Brothers Karamazov (A) 01: Book I - Chapter 1, Book II - Chapter 2

[Loretta]

Please start the discussion below!

[Sandi]

This is my first time reading Dostoevsky, and I'm surprised how readable it is. I have been somewhat intimidated by the name for a few years and I'm glad that I'm finally getting at it. Can't say much about the plot yet. The only thing bothering me is how some of the characters are sometimes refered to by their first names, by their last names, and sometimes by their nicknames...

[Adam]

I got an early start on this since I'm going to be out of town this week and won't have much time to read.

Here's a brief rundown of the characters introduced so far...several of them might seem peripheral, but Dostoevsky has a bad habit of bringing them back long after you've forgotten about them:

Fyodor Karamazov - the father, married twice, had one child by his first wife (Dimitri) and two by his second (Alexei and Ivan) - also has a fourth illegitimate son living at his place currently (Pavel Smerdyakov, he hasn't shown up yet, just mentioned in the text).

Dimitri Karamazov (also Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri) - first son of Fyodor, he was taken from him by Pyotr Miusov when he was young and raised by distant relatives. He's trying to get some sort of inheritance out of his father, but his father claims he has already received everything he is owed.

Ivan Karamazov (also Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka although people don't usually use his nicknames) - second son of Fyodor, an atheist, well-educated. He has returned by request of his brother Dimitri, although the exact details aren't quite clear at this point. He lives with his father and gets along with him well (to everyone's surprise).

Alexei Karamazov (Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka) - third son, all-around likeable guy (hence all the cutesy nicknames), currently stays at the monastery although he is not a monk.

Zosima - Elder of the monastery (my other copy refers to him as a 'Starets,' rather than an elder, which I suppose doesn't have an exact translation), the general population, and especially Alexei, reveres him as if he were a saint.

Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov - cousin to Fyodor's first wife, he 'rescued' Dimitri from Fyodor when Dimitri was a child, but quickly passed him off to a distant relative. He owns an estate on the border of the local monastery and has been in legal battles with them regarding property rights. Pyotr is there with them for the meeting which begins in book 2.

Pyotr Fomich Kalganov (Petrusha) - distant relative of Pyotr Miusov, about to enter university - accompanies him to the monastery.

Grigory Vasilievich Kutuzov - Fyodor's servant - took care of all of Fyodor's children at one time or another. He has not appeared fully in the story yet.

Maximov - Landowner from Tula (Russian city 120 mi. south of Moscow, according to Wikipedia) - he offers to show the guests the way to Zosima's hermitage - I don't know if he ever shows up again but his curious appearance makes him worth mentioning (elderly, balding, honeyed lisp, pop-eyed)

Father Paissy - one of the two hieromonks attending the meeting, Dostoevsky describes him as very learned, and sick (but not old) - I believe he does show up again later in the story.


Phew, is that it? I don't know if this will help anyone, but I recall reading it for the first time and having trouble with all of the characters. It's worth noting that you don't have to remember the middle names, they just refer to a person's father and are used as a formality in the Russian language.

[Kristina]

I like how the story began. You got to meet the sons individually. I also liked how the narrator explained how there lives shaped who they were as men in the present. I too had to write down the nicknames so I knew who was talking at any given time.

[Everyman]

One problem I have with the Russian names is that Dostoevsky (or maybe the translator?) isn't consistent in how he addresses people. I know we do that in English, too, but with English names we're more used to which nicknames go with which names, and that people will use last names with strangers and first names often with people they know. But I, for one, am not used to how the Russian names are used.

For a specific example, early in Book 2 (don't remember which chapter) it's Miusov most of the time, then Fydor talks about Pyotr Alexandrovich being invited to the dinner, and I wonder, who is Pyotr Alexandrovich? Had to go back to realize that it was Miusov and not a different name for Pytor Kalganov.

[Everyman]

One thing I'm very curious about, and wonder whether it will ever be explained.

Who is the narrator? In the first sentence, he says that Karamazov was "a landowner well known in our district, and still remembered among us.." So apparently the narrator is a member of the community and apparently has been so for some time. He (she?) in talking about the dispute between Miusov and the monastery talks about Miusov as "Pytor Alexandrovitch," which seems to imply (if I understand the Russian name use) some familiarity with him, and says "I don't know exactly [whether the dispute was about fishing or wood-cutting]," again suggesting that he has knowledge but not the complete knowledge that an omniscient narrator would have.

But he also, in the visit to the Monastery, is able to report verbatim the various conversations that go on, both in the cell and when they are walking to the cell and spoken to by Maximov. How could some resident of the town have the knowledge to report these conversations so accurately?

It confuses me (and, frankly, bothers me!)

[Everyman]

Already we see that the father and the sons are all quite different people. These apples have fallen far from the tree, and far from each other.

I'm not sure yet whether Fyodor really is in some ways a buffoon, or whether he plays that part to disguise his shrewdness and intelligence. He seems shrewd about his business, but as far as I can see not so much so about people and life events. But that could change. How do others see it?

[Becky]

Adam thanks for the run down! I really appreciate that.

Everyman, I had the some wonder about the narrator.

I feel so overwhelmed in these first few chapters I dont have much to say. Beautifully written, er, translated. A lot of characters with a multitude of names and titles. I am really enjoying the interplay between characters.

[Josie]

I'm pretty surprised at the ease of reading, myself. It might take a little time to get used to the name variations, but I don't think it'll be that bad.

Already starting to see a good deal of character variation and learn a bit of what each character is about. And I've unintentionally settled on a 'favorite' or 'most relateable' personality so far. . . hoping that doesn't affect my reading too much.

Fyodor does seem to come off as a bit buffoonish to me, but not intellectually. I don't think he's dumb or dim when it comes to people, but probably very self-serving and shrewdish. Not sure I'd quite call him cunning yet, but advantageous. Reminds me of a Dickensian villain of sorts.

[Everyman]

Josie wrote: "Already starting to see a good deal of character variation and learn a bit of what each character is about. "

Would love to hear your thoughts when you're ready to share them.

[Adam]

Everyman wrote: "One thing I'm very curious about, and wonder whether it will ever be explained.

Who is the narrator? In the first sentence, he says that Karamazov was "a landowner well known in our district, a..."

I don't think the identity of the narrator is ever truly established. Dostoevsky writes as if he is a character in the town, but the author is also semi-omniscient when he needs to be, even going so far as to share people's exact thoughts at certain points.

I guess this does break some sort of rule in narration, but Dostoevsky was a bit of a free spirit in this regard. The idea that the storyteller was actually there makes it feel more real and personal, but if he was restricted only to events he could have witnessed then we wouldn't have much of a story...it's an unusual approach but I think it's the only way this novel would work.

If you feel an explanation is needed, just pretend the narrator interviewed everyone involved and pieced the story together afterwards.

[Brandon]

I'm actually very satisfied with the beginning of the novel. At first I was a little nervous of Dostoevsky providing so much background information in such a brevity of pages; but, after finishing half of the section, it turns out that it works. It's astounding how Dostoevsky achieves such lofty characterization in the first few pages, while some authors can't even achieve mediocre characterization in hundreds of pages.

It also seems Dostoevsky has no problem painting a picture in his readers' minds. I can still imagine that scene in which he speaks about oblique rays of light shining in through Alyosha's window when he was a child.

Lastly, although I admit that Fyodor Pavlovich is a swine who doesn't deserve an ounce of respect, I still can't help feeling sympathy towards him.

[ayanami]

I don't really think Fyodor is truly buffoon-ish either. Doesn't Zosima pretty much call him out on that, saying the whole thing is an act? It was a little difficult for me to follow the exchange between Fyodor and Zosima, but I think Zosima is saying that Fyodor acts the way he does because he is ashamed of himself (I'm assuming this refers to him sponging off his wives/other people, etc.)

I'm guessing Zosima is a really important character in the book, since he was introduced in the first part as part of the "nice little family" even though I don't think he is actually related to the Karamazovs (at least, I can't recall anything like that being mentioned so far).

[Bob]

ayanami wrote: "I don't really think Fyodor is truly buffoon-ish either. Doesn't Zosima pretty much call him out on that, saying the whole thing is an act?"

Yes, it's always an act with him. Even when he admits his faults, the admission comes off as an act -he has no intention of reforming. As Zosima explains, he's always lying, not only to others, but to himself. Zosima defines that as the essence of evil, and that's how I see Fyodor, as simply evil, period.

He's also evil in the more traditional sense of being totally egoistic, not to mention nasty. He basically ignores his children completely, with the result that they have to be raised by distant relatives. He also enjoys making other people uncomfortable - as in his constant needling of Miusov, and forcing his poor, demented wife to be a witness to endless orgies and debauchery in their home.

[Lauren]

Sorry that my comments are little behind but I just joined the group and started The Brothers Karamazov.

So far I am really surprised by how much I am enjoying this! I agree with Kristina that I like getting to know a little more about each of the brothers before anything really starts to happen.

The names are hard to get around. Thankfully I recently finished a book with Russian characters and have been able to catch onto the nicknames much more quickly than I thought I would.

[Izzy]

Everyman wrote: "One thing I'm very curious about, and wonder whether it will ever be explained.

Who is the narrator? In the first sentence, he says that Karamazov was "a landowner well known in our district, a..."

I'm finding this rather strange as well a bit like I'm a fly on the wall obserbing the characters in the book