you, too, divert yourself with magazine articles and discussions in society though you don’t believe your own arguments, and with an aching heart mock at them inwardly…That question you have not answered. And this is your great grief for it clamors for an answer.” And there was suffering.
Ivan, studying theology more closely probably than many of the monks in the monastery. Willing to admit to the existence of God, but angry, rejecting, using his superior intelligence to craft clever arguments, in effect shouting to God, “F you! You’re not who I want you to be!”
Because God wasn’t want Ivan had expected. God wasn’t what Ivan wanted God to be. No, that’s not quite it either. You’ll have noticed that Ivan blamed God for the abused children.
He didn’t blame God for natural disasters that killed hundreds of people, he didn’t blame God for scarlet fever or diphtheria….or even epilepsy, such as had killed Dostoevsky’s son during the period in which the book was written. Who abused those children?
It’s the Grand Inquisitor chapter. Ivan blamed God for not stopping man from hurting children, from hurting one another. “F You, God! It’s your fault for letting us do this! This is NOT what I want!” “Therefore, I reject You…with a really cleverly reasoned argument.”
But it was a lie.
Again, Father Zosimma: “A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying--to others and to yourself.” And there is suffering.
One of the themes in The Brothers Karamazov, I thought, was “expectations.” And the consequences of viewing the world thru our expectation-shaded glasses.
Take for instance, the case of Father Zosimma. There was no reason to think that the corpse would not start to decompose. There hadn’t been even a story of a body not decomposing for generations.
But…the people---especially Alyosha--- EXPECTED something different. They WANTED something different. Often they liked their own story so well that they disregarded any facts that didn’t fit in. Note that Dmitri is convicted, ‘though he didn’t actually commit the crime.
But he could have. Does that count for something?
The villagers didn’t step forward to help Fyodor Karamazov be a better man. Other than a bag of nuts for Dmitri, they didn't put themselves out for the care of his sons. But they could have.
Am I my brother’s keeper? The brothers weren’t brothers. Not fully by blood. Not at all by growing up in a shared family. I’ve known my neighbor longer and better than Alosha knew Ivan or Dmitri or Smerdyakov.
How deeply should I concern myself with how life is going for him? Should I make that extra effort and give him a kind word on the way to the mailbox? What if a kind word at the right moment made all the difference in the world?
Well, anyway, I thought I would throw out some thoughts on The Brothers Karamazov before the year ended.
*What a book Dostoevsky could have written about Fyodor Karamazov! What a fascinating read that would have been.
“Dueling Banjoes.” The music fades in and out and threads itself throughout The Brothers Karamazov. Good vs. evil. “God and the Devil are joined in battle, and the battlefield is the heart of man.” Earthly desires vs. spirituality. Fathers and sons. And the duties and responsibilities they owe one another. “It is not flesh and blood, but heart which makes us *fathers and sons” ---Schiller. Human beings. And the duties and responsibilities we owe one another. “We are all responsible for everyone,” said Father Zosimma. But few of the populace believed it, and none of them lived it. It was a me-me-me world in which each was looking for his own advantage. And there was suffering.
Zosimma was one of the few who actually found his way to God. Or possibly God found him. Because Zosimma certainly wasn’t looking for God when he, like Dmitri was a swashbuckling soldier-man.
Zossima saw his brother in the face of Alyosha; he could see his younger self, I think, in Dmitri; but in Ivan, ah, in Ivan, he saw a searcher…Ivan’s the only character I see in the novel searching for God/wrestling with God.
Recall the words Father Zossima spoke to Ivan, “The question is still bothering your heart; it is still unanswered. But the martyr sometimes likes to divert himself with his despair, as you, too, divert yourself with magazine articles and discussions in society though you don’t believe your own arguments, and with an aching heart mock at them inwardly…That question you have not answered. And this is your great grief for it clamors for an answer.” And there was suffering.
Ivan, studying theology more closely probably than many of the monks in the monastery. Willing to admit to the existence of God, but angry, rejecting, using his superior intelligence to craft clever arguments, in effect shouting to God, “F you! You’re not who I want you to be!”
Because God wasn’t want Ivan had expected. God wasn’t what Ivan wanted God to be. No, that’s not quite it either. You’ll have noticed that Ivan blamed God for the abused children.
He didn’t blame God for natural disasters that killed hundreds of people, he didn’t blame God for scarlet fever or diphtheria….or even epilepsy, such as had killed Dostoevsky’s son during the period in which the book was written. Who abused those children?
It’s the Grand Inquisitor chapter. Ivan blamed God for not stopping man from hurting children, from hurting one another. “F You, God! It’s your fault for letting us do this! This is NOT what I want!” “Therefore, I reject You…with a really cleverly reasoned argument.”
But it was a lie.
Again, Father Zosimma: “A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying--to others and to yourself.” And there is suffering.
One of the themes in The Brothers Karamazov, I thought, was “expectations.” And the consequences of viewing the world thru our expectation-shaded glasses.
Take for instance, the case of Father Zosimma. There was no reason to think that the corpse would not start to decompose. There hadn’t been even a story of a body not decomposing for generations.
But…the people---especially Alyosha--- EXPECTED something different. They WANTED something different. Often they liked their own story so well that they disregarded any facts that didn’t fit in. Note that Dmitri is convicted, ‘though he didn’t actually commit the crime.
But he could have. Does that count for something?
The villagers didn’t step forward to help Fyodor Karamazov be a better man. Other than a bag of nuts for Dmitri, they didn't put themselves out for the care of his sons. But they could have.
Am I my brother’s keeper? The brothers weren’t brothers. Not fully by blood. Not at all by growing up in a shared family. I’ve known my neighbor longer and better than Alosha knew Ivan or Dmitri or Smerdyakov.
How deeply should I concern myself with how life is going for him? Should I make that extra effort and give him a kind word on the way to the mailbox? What if a kind word at the right moment made all the difference in the world?
Well, anyway, I thought I would throw out some thoughts on The Brothers Karamazov before the year ended.
*What a book Dostoevsky could have written about Fyodor Karamazov! What a fascinating read that would have been.
You should write the screenplay, Adelle.
Ah, John, I can't. Imposible (with Spanish or French accent) I have no talent for dialouge.
But Someone could do it, and there's a great story there. Look what a character Fyodor was when we met him in the book. What intelligence he must have had --- he passed intelligence on to all his children. Look how he must have scheemed (mmm? doesn't look right) and shaved corners and cut questionable deals in order to claw his way to where he is financially---in a town where it seems he's something of a social outcast. What charm or charisma he must have had to manage to marry two women who seemingly stood above him socially. He must have had incredible potiential. He must have been a man with quite a drive for life. Yes, yes, yes, a terrible husband it would seem, an unbelievably unfit parent...but a story told by a narrator--reliable or not---who leaned sympathetically towards Fyodor Karamazov would be fascinating.
But Someone could do it, and there's a great story there. Look what a character Fyodor was when we met him in the book. What intelligence he must have had --- he passed intelligence on to all his children. Look how he must have scheemed (mmm? doesn't look right) and shaved corners and cut questionable deals in order to claw his way to where he is financially---in a town where it seems he's something of a social outcast. What charm or charisma he must have had to manage to marry two women who seemingly stood above him socially. He must have had incredible potiential. He must have been a man with quite a drive for life. Yes, yes, yes, a terrible husband it would seem, an unbelievably unfit parent...but a story told by a narrator--reliable or not---who leaned sympathetically towards Fyodor Karamazov would be fascinating.
Schemed. Yes.Didn't we already have one? Dostoevsky himself didn't seem to be too constitutionally disinclined toward Fyodor.
But I was being facetious, of course: it always seems like when books get turned into screenplays and movies, there's always something lost in the mix. It happened, in my opinion, with "Dr. Zhivago," and the various makes and re-makes of "Middlemarch" and Austen's novels. Best to let sleeping dogs lie? :)
By the way, a review would certainly be appreciated, especially from someone who so enjoyed and took so much away from the novel.
But I want to read the story of Fyodor BEFORE TBK started. I want the prequel.
And yes, your "schemed" looks much more proper. Off subject, but I had read somewhere (sorry, have forgotten the source)...
I had read that one side of the brain (the artistic side) can recognize that a word is not spelled correctly. It then has to send a message over to the other side of the brain (the more logic oriented half), to get the information as to how the word should be spelled.
lol. So either my logic side didn't know....or the messaging system wasn't working.
And yes, your "schemed" looks much more proper. Off subject, but I had read somewhere (sorry, have forgotten the source)...
I had read that one side of the brain (the artistic side) can recognize that a word is not spelled correctly. It then has to send a message over to the other side of the brain (the more logic oriented half), to get the information as to how the word should be spelled.
lol. So either my logic side didn't know....or the messaging system wasn't working.
it always seems like when books get turned into screenplays and movies, there's always something lost in the mix. It happened, in my opinion, with "Dr. Zhivago," and the various makes and re-makes of "Middlemarch" and Austen's novels. Best to let sleeping dogs lie? :)
Well, yes, usually. One of the few instances in which I prefer the movie to the book would be Jaws. And not just due to the special effects---'though those helped, of course. I preferred the storyline in the movie. I liked the characters better in the movie.
Adelle wrote: "Astounding book. I’m going to start it again in January.“Dueling Banjoes.” The music fades in and out and threads itself throughout The Brothers Karamazov. Good vs. evil. “God and t..."
Adelle, that is beautiful!
John wrote: By the way, a review would
"The Brothers Karamazov wasn't too stupid and didn't suck too badly ... but the greatest book ever written was Twilight"
lol
Actually only read a few sentences from Twilight...so I suppose I can't fairly judge it.
And you know I loved BK. But not inclined to post a review.
"The Brothers Karamazov wasn't too stupid and didn't suck too badly ... but the greatest book ever written was Twilight"
lol
Actually only read a few sentences from Twilight...so I suppose I can't fairly judge it.
And you know I loved BK. But not inclined to post a review.
Why not, Adelle? You just could post Message #2 from this thread, and that would be enjoyed by many reviewers.
John wrote: "Why not, Adelle? You just could post Message #2 from this thread, and that would be enjoyed by many reviewers."
But that post isn't really a review. It's more of a Thoughts regarding. There seemed to be so many important themes in BK. I don't think I could pull them together.
But that post isn't really a review. It's more of a Thoughts regarding. There seemed to be so many important themes in BK. I don't think I could pull them together.
If you haven't noticed, 95% of what people post as a review isn't really a review, either. You would be in good company.
Kate Mc. wrote: "This thread's for wrapping up the rest of the book or discussing topics related to The Brothers Karamazov as a whole."I quite like this review by a fellow atheist:-
http://www.angelfire.com/art/megathin...
I thought it rather good overview of the novel myself. Though I can't agree with some of what the reviewer writes.
Example: Zosima might say that he is a good man because he is a Christian; I say he is a good man and a Christian.
Such a take on Zosimma is in effect re-writing the character to fit the reviewer's pre-conceived position. Firstly, I thought that the novel very definately presented Zosimma as changing from a drinking, fighting, partying kind of life to a life of good works and spiritual focus ONLY after he turned towards God and became a Christian. I simply don't think a case can be made the he just one day became "a good man and a Christian" --- the statement implies that Zosimma WAS a good man who just happened to be Christian....and the fact that he joined a monastery and devoted his life to his Lord...simply, it is implied, a perhaps interesting detail, but of no more importance to the essence of the man Zosimma than what his choice in shoes might be.
Secondly, I would think that the statement would be as offensive to Dostoevsky, the man who wrote the novel, as the statement made sometime earlier in these posts to which Madge took offense. Madge's position was along the lines (Sorry, Madge, I can't find the post so I don't have the exact quote) "Don't tell me what atheists feel or don't tell me that atheists, if they behave morally, are secretly in their heart of hearts, still beleivers in God."
EDIT: Since I didn't find the actual post...and since don't remember exactly how it transpired....I mostly only remember that Madge had taken offense....I should note that perhaps the post that Madge had responded to hadn't ACTUALY said "this is how atheists are." It is possible Madge had interpreted the post as saying that. Just trying to hew to the facts as closely as I can.
My point being, if Madge and other atheists take offense at being re-defined (by Christians) as, you know, really being believers in God but they just aren't aware of it....(???perhaps on the basis of "That's what we what you to be.")
then surely it is offensive to re-define a self-described Christian who has dedicated his life to his God, as, to paraphrase, "you know, not really a Christian...or if he is, it really doesn't matter...mostly he was a good man who happened to be a Christian" (???perhaps on the the basis of "That's who I want him to be.")
So I did take exception to that. All readers, of course, can and will and should take away from the book what they will, and readers, of course, read between the lines....but I don't quite believe it is legit to re-interpret that characters to be almost the opposite of how they've been presented...simply because the characters hold beliefs that are contrary to those that the reader personally holds.
Just my take.
No one would claim that all self-labeled Christians are good
I thought this point was extremely well presented within the novel. Look at all the characters who Dostoevsky wrote into BK who probably CALLED themselves Christian, but were anything but. They were perhaps social Christians (Lise's mother), or positioning themselves Christians (Rakitin), others.
(This aspect of the book brought to mind Kirkegaard...and how he despised "Christians" who were merely going through the motions.)
But otherwise, Madge, I did find it a rather good overview. It provided information as to what the plot was...without giving too terribly much away.
And it did make the readers of the review aware that the book dealt with religious and philosophical and societal questions.
Thank you for posting it.
Example: Zosima might say that he is a good man because he is a Christian; I say he is a good man and a Christian.
Such a take on Zosimma is in effect re-writing the character to fit the reviewer's pre-conceived position. Firstly, I thought that the novel very definately presented Zosimma as changing from a drinking, fighting, partying kind of life to a life of good works and spiritual focus ONLY after he turned towards God and became a Christian. I simply don't think a case can be made the he just one day became "a good man and a Christian" --- the statement implies that Zosimma WAS a good man who just happened to be Christian....and the fact that he joined a monastery and devoted his life to his Lord...simply, it is implied, a perhaps interesting detail, but of no more importance to the essence of the man Zosimma than what his choice in shoes might be.
Secondly, I would think that the statement would be as offensive to Dostoevsky, the man who wrote the novel, as the statement made sometime earlier in these posts to which Madge took offense. Madge's position was along the lines (Sorry, Madge, I can't find the post so I don't have the exact quote) "Don't tell me what atheists feel or don't tell me that atheists, if they behave morally, are secretly in their heart of hearts, still beleivers in God."
EDIT: Since I didn't find the actual post...and since don't remember exactly how it transpired....I mostly only remember that Madge had taken offense....I should note that perhaps the post that Madge had responded to hadn't ACTUALY said "this is how atheists are." It is possible Madge had interpreted the post as saying that. Just trying to hew to the facts as closely as I can.
My point being, if Madge and other atheists take offense at being re-defined (by Christians) as, you know, really being believers in God but they just aren't aware of it....(???perhaps on the basis of "That's what we what you to be.")
then surely it is offensive to re-define a self-described Christian who has dedicated his life to his God, as, to paraphrase, "you know, not really a Christian...or if he is, it really doesn't matter...mostly he was a good man who happened to be a Christian" (???perhaps on the the basis of "That's who I want him to be.")
So I did take exception to that. All readers, of course, can and will and should take away from the book what they will, and readers, of course, read between the lines....but I don't quite believe it is legit to re-interpret that characters to be almost the opposite of how they've been presented...simply because the characters hold beliefs that are contrary to those that the reader personally holds.
Just my take.
No one would claim that all self-labeled Christians are good
I thought this point was extremely well presented within the novel. Look at all the characters who Dostoevsky wrote into BK who probably CALLED themselves Christian, but were anything but. They were perhaps social Christians (Lise's mother), or positioning themselves Christians (Rakitin), others.
(This aspect of the book brought to mind Kirkegaard...and how he despised "Christians" who were merely going through the motions.)
But otherwise, Madge, I did find it a rather good overview. It provided information as to what the plot was...without giving too terribly much away.
And it did make the readers of the review aware that the book dealt with religious and philosophical and societal questions.
Thank you for posting it.
Adelle, I like your post at #2 above. I think Fyodor is one of the really intriguing characters in the story (as is Smerdyakov). In some ways he's a foil for Zosimma, so they both enter and exit the story about the same time.
But Zosimma plays his part in the story from center stage and Fyodor lurks in the background like some unseen malignant presence. He is the darkness to Zosimma's light but he has his own strengths as you point out. One could get very allegorical about acquiring earthly riches for oneself vs. living a charitable life for others, but Dostoevsky is never only that easy or that obvious. I found Fyodor the biggest enigma of the book. We only have outlines, sketched in by how everyone else responds to him and that one gloriously outrageous scene in the monastery. In so many ways he's the driver of the story and I would have liked more of him.
But Zosimma plays his part in the story from center stage and Fyodor lurks in the background like some unseen malignant presence. He is the darkness to Zosimma's light but he has his own strengths as you point out. One could get very allegorical about acquiring earthly riches for oneself vs. living a charitable life for others, but Dostoevsky is never only that easy or that obvious. I found Fyodor the biggest enigma of the book. We only have outlines, sketched in by how everyone else responds to him and that one gloriously outrageous scene in the monastery. In so many ways he's the driver of the story and I would have liked more of him.
Adelle wrote: "I thought it rather good overview of the novel myself. Though I can't agree with some of what the reviewer writes. Example: Zosima might say that he is a good man because he is a Christian..."
Thanks Adelle. Mmmm... I think what the author was trying to say was that there are good people and bad people, whether or not they are Christians and what I earlier found unacceptable (offensive is too strong a word) was the supposition that only religious people/Christians can be good/kind etc. In TBK Christianity 'saved' Zossima but he could have become a good man whether or not he 'found' God or entered a monastery. Dosteovsky's ('offensive') take on atheism was that atheists were 'teachers of evil' so couldn't be good, that they would go mad etc but an atheist's take is that everyone, irrespective of religion or anything else, is capable of being a good, kind, worthwhile person. This view seems axiomatic to us in today's more liberal society but in Dosteovsky's time many people firmly believed that not to believe in God made you an evil person, which is why all his statements about atheists are negative - and it was this which I found unacceptable.
Madge, I love---I absolutely love--- how you're willing to engage.
That said, I must disagree with you. I in no way see the author of the review as saying that "In TBK Christianty 'saved' Zosimma but he could havve become a good man whether or not he 'found' God."
Feel free to point me to what I might be missing...but in TBK the very message, the very point that Dostoevsky was making was that Zosimma became a good man ONLY because he found God.
To say otherwise, to go along with your statement that 'In TBK ... Zossima could have become a good man whether or not he 'found' God...," would for me to be engaging in nothing more than idle, go-along-go-along-smile-even-if-one-doesn't-agree-because-after-all-we-aren't-talking-about-anything-that-is-actually-important-are-we-now-dear?
I found TBK to be an important book in large part BECAUSE of the grappling done in the novel with religion.
And there's Father Zosimma, whispering in my ear: "Don't lie to yourself."
but in Dosteovsky's time many people firmly believed that not to believe in God made you an evil person, which is why all his statements about atheists are negative - which is what I found unacceptable.
Well, you may or may not be right about that. I don't know what most people believed back in Dostoevsky's day. I don't even know what Dostoevsky himself believed about non-believers. I'm just going by the text. Which DOES portray those main characters who are rejecting God (I couldn't tell which ones were atheists, if any) in a negative light, I don't recall anything in the book, (and I'm trying to stay with the text), that would lead me to believe that Dostoevsky believed that if a person didn't believe in God that in and of itself made one an evil person.
I would grant you that it would seem that Dostoevsky most probably held that if one DID believe in God, that would make one a better person than one otherwise would have been.
Also, Dostoevsky was seriously concerned about the future of his beloved Russia. Oh, I've a quote I want to post here...but fear I'll lose what I've written. Please allow me to post, find what I'm looking for, and then edit.
That said, I must disagree with you. I in no way see the author of the review as saying that "In TBK Christianty 'saved' Zosimma but he could havve become a good man whether or not he 'found' God."
Feel free to point me to what I might be missing...but in TBK the very message, the very point that Dostoevsky was making was that Zosimma became a good man ONLY because he found God.
To say otherwise, to go along with your statement that 'In TBK ... Zossima could have become a good man whether or not he 'found' God...," would for me to be engaging in nothing more than idle, go-along-go-along-smile-even-if-one-doesn't-agree-because-after-all-we-aren't-talking-about-anything-that-is-actually-important-are-we-now-dear?
I found TBK to be an important book in large part BECAUSE of the grappling done in the novel with religion.
And there's Father Zosimma, whispering in my ear: "Don't lie to yourself."
but in Dosteovsky's time many people firmly believed that not to believe in God made you an evil person, which is why all his statements about atheists are negative - which is what I found unacceptable.
Well, you may or may not be right about that. I don't know what most people believed back in Dostoevsky's day. I don't even know what Dostoevsky himself believed about non-believers. I'm just going by the text. Which DOES portray those main characters who are rejecting God (I couldn't tell which ones were atheists, if any) in a negative light, I don't recall anything in the book, (and I'm trying to stay with the text), that would lead me to believe that Dostoevsky believed that if a person didn't believe in God that in and of itself made one an evil person.
I would grant you that it would seem that Dostoevsky most probably held that if one DID believe in God, that would make one a better person than one otherwise would have been.
Also, Dostoevsky was seriously concerned about the future of his beloved Russia. Oh, I've a quote I want to post here...but fear I'll lose what I've written. Please allow me to post, find what I'm looking for, and then edit.
As Zernov points out, “D was disgusted by the cult of egoism among individuals and nations in the West; he deplored the exclusive preoccupation with material comfort and the acquisition of wealth among the European people.” (quoted on page 56).(From F. M. Dostoevsky by Temira Pachmuss).
"...[the] usurping of Russia’s tradition disheartened D. He was disturbed by the thought that Russia, having her own individual intellectual and cultural development, which differed from that of the West, would be forced to assimilate European influences without having passed through the developmental states in succession….It could only have an adverse effect, he considered, because the moral strength of Western Europe was extraneous to Russia.
"Throughout the latter part of his life, Dostoevsky shared with the Russian populists the belief that Russia stood at a decisive turning point in its history, that is was necessary for Russia to break with its past and to realize its unique historical and cultural indentity in order to avoid recapitulating the historical evolution of Western Europe" (Idealogy and Imagination: The Image of Society in Dostoevsky, Kabat, page 9).
"...Russia's identity had become confused, distorted, dependent on Europe. The dilemma of the intelligentsia consists in its being unable to become either European or Russiann--that is, one with the people" (15).
"Dostoevsky describes the intelligentsia as having lost the habit of work, its native language [aside: did you see that China has banned the use of English in the media; did you see that Germany is cracking down --- in government, at least --- against the use of English when perfectly good ...lol, although long... German words exist], and a sense of the meaning of life, and as lacking any moral inheritnace to pass on to the future generations. The intelligentsia has been systematically emptied of subtance during its period of European tutelage" (Kabat, 16).
As you can discern from the page numbers, I just started the book.
But Dostoevsky, it seems to me, is trying to save his Russia. Though he might not --- I just have no way of knowing --- hold all non-believers to be evil, it would certainly strengthen his position vis-a-vis his keep-Russia-Russian views (totally understandable), to portray those who have been...contaminated...with European rejection of God....as, perhaps not evil, but certainly not as role models for Russians.
Have to leave. Thanks, Madge, for the back and forth.
"...[the] usurping of Russia’s tradition disheartened D. He was disturbed by the thought that Russia, having her own individual intellectual and cultural development, which differed from that of the West, would be forced to assimilate European influences without having passed through the developmental states in succession….It could only have an adverse effect, he considered, because the moral strength of Western Europe was extraneous to Russia.
"Throughout the latter part of his life, Dostoevsky shared with the Russian populists the belief that Russia stood at a decisive turning point in its history, that is was necessary for Russia to break with its past and to realize its unique historical and cultural indentity in order to avoid recapitulating the historical evolution of Western Europe" (Idealogy and Imagination: The Image of Society in Dostoevsky, Kabat, page 9).
"...Russia's identity had become confused, distorted, dependent on Europe. The dilemma of the intelligentsia consists in its being unable to become either European or Russiann--that is, one with the people" (15).
"Dostoevsky describes the intelligentsia as having lost the habit of work, its native language [aside: did you see that China has banned the use of English in the media; did you see that Germany is cracking down --- in government, at least --- against the use of English when perfectly good ...lol, although long... German words exist], and a sense of the meaning of life, and as lacking any moral inheritnace to pass on to the future generations. The intelligentsia has been systematically emptied of subtance during its period of European tutelage" (Kabat, 16).
As you can discern from the page numbers, I just started the book.
But Dostoevsky, it seems to me, is trying to save his Russia. Though he might not --- I just have no way of knowing --- hold all non-believers to be evil, it would certainly strengthen his position vis-a-vis his keep-Russia-Russian views (totally understandable), to portray those who have been...contaminated...with European rejection of God....as, perhaps not evil, but certainly not as role models for Russians.
Have to leave. Thanks, Madge, for the back and forth.
Thanks Adelle. I was expressing my pov, not the author's. I see Zozima as supposedly being 'saved' by Christianity. I am saying (and think the reviewer is saying) that I disagree with Dosteovsky, because Zozima could have become a good person, with or without God. That is no more idle talk than saying he became good because of religion/God/monastery. Dosteovsky is stating one p.o.v. about the value of religion, I am stating another. If you do a search on atheists, atheism and socialism you will find D's negative comments. Ditto in several of his other novels/diaries etc. Ivan is generally considered to be the key atheist character in the book and the one who becomes mad.
Yes I realise that Dostoevsky was concerned about the future of Holy Russia and its peasants and feared that atheistic socialism was taking over Europe - I have posted about that elsewhere and about his seeming inability to distinguish between atheistic French socialism and less atheistic English/American socialism.
However, you may like my way of engaging with you but others do not, so we had better not continue this vein about atheism and socialism. Suffice it to say that mine is a very lone voice here but that it was not a lone voice in Dostoevsky's time and amongst his contemporaries, several of whom had viewpoints nearer to my own. Again, I have posted about this elsewhere, particularly in the Background material.
Madge wrote: I disagree with Dosteovsky, because Zozima could have become a good person, with or without God. That is no more idle talk than saying he became good because of religion/God/monastery
But no. I'm sorry but I just don't see anything IN THE TEXT that would support your position.
From the text itself, and from the testimony of Zosimma, we have been given the information that that Zosimma had some sort of conversion experience and THEN quit his bad ways and devoted his life to God.
So from the text, we have support for Z becoming a good man AFTER he found God or after God found him.
Unless I missed it, there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that Zosimma could have or might have become a good man without God. Indeed, from the text, the implication is that he would have gone living the life of drink and debauchery until he was perhaps killed in a duel.
Show me where I'm mistaken, but I, personally, found nothing to suggest that Z "could" have become a good man without God.
That is no more idle talk than saying he became good because of religion/God/monastery
But no. It is idle talk. Because there is quote after quote in the book which indicates that Z became good because of religion and God. Z saying he first had religious emotion feelings when he was eight years old. Z saying, "And what is the use of Christ's words, unless we set an example" (270). Other numberous quotes, by Z himself, indicating the influence and importance in his life of God. So there is support for the position that Z became a good man due to religion and God.
But there is nothing in the text to indicate that Z would have or even could have become good without God.
(Mind you, I'm not saying a real person living a real life couldn't become a good person without God. I'm sure they can and do. But we're talking Zosimma, who is a character in TBK, and we can only judge him by what is given to us in the text or what we can legitimately read between the lines.)
And from the text, Z relayed to Alyosha that when away at the military school that his "childish impressions [of religion] grew dimmer" ... "I was transformed into a cruel, absurd, almost savage creature. But a surface polish of courtesy and society manners I did acquire together with the French language" .... Drunkeness, debauchery and evilry were what we prided ourselves on" (271).
So from the text, we see that Z was not at this point, the point in his life when he was living without religion, living the life of a good man.
And unless I'm missing something important, there is no indication from the text that he will change. Indeed, the implication is that he would have gone on live as he did until, perhaps, he died in some duel.
Ivan is generally considered to be the key atheist character in the book and the one who becomes mad.
I've read, too, that others have viewed Ivan as an atheist character, but I found nothing to support that. Ivan, it seems to me, "with a surface polish...and societal manners"...and probably speaking French --- in short, acting as, and trying to believe himself to be a sophisticated, European-ized atheist ... he's fairly young and either just out of or still in the university...probably taught by European professors ...
Ivan never states that he doesn't believe in God. He says he rejects Him. Huge difference. In fact he puts great time and effort into writing theological tracts. Even in his down time, Ivan is a little obsessed with God, writing his Grand Inquistor poem. Why would Ivan spend so much time on the God question if he were an atheist in fact?
And the poem isn't even for publication. So it's not as though Ivan is writing it for critical acclaim or to show off his erudition. To me, that suggests that Ivan very much believed in God, but didn't want to.
My reading of the book was that Ivan went mad not because he was an atheist, but because he wasn't---he went mad, it seems to me, because he did believe in God, but lied to himself, reject his own belief (a belief in God), led others (specifically Smeryakov) to the act --- and remember, Z held that actions were important....if one believes in Christ, then it follows that one should set an example and live the life of a good man. On the other hand, if actions are important, and one is rejecting God, what would better demonstrate one's rejection of God (for Smerdyakov) than flouting God's rules (for Smerdyakov, he might well have also thought that this would bring him the approval of his brother Ivan).
Mmm. Lost my train of thought.
Yes I realise that Dostoevsky was concerned about the future of Holy Russia and its peasants and feared that atheistic socialism was taking over Europe - I have posted about that elsewhere and about his seeming inability to distinguish between atheistic French socialism and less atheistic English/American socialism.
Yes, I knew that you had posted that you had thought that perhaps D would have viewed socialism and European influences differently had he examined the English/Am socialism more closely. In part, your posting that is one of the reasons that I'm doing background reading on Dostoevsky in 2011 as I re-read TBK with friends. I really would like a better sense of the man and his views and times in which he wrote.
However, you may like my way of engaging with you but others do not, so we had better not continue this vein about atheism and socialism.
But, Madge, isn't a large part of the online book group the very fact that people can and do engage? Why, yes, I believe it is.
And there you are, obviously a very knowledgable woman with strongly held views.
And here's me, who often doesn't even quite know what my point of view is until I start writing about it. So bless you, Madge, you're helping me figure out what I think. That has to be pretty high praise in a book group!
Yeah, sometimes you're a lone voice. But you tenaciously hold to your views. I think we (well, not to speak for others) ... I think you you're up to it. For all I know there's a core aspect of your personality which, like the little red notebook which my daughter gave me for Christmas, proclaims --- in all capital letters, I'll have you know:--- "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON."
Maybe you'll convince me. Maybe I'll convince you. But what fun in the meantime. (Like the old song, "Not much money, oh, but honey, ain't we got fun.)
I'm obviously not the smartest person here, nor the most well-read. What does it matter? But, what's that quote? I try to says what I think. And read what everybody else has to say. And agree or disagree. And by gosh, I come away with an understanding of the book under discussion that is just lightyears beyond what I would have were I to read the book by my lonesome.
Happy New Year, Madge. I hope much goes well for you this year.
But no. I'm sorry but I just don't see anything IN THE TEXT that would support your position.
From the text itself, and from the testimony of Zosimma, we have been given the information that that Zosimma had some sort of conversion experience and THEN quit his bad ways and devoted his life to God.
So from the text, we have support for Z becoming a good man AFTER he found God or after God found him.
Unless I missed it, there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate that Zosimma could have or might have become a good man without God. Indeed, from the text, the implication is that he would have gone living the life of drink and debauchery until he was perhaps killed in a duel.
Show me where I'm mistaken, but I, personally, found nothing to suggest that Z "could" have become a good man without God.
That is no more idle talk than saying he became good because of religion/God/monastery
But no. It is idle talk. Because there is quote after quote in the book which indicates that Z became good because of religion and God. Z saying he first had religious emotion feelings when he was eight years old. Z saying, "And what is the use of Christ's words, unless we set an example" (270). Other numberous quotes, by Z himself, indicating the influence and importance in his life of God. So there is support for the position that Z became a good man due to religion and God.
But there is nothing in the text to indicate that Z would have or even could have become good without God.
(Mind you, I'm not saying a real person living a real life couldn't become a good person without God. I'm sure they can and do. But we're talking Zosimma, who is a character in TBK, and we can only judge him by what is given to us in the text or what we can legitimately read between the lines.)
And from the text, Z relayed to Alyosha that when away at the military school that his "childish impressions [of religion] grew dimmer" ... "I was transformed into a cruel, absurd, almost savage creature. But a surface polish of courtesy and society manners I did acquire together with the French language" .... Drunkeness, debauchery and evilry were what we prided ourselves on" (271).
So from the text, we see that Z was not at this point, the point in his life when he was living without religion, living the life of a good man.
And unless I'm missing something important, there is no indication from the text that he will change. Indeed, the implication is that he would have gone on live as he did until, perhaps, he died in some duel.
Ivan is generally considered to be the key atheist character in the book and the one who becomes mad.
I've read, too, that others have viewed Ivan as an atheist character, but I found nothing to support that. Ivan, it seems to me, "with a surface polish...and societal manners"...and probably speaking French --- in short, acting as, and trying to believe himself to be a sophisticated, European-ized atheist ... he's fairly young and either just out of or still in the university...probably taught by European professors ...
Ivan never states that he doesn't believe in God. He says he rejects Him. Huge difference. In fact he puts great time and effort into writing theological tracts. Even in his down time, Ivan is a little obsessed with God, writing his Grand Inquistor poem. Why would Ivan spend so much time on the God question if he were an atheist in fact?
And the poem isn't even for publication. So it's not as though Ivan is writing it for critical acclaim or to show off his erudition. To me, that suggests that Ivan very much believed in God, but didn't want to.
My reading of the book was that Ivan went mad not because he was an atheist, but because he wasn't---he went mad, it seems to me, because he did believe in God, but lied to himself, reject his own belief (a belief in God), led others (specifically Smeryakov) to the act --- and remember, Z held that actions were important....if one believes in Christ, then it follows that one should set an example and live the life of a good man. On the other hand, if actions are important, and one is rejecting God, what would better demonstrate one's rejection of God (for Smerdyakov) than flouting God's rules (for Smerdyakov, he might well have also thought that this would bring him the approval of his brother Ivan).
Mmm. Lost my train of thought.
Yes I realise that Dostoevsky was concerned about the future of Holy Russia and its peasants and feared that atheistic socialism was taking over Europe - I have posted about that elsewhere and about his seeming inability to distinguish between atheistic French socialism and less atheistic English/American socialism.
Yes, I knew that you had posted that you had thought that perhaps D would have viewed socialism and European influences differently had he examined the English/Am socialism more closely. In part, your posting that is one of the reasons that I'm doing background reading on Dostoevsky in 2011 as I re-read TBK with friends. I really would like a better sense of the man and his views and times in which he wrote.
However, you may like my way of engaging with you but others do not, so we had better not continue this vein about atheism and socialism.
But, Madge, isn't a large part of the online book group the very fact that people can and do engage? Why, yes, I believe it is.
And there you are, obviously a very knowledgable woman with strongly held views.
And here's me, who often doesn't even quite know what my point of view is until I start writing about it. So bless you, Madge, you're helping me figure out what I think. That has to be pretty high praise in a book group!
Yeah, sometimes you're a lone voice. But you tenaciously hold to your views. I think we (well, not to speak for others) ... I think you you're up to it. For all I know there's a core aspect of your personality which, like the little red notebook which my daughter gave me for Christmas, proclaims --- in all capital letters, I'll have you know:--- "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON."
Maybe you'll convince me. Maybe I'll convince you. But what fun in the meantime. (Like the old song, "Not much money, oh, but honey, ain't we got fun.)
I'm obviously not the smartest person here, nor the most well-read. What does it matter? But, what's that quote? I try to says what I think. And read what everybody else has to say. And agree or disagree. And by gosh, I come away with an understanding of the book under discussion that is just lightyears beyond what I would have were I to read the book by my lonesome.
Happy New Year, Madge. I hope much goes well for you this year.
Laurele wrote: " ..."
Ah, Thank you, Laurele. I checked your book profile---or whatever your list of books is called--- and see that you, too, thought it a good book. Such a joy the right book can be, don't you think?
May you and all the Goodread Readers find such bookish joy in this fresh new year!
Ah, Thank you, Laurele. I checked your book profile---or whatever your list of books is called--- and see that you, too, thought it a good book. Such a joy the right book can be, don't you think?
May you and all the Goodread Readers find such bookish joy in this fresh new year!
Thankyou Adelle and a Happy New Year to you too.
Thank you, Madge! Oh, and Cleo, too!
I have a Cleo...but my Cleo is named Marco.
That's me little Marco in my photo. Like Paul Simon sung, he loves me like a rock.
I have a Cleo...but my Cleo is named Marco.
That's me little Marco in my photo. Like Paul Simon sung, he loves me like a rock.
Speaking of Paul Simon and photos...Kodachrome / You give us those nice bright colors / You give us those greens of summer / Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
Ah!
Yes. But bittersweet. Kodachrome is no more.
I really like, though, living in magic times, with magic things like digital photos that can be magically sent through the air to other people, other states, other countries.
Mostly I like them. Darn them, though. One can't just rifle through them looking that one photo one longs to see. Actual organizational skills are required.
Maybe in 2011 I could learn actual organizational skills.
I really like, though, living in magic times, with magic things like digital photos that can be magically sent through the air to other people, other states, other countries.
Mostly I like them. Darn them, though. One can't just rifle through them looking that one photo one longs to see. Actual organizational skills are required.
Maybe in 2011 I could learn actual organizational skills.
PS Adelle: Re being 'text based' when discussing TBK. I find it impossible to keep posts entirely text based when an author has clearly announced his intention to pursue certain themes in his novels, as Dosteovsky did when writing about TBK to friends and publishers. He conceived the idea of writing 'a huge novel' dealing with 'the theme of atheism and the existence of God' and he discussed this in a a letter to the poet Apollon in 1868. 'I have in mind a huge novel under the title of Atheism (for God's sake this is strictly between ourselves) but before I can sit down to it I must read almost a whole library of books written by atheists, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox writers....I have in mind a chief character, a Russian who belongs to our social set, an elderly man, not very well educated, but not entirely uneducated either, a man of some ranks, who suddenly in his old age loses his faith in God...He regains his faith in Christ as well as in Russia, the Russian God, and the Russian Christ...The main question that will be discussed in all the parts is one that has worried me, consciously and unconsciously all my life - the existence of God. During his life my hero [Ivan] is at times an atheist, at times a believer, a fanatic, a dissenter, and again, an atheist....I want to make Tikhon Zadonsky the chief character of the second story(line), under another name, but he will be a bishop living in retirement in a monastery.'http://www.roca.org/OA/6/6e.htm
'The whole idea of the novel is to show that universal disorder now reigns everywhere in society, in its affairs, in its leading ideas, in its convictions, in the disintegration of family life. If passionate convictions exist, they are only destructive ones (socialism). There are no moral ideas left, not a single one remains...' To Kakov, editor of The Moscow Herald he wrote: 'Combine all the four characters of the novel and you will get picture of our contemporary educated Russian...the synthesis of our modern Russia is anarchism..[The anarchist] declares himself openly in favour of the devil's advice and maintains that it is more likely to result in man's happiness than the teachings of Christ. To our foolish but terrible Russian socialist (for our youth is mixed up in it) it is a directive and, it seems, a very powerful one: the loaves of bread, the Tower of Babel (that is, the future reign of socialism) and the complete enslavement of the freedom of conscience. Our socialists are conscious Jesuits and liars who do not admit that their ideal of the coercion of the human conscience and the reduction of mankind to the level of cattle. My socialist (Ivan Karamazov) is a sincere man who frankly admits that he agrees with the views of the Grand Inquisitor...'
In another letter Dostoevsky quite openly declared that his main task in writing TBK was the 'defeat of anarchism'[with which he associated socialism], which he considered to be his 'civic duty'.
I therefore see all this as a sub text of the novel, which is a polemic against socialism and atheism and in praise of Christianity and the Russian Orthodox church. So by making Zossima have a religious conversion which made him quit his bad ways he is saying that this is the proper way for everyone to become 'good' and by sending Ivan insane, he is saying this is what will happen to an atheist socialist. My disagreement is because of this very prejudiced polemic in the sub-text of the novel and Dosteovsky intended that it should be read as such - it was his 'civic duty'. I rather regard it as my 'civic duty' to refute these dreadful views of people like me.
I think the novel is a good murder-mystery but for me the main theme of 'atheism and the existence of God' was too fanatical for me to enjoy it. I read it at uni (as part of a module on comparative religion) because I had to, I read it here because you all had chosen it. I am sorry if I caused dissent but some of it was too 'near the bone' for me to ignore. Thankyou for your kind words, which I appreciate.
BTW the quotes in post 26 are all from the Introduction by David Magarshack to my 1958 Penguin edition of TBK so did not require extensive research. Magarashack also answers the question of the ambiguities in the novel by saying that 'the paradox of Dostoevsky as a writer is that he puts the case against what he himself stands for much stronger than the case for his own ideas and convictions. Father Zossima's pious platitudes are never as convincing as Ivan's blasphemies and his ideas of Christian morality only catch fire when Dostoevsky gives them fictional form, as in Zossima's account of his dying brother's conversion, his duel, and the story of the mysterious visitor. In this lack of consistency between Dostoevsky the creative writer and Dostoevsky the man lies the great tragedy of his life, and it is this perhaps more than anything else that accounts for his irritable and suspicious temperament, which was such a trial even to his close friends. In TBK Dostoevsky saw the solution of Russian troubles in the Greek Orthodox church but that is not why his novel is recognised as the greatest achievement of his genius. It is in the universal human drama that its greatness lies, and not in Dostoevsky's ill-contrived attempt to transform Russia into a huge monastery.'
MadgeUK wrote: "
Did you like the David Magarshack translation? Since I'm going to re-read TBK, I've been considering re-reading it in a different translation. I've been leaning towards the P&V.
Well, yes, of course, Dos wanted to give his novel a certain slant. As it Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, as did any number of other authors. And to be clear, I love knowing the background information on the author. But, my thinking still is that you have to concentrate on the text. That after all is the author's creative work, his art.
He/(she if you will) of course takes his own views and works them into his creation. I watch and enjoy all manner of moives that contain work of actors and actress and directors who have views that I disagree with. But I don't bring that with me when I go to the moive. Mmm. Well, I might, bring it up in a discussion afterwards. So perhaps you have a point in that regard. Still, I try to judge the movie on the basis of the movie; and then criticize the director.
Nice, reading a bit of a different introduction. I have been known to check out two versions of a book. lol Just so I can have two intros to read.
I read in side criticism that Dos said he tried to write Ivan's GI scene strong...not some easy strawman. But that he intentionally wanted to write the counterargument as an indirect scene. And as Father Zosimma is a fictional character.... well, an indirect counterargument would have to take fictional form.
Personally, the murder story was for me the side story. The characters and the ideas were the real draw of the book.
Not a book I voted for. But ever so glad I made my way over here to read it. Ever so glad you were here to discuss it with me.
Give your Cleo a little tummy rub and have a good day.
Did you like the David Magarshack translation? Since I'm going to re-read TBK, I've been considering re-reading it in a different translation. I've been leaning towards the P&V.
Well, yes, of course, Dos wanted to give his novel a certain slant. As it Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, as did any number of other authors. And to be clear, I love knowing the background information on the author. But, my thinking still is that you have to concentrate on the text. That after all is the author's creative work, his art.
He/(she if you will) of course takes his own views and works them into his creation. I watch and enjoy all manner of moives that contain work of actors and actress and directors who have views that I disagree with. But I don't bring that with me when I go to the moive. Mmm. Well, I might, bring it up in a discussion afterwards. So perhaps you have a point in that regard. Still, I try to judge the movie on the basis of the movie; and then criticize the director.
Nice, reading a bit of a different introduction. I have been known to check out two versions of a book. lol Just so I can have two intros to read.
I read in side criticism that Dos said he tried to write Ivan's GI scene strong...not some easy strawman. But that he intentionally wanted to write the counterargument as an indirect scene. And as Father Zosimma is a fictional character.... well, an indirect counterargument would have to take fictional form.
Personally, the murder story was for me the side story. The characters and the ideas were the real draw of the book.
Not a book I voted for. But ever so glad I made my way over here to read it. Ever so glad you were here to discuss it with me.
Give your Cleo a little tummy rub and have a good day.
Cleo thanks you for her tummy rub:). And I thank you for being glad about the discussion, which I have, in fact, found very difficult and worrying.
I would have criticised Dostoevsky less if he hadn't explicitly announced his intentions. I found that difficult to ignore.
I have a Garnett translation too but used the Magarshack because of the Intro and because it had better chapter headings. I can't really distinguish between them, not being a Russian speaker but Magarashack is Russian and his translation won great acclaim in my youth.
Just thoughts.
So...Dostoevsky wrote Fyodor Karamazov as such a failed human being. I wasn't even outraged that he was murdered.
Was I even hoping for his murder? I dont' think so. But I would maybe have been hoping that he had a heart attack that night...and died.
So was I wishing for him to be dead? Yes, I was wishing that Fyodor Karamazov were dead.
So am I, as the reader, as guilty as Ivan or Dmitri?
So...Dostoevsky wrote Fyodor Karamazov as such a failed human being. I wasn't even outraged that he was murdered.
Was I even hoping for his murder? I dont' think so. But I would maybe have been hoping that he had a heart attack that night...and died.
So was I wishing for him to be dead? Yes, I was wishing that Fyodor Karamazov were dead.
So am I, as the reader, as guilty as Ivan or Dmitri?
I never found myself wanting something bad to happen to Fyodor. I wanted him to reform himself, even though I secretly knew that it would probably never happen. But I kept hoping relentlessly, anyhow.
You're a good person, John.
While I knew that Fydor was going to be murdered....said so in the intro, etc...I think I was rathering wishing during Dmitri's frantic search for money that maybe Fyodor would just have a heart attack...not be murdered...
And since he was going to be dead anyway...
While I knew that Fydor was going to be murdered....said so in the intro, etc...I think I was rathering wishing during Dmitri's frantic search for money that maybe Fyodor would just have a heart attack...not be murdered...
And since he was going to be dead anyway...
