Brothers Karamazov w/reading schedule

[Sandra]

I am glad you are enjoying the study guide. I think it was before he began writing it.
I also thought it was interesting that Tolstoy had a copy of this book by his bed when he was dying and it was all he would read over and over.

I am really getting into the book now :)

[Meg]

Dostoyevsky spent nearly two years writing The Brothers Karamazov, which was published as a serial in The Russian Messenger and completed in November 1880. Dostoyevsky intended it to be the first part in an epic story titled The Life of a Great Sinner,[1] but he died less than four months after its publication.

So the incident with the Tsar was in 1849 which was way before he wrote this book.

[Meg]

More info from the study guide

Dostoevsky was a changed man when he
returned to St. Petersburg in 1859. After petitioning
the royal courts, he was allowed to
resume his interrupted literary career, but under
surveillance. He and his brother established a
weekly magazine of political and literary writings.
In 1860 he published Memoirs from the
House of the Dead, a realistic description of his
experiences in prison. With his financial success,
he and his wife, whom he had met and married
in Siberia, could live well and travel. However,
their good fortune was marred by her suffering
from tuberculosis, his frequent epileptic seizures,
and his gambling addiction.

[Shelley]

Re existentialism: I am no expert, but I think one aspect of it simply applies to situations in which you have to take one step, one moment at a time and you can't plan out what you're going to do ahead of time.

Going into the hospital for surgery is an existential experience.

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

[Amy]

This is awesome. I read this years ago but would love to read it again because I'm not sure how much I remember.

[Meg]

Join us we would love to have you

[Amy]

I'm going to work on getting caught up. I've put the reading schedule into my calendar. I'm already reading two other books... so what's one more? :)

[Meg]

ha ha, that is great. I usually read 3 at a time myself.

[Sandra]

I am the same way :)

[Amy]

Looks like I'm definitely in the right group!

[Beth]

I'm so behind on this reading, but really enjoying what I've read so far! Hoping to catch up after the holidays!

[Meg]

It is interesting to read how different the brothers are. Why do you think the author did this? Does it work in the reading?

I am also curious as to why you think he made Alyosha so religious?

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I am thinking that maybe the huge difference in the personalities of the brothers is to make obvious how their life was as children, how they had different mothers and were raised by different people?

As to why Alyosha is so religious, I don't know. Is this going to play somehow into the existentialism that this book is supposed to focus on?

[Meg]

I think that Dostoevsky struggled with his place in society and with the church. Somehow, I think that the 4 brothers represented different parts of his own personality, I am projecting a bit, but I don't I am beginning to feel that this is accurate.

[Meg]

From Book III

Smerdyakov, at present, is arguing with his foster father as Alyosha arrives. He asserts that it is permissible for a man to renounce his faith in God in order to save his life. To prove that man cannot function by faith alone, he says that no man has enough faith to tell a mountain to move to the sea. He thinks, therefore, that this is reason enough to realize that man may deny God to save his life and later ask for repentance. Curiously, throughout the argument, he seems particularly eager to please and impress Ivan.

After Karamazov tires of the argument, he sends the servants away, but the conversation manages to return to the subject of religion. In answer to their father's queries, Ivan insists that there is no God. Further, he says, there is no immortality. Alyosha, of course, maintains that God does exist and that through Him man can gain immortality. Karamazov changes the subject. He talks now of women and begins a long, drunken, and cynical narration centering upon Alyosha's mother. The attack is depraved. Karamazov delights in mocking his late wife's religious beliefs. He is so vicious, in fact, that Alyosha collapses and succumbs to a seizure exactly like the one that Karamazov described as afflicting Alyosha's mother. Ivan bitterly reminds his drunken father that the woman of whom he has spoken so crudely was also Ivan's mother, and, for a moment, old Karamazov is confused, but recalls then that Ivan and Alyosha did indeed have the same mother. The two are attempting to revive Alyosha as Dmitri dashes into the house.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I had heard that the author had epilepsy himself, so wondered if that played into his writing at all, and into having Alyosha have a seizure, etc. So I googled it, and found this paragraph on wikipedia:

"Though Dostoyevsky was influenced by religion and philosophy in his life and the writing of The Brothers Karamazov, a personal tragedy altered the work. In May 1878, Dostoyevsky's three-year-old son Alyosha died of epilepsy, a condition inherited from his father. The novelist's grief is apparent throughout the book; Dostoyevsky named the hero Alyosha, as well as imbuing him with qualities which he sought and most admired. His loss is also reflected in the story of Captain Snegiryov and his young son Ilyusha."

Very sad! But this does help answer the question as to why he made Alyosha so religious.

[Meg]

Thank you for this, it answers a lot of questions!

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I agree, that little bit of history does answer a lot.

I had read that Dostoyevsky was epileptic, because of his book The Idiot, which is about a man with epilepsy (and which is on my "to read" list).

But I didn't know his son, Alyosha, had died of a seizure. Here is a little more info, from a wikipedia article on Dostoyevsky himself:

"From the age of nine Dostoyevsky suffered sporadically from epilepsy throughout his life and his experiences are thought to have formed the basis for his description of Prince Myshkin's epilepsy in his novel The Idiot and that of Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov, among others."

Here is another interesting bit about his writing style for all his books, and about the characters in his novels, which helps explain why he made the brothers so different:

"Dostoyevsky displayed a nuanced understanding of human psychology in his major works. He created an opus of vitality and almost hypnotic power, characterized by feverishly dramatized scenes where his characters are frequently in scandalous and explosive atmospheres, engaged in passionate dialogue. The quest for God, the problem of evil and the suffering of the innocent are the themes which haunt the majority of his novels.

His characters fall into a few distinct categories: humble and self-effacing Christians (Prince Myshkin, Sonya Marmeladova, Alyosha Karamazov, Saint Ambrose of Optina), self-destructive nihilists (Svidrigailov, Smerdyakov, Stavrogin, the underground man), cynical debauchees (Fyodor Karamazov, Dmitri Karamazov), and rebellious intellectuals (Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, Ippolit); also, his characters are driven by ideas rather than by biological or social imperatives. In comparison with the realistic characters of Tolstoy those of Dostoyevsky are more symbolic of the ideas they represent; thus Dostoyevsky is often cited as a forerunner of Literary Symbolism, especially Russian Symbolism (see Alexander Blok)."

[Meg]

thanks for all this Sheila it puts a lot of things in perspective. I knew he was epileptic but didn't know about his son.

I am really enjoying the book.

[Sandra]

Once again, I have gotten behind, but I am really enjoying this book. I hope to be all caught up by January 1st. I hope everyone is enjoying the Holidays!

[Meg]

I made the reading schedule light for the holidays. Glad you are enjoying it.

[Shelley]

Meg, re your interesting question about Alyosha: despite his vocation, I don't think of him as religious as much as I do spiritual (or maybe, religious in the best sense). I think Dostoevsky was trying to portray the real spiritual character: not smug, self-righteous, and critical, but observant, humble, and self-critical.

Shelley
Rain: A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

[Meg]

A quote:
"Father," he asked, 'Are the rich people stronger than any one else on earth?" "Yes, Ilusha," I said, 'there are no people on earth stronger than the rich.' 'Father,' he said, 'I will get rich, I will become an officer and conquer everybody.

What do you think? Agree with this quote or not?

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I would have to say I disagree with the quote. Yes, being rich can give some people an advantage in some areas, but I would not say being rich makes people strong. I think strength is a individual characteristic, and that there are some poor people who are in fact stronger than any rich man is.

[Meg]

I wonder if we substituted stronger with more powerful, would that quote work then?

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I'm not sure it works even with the word powerful.

Yes, some rich people are powerful, but some rich people have major downfalls. Think Bernie Madoff, who stole billions of dollars from people to make himself rich, who now sits in prison and has nothing.

Or think about some of these extremely rich rulers of other countries, like Muammar Gaddafi. Rich, and maybe powerful for awhile, but in the end he lost his life to the poor people who when they came together were stronger and more powerful than he was.

So maybe the quote could be true for awhile, but in then end, the rich are not necessarily the strongest or most powerful at all. :o)

[Meg]

BACKGROUND (from the study guide)
Good and Evil
Dostoevsky considered Book 5 the “culminating point” of the novel, and Chapters 4 and 5 are at its heart.
The prose poem of the Grand Inquisitor (Book 5, Chapter 5) has become so famous that it is often published as a separate work. Along with the chapter that precedes it, this part of the novel contains Ivan’s devastating
criticism of God and his creation. Dostoevsky was concerned that Ivan’s condemnation of God might be too
convincing for his readers. He wrote in his notebook that some of his readers “have never even conceived so
powerful a rejection of God as exists in the Inquisitor and the preceding chapter, to which the whole book
will serve as answer.” A defense of God’s goodness in the face of evil is called a theodicy. Dostoevsky’s theodicy
starts with Book 6, and the rest of the novel serves as the author’s reply to Ivan’s bitter attack.
Did You Know?
The title “Grand Inquisitor” alludes to a position created by the Spanish government in 1483. It was the
Grand Inquisitor’s responsibility to oversee the search for and punishment of people who, the government
thought, posed a threat to the Roman Catholic Church in Spain. The Grand Inquisitor played a leading
role in the Inquisition, which was established by the church in 1231 to stamp out opposition to the
church’s teaching. The inquisition process was used in European countries in which a Catholic monarch
was willing to carry out the church’s sentences.
In the 1200s and 1300s, punishments for heresy, or holding opinions contrary to church dogma, could
range from imposed prayer and fasting to life in prison. In the late 1400s, Spanish rulers found that they
could use the civil death sentence along with the church’s Inquisition procedures to enforce their policies
and rid the country of people who did not comply with the principles of the Catholic Church. The
Spanish Inquisition became notorious for its brutality, oppression, and death sentences. The first Grand
Inquisitor was Tomás de Torquemada. Even today, his name is synonymous with obtaining confessions by
torture. It is estimated that 2,000 people may have been burned to death during his tenure. The excesses
of the Inquisition in Europe gradually lessened. By the early twentieth century, the word itself was
removed from the name of the church body that oversees matters of faith. The Grand Inquisitor of Ivan’s
story seems to share some of the characteristics of Torquemada.

[Sandra]

I am so glad you are finding the guide useful.
Now, back to my reading, I'm almost there.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

Wow. Chapter 4 of Book 5 was pretty tough to read. Very sad. Very emotional. Made me want to go give my daughter a big hug, and protect her from all the evil of the world.

I can see why Dostoevsky considers this part of the book a "culminating point". Now I am very interested to read what Ivan's "Grand Inquisitor" poem is all about in chapter 5.

[Amy]

I'm finally caught up! I'm surprised and what I remember the most vividly from the book and as I've been reading I realized that I'd forgotten some important details. What amazes me the most is that although the book was written in 1880, we still struggle with some of the same issues. It just goes to show that good writing lasts :)

[Sandra]

I agree with you Amy...sometimes it is easy to forget how long ago some books were written.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

Meg wrote: "The prose poem of the Grand Inquisitor (Book 5, Chapter 5) has become so famous that it is often published as a separate work. Along with the chapter that precedes it, this part of the novel contains Ivan’s devastating criticism of God and his creation. Dostoevsky was concerned that Ivan’s condemnation of God might be too convincing for his readers. He wrote in his notebook that some of his readers “have never even conceived so powerful a rejection of God as exists in the Inquisitor and the preceding chapter, to which the whole book will serve as answer.”"

Hmm. While Ivan's rant in chapter 5 was interesting, it didn't affect me in any way like the author seems to think it would (see above). I didn't see it as this "powerful rejection of God". I took it more of as a "rant" by Ivan, as opposed to a "devastating criticism". What did everyone else think of this chapter?

[Meg]

I had trouble getting over the abuse of the children. I was so centered on that then reading the Grand Inquisitor was a detraction. The abuse made me sick to my stomach, it was not a good preface, in my opinion.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I agree with you completely, Meg. Chapter 4 of Book 5 was horrible. It really affected me emotionally, and like you, reading about the abuse of children made me sick to my stomach. It made the Grand Inquisitor speech seem trivial.

[Amy]

Sheila, I saw this as more of a rejection of the church than a rejection of God. His criticism indicates that he thinks the church has become like the Pharisees in the New Testament: they are so caught up in their own rules/ ideas about what comes from God that they don't recognize God when He is in front of them.

[Meg]

do you think this is why this piece of literature is considered Existentialism?

[Sandra]

Existentialism has always confused me, but I can see that as being true, Meg.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

Like Sandra, existentialism has always (and still does) confuse me. But this could be why this book is considered existentialism.

I just looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of the term existentialism again, and here is what it says:
a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad

So, for me, the part about "the individual must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will" seems to fit these chapters.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

I have to say this week's reading was a nice change of pace from last weeks. I enjoyed learning about the history of Elder Zosima, and how he came to be a monk.

[Amy]

Sheila wrote: "I have to say this week's reading was a nice change of pace from last weeks. I enjoyed learning about the history of Elder Zosima, and how he came to be a monk."

I liked it, also. It's like a "story within a story."

As for existentialism, I've always simplified this theory by thinking of it as a belief that there is no ultimate meaning, fate or destiny and that we each create our own meaning or purpose for life. I may be over simplifying it, but I wonder if this book is considered existential because the different characters create their own destinies by acting in accordance with their belief systems. Just thinking out loud here... I may disagree with this perspective as I read more of the book.

[Meg]

I also liked this week's reading.
Question: do you feel a strong dislike for the father? I am having trouble building of feelings against him. I am not finding him a really despicable character, at least not yet.

As for extistentialism, I think the brothers are creating their own fate and not trying to change their character flaws (if they admit to them) So in that sense, I agree with you Amy

[Lori]

I have been away, and had signed up for this read. I do have the book, where are you all at now?

[Amy]

Discussing Chapter 6, reading chapter 7.

[Meg]

OK am I the only one that was bothered about the murder? I can't fathom how a man can kill his lover and live with it for 15 years the way that he did. I know he got his in the end (existentialism!) but still this scenario really bothered me alot.

[Amy]

Meg wrote: "OK am I the only one that was bothered about the murder? I can't fathom how a man can kill his lover and live with it for 15 years the way that he did. I know he got his in the end (existentialism..."

I didn't feel like he really loved her or he wouldn't have killed her. I realize that this was a different time, but love doesn't seek to destroy the object of love if it can't be possessed. That sounds more like an abusive relationship where he viewed her as something he owned rather than as a person.

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

Meg wrote: "OK am I the only one that was bothered about the murder? I can't fathom how a man can kill his lover and live with it for 15 years the way that he did. I know he got his in the end (existentialism..."

Truthfully Meg, this whole book is leaving me wondering! :o)

Where is this monster book going anyway?????
I don't understand why the author is writing in the chapters he is writing.

Why did he write that horrible chapter about abuse of children? The Grand Inquisitor speach was nothing.

Why did he write the character that murdered his girlfriend, then hid it and lived with it for all those years? And why have him spill his story to the monk? How does this all play into the Brothers, who I thought were going to be the main characters of this story?

And, oh my, what was with writing a whole long chapter about how much the monk's corpse smelled of decay shortly after he died? Seriously? Couldn't he just mention this was happening, if it is important to the story? Did he have to write a whole chapter detailing the smell, and everyone's reactions to the smell???

[Sheila , Supporting Chick]

Well, I'm about half way into this week's reading (book 8), and it looks like we might finally be getting into the "meat" of the book, with some action finally taking place...it only took half the book to get here. :o)

[Meg]

All I know is that my next gift will be an onion............

[Amy]

Meg wrote: "All I know is that my next gift will be an onion............"

Maybe this is where The Onion newspaper got the name?

[Meg]

That would be something to research!

I am also reading a book called 1Q84 and there is a whole section where they talk about Dostoevsky