Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (1 of 31), Read 70 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 21, 2001 12:55 PM 


In August, Classics Corner will discuss The Brothers
Karamazov by
Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Any translation is fine, but the 1990 translation by Richard
Pevear and
Larissa Volokhonsky is particularly recommended. This
award winning
translation is said to be the closest to Dostoevsky's
Russian.

I know this is a hefty book, but it is packed full of ideas and
drama. I
guarantee there will be lots to discuss.

Please join us.

Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (2 of 31), Read 62 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 21, 2001 02:47 PM 


Ann: Here's my first post in the new digs. I'll certainly be
joing ya'll this August.

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (3 of 31), Read 59 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 21, 2001 04:47 PM 


I read the first book last week, and got side tracked. The
novel keeps calling me, and I'm anxious to get back to it.
See y'all August 1 for this one.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (4 of 31), Read 60 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      R Bavetta rbavetta@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 21, 2001 07:08 PM 


I'm going to have some fast reading to do when I get
home. I didn't bring BK here with me.

Ruth

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (5 of 31), Read 53 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 23, 2001 05:35 PM 


I really love this book. Dostoevsky's writing and character
development is sooo similar to Tolstoy's! 
I hope most, if not all, reading this were able to get the
Pevear/Volokhonsky translation..they're just wonderful..

(Ruth, how much longer will you be at the cabin?)

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (6 of 31), Read 54 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 23, 2001 07:21 PM 


I find myself getting so caught up in their emotions. I'm at
the spot where Dmitri has pulled Ayosha (?) aside to share
his manic love story. The scene is vivid and immediate, isn't
it?

I just wish the print were a little larger. I can only read so
much at a time before my eyes start to blur. Yikes - I sound
like my mother!

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (7 of 31), Read 50 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 23, 2001 10:54 PM 


Beej and Kay,
I'm glad you're making such good progress. I need to get
busy.
Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (8 of 31), Read 52 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 23, 2001 11:01 PM 


I think Kay is way ahead of me. But this is going to make
for a great discussion. 

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (9 of 31), Read 54 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 23, 2001 11:28 PM 


D. has so many truths - my favorite so far, "Above all, don't
believe your own lies." The father is a real piece of work,
isn't he? 

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (10 of 31), Read 40 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:22 AM 


This from Zosima, Kay. I like it very much, too. The way to
eternal life:

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself
and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot
distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses
all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect
he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself
without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures,
and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to
other men and to himself.

(Sorry. That's the Garnett translation.) Yes, Père
Karamazov is a piece of work, and this pretty much
describes his problem.

Steve

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (11 of 31), Read 44 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:49 AM 


I've been curious as to why the new translation is
considered to be so outstanding. Here's the same
passage:

"Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself
and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does
not discern any truth either in himself of anywhere around
him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and
others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and
having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse
pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his
vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying
continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to
himself is often the first to take offense."

Now I understand. The latter translation is fuller and flows
better. Interesting.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (12 of 31), Read 42 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:26 PM 


I agree. It is better. You've sold me. I guess I'm going to
own two copies of The Brothers Karamazov.

Steve

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (13 of 31), Read 47 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, July 24, 2001 01:55 PM 


Oh, Kay, Isn't the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation just
gorgeous? I have their hard copy translation of Anna
Karenina and can hardly wait for it to come out in paper
back so more people will buy and see the beauty in that
one, too.
Steve, I think you'll enjoy this translation of TBK. I don't
know if you read, when I was posting on Anna Karenina,
that Pevear and Volokhonsky are husband and wife. Boy,
that must be one heck of a strong marriage to survive
working on these translations together!

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (14 of 31), Read 48 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, July 24, 2001 02:28 PM 


The newer translation is also supposed to be closer to the
original Russian.
Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (15 of 31), Read 34 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:08 AM 


Kay, Where are you in this?
Its been slow going for me..the names are killing me! It
seems just as I figure out who's who, Dostoevsky calls
them all something else, and I need to stop and go to the
character list to figure out who is speaking.

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (16 of 31), Read 31 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      R Bavetta rbavetta@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:17 AM 


Russian names are a case in themselves, Beej. It'd pay you
to see if you can find something about how they work. I've
forgotten exactly how it is, but a single character can be
referred to by several different names: their real name, a
diminuitive, a name meaning 'son or daughter of'., etc.

I'll need to review this myself when I start this book. I
remember being endlessly confused by Russian names until
I found the explanation.

Ruth

"Nobody belongs to us, except in memory." John Updike

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (17 of 31), Read 33 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:33 AM 


Beej-

I'm only at "One More Ruined Reputation." It is slow going,
but what a way to go! I don't think I'm going to have it
finished by the first, though I'm giving it the old college try.

RE: Russian names - Look on the pages just before the title
page for "List of Characters." It discusses the main
characters, "with variants and pronunciation." That's
proven quite useful when I get confused.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (18 of 31), Read 34 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 02:26 PM 


Kay,
I am sure I won't be done by August 1. This usually
happens with the very long books. We can start discussing
the beginning on August 1 even if most of us aren't
finished.
Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (19 of 31), Read 34 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 03:02 PM 


Phew! Thanks, Ann. That will work for me. I hate coming in
late to a discussion, so I usually just let it go. I think I can
keep up with the boards this way.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (20 of 31), Read 36 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:10 PM 


Without going into detail, what an intriguing character
Smerdyakov is. He's just so dark and forboding, and what a
story behind his birth!

Speaking of lines that hit you between the eyes, this sort
of stopped me in my tracks..just a little truism tossed in
during a conversation between Dmitri and Alyosha:
...the devil is struggling with God and the battlefield is the
human heart.

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (21 of 31), Read 29 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, July 26, 2001 07:39 AM 


Quick question: Who helped Smerdyakov's mother over the
garden wall? Was it Grigory? I don't think she could have
done it herself in her condition.

And speaking of slimy people - Grigory is someone I
certainly wouldn't care to know. He reminds me of Uriah.

Beej-

There were so many beautiful passages on the nature of
love that stopped my in my tracks. I hadn't realized BK
would be such a primer on human nature.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (22 of 31), Read 32 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Robert Armstrong rla@nac.net 
 Date: 
      Thursday, July 26, 2001 08:10 AM 


Grigory reminds me of Lurch of the Addams Family. 

Robt

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (23 of 31), Read 29 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:11 PM 


LOL. I know you're kidding here. Yes, I'd say his
appearance is like Lurch's and his personality is like Uriah's.

Grigory is one kind of person I do not enjoy. He thinks he is
a good person because he believes in God. Yet, his daily
actions are less than admirable. Yes, he took in Dmitri and
Smerydakov, but he didn't show much love for them. He
has too many conditions for people.

He's one character that believes his own lies. Of course, I
suppose we all do in one way or another. This book has me
pondering on what lies I've created for myself.

I like Dostoevky's point that even awful people can show
basic human needs that render them temporarily pitiable.
That sort of behavior has always troubled me. I don't know
what to do with mean spirited people that still display
emotional aches and pains that deserve comforting. Yet I
cannot stand being around them or having anything to do
with them.

I love this novel!

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (24 of 31), Read 23 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, July 27, 2001 03:33 PM 


I'm having a difficult time staying tolerant of all the
hysterics these characters enjoy.

Ivan thinks they belong only to females. "No one, by the
way, ever died of hysterics. Let her have hysterics. God
loved woman when he sent her hysterics. I won't go there
at all (Katrina's house)." "The Brothers Get Acquainted" 

However, I'd say Ivan, Fyodor, and Dmitri enjoy their fair
share of histrionics. 

My modern outlook isn't wearing well with the older manner
of interaction. GET a GRIP! Ha!

I also want to add that my progress is slow, not because of
the language so much as because I find myself needing to
pause and think so often. D. has so many truisms woven
into this novel. Hysterics aside, the human heart has
changed little.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (25 of 31), Read 22 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 28, 2001 01:46 PM 


Kay: I sympathize with your reading of this work. I started
this work three separate times before I finally managed to
finish it. And once I finished it, I chastised my past selves
for giving up on the journey.

I like what Dostoyevsky states in the preface:

...Of course, one is not bound by anything--the book may be
abandoned at the second page of the first tale, never to be
opened again. But then, you know, there are those
considerate readers who absolutely must read to the end, so
as not to be mistaken in their impartial judgment; such, for
example, are all Russian critics.

I love an author who comes right out at the beginning and
acknowledges this is one tough read and not meant for
everyone.

I was perusing the letters of Dostoyevsky about this novel
in the Norton Critical Edition and thought some sentences
rather interesting.

From a letter to a famous teacher...

I have conceived and will soon start writing a large novel
where, among other things, children, particularly youngsters
aged approximately seven to fifteen, will play a great role.
Many children will be introduced. I am studying them and have
studied them all my life, and love them dearly, and have
children myself. But the observations of a may like yourself
would be very valuable to me (I understand that). So write me
about children --everything you know...

To his publisher...

If it succeeds I shall have done a good deed; I shall compel
them to recognize that a pure, ideal Christian is not
something abstract but is graphically real, possible, obviously
present, and that Christianity is the sole refuge for the
Russian land from all its woe.

To a lady struggling with understanding a part of the novel
which had appeared in the paper:

Had he killed his father, he would not have stood over the
servant's body with words of pity. The plot is not the only
important thing for the reader, but also some knowledge of
the human soul (psychology), which every author is entitled
to expect from the reader.



Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (26 of 31), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, July 28, 2001 07:00 PM 


I'm midway through my first read. The theme of loving
humanity at the expense of the individual is a fascinating
one. The entire "Rebellion" speech and scene that ends
with Alyosha kissing Ivan in love and forgiveness was a
powerful one. I can't wait to discuss it.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (27 of 31), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, July 29, 2001 11:17 AM 


On one of my many breaks from reading BK, I did some
surfing.

There are many parallels between D.'s life and Zosima's
and Alyosha's.
For a D. biography timeline:
http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/chronology.html


Alexander the II was the csar at the time D. wrote BK. A
brief summation of the Imperial Period (1689-1917)is found
at:
http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/TC.2.3c.html

D. visited elders in the Church. Zosima is representative of
that group. (Scroll down to "Church in Imperial Russia."
http://www.decani.yunet.com/history6.html#Russia

The Emancipation Manifesto of 1869 proved interesting
reading:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dml0www/emancipn.html

Ok. I'm ready to hit the next chapter now.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (28 of 31), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, July 29, 2001 01:09 PM 


Kay,
I'm not as far along as you are on my reread. I first read
the BK around 30 years ago, so believe me it's pretty much
like reading it for the first time this go around.

A few notes back, you mentioned the hysteria of many of
the characters. This seems to be typical of the people in
many of Dostoevesky's books. On Classics Corner we have
previously read THE IDIOT and CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. In
both these books, the characters interact in an almost
constant emotionally charged atmosphere. People rant on
and on, although in the other two books some characters
at least have the excuse of physical illness.

There is an atmosphere of almost continual stress. I don't
know how to explain that, although the fact that D. himself
suffered from severe epileptic attacks and was himself
subject to extreme highs and lows might have something
to do with the style he adapted.

It is also true that people tend to reveal much more of their
deepest feelings and psychological peculiarities when they
are upset. D. was very interested in psychology and
perhaps this helps explain why these characters so often
seem emotionally overwrought.

In the nineteenth century, women,in particular, suffered
much more from hysteria, so D's contemporaries may not
have found some of these scenes as strange as we do.
Illness was one of the few socially acceptable forms of
rebellion. Of course, as you have pointed out, the men in
D's novels are hardly immune from hysteria.

At any rate, it does get rather wearing on the nerves at
times, doesn't it? Katerina Ivanovna is driving me nuts at
the moment, with her masochistic desire to suffer and
bequeath a gift of life long guilt to Dmitri. A guy would have
to be crazy to want to marry her (except for the money, of
course).

Incidentally, the Christlike Aloysha reminds me very much of
the perfectly good Prince Mishkin in THE IDIOT. D interests
me so much not because he was in fact so deeply religious
but because he yearned so for the peace of religious faith.

Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (29 of 31), Read 8 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 02:22 PM 


Is anyone else seeing any humor in this book? I sit on my
back porch reading this and think of it as a rendition of The
Good, The Bad and The Ugly.


Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (30 of 31), Read 6 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 02:27 PM 


And what was that with all Katerina Ivanovna's kissy-kissy
business toward 'Hard-Hearted-Hannah' Grushenka? Does
Katerina believe her proclamation of love can so easily
sway and manipulate?

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (31 of 31), Read 3 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 04:38 PM 


Yes, Beej, I've seen several instances of humor. I'd look for
them, but that would involve effort, and it's all I can handle
at the moment to try to finish. Ha!

K

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (37 of 39), Read 11 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 09:04 PM 


Yes, Beej: I think Katerina did think she was fooling
Grushenka. What a shock when she discovers who really
had the upper hand all along.

The humor within this work is incredible; sometimes you
have to step back to see just how incredibly humorous it is.
Some of the sayings of Pavlov are hilarious.

During the re-read, especially after delving into the middle
ages with Cantor, I've been noticing the whole monk issue.
The monk is a perfect device for Dostoyevsky to work his
theme of rationalization versus revelation.

The problem is simple: How can you confirm that there is a
God? How can you rationally justify there is a need for faith
and that there is a deity responding to your prayers?
Dostoyevsky struggles with these questions in all his major
novels, but here he gives it the royal treatment. The
protagonist of the novel is Alyosha, who is not as green as
Misha was in The Idiot. He struggles with his questions of
faith throughout this work.

I think, in the end (and I'm not finished the re-read yet),
Alyosha comes to terms with God via non-logical means. It's
a vision, it's an epiphany, but it's something that he can
never quite articulate. He just knows what he knows;
rationality or dialectics have nothing to do with it.

Which brings me to a second point about Dostoyevsky:
Notice how often he mentions literary devices and
techniques in the course of his novels. Allegory, puns,
poetry, allusions, anecdotes--Dostoyevsky takes great pains
to illustrate the tools of his craft; characters take the time to
be specific in their discussions. "Hey, this is not an allegory!"
or check out the "lacerations of the heart" in the chapters of
the "ardent heart" in verse, anecdote, etc. (I am reading the
Garnett trnaslation since I haven't been able to get a new
translation yet).

I have always been intrigued by Dostoyevsky because
despite the great psychological depth of his novels (these
characters are real people I have seen and met during my
life) he still strives to articulate a perspective which, in
essence, cannot be rationally presented. So he presents it
with allegory, with anecdote, with puns, with every tool and
technique he has in his arsenal. But, in the end, you're left
with a puzzle. With Alyosha, you wonder just what he comes
to realize during the events he experiences in this novel. 

It's something I'm looking for again as I come upon his
conversations with Ivan about the "Grand Inquisitor."



Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (38 of 39), Read 11 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 11:05 PM 


Dan-

Beautifully phrased, as usual. I've been amazed at how
accurate D.'s knowledge of the human heart is. He even
uses dream analysis. Do you suppose Freud took a few
pages from him?

This novel is a stunning treasure. I'm so glad I stayed with
it. (A mere 219 pages to go.)

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (39 of 39), Read 11 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, July 30, 2001 11:07 PM 


Wow, Kay! You're going to be done in time to discuss it!
More than I can say...

Beej

  
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (40 of 63), Read 29 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 01:28 PM 


Kay - I saw your comment about Freud, and I thought you'd find
this interesting. 

I came across an essay by Freud, entitled "Dostoevsky and
Parricide," where Freud said the following: "Dostoevsky's place is
not far behind Shakespeare. The Brothers Karamazov is the most
magnificent novel ever written: the episode of the Grand
Inquisitor, one of the peaks in the literature of the world, can harly
be valued too highly." Freud also has something to say about the
"stick with two ends," but I don't want to spoil anything for anyone
who hasn't finished yet.

This is the first time I've read Dostoevsky, and I loved this book!
I'm looking forward to discussing it.

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (41 of 63), Read 28 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 03:06 PM 


Set my husband to find and buy this new translation and get it
back to me as of Saturday when he comes in from Texas SO I'll
cross some toes and fingers that he succeeds and I'm going to
jump into the Russians finally -- I have to get brave sometime and
you all seem to be the right crowd for these reads -- but note I've
held out on the Russians to date -- even so. I am really a chicken
I guess{G}.

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (42 of 63), Read 32 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 03:18 PM 


Nah - you're not chicken. I keep threatening to read Proust, but
have yet to open the book. So, when you've finished this one,
you'll still be one up on me.

I don't plan to do a re-read any time soon. Ha!

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (43 of 63), Read 28 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 03:15 PM 


Thanks, Marcy. Interesting, indeed. What D. presented as an
intuitive knowledge of the human heart, Freud presented as a
scientific attempt at understanding. 

Though both had good insight, Dostoevsky's is the one with soul
and a sense of humanity. His lesson on forgiveness and
acceptance just because of our common humanity is a powerful
one. It's certainly caused me to think and become more aware of
my attitude towards others and myself. This novel has impacted
my soul.

Glad you'll be joining us for the discussion. Are you finished?!

Now, back to Ivan's nightmare....

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (44 of 63), Read 34 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 03:35 PM 


Beej-

You mentioned some comedy in BK. I quite agree. The business
about the doctors not having a clue about anyone's illness has
tickled me throughout. In "Lady of Little Faith," Katerina
Khokhlakov says of Dr. Herzenstube, "I summoned the local
doctor, Herzenstube, and he shrugged and said: amazing,
baffling." He paraphrases himself several times, yet everyone in
town must have the great doctor when a loved one falls ill.

Then, there are all the slams against lawyers. I guess nothing
changes - lawyer jokes have always been popular. Ha!

Several puns appear, as when Kolya is bantering with the doctor.
There have been other plays on words, but I can't recall where.

The occasional snicker lightens the emotional load of BK.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (45 of 63), Read 33 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 04:54 PM 


Yeah but -- Proust is Proustian -- those Russians get REALLY
complicated don't they? But the names thing spoken of earlier did
make me think of Proust -- there's some of this multiple names for
the same characters that goes on in Proust also. Hope Jim finds a
copy of this for me.

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (46 of 63), Read 34 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 09:02 PM 


Kay, About the hysterics you posted on earlier..these people just
don't have hysterics..I mean, hysterics, to me as an Italian, is
when my kids walk on my clean floor with muddy shoes! These
folks have MEGA-HYSTERICS!!!!!!!

They take to their beds with hysterics...women shriek in
hysterics...people crumble in a dead faint in hysterics. They call
for the doctor if a woman is in hysterics.


These days, if a woman has hysterics, some wiseguy just tells her
to take a midol.


Beej

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (47 of 63), Read 36 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Tuesday, July 31, 2001 09:44 PM 


LOL! However, the men tend to get brain fever. (Hysterics by any
other name......)

Do you get the feeling they're all walking a thin line between
sanity and the Broadway stage? Ha!

Sorry, folks, but I'm quite punchy. 82 pages, and counting.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (48 of 63), Read 34 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 02:43 AM 


Hysterics then equals dysfunctional now? As in the "in" thing to
cover a multitude of things gone wrong?

Just what popped into my head -- sorry about that!

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (49 of 63), Read 37 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 09:51 AM 


I've been thinking about all the dramatics and emoting in BK.

Rakitin is the agnostic communist. I think it's interesting that he is
such a predictable, even, self-interested person. He uses people
and experiences glee when he sees an opportunity to corrupt
Alyosha. He is good at criticism of others, society, and the
government. D. paints him as having no soul - very few ups and
downs and lacking the second abyss of Heaven. The only true
emotion we see from him is at the trial when we learn his true
relationship to Grushenka. I actually missed the hysterics in
Rakitin. 

The other characters are made more human because of their
struggle with both abysses. Their hysterics are indicative of the
good and evil that we all struggle with at times. D. makes the
point that it's the struggle that makes us human. That's why he
continually puts forth the idea that we are all guilty for a person's
sins and why we have a responsibility to each other. We are
obligated to appreciate that struggle in others.

The Rakitins of the world are good at criticism, but lack a sense of
true humanity.
They may profess a love for mankind, but they miss the true
beauty of the individual. They sacrifice the individual for the
whole.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (50 of 63), Read 38 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:09 AM 


I can't tell which I'm enjoying more: TBK or posts like that last
one by Kay. 

I found it curious that D indites Smerdyakov several times for
'storing up impressions'... TBK is one of the most
gunpowder-flash-exciting amalgamations of literary impressions
I've ever come across. Maybe that's how D got the poison out.

I can only approach this novel one character at a time-- holding
them all together in my head can only last a few moments and
leads to many more moments of vodka consumption. 

I think I'll start with Smerdyakov...

Hmmm
(sip)
Hmmm
(gulp)

Back to it when the vertigo stops...



 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (51 of 63), Read 40 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:22 AM 


George-

Yes, Smerdyakov is a piece of work, isn't he? So malevolent and
cunning. He's another example on how not to live. 

Perhaps D. is pointing out that by storing impressions, S. is
distancing himself from life's true essence. D. points out that it's
the momentary joy we can experience that creates passion in our
lives. S. doesn't get involved with anyone or anything. He holds
himself apart, as an observer and a critic, and misses the highs
and lows. 

Even his suicide evokes no sympathy in me. D. says that was an
act of despair, not passion, but I disagree. I think it was an act of
pure malice and hate. He stored up impressions of life and the
people around him, but he never truly engaged himself. 

Smerdyakov was the most despicable character in the book for
me. I think he was for D. as well.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (52 of 63), Read 43 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     R Bavetta rbavetta@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:48 AM 


When speaking and/or complaining of hysterics--remember
people, this is Dostoevsky, the C&P guy. And it's a Russian novel.
Of course there are hysterics.

Ruth

"Nobody belongs to us, except in memory." John Updike

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (53 of 63), Read 43 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:59 AM 


I'm not complaining, Ruth. The passion is what creates the
emotional intensity and gives insight into the 19th century Russian
mindset.

These people are a tad more intense than what I'm used to
dealing with. That's all.

Their emotional, philosophical, and ethical dilemmas are timeless.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (54 of 63), Read 22 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 02:19 PM 


Kay--

I agree-- Smerdyakov's suicide is an Iagoesque chess move
unworthy of sympathy. I can't tell who was worse off: S for having
no father (officially... it's certain to me that Karamazov is the
father and that S is included in the novel's title), or Ivan for having
a father. 

Smerdyakov is the true parricide, but nobody, not even Aloysha,
gets off un-implicated. Smerdyakov actually LIVES Ivan's
'everything is permitted'....

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (55 of 63), Read 22 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 03:26 PM 


Ivan's tacit complicity in the murder would be an awful thing to
live with. He knew, but he didn't know. In that sense, as he
admits, he's as guilty as Smerdyakov. The scene where he's
standing on the stairwell listening for signs of murder taking place
below is chilling.

I need something clarified. When Ivan agreed to go to
Chermanskaya, (?) was he truly on his father's errand? He left so
suddenly for Moscow, which was further, as if a ghost were after
him. If he wasn't sure what was about to happen, he certainly
wasn't doing anything about preventing it. It seemed to me he was
running from his conscience.

How many times do we try to assuage our consciences by saying,
"Well, I wasn't there. I had nothing to do with it. Therefore,
because I didn't take direct action, I'm not responsible?" I think
it's happened to all of us at one time or another, in one way or
another. This is why D. insists we all are responsible for the sins of
others. I can accept that, but only in the sense that we each have
the potential for evil. How did you interpret the message of the
novel?

As D. points out, we have the potential for both good and evil, and
the challenge is to strive for good and the joy life offers, but
understand the evil. We should accept it as part of the whole, and
as a contrast to the good. But that doesn't mean we should accept
it as something to strive for. Is that a fair summation of the lesson
in BK?

I loved the way D. used positive and negative behaviors to
delineate his characters. What courage that took as an author. To
create a loveable, empathetic person, warts and all, is quite a
feat.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (56 of 63), Read 21 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 05:38 PM 


I agree that Smerdyakov's suicide is a chess move, but I don't
agree that he is totally despicable. The thing about Dostoyevsky is
that characters such as Iago do not populate his novels. Iago is a
character of pure evil whose sole essence is to do evil.
Shakespeare drops Iago in to undermine Othello's world; it is the
wonder of the play that we don't really notice the absence of a
critical motivation for Iago's behavior.

With Dostoyevsky, you never encounter evil incarnate, evil just
for the sake of being evil. The horrid circumstances of
Smerdyakov's birth and his upbringing-- especially the moment
after Grigory's taunting words when Smerdyakov seems to shut
down--provide insight into his behavior. The narrator is careful to
provide solid evidence for why he is the way he is, of noting the
forces that buffeted Smerdyakov. He's cold, he lacks community
spirit, he murders another as well as himself, sure--but he's as
human as any of the other characters. 

I find myself as a reader feeling compassion for Smerdyakov and
I'm certain this feeling for someone such as Smerdyakov could
only come from a careful manipulation by the author. Sure he's
bad, sure I wouldn't want to meet him, but I find he's another sad
example of when people go bad, another character in this novel
brimming with characters I wouldn't normally associate with but
can hardly refrain from visiting night after night when I'm reading.

I think Kay is close to a fundamental aspect of Dostoyevsky:
Community. Alyosha is told to leave the monastery and enter
society; he is, in effect, told to take the harder road of living the
Christian life in society. Like Ivan points out--easy for an eremite
to love humanity when he's alone in the desert; quite another for
one to love humanity when there's some molesting and torturing
children next door. Think of the people out there in Alyosha's
world: Ivan, Smerdyakov, Fyodor Pavlovich, Rakitin. Makes
community spirit a hell of a lot harder to practice.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (57 of 63), Read 20 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 06:14 PM 


Dan-

I see your point about Smerdyakov, and that certainly fits with
D.'s overall theme that we're all guilty of others' sins, and must
remember that when judging. 

However, I did not hear the tempering of S.'s character the way
you did. Do you think D. had an affection for S.? I thought S. was
more of an example of choosing to live a base life, with no
redeeming traits. I don't remember any passages that showed S.
in a struggle with himself. D. gives a reason for S.'s attitude, and
that reason makes a lot of sense. Yet I did not hear the same kind
of forgiveness D. gave all his other characters. Uh oh. How much
projection is going on here? Ha!

Do you think D. accepted evil as a part of life, but deplored its
existence? I was confused on his stance toward evil. At times, he
seemed to be saying that evil is necessary, if for no other reason
than to point out the contrast between it and God. Did I get that
right?

If we're to accept the sins of all as part of being human, does that
mean we are not to condemn evil acts? Or is it more a case of
hate the sin, but love the sinner? The latter, I suppose.

D. makes many references to Russian Orthodoxy. How is that
Church's tenets different from the tenets of the Roman Catholic
Church?

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (58 of 63), Read 19 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 06:26 PM 


Dan mentioned the subtle manipulation experienced by the reader
of D. I quite agree. In fact, I think that constant back and forth of
my intellect and emotions is what made this novel such a powerful
one for me. I feel passionate about the characters and the
philosophical points made by them.

Heck, I might be better at hysterics than I think. I certainly fell
right in with the lot of them.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (59 of 63), Read 15 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 07:52 PM 


Dan and Kay – I think you’ve both made some really good points
regarding Smerdyakov, and I’m still trying to figure out what to
ultimately make of his character. I’d be curious to know what you
make of the following:

During Ivan’s final meeting with Smerdyakov, we learn that
Smerdyakov is reading The Sayings of the Holy Father Isaac the
Syrian, whereas a month earlier he had been reading a French
phrase book. Also, S. says to Ivan, “There’s no ghost, sir, besides
the two of us, sir, and some third one … That third one is God, sir,
Providence itself, sir, it’s right here with us now, sir, only don’t
look for it, you won’t find it” (p.623 in the Pevear translation.)
Does this imply that Smerdyakov has fallen into despair? That he
has changed? I don’t think S. had repented of his crime, because
in his suicide note he does not try to make things right as far as
Dmitri’s trial is concerned. 

Any thoughts or comments?
Thanks, 
Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (60 of 63), Read 12 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 08:05 PM 


Great notes, everyone. I read about half and then saw you were
getting into plot spoilers, so I think I'll wait to read the rest for
awhile. I'm almost half way through the book.

I will hold off on Smerdyakov, only to say now that you are all
right that he does not have any redeeming characteristics. I think
that it is a weakness in characterization, although it's kind of fun to
have one character you love to hate. Also, Kay, that idea that we
are all guilty for a person's sins is something that I cannot accept.
I'm afraid the sections on the Grand Inquistitor resonate with me
more than Father Zosima's sermons. Whew, I just finished that
long section on his life and philosophy. That was tough to get
through.

As for the humor, Pevear emphasizes it a lot in his introduction. I
usually don't respond very well to black humor, but I have
encountered some amusing sections in this book. I got a kick out
of Lise telling Aloysha that it didn't bother her that her mother was
spying on her. "And you may rest assured, Alexei Fyodorovich,
that when I myself am a mother and have a daughter like me, I
shall certainly eavesdrop on her."


Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (61 of 63), Read 13 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 08:29 PM 


Ann-


I don't think D. is saying we're responsible, per se, for the actual
evil acts. I think he's saying that since we all have a baser side,
that's what ties us to those that do evil. 

I don't think we're responsible for what others do, either, Ann. But
I do think that D. is asking us to acknowledge that side in us, and
in that sense, not condemn others. He's trying to draw a circle
around all our common potential for good and evil - what makes
us human. As Dan pointed out, it's all about community.

I hold us responsible for the choices we make. D. just wants us to
consider approaching evil doers with love. He wants us to allow
room for mistakes. However, there are some deeds that I cannot
condone, and make it a point to live my life just the opposite. I
tend to separate myself from mean spirited people, partly because
I do not understand them. I cannot love them as individuals, but I
can love the ones that truly repent.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (62 of 63), Read 12 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 08:57 PM 


Marcy-

I didn't hear despair in that passage between S. and Ivan. All I
heard was cynicism and a malevolent need to make Ivan believe
S. had killed Fyodor on Ivan's orders.

As to reading the Homilies of Our Father among the Saints, Isaac
the Syrian, S. reads it "mechanically." For him, the religious
arguments are nothing more than intellectual exercises. They are
a scientific debate, only. Like French grammar, they are to be
learned only as an intellectual exercise.

Yet when Father Zosima read them and discussed them with
Alyosha, there was a passion to his argument. It's the lack of
passion in Smerdyakov that I'm not relating to.

Dan-

Like you, I think what keeps me from being pulled to S. is the
deliberate meanness and cold, calculated plotting against his three
brothers - Mitya, Ivan, and Alyosha. But unlike you, I don't hear a
desire to gain faith in God, or to become one with the community
of mankind. D. may have intended me to hear that, but I do not. I
didn't hear passion or a struggle in S.'s soul. Of course, that very
lack of a struggle may be the despair of S.'s soul that you heard
and I did not.

Was there any passage in particular that struck you about S. that
helped you see him in a fuller light than I did? Though I read
every word, I did tend to drift as I read. I would agree it's not like
D. to write a totally unlovable character, but S. and Rakitin sure
come close.

I do think D. found it difficult to love the atheists, critics, and the
"just the facts" scientists.

K


 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (63 of 63), Read 5 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:30 PM 


Thanks, Kay, for your response. It made me think of the chapter
Disputation, where Smerdyakov says, "If I am taken captive by
the tormentors of Christian people, and they demand that I curse
God's name and renounce my holy baptism, then I'm quite
authorized to do it by my own reason, because there wouldn't be
any sin in it" (p.128). He then proceeds to explain his point using
basic semantic logic, on a purely intellectual level. This is in
contrast to Grigory, who gets quite emotional about the subject.
It's as though Dostoevsky is indicting, through Smerdyakov, the
kind of reasoning applied to theological issues that he believed to
be typical of the Jesuits, whom he despised. (Fydodor responds to
this by saying, "Ah, you stinking Jesuit, who taught you all that?
But it's lies, casuist, lies, lies, lies" (p.130). Of course, the irony
here is that Smerdyakov would say that his influence has been
Ivan.) But Smerdyakov is using reason to counter the tenets of
Christian faith, not from the perspective of an atheist, but as a
believer! I, too, am curious to see what Dan finds redeeming in
the character of S.

Kay, in regard to the difference in tenants between the Russian
Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, all I know is
that the Catholic and Orthodox churches were originally united,
but they parted in the eleventh century when they differed over
the supreme authority of the pope, which Orthodox Christians
reject.

-Marcy

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (64 of 81), Read 30 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 07:35 AM 


I think that's what confused me about several of the
characters. They profess non-belief, yet argue from a
standpoint that believes. Your post helped me sort that one
out.

So the Orthodox Catholics do not believe in the supreme
authority of the Pope? I wonder what caused that rift -
probably politics, rather than a true religious schism. I'll
have to look that one up. At least I have the right century to
start in. Can you think of an online source?

Perhaps that's why D. seems to take such pride in the
differences of the Russian Church from the Roman Catholic
one. The Russians have their very own ultimate authority,
probably a cardinal? It seems to be a nationalistic, as well
as religious issue with him. Interesting.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (65 of 81), Read 31 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      David Moody davidmoody@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 07:55 AM 


Kay:

Try this for the Schism of 1054:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108311&tocid=67627

David

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (66 of 81), Read 32 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 08:06 AM 


Thanks, David. I just love having my own reference librarian
to consult.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (67 of 81), Read 31 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 09:23 AM 


I find sympathy for Smerdyakov when I consider the context
surrounding him within the novel. Someone previously
mentioned him as a "Karamazov brother;" is he? He's a
servant in the Karamazov house, a bastard child of an idiot
midget that many treated more like a dog than a human
being. "You grew from the mildew of the bathhouse," his
adopted father yells at him. His real father calls him
"Balaam's ass." What community.

After Smerdyakov's birth, Grigory decides this is the child
Martha and he will raise to replace the one he lost before:

Grigory took the baby, brought it home, and making his wife sit
down, put it on her lap. "A child of God--an orphan akin to us
all," he said, "and to us above others. Our little lost one has
sent us this, who has come from the devil's son and a holy
innocent. Nurse him and weep no more."

Grigory exposits the dichotomy of humanity--everyone is, in
a sense, an amalgamation of holy innocence and satanic
spawn. 

Then the child is nicknamed "Smerdyakov," a word Ralph E.
Matlaw notes is related to the French word "merde."
Smerdyakov isn't just nicknamed "Stinky" as Garnett gives
it; he's named something equivalent to "Shithead" by a
father who will never claim him, instead making him his cook
and servant.

Smerdyakov's youth is under Grigory's tenditious
Christianity, and the result is his mockery of the mass:

In his childhood he was very fond of hanging cats, and burying
them with great ceremony. He used to dress up in a sheet as
though it were a surplice, and sing, and wave some object over
the dead cat as though it were a censer.

This is in direct contrast to the impact of the mass on a
young Zosima:

The camels at that time caught my imagination, and Satan,
who talked like that with God, and God who gave His servant
up to destruction, and His servant crying out: "Blessed be Thy
name although Thou dost punish me," and then the soft and
sweet singing in the church: "Let my prayer rise up before
Thee," and again incense from the priest's censer and the
kneeling and the prayer.

Here is the same religious influence filtered through another
young mind. Notice the circumstances are similar to
Smerdyakov's, but one sees the potential for God (Zosima)
and another sees the potential for evil mockery
(Smerdyakov).

Smerdyakov is unable to rise above his sensualism--quite
possibly passed to him directly from Fyodor Pavlovich. But as
everyone else, he once was a child and he once held
potential in any direction.

My point is the context, the community, has an awful lot to
do with Smerdyakov's embrace of cold rationalism to
undermine religion and family relations. He is not simply a
bad egg; he is shaped by his community and circumstances. 

No, Shithead doesn't have any redeeming qualities by the
timeframe of the novel. He almost exists as a test by
Dostoyevsky to see if the reader understands what Alyosha
is trying to learn about humanity and community. We're all
responsible for all sin; there's no lambs and snakes--there's
only organisms with the faith of lambs commingled with the
unfeeling cruelty of reptiles (or insects, as Ivan posits). 

By dismissing Smerdyakov and characters of his ilk as simply
incarnations of evil, I would miss the value in Dostoyevsky's
novel: Smerdyakov could be me, could be you, could be all of
us. We all have a little Zosima and we all have a little
Smerdyakov racing through our veins. Recognize that
Smerdyakov is, despite all our objections, our brother and a
member of our family. Find some sympathy, accept him, and
forgive.

Of course, it's this "forgiving business" that makes, for me,
The Brothers Karamazov a difficult work to comprehend...


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (68 of 81), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:27 AM 


Dan-

I don't see S. as evil. However, his evil side predominates. I
do understand that his background community did not allow
for him to grow spiritually. In that sense, I can appreciate
his misery and resulting behavior.

I know that D. is trying to teach us to forgive and to love
one and all. If you are saying S. had absolutely no other
choice in the way he acted, as a result of his upbringing,
though, I have to disagree.

I think this pushes a button with me. I get irritated when
criminals use their background as an excuse for their
criminal behavior. It's a reason, not an excuse. Too many
people overcome bad situations and become productive,
positive people. It may be that they are lucky enough to
have a mentor somewhere that S. never found. Perhaps my
reluctance to accept S. and his ilk is due to my prejudice. I
accept his humanity. I do not accept his actions. Perhaps we
can agree on that?

I understand that S. is embittered and cynical due to his
upbringing. In that sense, I can empathize with him. It's just
that I still hold him responsible for the choices he makes.

You're right that D. wants us to consider S. as human as the
rest of us. Yet I do not think D. likes him very much. 

Now that I think about it, D. does spend a lot of time
discussing children and the many abuses they suffer. He is
indignant that these terrible things happen to such
innocents. Kolya is a pleasant contrast to S. But Kolya has
people to love him. That's the difference.

I'll have to check, but I don't remember D. summing up S.
the same way he did his other main characters. Even
Katarina gets a reprieve from D. I don't remember any
"forgiving" passage for S. after he commits suicide and
leaves Mitya to pay for the crime.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (69 of 81), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:40 AM 


Dan-

Me again. I don't think we're really that far apart in our
perception of S. I think the difference is I'm finding it harder
to forgive him than you are. That's something I struggle with
when it comes to heinous crimes.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (70 of 81), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 01:53 PM 


Kay,
If, by sharing a common guilt, D means that we must
recognize in ourselves the potential for evil, show
understanding and forgiveness for evil doers, and help them
improve --I can buy that.

I was raised a Catholic and although I have not practiced
Catholicism for decades, I can recognize just how
anti-Catholic Doestoevsky is in this and his other books. In
fact, when I re-read the chapter on the Grand Inquisitor, I
was particularly struck by how much the Grand Inquisitor
represents the hierarchy of the Catholic church. Somehow,
the Grand Inquisitor seemed less universal to me this time
around than he did 30 years ago. He is, after all, a cardinal
implementing one of the greatest crimes of the Catholic
Church, the Spanish Inquisition. Still, I remain fascinated by
the idea expressed in this story that man cannot handle
true freedom, that it is so much kinder to make decisions for
him. And the revelation of the Inquisitor's secret, i.e. that he
does not believe in God, made the same powerful impact on
me that it made on my first read.

BTW, I think that the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church
is called the Patriarch. It has always been a very national
church, hence the attraction for Dostoevsky, who was such
a strong supporter of his native culture.

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (71 of 81), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 02:16 PM 


Ann-

The Grand Inquisitor chapter was powerful, wasn't it? He
claims a disbelief in God, yet he recognizes Christ and is
overwhelmed enough to free him. He and his priests had
assumed the role of Christ as a protection for his people
because they were not capable of handling free choice.
Something about that bothers me. 

The scene where Christ comes forward to kiss the inquisitor
was moving. So was the scene where Alyosha kissed Ivan
after their debate on God. That's what faith in God and
mankind are all about. No matter what, we keep coming
back to the Truth of our existence. Is that what D. is trying
to say?

The idea that we are not capable of handling complete
freedom is an intriguing one. I'm still puzzling over the
implications that has for mankind. 

Thoughts?

The entire novel is a study of faith - in God, Christ, and our
fellow man. Though we are so often faced with scientific
facts, cruelty, misery, poverty, and abusive situations, the
important thing is to take that jump into faith. Then we need
to try and live that faith. Faith is what brings us joy, which is
how we celebrate life. It's what keeps us going when we're
face with insurmountable obstacles. Pretty tall order
sometimes, no?

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (72 of 81), Read 28 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 02:35 PM 


William Faulkner is renowned for giving the most
disappointing Nobel Prize acceptance speech by any great
author... the cloying positivity of it rings totally false in light
of the novels that GOT him to that podium: those novels are
brutally, shockingly dark and very, very honest about
humanity. 

Dostoevsky's artistic strengths lie, obviously, on the
intensely pessimistic and shreddingly honest side. I think
the little character touches of artistic greatness in BK far
outweigh the self-lacerating Christianity and Parisian cafe
philosophizing... in short, I take Ivan's own view of the
stupidity of his own megalomaniacal devil. 

I think BK did a lot for D's own personal faith, and more
power to him. But the religious potion offered here strikes
me as individual-- restorative to D himself but of minimal use
to literature. 

The poisons offered here however... they are universally
powerful and aesthetically magnificent. The drunken
peasant Ivan flings unconscious into the snow on his furious
way to confront Smerdyakov... the peasant he forgets
freezing in a drift, his song silenced, while Ivan tries to
unwrap the riddles of his own mind... the peasant WE, the
readers, forget also until Ivan rescues him later... that is a
touch of genius, and there are scores of them in this book. I
find it hard to take heart at the insights, but I'm grateful
that it's hard to take: so much in life is designed to be
easy... 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (73 of 81), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 02:53 PM 


George-

I'm not sure I understand your stance on BK. Are you saying
that the theme of BK is not what intrigues you or what
matters to the history of literature? That what has you
hooked on D. is his style, characterizations, and adept story
telling? 

Did you find any part of D.'s character struggles interesting,
or was it simply an all too trite lesson in faith that we've all
heard before? I agree that D. had a religious purpose when
he was composing this novel. However, I did not resent the
lessons he wanted to teach through his characters and
story.

The novel would not have been as significant a read for me
without that lesson in faith. It would have lost some of its
punch. I would not have been able to identify as easily with
the various characters, nor would I have done as much soul
searching as I have.

Well, as D. would say, "to each his own, and God love 'em." 

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (74 of 81), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 03:26 PM 


Like Ann, I was also completely struck by the revelation of
the Inquisitor's secret: “we are not with you, but with him,
that is our secret!” (p.257). What a wonderful, thought
provoking chapter! 

But according to the lead-in from the previous chapter, I
expected Ivan’s poem to be about the difficulties of
universal forgiveness; not about the problem of freedom
and the Catholic Church. Does anyone see how chapter 5
(The Grand Inquisitor) ties into the issues raised in chapter
4 (Rebellion), where Ivan poignantly says, “they have put
too high a price on harmony; we can’t afford to pay so much
for admission. And therefore I hasten to return my ticket”
(p.245).

BTW, I read somewhere (and I was taking notes but failed
to write down the source) that D. holds the following
schema: Catholicism, unity without freedom; Protestantism,
freedom without unity; Russian Orthodoxy, freedom in unity
and unity in freedom. No explanation was given regarding
the reasoning behind this, but I thought I’d just mention it
in case anyone finds it helpful.

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (75 of 81), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 04:19 PM 


Kay--

Sorry, my point was a bit muddled. I don't sell short the
theme of BK... I'm just not sure what it is. I think it's
dangerous to sum it up under the rubric of 'Faith'. It could as
well be under Truth or Vitality or Family etc., 

But aesthetically I think BK fails mainly in the
Aloysha/Zossima sections. It reaches its highest artistic
peaks with Mitya, Ivan and Papa Karamozov, and with
murder, mayhem, and crushing self-doubt. 

Sometimes authors don't go where they want to go... take
Tolstoy, for example. I don't personally know any Tolstoyan
Christians, but I bet if you'd asked Tolstoy how he'd wanted
to be remembered, he'd have said: as a religious pioneer
who brought comfort and a new kind of faith. 'A Confession'
brings comfort and faith-- 'Anna Karenina' brings majestic
emotional darknesses. The first may even BE more valid
from a moral standpoint, but the second is an incomparably
greater work of art. 

So with BK. It helps me deal with inner and outer demons,
and presents beautiful passages and currents of plot and
thought. It doesn't introduce me to any convincing new
angels though...


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (76 of 81), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 04:45 PM 


George-=

Ok. That makes sense. Perhaps I was rushing to sum it up
as a dissertation on Faith. 

You make an interesting point about the better chapters
being those with "Mitya, Ivan and Papa Karamozov, and
with murder, mayhem, and crushing self-doubt." Those
passages do continue to ring in my mind, and I find them
the most challenging to understand. 

Marcy-

I'm still a little vague on the whole freedom issue raised in
BK. Would someone please take mercy on this confused
mind and explain? Thanks.

I don't understand what "freedom without unity" or "unity
without freedom" means when it comes to BK. No wonder
the author didn't give any explanation! Geesh.

I'm sure someone here can make sense of it, though.


K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (77 of 81), Read 23 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 04:50 PM 


George,
Very well said. I suspect one's reaction to the religious
aspects of The Brothers K depends a lot on your personal
attitude towards religion. I see D. as perpetually doubting,
but wanting to believe. I am never convinced that he is sure
about his arguments in favor of faith. But, as I read these
notes, I am beginning to realize that I could be projecting
too much of myself into his writing.

Marcy, I agree that the chapter on suffering and the chapter
on the Grand Inquisitor do not exactly tie in
together--unless you view them both as arguments that a
benevolent deity does not exist. 

Ann, who better get reading so she can read appreciate the
details of this discussion!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (78 of 81), Read 17 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 07:49 PM 


One of the strengths of Dostoyevsky is the manner he
continually analyzes situations and characters from a variety
of contexts. For me, The Brothers Karamazov is
Dostoyevsky's best novel in which he manages to tie the
dark with the light. 

I chose to focus on the Christian aspect initially because it is
often dismissed as trivial. Milton may have made Heaven
boring in Paradise Lost, but Dostoyevsky avoids that. The
Zosima passages do not weaken the plot; they are the
positive sides of the very same issues dealt with previously.
Notice that Ivan's query about forgiving those who abuse
children is addressed in a different light in Zosima's history. 

I read somewhere that Pevear considers Dostoyevsky a
"polyphonic" novelist; everything resonates on multiple
levels. For each incident or situation in this novel, there is
given both a negative as well as a positive snapshot of it.

Dostoyevsky takes a few basic situations and continually
utilizes them over and over in various contexts. But what do
they all tend towards? An insight into the way we ought to
live, a revelation on the connectedness of things. It isn't
New Age fluff in Dostoyevsky--it is convincing and inspiring.
Dostoyevsky is able to illustrate the sorrows and evils of
humanity but, unlike other authors who simply wish to revel
in humanity's negative side, he presents the positive--fully
cognizant that most people are prone to darkness and
would never, ever see that beguiling "slant of light" that
mesmerizes Alyosha and Zosima throughout the novel.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (79 of 81), Read 17 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 02, 2001 07:57 PM 


No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

For a little historical insight on the Inquisition, here's
Norman F. Cantor:

Contrary to the widespread belief in the 19th and 20th
centuries, the Inquisitors were, with few exceptions, not
psychotic sadists who were insatiably seeking vengeance upon
heretics through death penalties. The inquisitors were normally
well-trained canon lawyers and frequently Dominican friars or
members of another religious order. Recent research has
shown that they were sufficiently astute to be skeptical of the
witchcraft craze of the 15th and 16th centuries and to find the
vast majority of the accusations against old women and similar
marginal people who were alleged to be witches to be without
substance.

Therefore, the courts of the papal mandated Inquisition should
never be considered in the same category as the Nazi
holocaust or Stalinist purges.

Of course, Dostoyevsky probably chose an "inquisitor" for
Ivan's poem because here was an actual organization that
sought to spread the peace of Christianity through torture
and violence--something I'm sure Dostoyevsky could not
resist delving into.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (80 of 81), Read 7 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 03, 2001 04:47 AM 


Dan--

I never said the Aloysha strain in BK wasn't morally inspiring
or convincing, only that it was artistically inferior. Just like
the bizarre reformation tacked onto C&P as an ending, this
strain is there precisely BECAUSE it should be, ethically, but
turning to BK for Christian faith strikes me as strange as
looking towards Doctor Faustus or Jude the Obscure... their
literary merits lie elsewhere.

It is not an easy trick to make someone as self-absorbed
and intermittently cold as Ivan is lovable to the reader, or to
have us retain our affections for Mitya after he kicks his
father in the face... or make us miss the 'old buffoon' himself
once he's swept from the board, or make us feel sympathy
fro the excruciatingly cruel Smerdyakov. This trick isn't
achieved by our investment in their various beliefs in God...
it's achieved by D's haunting and even subtle potrayal of
their humanity, which I personally find more interesting and
less pat than the doctrinal aspects, that's all. Didn't want
the trick to get lost.

Sometimes I think it's unfair of me, as a reader, to expect to
walk away from every great novel with an enhanced sense
of hope... I do, the majority of the time, but I wonder if it's
justified here? When the novel ends with 'Hurrah for the
Karamazovs!' I concur, and cheer the bravery of the book,
but more damage has been done than not, and to 'repair' it
all in my head as worth it if it brings one more wavering
pilgrim to God seems to me to minimize the delineated pain
unjustly somehow... 

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (81 of 81), Read 6 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 03, 2001 08:15 AM 


George-

For you, the religious message was not meaningful or
integral to your enjoyment. For me, it was, and I walked
away from BK with both the lesson and the beauty and art
of the writing. That's what endeared the novel to my heart. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

K

  

Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (82 of 82), Read 1 times 
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 03, 2001 10:40 AM 


George: Your second paragraph is my statement exactly.
Dostoyevsky is able to articulate the humanity of people of
the most savage dispositions.

However, the religious perspective Dostoyevsky works in
this novel is absolutely amazing. It isn't just cheap window
dressing; it's an integral aspect of the novel. A reader
cannot read this novel ignoring the elements of faith and
Christian living as peripheral and artistically inferior; to me,
that's reification.

The idea of the resonance of this novel is provided in a
seemingly innocent statement by Zosima:

My brother asked the birds to forgive him; that sounds
senseless, but it is right; for all is like an ocean, all is flowing
and blending; a touch in one place sets up movement at the
other end of the earth.

This novel functions in a similar vein: Parts seem senseless,
defy rationality and enter the realm of the mystical (such as
the notion of begging the forgiveness of birds), yet the
novel is constructed to provide support by the manner in
which everything--every character, every narrative device,
everything--relates to everything else. A passage in the
middle of the work reverberates across the entire expanse
of this novel. There are windows within windows,
doppelgangers, and mirror actions--all constructed to
articulate the very notions of faith that have rocked religion
for centuries. Yet, instead of just chipping away the
foundations of faith, Dostoyevsky deconstructs those
foundations and, using the power of the novel, provides
solutions.

It's one hell of an artistic achievement.

It is the chapter "A Critical Moment," in the center of this
massive novel, that the narrator (a monk) seems intent that
the reader comprehend Alyosha's critical moment of faith:

Yet I must frankly own that it would be very difficult for me to
give a clear account of that strange, vague moment in the life
of the hero of my tale whom I love so much and who was still
so young...I would only beg the reader not to be in too
great a hurry to laugh at my young hero's pure
heart...No doubt a youth who received impressions cautiously,
whose love was lukewarm, and whose mind was too prudent
for his age and so of little value, such a young man might, I
admit, have avoided what happened to my hero. But in some
cases it is really more creditable to be carried away by an
emotion, however unreasonable, which springs from a great
love, than to be unmoved...

Dostoyevsky the author knew that Alyosha's critical moment
would be largely ridiculed as "artistically inferior" and I find it
amusing that he takes time out to point it out directly to the
reader--"You won't get it, you'll laugh at it, but this is very
important." But we do not have to take the narrator's word
for it; his direct statements are given substance in the very
fabric of the novel.

The whole of this novel is a series of encounters of faith:
Some with, some without. It is the very substance of the
work and, for me personally, it is accomplished. One finishes
this novel of murder and betrayal with, as George points
out, cheering for the very family at the savage center of it
all. And that is no easy task.



Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!
  

Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (83 of 97), Read 23 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Ernie Belden 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 04:14 PM 


Hi,
I was able to get the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of the
Brothers. I was absolutely amazed at the clarity of the writing,
probably due to a better translation. This books seems to be
something very special and so far appears superior to D's other
books I have read. I am also surprised that the discussion started
early and I am left behind, having just finished Grendel. I hope I
can still find a discussion on him since this book has very
interesting aspects and I wonder if other readers have noticed
them as well.

My concern right now is, will I live long enough to finish the
Brothers (BG) or will I be in the middle when we get to the next
assignment. Also, I had a few problems finding and signing up with
the new internet address. I guess I was not the only one- I hope.
Ernie



 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (84 of 97), Read 21 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 04:18 PM 


Kay--

We'll agree to disagree. I do believe those sections can be
enjoyable, and I'm glad to be talking to somebody who does... it
gives me a fresh perspective.

Dan--

As I read your post I realized it's just a different set of
exppectations: I think I turn to Dostoevsky primarily for originality
and intensity, and I've met many, many Aloyshas and Zossimas in
literature, but only one Ivan, one Mitya, one Smerdyakov... hence
I would value them more. It's subjective. You've shown me a
blindspot in my approach. Thanks.

At the risk of ridiculousness, though, I disagree with your
agreement: I don't cheer at the end for the family in relation to
their faiths... I cheer for their vitality. There's a big difference. 

I'm very interested that you find religious solutions in the book
that Ivan and Mitya could not, and I'd love to hear them
sometime...

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (85 of 97), Read 20 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 05:13 PM 


George: Name some of these Alyoshas so prevalent in literature. I
am very interested.

I have seen Smerdyakov in Joseph Conrad's Victory and
numerous Faulkner novels. Of course, those are the works of
people influenced by Big D. Preceding Dostoyevsky? That's a
difference. I think the only place they appeared before The
Brothers Karamazov was in Dostoyevsky's other novels.

One last time around, I'll try to illustrate "religious solutions in the
book that Ivan and Mitya could not." First of all, Mitya is all action;
he's the victim of his own passions and forces of society. It's Ivan
that deconstructs faith empirically.

In "Rebellion," Ivan sums up his argument thusly:

I understand, of course, what an upheaval of the universe it will
be, when everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of
praise and everything in heaven and earth blends in one hymn of
praise and everything that lives and has lived cries aloud: 'Thou
art just, O Lord, for Thy ways are revealed.' When the mother
embraces the fiend who threw her child to the dogs, and all three
cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' then, of course, the
crown of knowledge will be reached and all will be made clear. But
what pulls mu up here is that I can't accept that harmony...It's not
worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the
breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its
unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because
those tears are unatoned for.

The idea is returned to within a religious context in "Notes of the
Life in God of the Elder Zosima:"

And what mysteries are solved and revealed; God raises Job
again, gives him wealth again. Many years pass by, and he has
other children and loves them. But how could he love those new
ones when those first children are no more, when he has lost
them? Remembering them, how could he be fully happy with those
new ones, however dear the new ones might be? But he could, he
could. It's the great mystery of human life that old grief passes
gradually into quiet tender joy.

Job loses his children yet comes to term with God anyway; Ivan
cannot envision such forgiveness. The two passages seem
disparate but, if you look carefully, it is the same concept from a
different perspective, within a different light.

And I understand many have problems accepting Dostoyevsky's
mysticism as a solution, that the solution to Ivan's argument is
"the great mystery of human life that old grief passes gradually
into quiet tender joy." In effect, there are no rational answers to
Ivan's stance.

In a way, it is related to the motif of asking questions which
pervades the novel. Often, characters find a proper frame of
reference from which to ask questions. If asked directly if the
torture of one child is worth harmony, of course the answer--even
for Alyosha--is no. But the question itself is the trap--it is the
context of the question which renders alternatives moot. It is the
manner the question is asked that should be examined in some
cases within this novel.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (86 of 97), Read 22 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 05:24 PM 


I'd like to take this discussion to more familiar terrain with a
question I have: What's the deal with Katerina? Her strange
behavior with Grushenka has already been mentioned, but I'm
more interested in her reaction to Mitya's "sin:"

I looked [Katerina] up and down. You've seen her? She's a beauty.
But she was beautiful in another way then. At that moment she
was beautiful because she was noble, and I was a scoundrel; she
in all the grandeur of her generosity and sacrifice for her father,
and I--a bug! And, bug and scoundrel as I was, she was
completely at my mercy, body and soul. She was hemmed in. I
tell you frankly, that thought, that venomous thought, so
possessed my heart that it almost swooned with suspense.

Now here was a man planning on having a little sex with a snotty
young thing to put her in her place--outright despicable behaviour.
But, he can't go through with it. How does she react?

'I love you madly,' she says, 'even if you don't love me, never
mind. Be my husband. Don't be afraid. I won't hamper you in any
way. I will be your chattel. I will be the carpet under your feet. I
want to love you forever. I want to save you form yourself.'

My question is simple: How psychologically sound is this within the
plot? Dostoyevsky is known as a great psychologist novelist on a
par with Henry James (and this scene reminds me of sections of
On the Wings of a Dove). And it is Katerina's reaction to Mitya's
actions that amaze me. I'm very curious as to how a woman would
feel. Can you see sense in this?




Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (87 of 97), Read 19 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 07:23 PM 


Dan, I thought your message about the “religious solutions” posed
by D. was great!

Dostoevsky’s refutation of the negative ideas expressed by Ivan
and the Grand Inquisitor is not a direct one, meaning not a
face-to-face argument, but present throughout the remainder of
the novel (particularly in Book VI, “The Russian Monk”). In
addition Zosima’s comments on the story of Job, which Dan talked
about, Zosima also says the following shortly after: “Whoever
does not believe in God will not believe in the people of God. But
he who believes in the people of God will also see their holiness,
even if he did not believe in it at all before.[…] And what is the
word of Christ without an example?” Zosima is saying that only
through active love will one come to believe in God; by loving,
man gains new respect for everyone in God’s world and for God.
What is denied to our understanding is revealed to love and joy
and self-forgetfulness. Ivan spends his time intellectualizing over
abstract problems, and has no time left to practice active love.
Mere theory, just because it is theory, ends in atheism, because it
analyses and does not see the whole.

Not only does Zosima say that mystery must remain a mystery,
but that without that element of mystery there would be no faith.
He says, “Much on earth is concealed from us, but in place of it we
have been granted a secret, mysterious sense of our living bond
with the other world, with the higher heavenly world […] if this
sense [of being in touch with other mysterious worlds] is
weakened or destroyed in you […] then you become indifferent to
life, and even come to hate it.”

I have read that a few days before “The Russian Monk” was due to
appear (the work was serialized) D. wrote that he was trembling
over whether it would adequately answer the negative ideas
expressed by Ivan and The Grand Inquisitor. Was he right to have
trembled? D. does not counter Ivan’s arguments with logic or
reason, but through the heart. Between "The Russian Monk" and
the way Alyosha puts into practice Zosima’s idea of active love
throughout the novel, and I think D. poses a successful “answer.”
But I do admit that "The Grand Inquisitor" and "The Devil. Ivan F's
Nightmare" were my favorite chapters!

-Marcy

 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (88 of 97), Read 17 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 07:25 PM 


I think some women see men like Mitya as a challenge for their
sexuality. They also believe that all he needs is a little love,
comfort, and understanding from a good woman, and he'll
straighten right up. A man like that gives her a sense of power and
control, as well as a mission. It's a kind of game. Sometimes
women will pull that, "I will be your chattel" routine as a means of
manipulation. For others, it's a symptom of their powerless self
esteems.

I think that K's declaration of terms for their potential marriage
was a sudden surge of passion, in response to Mitya's sexual
vibes. It's that old, "he's a bad boy, and I find that thrilling" dance.

Katerina confused me, too. I couldn't decide if she really did love
Mitya, or was just angry that he had chosen Grushenka over her.
She didn't really want him, yet she was damned if anyone else
could have him over her. I think she deluded herself into thinking
she loved him. It was material for great drama. 

Her better side won out when it came down to testifying in Mitya's
favor. It wasn't until Grushenka entered the scene that Katerina
turned on him. Also, remember that Katerina had tried to
manipulate Grushenka once before, and lost the battle. Katerina's
producing the letter was as much a slap to Grushenka as it was to
Mitya. Truth told, I think Katerina was very confused regarding her
feelings for Mitya. 

K



 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (89 of 97), Read 13 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     R Bavetta rbavetta@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
     Friday, August 03, 2001 11:38 PM 


Allemande right, and do-si-do your partner.

As you were. 

Ruth

"Nobody belongs to us, except in memory." John Updike

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (90 of 97), Read 14 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 04:07 AM 


Well, I'm not gonna top how Marcy put it... like her, I admire the
sentiments expressed by the religious leaders in BK and, like her,
my favorite chapters are elsewhere. 

Those 2 passages-- Ivan's and Zossima's-- also perfectly display
why. Ivan asks a question which IS NOT answered by Zossima.
Ivan's passage recognizes that a mother can embrace a fiend
who's killed her children...forgive the fiend, love the fiend. 

'When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her child to the
dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just, O Lord!'
then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and all will
be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't accept
that harmony...'

In Zossima's passage on Job, fiendish fate steals Job's children...
how can he embrace that fate, in essence crying aloud 'Thou art
just, O Lord!' ?!? 
The answer cannot be:

"the great mystery of human life that old grief passes gradually
into quiet tender joy." Mystery is not an answer. The answer is
this: 

'But he could, he could.'

Which leads me to my initial point: the answer to the HUGE issues
of doubt raised in BK always boils down to essentially '... well, just
BECAUSE, dammit!' 

I came across a very illuminating introduction to BK by Malcolm V.
Jones. It says: 'In letters to his editor D insists that Ivan's
blasphemous arguments are to be refuted later (in BK). Clearly,
he was anxious that the censor and the publisher might refuse
publication on grounds of heresy. But as time went on, D found the
task of refuting Ivan through Zossima increasingly taxing.' 

That 'taxing', obligated tone is I think what I found objectionable.
That hyper-investment in an argument to save the book from
censors makes D's voice less free, less radical, and to me less
artistically successful.

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (91 of 97), Read 13 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 09:27 AM 


Where's my list of other literary Alyoshas, George? I'm waiting.

Marcy: Excellently articulated. I agree with you 100%.

The Brothers Karamazov is not artistically weak because
Dostoyevsky was bound by censors--Dostoyevsky's letters make
it perfectly clear that the Christian framework of The Brothers
Karamazov novel was always paramount in his mind. Besides, he's
repeating similar arguments he has made in his other novels.
Dostoyevsky is essentially a Christian author of monumental
proportions. Sure he was psychologically astute and in touch with
the "underground," but he also possessed a mystical Christian
vision that was every bit as difficult to articulate, especially in an
artform that relies heavily on rationalism and logic for its effect. It
has always been this shuttling between the grittiest reality with the
most sublime mystical visions that attracted me to Dostoyevsky in
the first place.

And speaking of gritty reality...

Note that Grushenka also grovels at Mitya's feet after the frenetic
party at Mokroe:

Why listen to me? Kiss me, kiss me hard, that's right. If you love,
well then love! I'll be your slave now, your slave for the rest of my
life. It's sweet to be a slave. Kiss me! Beat me, ill-treat me, do
what you will with me...And I do deserve to suffer.

Oh momma, but Mitya has a way with the ladies, n'est-ce pas?
Kay: Is this also just the attraction of a bad boy? Does beating
people and recklessly spending one's money have such an impact
on women?

Grushenka's reaction to Mitya is plausible whereas Katerina's
reaction is not, at least not yet. Several times in the novel a
character or even the narrator mention that Katerina was in love
with her gratitude that Mitya was able to rise above his bestial
instincts at the very moment when he had free reign over her
person. 

I'm trying to recall, here: Katerina is said to love the gratitude she
owed Mitya whereas Grushenka loved...there was something
Grushenka supposedly loved--was it the idea of forgiving Mitya his
trespasses? I'll have to look it up. 

These bizarre love triangles are such a part of Dostoyevsky that I
realized something: Is a decent, loving married couple ever
present within a Dostoyevsky novel? I cannot think of any
decently married people in The Brothers Karamazov, unless you
posit Grigory and Martha are decently married.

Could it be that Dostoyevsky could not believe that human love for
another could not exist as it does between Christ and man? Both
the love of Katerina as well as Grushenka possess a low element
of servitude that, in my opinion, cheapens it. Of course, there's
Lise and Alyosha, but I think Dostoyevsky was going to expand on
that relationship in the main Karamazov novel he never got
around to writing because the Grim Reaper intervened.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (92 of 97), Read 13 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 10:16 AM 


"Is this also just the attraction of a bad boy? Does beating people
and recklessly spending one's money have such an impact on
women?"

Dan-

I think it does for some women. I do not understand it myself, but
I do think some women's self esteem is so low that they'll take
any kind of attention from any man.

I don't know if that's K's and G's problem or not. It's one
explanation is all.

Does D. ever portray a woman as having intelligence, dignity, and
self esteem? I'm wondering if he had a clear insight into the
female mind.

It may be that the Russian culture put women in subservient roles,
and D. is merely writing a Russian man's belief that women
need/want that kind of servitude. 

As I said before, K. really puzzled me as well. Grushenka seemed
to be working from a "that's my man" viewpoint, which was easier
to understand.

As to her own "mop the floor with me" statement, I think that was
a play to manipulate Mitya into marriage. She was saying that
she'd do anything he wanted, if only he'd love her. It's sad, but
some women actually think that way.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (93 of 97), Read 10 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 03:51 PM 


An intelligent, decent woman portrayed by Dostoyevsky--that's a
tough one, Kay. Seems I recall such a one in The Idiot, but I
would have to go back and check.

I like what you said about Russian culture being a possible factor.
Perhaps it's a male thing where we just love to see a woman
willing to be our personal piece of carpet for our muddy boots. 

I admit I never saw this curve-ball coming; I always thought
Dostoyevsky had a psychological bead on humanity. But the
characteristics of the female do seem rather male-oriented. Dare I
admit an impediment in one of my faves? Did Dostoyevsky,
with his infinite knowledge of psychology and writing skills
not understand the female?

Somebody, someone, show me that this just isn't so...


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (94 of 97), Read 11 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 03:53 PM 


And the more I think about this, the more I think there's only one
CR person ideally suited to answer the question of feminine
psychology and literary representation--Steve.

Where is he anyway?


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (95 of 97), Read 10 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Saturday, August 04, 2001 07:41 PM 


Dan - 

What a delightful spell of laughter that thought engendered.

Steve -

I would treasure any of your hard gained insights into the female
psyche. We girls always get a kick out of any male's attempt at
insight. Ha!

K


 
 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (96 of 97), Read 7 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
     Sunday, August 05, 2001 05:53 AM 


Dan--

I never meant this to be a duel. You say 'where's my list?' in a
tone suspiciously similar to my brother's when he stands across
the net from me, racket in hand, saying 'c'mon George, bring it!'.

I admitted (in advance) that my approach to BK is colored by my
ideological starting point and thanked YOU for articulating with
care and skill a side I've read about but not seen in action. Yet you
negate my position out of hand. 

That's fine, of course... I'm no D expert. I assume Malcolm Jones
is, though you say he's wrong... also fine, but I find it
psychologically plausible that a man (D) mock executed and given
years of penal time for 'political crimes' might be wary of the
censor and (at times) of his own radical ideas. Such a man might
'tremble' at the thought that he would be unable to best his own
creation, i.e, refute the very convincing Ivan. 

You also negate the critic Rene Girard who said: '(D's) work is a
means of knowledge, an instrument of exploration; it is thus
always beyond the creator himself; it is in advance of his
intelligence and of his faith.' 

And the critic Mikhail Bakhtin who said what I've been trying to say
but incomparably better: 'Precisely the image of a human being
and his voice, a voice not the author's own, was the ultimate
artistic criterion for D: not fidelity to his own convictions and not
fidelity to convictions themselves taken abstractly, but precisely a
fidelity to the authoritative image of a human being.'

That's all I've been getting to all along, really. There are those of
us out here who believe that D's 'ultimate artistic criterion' (as
articulated by Bakhtin) applies better to, say, Ivan than to, say,
Alyosha because Ivan's voice is fiercer and the painting of him is
more daring and less invested in ideological proofs. That's all...
you can negate this view, but it will remain all the same. 

 

 Topic: 
     August: The Brothers Karamazov (97 of 97), Read 4 times  
 Conf: 
     Classics Corner 
 From: 
     Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
     Sunday, August 05, 2001 11:32 AM 


It's not a duel, George: I gathered there weren't many literary
Alyoshas out there and you have just confirmed that fact. I am
fascinated with the character Alyosha, a distinct improvement over
Dostoyevsky's similar character of Myshkin in The Idiot. I'm sad
that that's the case, though; literature could use a few more
Alyoshas and a lot less Smerdyakovs.

What's really shocking is that I start talking about women yearning
to be mistreated by men--a theme running through The Brothers
Karamazov--and it gets eerily quiet out here in Classics Corner. Is
there mulling going on or what?


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (98 of 110), Read 22 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 05, 2001 02:22 PM 


I'm just starting this book and hoping you all will tolerate a
bit of late discussion on my part. My instinct is to answer
your question immediately from my own point of view, Dan,
but I think it should be done with a knowledge of the book,
so will bide my time (this took a lot of discipline, believe me).

Barb

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (99 of 110), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 05, 2001 02:46 PM 


Barb,
You're back! Great.

Drum rolls, please-- I FINISHED!!! I just want to say that I
think this book is brilliant and I am sure that the translation
added infinitely to my enjoyment. This is the first time I have
ever detected the humor in Dostoevsky that I am sure was
always there in the original.

George, for once :), we are on the same track here. 

Dan, you have really posed an interesting question about
D's female characters, and I'll have to think some more
about it before I respond in detail. Primarily, I respond to D's
characters as human beings; I have never thought about
them as peculiarly male or female. Perhaps I should.

With few exceptions, almost all of his characters are flawed
human beings, and some have serious psychological
problems. Freud would have had a hay day with Katerina, a
woman consumed by her own pride and a masochistic need
to punish herself (also, anyone else who stood in her way).
Marriage to her would be one long living hell. Sonia, the
saintly prostitute with a heart of gold. in THE IDIOT, would
be her opposite, but somehow she rings less true than
Katerina. Are the female characters more flawed than the
male? I'm not sure. Hysteria runs rampant among them, but
as Kay has pointed out, the "brain fever" that afflicts so
many of the male characters differs very little.

Ernie, my experience was that the first half of this book was
a bit slow. I galloped through the second half. I look forward
to reading your psychological insights into these characters.
Hang in there.

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (100 of 110), Read 22 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 05, 2001 09:12 PM 


I have finally caught up on the previous notes, which are
terrific.

I will reiterate that a reader's reaction to the religious
passages in this book depends a great deal on his own
relationship to religion. For me, the religious questions that
Ivan poses so clearly are never resolved--nor can they be.
Dostoevsky solves the problem in the novel by having Ivan
virtually disappear after his all too brief courtroom
appearance. Was that brain fever perhaps just a bit too
convenient?

Some of you apparently find the resolution of the religious
questions in Aloysha's life. I must admit that Dostoevsky's
portrait of this Christ like, all forgiving character is
remarkably effective. Usually I find such characters cloyingly
sweet or hopelessly naive. But Aloysha is also fortunate that
he never really experiences a religious crisis. Sure, he is a bit
upset by Zosima's decay but he never really doubts. Lucky
him.

Regarding D's women, the only sympathetic ones I can find
in this novel are the poor ones. These include Marfa
Ignatievna, Smerdyakov's adoptive mother and Grigory's
wife, and Ilyushechka's crazy mother and handicapped
sister. They are all minor characters and like most of the
poor folk in D's novel, very sympathetic.

The main females are a mess. Grushenka is cruel and
manipulative for at least three fourths of the novel. Katerina
Ivanovna is a control freak with a masochistic need to suffer
and a wounded pride that shudders in horror at the thought
that any man could prefer that slut Grushenka to her. The
other Katerina, Katerina Osipovna, and her daughter Lise
are foolish non-stop talkers, who seem to be there primarily
for comic relief.

What about the male characters--always excepting the
children and the saints? To what extent did you as a reader,
for example, feel empathy for that ridiculous playboy Dmitri
or his intellectual brother Ivan?

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (101 of 110), Read 18 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 05, 2001 10:40 PM 


Ann: Great, great stuff to mull over. I had no problem with
Ivan and Mitya--I've seen those kinds of guys everywhere.
The chapter where Mitya is questioned about his
whereabouts reads like a current episode of cops or some
special on Court TV. There really are people like that.

About the sudden disappearance of Ivan: I do not believe
Dostoyevsky ushered him off the stage so that the reader
would forget Ivan's statements. With "Rebellion" and "The
Grand Inquisitor," putting him backstage wouldn't have
worked anyway. 

This novel was to be a precursor for another novel.
Dostoyevsky felt that the other wouldn't have the impact he
envisioned without his fully articulating the history and
actions that the main characters have been through.

For instance, note Ivan's closing remarks to Alyosha at the
end of the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor:"

"And now you go to the right and I to the left. And it's enough,
do you hear, enough. I mean even if I don't go away tomorrow
and we meet again, don't say a word more on these subjects. I
beg that particularly. And about brother Dmitri too, I ask you
specially never speak to me again," he added, with sudden
irritation; "it's all exhausted, it has all been said over and over
again, hasn't it? And I'll make you one promise in return for it.
When at thirty, I want to 'dash the cup to the ground,'
wherever I may be I'll come to have one more talk with you,
even though it were from America, you may be sure of that. I'll
come on purpose. It will be interesting to have a look at you, to
see what you'll be by that time. It's rather a solemn promise,
you see."

The action of The Brothers Karamazov takes place 13 years
before the planned action of the main novel Dostoyevsky
had in mind. The main line would be Mitya's return after
prison. Imagine Ivan prepared for suicide arriving to talk with
Alyosha. What might have changed? Would Alyosha have
encountered some tangible facts that would cause him to
seriously doubt (as Ann notes) his faith? The possibilities for
that future conversation would have been Dostoyevskian. 

It gives me chills to think that this marvelous book was only
a preface, mere exposition, to a grander work. Can you
imagine what Dostoyevsky could have achieved with these
characters after they move on for 13 years? I swear I just
shiver to think of the possibilities.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (102 of 110), Read 23 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 01:14 AM 


Ann-

Ivan's questions cannot be resolved in any other way but to
take a leap of faith. For Alyosha, that leap is a means of
handling doubts. It's a survival tool of sorts, and allows him
to find joy in parts of his life. I wonder how aware he
actually is of his use of faith as a tool of perspective. It's real
for him, but it is a tool for survival.

You're right that a reader's response depends on his
religious outlook and his willingness to trust in something
greater than the whole. Alyosha is willing to take that leap
and derives comfort and joy from it. 

Ivan and Mitya insist on their rationalism and quest for proof.
Yet they still seek a resolution, which they strongly suspect
is faith. They cannot allow themselves to let go. I think they
believe in God, but don't have much faith in Him. That's quite
a dilemma for the human soul. For me, they were the more
interesting characters. However, Alyosha and Kolya were my
favorites.

Why was Kolya introduced in the story? Was it to offer hope
and encouragement to the reader somehow?

Dan-

Yes, I would have loved to read the sequel to BK. Rather
boggles the mind, doesn't it?

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (103 of 110), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 09:34 AM 
  Attn: 
      Barbara Moors (Barb Moors)


Hey Barb -- thought I'd show this cool new thing by putting
this to your attention -- I just want to let you know that I
had Jim shopping for books last week while he was in CA
and Texas ( Texas is getting a lot of my book business this
year{G}) -- he brought me Brothers Karamazov as well as
Blood Meridian -- and I've begun both of them. I'll be reading
along with you, Barb and will chime in on any late discussion
-- I am thinking I will be very slow with this -- could be wrong
-- this is my first serious attempt at these big Russians but in
scanning the early posts here I got intrigued enough to get
brave!

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (104 of 110), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 09:43 AM 


I'm about a third way through Brothers Karamazov..I put it
down to read some Yates...but I'll be joining in as soon as I
finish it.

I was a bit afraid this thread would be a thing of the past by
the time I finished it, and I'm so glad to know that won't be
the case!

Beej

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (105 of 110), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 10:04 AM 
  Attn: 
      Dottie Randall (indy)


That is neat, Dottie (the Attn option). Now, you've motivated
me to figure out how to use it myself! Let me know if it
worked. The only trick is to remember to still reply to the last
note in the thread rather than to the "attention" note.

Also, I'm glad you'll be around to discuss this with, Beej and
Dottie. It shouldn't take me as long as usual since I won't be
working again for a few weeks. It's a long book, but, so far,
it flows easier for me than the Dosteovskys I've read
previously. I'm wondering if it is this book or the translation
or a combination of the two.

Barb

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (106 of 110), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 10:13 AM 


Barb -- at the moment the attn note is the last one so -- yes,
it worked! It IS cool isn't it -- but some of us will still miss
those YOOHOO topic lines -- {G}.

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (107 of 110), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 10:29 AM 
  Attn: 
      Dottie Randall (indy)


Dottie, I replied to the attn. note on Beej's last note. So, it
doesn't automatically put you at the end of the thread. Why
is there an (indy) after your name when I put it in my
address book?

And, I think you should feel free to put a Yahoo! heading in
notes, if only for old time's sake.

Barb

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (108 of 110), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 10:44 AM 


Barb -- that indy is my user name(I think that's the term) on
the board and relates to that ID in my tagline. I'm sure that
old YOOHOO will show up sometime -- why not?!?

The only drawback we have found with these attn notes
thus far is that they don't clear when marked all read is
marked and must AGE off -- ah well.

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (109 of 110), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 11:55 AM 


Kay--

Your distinction between 'most interesting' and 'favorite'
characters is spot on... I'd imagine it was much the same for
D himself.

Ann-- 

Thanks.

Dan--

That was an amazing statement: 'I'm sad that that's the
case, though; literature could use a few more Alyoshas and
a lot less Smerdyakovs.'

Smerdyakov is a landmark character in literature, influential
on Faulkner and Conrad, Pynchon and Roth, etc., He is
drawn with astonishing skill and sheds a powerful light on
Ivan and Fyodor in particular, but across the psychology of
the novel in general. He IS morally reprehensible. He is also
indispensible to BK.

I can't help but feel your statement is an example of the
haze that descends upon literature when one tries to
approach it from a primarily moral standpoint. That same
logic would of course prune away Odysseus, Milton's Satan,
Macbeth, Ahab, etc., You may wish for less of these
characters-- I cannot join you. 

Neither can I be as trusting of the gentle Christianity of a
man who wrote (in a letter to the writer Herzen): 'I have
acquired the truth, and in the words 'God' and 'religion' I see
darkness, obscurity, chains, and the knout.' Frankly, I think D
would blanch at the idea that anyone would accept
Alyosha's words as 100% representative of D the artist. I
think the issue is more complicated and more interesting. 

A primarily moral approach to BK misses some ironies... my
favorite of which comes near the end. Halfway through the
chapter 'for a moment the lie became truth' Mitya says to
Alyosha: 'I love you for always telling the complete truth and
never hiding anything!' He then immediately lays out his
escape plan to America. Then he asks Alyosha: '...Do you
approve?' This is the next sentence (Alyosha's response) in
the Pevear translation: "'I do,' said Alyosha, not wishing to
contradict him."

Mitya tends to see Alyosha in the dark-light of the holes in
his OWN personality and character. He idealizes him. Alyosha
shouldn't be idealized anymore than Ivan should be
demonized... not if one is interested in reading accurately.
Alyosha does hide things, he does lust, and he does lie. He
also has a good heart. But he isn't the jewel that refracts all
the best thoughts in D's mind. He is a jewel... but in their
own ways, so are all the Karamazovs. To wish for less of
them and more Alyoshas is to wish Dostoevsky's art into a
vapor, a theological tract with no beating heart. 

In D's novel 'Demons', Bishop Tikhon delivers a very
heartwarming message of God's capacity for forgiveness.
That capacity is ragingly torn at by Nicholas Stavrogin... a
character much like Ivan in BK. I suppose one could judge
Tikhon's moral message the greatest thing in Demons... but
D thought differently: found in his working notes for the
novel was one note to himself that said: 'Stavrogin is
everything'. He obviously didn't think that Stavrogin was the
most moral character in Demons, he thought Stavrogin was
the most important and most artistic character in the novel.
A strange view for a Christian author, but then there are
many strange views to be found in his books that are hard
to reconcile...


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (110 of 110), Read 6 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 04:36 PM 


My point, George, was not that I don't enjoy the
Smerdyakovs of literature--I pointed some of those out to
you. You claimed literature was just brimming with Aloyosha
characters when, in fact, it isn't. It's much more difficult to
create an intriguing character of faith than it is to create one
of moral depravity. Like you, I get my fair share of jollies from
evil in literature; I just love it when an author as gifted as
Dostoyevsky takes on the task of tackling the themes of
faith and humanity with such artistry and depth. It's a rare
and precious piece of work.

Let's take Dostoyevsky's own words from his letters: "The
villians teased me for my uneducated and reactionary faith in
God. These blockheads did not even dream of such a
powerful negation of God as was put into the Inquisitor and
in the preceding chapter, to which the whole novel serves as
an answer." 

Dostoyevsky had toyed with these concepts of faith before,
especially in The Idiot, but he always stopped short of fully
integrating them into the action of the novel. With The
Brothers Karamazov, he achieves a vision of the real forces
battling for control of the human heart. Whether or not we
as readers are willing to accept his answer depends
ultimately, as Ann so well stated, on we as readers alone.
For me, it's a cheap shot to say it's "artistically inferior"
because it doesn't satisfy my personal vision. 


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (111 of 118), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 08:18 PM 


Since this is the first book by D. that I have read, I’m
hesitant to jump into the discussion regarding D.’s portrayal
of women (whether any female characters are portrayed as
having intelligence, dignity, and self esteem). One thing that
struck me though was the chapter “A Little Demon,” which
presented Liza in a very different light from any other female
character, and suddenly very differently from how Liza had
been portrayed up to that point. “Alyosha was struck most
of all by her seriousness: not a shadow of laughter or
playfulness was left on her face, though before gaiety and
playfulness had not abandoned her even in her most
‘serious’ moments.” She then says, “Listen, your brother is
on trial now for killing his father, and they all love it that he
killed his father. […] Everyone says it’s terrible, but secretly
they all love it terribly. I’m the first to love it.” This notion is
similar to Mitya’s earlier lamentation over men confusing the
beauty of Sodom with that of the Madonna. Alyosha,
surprisingly, agrees with much of what she has said, and
even has had the same dream that she has had about
devils. Here we see Liza seriously grappling with the same
issues as the male characters in the book. At the end of that
chapter, when she purposely slams the door on her finger
with all her might, this is not a symptom of “hysterics” but of
her trying to come to terms with the idea of suffering in
order to learn. Granted, slamming the door on her finger
may be viewed as a superficial means of going about this,
but it’s clear that she is undergoing an internal struggle like
most of the male characters, and it would have been most
interesting to see where D. would have taken her character,
had he lived to write the sequel.

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (112 of 118), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 06, 2001 09:49 PM 


Marcy: Please do jump in. You managed to make more
sense of that finger-scene than I ever did. 

I was reading some preface somewhere where it was
stated that children and women tend to be silent victims in
Dostoyevsky; they suffer cruelty passively and rarely
express themselves as the male characters tend to do. 

I find that the women and children of The Brothers
Karamazov do speak out and take action--though often it
baffles me. But does anyone see Grushenka as a helpless
victim unable to defend herself? And though he is under the
sorry philosophical influence of Rakitin for a while, Kolya
manages to hold his own as well within the novel--of
course, that's with the help of Alyosha. Hmmmm.

And Marcy: I wanted to ask you something. A while back you
mentioned Freud's take on Grand Inquisitor and then stated
you would leave the "stick with both ends" for later. Now
that most seem to be finishing, what was Freud's
comments, if I can't guess already?


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (113 of 118), Read 21 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:24 AM 


Kay, 
I too think that Kolya was introduced in the story in order to
offer hope and encouragement to the reader. If you think
about the last chapter in the epilogue, “Ilyushechka’s
Funeral – The Speech at the Stone,” Alyosha and the
children seem like Jesus and his apostles. Alyosha is
cementing this brotherhood of children on the basis of what
Ivan had refused to accept – the unjustified suffering of a
child. Alyosha says, “Let us always remember how we
buried the poor boy, whom we once threw stones at –
remember, there by the little bridge?” The boys had all
contributed to Ilyushechka’s suffering – they accept that
they are all guilty, and it fortifies their brotherhood. It’s in
the youth that D. is placing the hope that each person will
finally, as Father Zosima puts it, “make yourself responsible
for all the sins of men. […] The moment you make yourself
sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will
see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty
on behalf of all and for all.” I think we’re supposed to view
Kolya and the boys who follow him as being on their way
there. (though I’m still not sure what to make of that “each
is responsible for all” concept…)

Dan,
Here’s the quote from Freud’s essay regarding the “stick
with two ends”:
“In the speech for the defense at the trial, there is the
famous mockery of psychology – it is a ‘knife that cuts both
ways’ [Garnett’s translation]: a splendid piece of disguise,
for we have only to reverse it in order to discover the
deepest meaning of D.’s view of things. It is not psychology
that deserves the mockery, but the procedure of judicial
enquiry. It is a matter of indifference who actually committed
the crime; psychology is only concerned to know who
desired it emotionally and who welcomed it when it was
done. And for that reason all of the brothers, except the
contrasted figure of Alyosha, are equally guilty – the
impulsive sensualist, the skeptical cynic and the epileptic
criminal.”

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (114 of 118), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 01:15 AM 


Dan--

I'm sorry I missed your point. I didn't realize your saying you
wished there were less Smerdyakovs in literature meant
that you enjoyed the character... my apologies. 

You missed my point along the line: I agree that characters
of faith are difficult to make convincing (although there are
many), actually any character is difficult to make convincing,
hence the outnumbering of Dostoevskys by Krantzes. What
is easy is to write a character that is the mouthpiece for all
the beliefs the writer THINKS the reader should hold.
Self-propaganda is very easy and very common. Characters
like Alyosha that essentially represent the writer preaching
at the reader are everywhere... to say that they are rare is
very much in error. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (115 of 118), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 09:16 AM 


Marcy-

I think that "each is responsible for all" is a way of saying
that since we've all sinned at one time or another, none
have the right to condemn. Wasn't there a passage where
D. discusses the right of society to judge in favor of capital
punishment? In that sense, we are responsible for others
who have also sinned and share in their brotherhood. We
do not have the right to condemn another to death.

I do not think D. is saying that we are responsible for
specific heinous acts committed by others. It's a "hate the
sin, love the sinner" concept. I'm not sure what his
suggestion would have been for serial offenders. 

As for a mother embracing the murderer and torturer of her
child - well, in an ideal world, the crimes wouldn't happen in
the first place. That is not likely to happen any time soon. A
parent might forgive a fellow human being, but the sin of
murder/torture? Nope. That's for God to do, which is why
faith is important. Faith is what Alyosha and Zosima are
offering as solutions to the world we've created for
ourselves. Some opt for faith and some don't.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (116 of 118), Read 15 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:19 AM 


Kay--

Contrary to how I'm probably sounding here, I agree that
faith is the offered and sole solution to the dark questions
we're raising here... I just didn't want the honesty with
which D poses and faces these questions lost. At one point,
Ivan tells a horrifying anecdote to Alyosha, one where a
landowner hunts down a naked child with hounds and
horses, torturing and killing him for some negligible offense.
Ivan asks Alyosha what should be done with the landowner,
and Alyosha replies 'shoot him' with a 'pale, twisted smile'
on his face. Forgiveness IS the real answer, one which
Alyosha fully believes and practices. But even he is capable
of endorsing blood vengeance in extreme cases... and in
light of Ivan's illness, ALL the cases he broods upon are
extreme and feel to him as if they are personal. This isn't to
excuse Ivan's disbelief, it is simply to recognize that belief is
like the flame of a candle and in anybody, anytime, the light
can flicker or be extinguished, the charred wick waiting for
new heat to bring it back. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (117 of 118), Read 13 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:54 AM 


Marcy:

That is a fascinating insight Freud observed in this novel: "It
is not psychology that deserves the mockery, but the
procedure of judicial enquiry," to repeat your sentence.

As I noted earlier, on this re-read I've noticed Dostoyevsky
playing with inquiry, by focusing at times how questions are
asked and how the context from which the questions arise
color their possible answers. To illustrate the importance of
the context of questions, we have the Grand Inquisitor's
interrogation with Christ, Mitya's interrogation by the state,
as well as the trail. 

Who is guilty of Pavlov's murder? Dostoyevsky novel
illustrates this is not a simple "Who done it?" but a question
involving the darkest psychology and the deepest faith. How
would various characters truly answer the question?
"Smerdyakov," the reader may say. "Mitya," the town says.
"Ivan," Ivan says. "Everyone," Alyosha says.



Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (118 of 118), Read 16 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:00 AM 


Kay you pose the question, 

Does D. ever portray a woman as having intelligence, dignity,
and self esteem? I'm wondering if he had a clear insight into
the female mind.

My name comes up in connection with this? I was puzzled
initially, but I think I know the reason why. This sort of
observation had been posted over and over and over and
over in Constant Reader through the eight years I have
been hanging around. It's like a standard observation, most
often posed with regard to Updike but also with regard to
many other male writers. And it always falls to either Short
or me to ask questions in response. In Short's absence, I
shall step forward.

I am a gentle soul and ask the following questions without
any male aggression whatsoever or even a smidgeon of
unkindness. I shall spare you the little smiley emoticons.
Please just take my word for it.

What do you intend by this? Is a measure of the worth of a
novel by a male novelist whether he includes a female
character with intelligence, dignity, and self-esteem? If he
does not, does this mean he has no insight into the female
mind?

Even after 1970 women with strength of character (in the
terms you use) have demonstrated their susceptibility to
their hormones. Quite often men are involved in this some
way. A portrayal of the conflict between women's better
nature and their baser instincts is a source of great insight
into the female mind, I think, just as it is a source of insight
into the male mind. Anna Karenina comes to mind, a woman
who discarded all of her intelligence, dignity, and
self-esteem. At the very least it is certainly more
entertaining than reading about Martha Stewart, isn't it?

Having said all that, I don't think you intended the question
as it sounded. What you are really looking for, I think, are
strong women characters. Dostoyevski is certainly capable
of that. 

I find Grushenka an immensely appealing and a very strong
character, for example. The society in which she finds herself
is certainly no utopia for women. Yet she is earthy and
intrepid and does battle with all the weapons available to
her. She is most definitely NOT dominated by the men. She
manipulates them--at least until she "fooled around and feel
in love," in the immortal words of Elvin Bishop. And in the
end she is capable of feeling guilt. There is development in
her character. 

Steve

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (119 of 149), Read 72 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 02:20 PM 


Steve-

I asked the question in response to Dan's questions
regarding subservient women in BK. I was just asking if D.
ever portrayed a woman as strong and independent, or if
he was caught up in an unquestioned mindset of how
women think. I do not think most women would settle for
that kind of treatment, but some do.

I agree that Grushenka is firmly in control of how she
expects to be treated by the men in her life. However, even
she has to stoop to manipulating Mitya's love by offering to
be his doormat. 

I find that kind of subservient expectations humiliating and
sad, whether it appears in BK or at my next door neighbor's
house.

I can't remember - what was the response of the men when
presented with these offers?


K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (120 of 149), Read 71 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 02:33 PM 


I want to clarify something. 

D. is a wonderful, insightful psychologist. I was wondering
how accurate his insights into the female psyche were. 

I don't think it's an issue of men not understanding women,
or women not understanding men. I think it's more an issue
of which authors have a broader insight than others. I've
read books where women have written believable male
characters and books where men have shown insight into a
female's mind. 

My question dealt with how perceptive D. really was
regarding the female mindset. I'm still not sure. He nailed a
certain kind of female, though. That's for certain.


K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (121 of 149), Read 68 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 04:39 PM 


Okay, Kay. I read the exchange as Dan responding to you
rather than the other way around.

Dan says:

I admit I never saw this curve-ball coming; I always thought
Dostoyevsky had a psychological bead on humanity. But the
characteristics of the female do seem rather male-oriented.
Dare I admit an impediment in one of my faves? Did
Dostoyevsky, with his infinite knowledge of psychology
and writing skills not understand the female?

Somebody, someone, show me that this just isn't so...

Dan, maybe in response to your plea, I am your man. I have
read this novel three times through the years and love it. I
must say that the theological aspects of the thing have
come to bore hell outa me, although at one time they were
exciting to contemplate. But now you raise questions that
still interest me. 

When you say male-oriented, I take it you mean subservient
to males? Or do you mean something else, like simply that
their lives all revolve around males?

More importantly, what do you mean "not understand the
female?" What female are you talking about? Or are you
talking about the gender as a whole--the "female mindset,"
as Kay would have it?

Steve

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (122 of 149), Read 67 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 07, 2001 09:56 PM 


Kay,
I don't find Grushenka very appealing, but I have to agree
with Steve that she is definitely a strong character, who has
made the most of an appalling situation and does a darn
good job of manipulating almost everyone around her.
(Aloysha is, of course, the exception). People who are weak
learn to manipulate. When she lost her "virtue" to the Polish
officer, she completely sacrificed her very respectable
middle-class position in society. Yet she managed to amass
a comfortable amount of money and maintain her sexual
independence in spite of the fact that she was (horrors) a
fallen woman. I don't think she will ever be subservient to
Dmitri. After all, even after she finally decides she loves him,
she refuses to make love with him.

No, it's not Grushenka I have a problem with as a character.
It's Dmitri. Dan said that he has known people like Dmitri. I
honestly can't say that I have. In fact, I think Dostoevsky
has made Dmitri completely ridiculous most of the time. He is
a man totally controlled by his impulses, whose life is an
emotional roller coaster. The reader has to question his
basic intelligence. It is true that he adds some humor to the
book, as, for instance when he is thrilled that Grushenka
has left him a message that she loved him for "an hour," or
when he is so much more concerned with being considered
a "thief" than a "scoundrel." But it is often difficult for me to
take him seriously.

Ivan, I understand. I have been Ivan. Aloysha is the person
I would like to be, mostly because he can combine true
goodness with total acceptance. Even Smerdyakov speaks
to the anger and sense of injustice I have sometimes felt.
But I can't quite make up my mind about that totally
excessive male, Dmitri Karmazov.

What do the rest of you think?

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (123 of 149), Read 68 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 08, 2001 01:55 AM 


Steve's take on Grushenka has already reaffirmed my faith
in Dostoyevsky's perceptions and delineations of character,
be it female or male.

But Dostoyevsky's novel is indeed a man's world--the female
is subservient and dominated by males. On Dostoyevsky's
pinball machine, women are simply bumpers that light up
when struck by the male (in this conceit, appropriately
represented by the silver ball). They ding (call it hysterics)
and cry, "Oh please, hit me again, hit me again."

Correct me if I'm wrong: But the narrator only presents the
actions of one female totally alone without a male present
and that is of Lisa smashing her finger in the door. Alyosha
has left the building and yet for one paragraph the novel
remains focused not on the departing male but instead on
the remaining female. And she does a shockingly stupid act.
The narrator then moves on to a male.

Given Steve's post earlier, I can understand that this in no
way diminishes Dostoyevsky's art--not articulating the truly
feminine isn't much of a flaw when that really wasn't his
agenda in the first place. But I never really noticed before
the role women play within his novel. It's probably cultural;
but with Dostoyevsky artistry, I could be wrong. While some
have mentioned the hysterics common in the novel, few
have mentioned the real role women seem to bear in this
work.

Ann: I agree that Mitya defies logic, but I have met his sort
many times. Some people do get caught up in the strangest
notions ("I am a scoundrel but I am not a thief!") and never
quite blend in society. I'm afraid to admit it, but where I live
this kind of behavior is common. There's all kinds of
impulsive men spouting off nonsense and doing strange
things spontaneously. When they are at their drink in the
bar, it's best to leave them alone if at all possible.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (124 of 149), Read 57 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 08, 2001 01:55 PM 


I thought that Dmitri was a well-drawn, complex character. I
agree that Mitya may “defy logic,” but that is because he is
caught midway between his impulses for honor and his
impulses toward the low and the animal. Dmitri’s
contradictory personality is illustrated by his manipulation of
events in order to force Katerina to come to his room so that
he can seduce her, but then his refusal to carry out his
scheme as the better part of his nature gains control of him.
In the chapter “Confession, In Verse,” Dmitri says to
Alyosha, “There’s so terribly much suffering for man on
earth, so terribly much grief for him! Don’t think I’m just a
brute of an officer who drinks cognac and goes whoring. No,
brother, I hardly think of anything else, of anything but that
fallen man […] I think about that man, because I myself am
such a man. […] I’m a Karamazov […] when I fall into the
abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I’m
even pleased that I’m falling in just such a humiliating
position, and for me I find it beautiful. […] Let me be cursed,
let me be base and vile, but let me also kiss the hem of that
garment in which my God is clothed; let me be following the
devil at the same time, but still I am also your son, Lord, and
I love you.”

Zosima, who D. goes through great effort to let us know has
an instinctive understanding of people’s nature, kneels
down before Dmitri. Zosima knows that Dmitri’s basic nature
is honorable, and in Dmitri, Zosima sees great suffering and
ultimately a great redemption. 

When Dmitri is accused of his father’s murder, he begins to
face the consequences of all his past acts, and he
undergoes a transformation. He realizes that his life is not
free of guilt and duplicity, and consequently he is willing to
accept the punishment of the murder he did not commit. He
believes that this punishment/suffering will reform his life.
He says, “I understand that for men such as I a blow is
needed, a blow of fate […] Never, never would I have risen
by myself! […] I accept the torment of accusation and of my
disgrace before all, I want to suffer and be purified by
suffering! […] I accept punishment not because I killed him,
but because I wanted to kill him, and might well have killed
him…” 

Mitya’s dream about “the wee one” if further proof of his
redemption, where he “feels a tenderness such as he has
never known before surging up in his heart, he wants to
weep, he wants to do something for them all, so that the
wee one will no longer cry, so that the blackened, dried-up
mother of the wee one will not cry either, so that there will
be no more tears in anyone from that moment on, and it
must be done at once, at once, without delay and despite
everything, with all his Karamazov unrestraint.” In the
chapter “A Hymn and a Secret,” Dmitri tells Alyosha, “Why
did I have a dream about a ‘wee one’ at such a moment?
[…] It was a prophecy to me at that moment! It’s for the
‘wee one’ that I will go. Because everyone is guilty for
everyone else. For all the ‘wee ones,’ because there are
little children and big children. All people are ‘wee ones.’ And
I’ll go for all of them, because there must be someone who
will go for all of them. I didn’t kill father, but I must go. I
accept!”

Dmitri honestly does not know what to do about Ivan’s
suggestion that he escape. Earlier, he probably would have
impulsively decided to flee, but he’s different now. He truly
wants to embrace guilt and responsibility “for all,” but his
dilemma is that he can’t do that if he escapes. His love for
Grushenka and his desire to take on this responsibility for all
are at odds with each other, and he is struggling with it –
not acting impulsively.

Just stopped to think how long this is getting – sorry!

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (125 of 149), Read 43 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 09, 2001 03:11 PM 


Yipes, what happened here? I could have sworn that there
was a message from Kay here just a few minutes ago,
asking us to name our favorite character in BK. When I hit
reply, I got an error message and that seems to have
deleted her note. Kay, I'm not imagining this am I? 

Marcy, you have made an excellent defense of Dmitri. To be
honest, I did care about him a great deal, but only after the
crime had been committed. I really found him tiresome in the
first part of the book. Like the female characters, he seemed
to be all hysteria and no substance. He started to win me
over when he was willing to relinquish (not that he really
had a choice) G to her first love. 

Like Dan I agree that the female characters are peripheral
to the plot. Personally, I find the male characters universal
enough that I don't feel cheated by the lack of a realistic
female. Strong, true-to-life female characters are very
difficult to find in 19th books written by male authors. Anna
Karenina is a wonderful exception. If I want to identify with
capable, independent women I turn to George Eliot or Jane
Austen.

My favorite character is undoubtedly Ivan. I love Aloysha,
but even though there are repeated hints that he too has
his temptations, they are not part of this book. He is just a
bit too perfect, although a great improvement over the
other two saintly characters I recall from Dostoevsky: Prince
Mishkin in THE IDIOT and the Sonia, the prostitute with the
heart of gold in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. Dan, I would have
loved to see what D. would have done with Aloysha in the
planned sequel. Aloysha would be a much more complex
and intriguing character if he too had suffered the torment
of doubt or great personal loss.

So, how about the rest of you?

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (126 of 149), Read 39 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 09, 2001 05:25 PM 


LOL, Ann. No, you're not going nuts. I just decided to delete
the post. I hadn't said anything new.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (127 of 149), Read 42 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 09, 2001 07:58 PM 


For what it is worth, I've read the preface to The Eternal
Husband and Other Stories by Richard Pevear, one-half of the
fabulous translating duo many are presently reading. In the
course of introducing the short selections, Pevear draws
upon Dostoyevsky's novels, especially The Brothers
Karamoazov, to illustrate certain trends in his fiction.

Here is a list of and Pevear's commentary on common motifs
in Dostoyevsky's fiction:

(1) The figure of the dreamer. Bakhtin states: "Indeed in all
of European literature there is no writer for whom dreams
play such a large and crucial role as Dostoyevsky." Pevear
notes the inherent power in Alyosha's dream of the
banquet, Mitya's dream of the peasant baby, and Ivan's
dream of the devil.

(2) The phenomenon of the double. Pevear notes the
extraordinary prose that often accompanies contact
between doubles. Alyosha prostate on the ground
encounters his double Rikita; Ivan's digressing on the
irritations of tiny objects when he encounters his double
Smerdyakov.

(3) The scandalous scene. Pevear gives my favorite from The
Possessed and the one in Crime and Punishment but does
not mention the scandalous scene at the monastery ending
with Ivan kicking a raving Maximov from the carriage.

(4) The emergence of the underground. Rene Girard states:
"The love triangles and dreamers of Dostoyevsky's early
work reflect a certain state of affairs; with the underground,
the reality behind that state of affairs is revealed for the first
time. Error gives form to the truth that corrects it." 

(5) The fear or shame of looking ridiculous. He concentrates
on The Possessed, but this theme is clearly seen in Mitya's
fear of laughter.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (128 of 149), Read 40 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 09, 2001 08:32 PM 


Kay,
Well, it did cross my mind that you could have deleted your
note, but I really thought it was some glitch in the new
software. I'm glad there is a human explanation.

Dan,
I was thinking of nominating the Pevear translation of The
Eternal Husband and Other Stories for next year's reading list.
What do you think? I thought the size might be more
manageable for a lot of people than BK.

Thanks for posting the information about the themes. It's
interesting that he pin pointed those very vivid dreams as a
theme in D's work. They certainly are an important part of
BK. I wonder what percentage of people really remember
their dreams? I so seldom do. 

Also, I hadn't really thought about Smerdaykov being Ivan's
double, but I suppose he is in the sense that S. puts into
practice Ivan's theory that all is permitted once you deny
God's existence. I have a harder time seeing Rikitin as
Aloysha's double. Is it because they are mirror opposites?
Their only similarity seems to be that they both lived in the
monastery. Help me out here.

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (129 of 149), Read 41 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 09, 2001 08:36 PM 


Also, before I forget again, I wanted to comment on Marcy's
observations about Lise's very odd behavior in her last
scene with Aloysha. Lise said she had this almost
uncontrollable urge to set something on fire. Aloysha
indicated her understood exactly what she meant. Was D.
trying to underline the irrationality and destructiveness that
is present in us all? Or did this scene have another
purpose?

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (130 of 149), Read 39 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 07:19 AM 


Regarding the discussion on the phenomenon of the double
in D.’s work – 

The way I’ve been thinking about the Alyosha/Rakitin
connection is that Rakitin is a foil for Alyosha. For instance,
in the chapter “The Onion,” you could say that two kinds of
‘currency’ frame the beginning and the end of the chapter.
Alyosha arrives at Grushenka’s in the midst of a spiritual
revolt, all set to consume sausage and vodka. He regains
his faith (his treasure) during his encounter with Grushenka
and decides to return to the monastery. Alyosha’s ‘treasure’
(faith) contrasts sharply with the vile Rakitin’s ‘treasure’ at
the end of the chapter – his earning of the twenty-five
roubles. Unlike Ivan/Smerdyakov, who I can see exhibiting
the theme of the double, I really don’t see that with
Alyosha/Rakitin – like Ann said, they just strike me as
contrasting characters. So I guess I second her request for
help...

I also thought I’d post some parts of an essay I read, “The
Theme of the Double in D.” by Dmitri Chizhevsky:

“[Ivan’s] way to ethical insight is not – like Alyosha’s – the
way of faith nor – like Dmitri’s – the way of suffering, but the
way of madness and breakdown, the way of a division of
personality. This division of personality is shown in the
scenes with Smerdyakov and with the devil. Smerdyakov is
also in a certain sense a ‘double’ for Ivan. Not only have
they in common basic character traits – ‘enlightened’
rationalism, conceit, contempt for other people, loneliness,
and complacency – but they also share an interest in
common ‘themes.’ Smerdyakov tries to prove the right of
man to mortal sin, Ivan argues that ‘everything is
permitted.’ […] After the murder a consciousness awakes in
Ivan’s soul that he is – not empirically, but in some other
sense – guilty with Smerdyakov, guilty because of their
similarity and because ‘the lackey Smerdyakov sat in his
soul.’ […] Ivan’s moral crisis is displayed in his ‘nightmare,’ in
the appearance of his double – the devil – who is, as Ivan
says: ‘the incarnation of myself, but only of one side of me –
of my thoughts and feelings, but only the nastiest and
stupidest of them… […] He is myself. All that’s base in me, all
that’s mean and contemptible.’”

I wish the essayist had discussed Alyosha/Rakitin…

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (131 of 149), Read 38 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 08:51 AM 


Notice also that Alyosha and Rakitin both take on the
education of Kolya. When Kolya spouts off Voltaire and
other common arguments, he tells Alyosha that Rakitin has
been his guide. 

Also, both are intensely interested in life at the monastery
but for opposite reasons. Both also leave the monastery
during the course of the novel to enter society.

Alyosha practices a religion based on mysticism and faith
whereas Rakitin practices one (albeit atheism) based on
rationality. Alyosha wishes to work within society to make it
a better place (as illustrated in his gospel delivered at the
stone) whereas Rakitin just wants money and fame and will
use the events of the town not to teach lessons of faith but
to make money from magazines. Not that that's such a bad
thing, now.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (132 of 149), Read 35 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 09:33 AM 


Ann, 

Regarding Lise saying she has an almost uncontrollable
urge to set something on fire, yes I think that D. was trying
to underline the destructiveness and potential for evil that is
present in us all. When Lise repeats her desire to set fire to
the house, wanting to make sure Alyosha believes her, he
responds, “Why shouldn’t I [believe you]? There are even
children, about twelve years old, who want very much to set
fire to something, and they do set fire to things.” 

I also think it was partly meant to reiterate what Zosima
said in Book Six, Chapter 3, “From Talks and Homilies of the
Elder Zosima.” When Lise first tells Alyosha about her desire
to set fire to house, his response is, “It’s your rich life.” She
then says, “Why, is it better to be poor?” to which Alyosha
responds, “Yes, it is.” Lise retorts, “Your deceased monk
filled you with all that.” The Russian peasants are Zosima’s
hope because they, like the monks, have the “cut away […]
superfluous and unnecessary needs.” Of course the
peasants do this from necessity whereas the monks choose
to do so, but Zosima does not seem to find this distinction
important. What Zosima finds important is that the peasant,
like the monk, is “liberated from the tyranny of things.” He
considers the rich man to be “isolated” – too involved with
material frivolities to be able to contemplate life. I guess this
is along the lines of the phrase “the devil makes work for
idle hands.” 

But having said this, what really struck me about this was
the idea that evil seeds can take root in anyone’s heart,
even in the heart of a child like Lise, much more than the
rich/poor distinction talked about by Zosima.

–Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (133 of 149), Read 34 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 10:34 AM 


Dan,

Thank you so much! I can now clearly see why Alyosha and
Rakitin are considered doubles! (Excuse the exclamation
points, I’m just excited – it’s like a light bulb went on.) Now
that you got me thinking…

Both Alyosha and Rakitin visit Dmitri while he is awaiting
trial, again with vastly different objectives in mind. Rakitin
comes because he wants to write an article about Dmitri,
tying in the concepts of socialism and the arguments of
Claud Bernard. (I love how Dostoevsky has Dmitri recast
Bernard’s arguments into the framework befitting the
presence of the demonic in the novel – “there are little sorts
of tails, these nerves have little tails….” – very clever.) 

In Rakitin’s scheme, guilt and responsibility are reduced to
mere chemical reactions. Dmitri says, “Because of the little
tails, and not at all because I have a soul or am some sort
of image and likeness, that’s all foolishness. Mikhail [Rakitin]
explained it to me […] ‘But,’ I asked, ‘how will man be after
that? Without God and the future life? It means everything
is permitted now, one can do anything?’ ‘Didn’t you know’
he said. And he laughed. ‘Everything is permitted to the
intelligent man,’ he said.”

Dmitri, however, has formed the opposite idea that
“everyone is guilty for everyone else,” based on his dream
of the “wee one.” Dmitri says to Alyosha, “Rakitin wouldn’t
understand this, but you, you will understand everything.
That’s why I’ve been thirsting for you.”

As an aside, is it just a coincidence that D. has Rakitin going
off to Petersburg to make a career in the department of
criticism, while the devil in Ivan’s nightmare says that he
himself writes for the criticism section? The devil says, “I am
appointed ‘to negate’ […] without negation there will be no
criticism, and what sort of journal has no ‘criticism section’?
[…] They made me write for the criticism section.”

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (134 of 149), Read 35 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 10:56 AM 


I hate that America already! And though they may be
wonderful at machinery, every one of them, damn them, they
are not my people, they are not of my soul. I love Russia,
Alyosha, I love the Russian God, though I am a scoundrel
myself. I'll croak there!" he exclaimed, his eyes suddenly
flashing. His voice was trembling with tears.

"So this is what I've decided, Alyosha, listen," he began again,
mastering his emotions. "As soon as I arrive there with
Grusha, we will set to work at once on the land, in solitude,
somewhere very remote, with wild bears. There must be some
remote parts even there. I am told there are still Redskins
there, somewhere, on the edge of the horizon. So to the
country of the Last of the Mohicans, and there we'll tackle the
grammar at once. Grusha and I. Work and grammar--that's
how we'll spend three years...And as soon as we've learned
it--goodbye to America! We'll run here to Russia as American
citizens...We'll hide somewhere...I will be changed by that time,
and she will, too, in America. The doctors shall make me some
sort of wart on my face--what's the use of their being so
mechanical--or else I'll out one eye...We'll work on the land
here, too, somewhere in the wilds, and I'll make up as an
American all my life. But we shall die on our own soil. That's
my plan, and it won't be altered. Do you approve?

So what do you think: Does Alyosha and Katerina manage
to smuggle Mitya and Grusha to America? Does Mitya and
Grusha return, changed, after three years? 

What becomes of Ivan? What becomes of Lise? Of Kolya and
the disciples? It's amazing how open-ended this novel really
is.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (135 of 149), Read 36 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 12:23 PM 


LOL Dan--

You had my vote on this passage in post 109, where I
quoted it for its irony. 

Halfway through the chapter 'for a moment the lie became
truth' Mitya says to Alyosha: 'I love you for always telling
the complete truth and never hiding anything!' He then
immediately lays out his escape plan to America. Then he
asks Alyosha: '...Do you approve?' This is the next sentence
(Alyosha's response) in the Pevear translation: "'I do,' said
Alyosha, not wishing to contradict him."

Alyosha clearly lies about approving of the plan since the
plan goes against the grain of his entire character. Guards
will be punished for Mitya's escape, an escape that will
require acts of bribery and further lying, acts that Alyosha
volunteers for in the interest of a brother that can't survive
penal servitude. 

Mitya's plan to return in mutilated disguise (plus a wart,
minus an eye) is his last great flight of fantasy in BK... if
anyone here thinks that plan (cobbled together from
desperation and memories of a James Fenimore Cooper
novel) could work, I have some prime Venusian acreage to
sell them. 

My favorite part of this passage is its dissection of the
thought processes Mitya has used all along in BK to hatch
his entire succession of plans that didn't work. 

And since I saw this sentence posted somewhere: 

'The action of The Brothers Karamazov takes place 13 years
before the planned action of the main novel Dostoyevsky
had in mind. The main line would be Mitya's return after
prison.' 

...I think the open-endedness of Mitya's fate is pretty
closed. 

You're right though: Ivan's future is anyone's guess. I hope
he has the strength eventually to become a Dostoevsky. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (136 of 149), Read 34 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 06:32 PM 


True, George. But that "return from prison" is my
assumption. Dostoyevsky, as ever, is coy about the action of
the main novel:

The main novel is the second--it is the action of my hero in our
day, at the very present time. The first novel takes place
thirteen years ago, and it is hardly even a novel, but only one
moment in my hero's early youth. I cannot do without this first
novel, because much in the second novel would be
unintelligible without it. But in this way my original difficulty is
rendered still more complicated: if I, that is, the biographer
himself, find that even one novel might perhaps be
superfluous, for such a modest and undefined hero, how ever
can I appear with two, and how from my point of view can I
justify such presumption?

So The Brothers Karamazov is "hardly even a novel." I still
wonder what Dostoyevsky had planned. 

We got The Phantom Menace and we didn't really want it.
We never got The Return of the Brothers Karamazov: Menace
II Society. God it is an unjust world at times.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (137 of 149), Read 31 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 08:55 PM 


Thanks Dan and Marty for elaborating on the double theme.
Marty, I especially liked your tying in the fact that Raitkin
wanted to be a critic with the devil's revelation that he
worked as a critic. That is definitely an example of D's
humor, and I missed the connection with Raitkin until you
pointed it out. 

George, I laughed out loud when I came to the part about
Dmitri and Grushenka devoting themselves to three years of
work and grammar in America. That's because I teach
English grammar to foreigners, including Russian speakers.
He certainly does make America seem like a living hell. :) 

Maybe it's not justified, but I chose to believe that Dmitri
and Grushenka would escape to America. I think Dostoevsky
intended to leave his readers on a positive note. The
projected sequel would probably have focused on Ivan and
Aloysha.I can definitely see Dmitri and spouse returning to
their beloved Russia at some point, but it is Ivan and
Aloysha's stories which are essentially unfinished, not
Dmitri's. There are references to Aloysha being a sensualist
like his brothers and I think D. could well have developed
this theme in a second novel. Of course, we'll never know--

I have been curious about others' take on a couple of things
in this book. Smerdyakov accuses Ivan of being equally
guilty of his father's murder. Do you agree?

Also, Ivan keeps coming back to the idea that if God does
not exist, everything is permitted. This is another way of
saying it is impossible for society to have morality without
religion. Do we all agree that that theory is false?

Ann



 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (138 of 149), Read 32 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      R Bavetta rbavetta@prodigy.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 10, 2001 09:24 PM 


>>impossible for society to have morality without religion.
Do we all agree that that theory is false?

I certainly do.

Ruth

"Nobody belongs to us, except in memory." John Updike

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (139 of 149), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 11, 2001 09:46 AM 


Ann: Ivan's case is extremely complex. In his mind, he
believes he is guilty. In a sense, isn't that enough?

What was the real reason Ivan left his father as he did? Did
he understand and act upon Smerdyakov's veiled message?
He knew his father was in danger; he left anyway. He must
come to terms with his actions. 

In this book, is the murder only the act of one man? Is
Smerdyakov, as the man who hefted the paperweight and
smashed Pavlov's skull with it, the only one to commit
murder and hence the only one we can say is guilty? Would
Smerdyakov had done so if Mitya's boasting hadn't foolishly
paved the way for an easy murder? Would Smerdyakov had
done so if Ivan had not left the house?

The web surrounding Pavlov's murder is intricate and even
the notion of "guilty" is too slippery to pin on any one
character. 


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (140 of 149), Read 32 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:46 AM 


I am abandoning the question about the viability of the
female characters. The problems some of you have probably
arise from the cultural setting here. But that's moot, and
anyway, the discussion has taken a far more interesting
turn here. Marcy, your notes are great. Don't worry about
the length.

Dan, earlier you allude to the education of Kolya by both
Alyosha and Rakitin. I have been rereading chunks of the
novel in no particular order. Right now I am in the midst of
rereading Part Four, which starts with the boys. Previously, I
had not paid enough attention to this part.

I can't help but think that Dostoyevsky had Kolya in mind for
a major role in something to follow. While the Karamazov
brothers are each nearly pure examples of traits and
ideologies, Kolya is becoming a complex mixture of
everything. 

Steve


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (141 of 149), Read 39 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:53 AM 


By the way, has everyone run across Joyce Carol Oates'
essay on the book? If it has been cited here previously, I
missed it and apologize. She touches on many of the points
that are being brought up here. This is the site, from which I
stole my little Holbein image below:

http://storm.usfca.edu/~southerr/karamazov.html

Steve


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (142 of 149), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 11, 2001 01:44 PM 


Steve,
Thanks for posting the link to the site. For a minute I
thought that image at the bottom of your screen was you
stretched out for a nap. At the Oates site I can see an
enlarged version-much better for my aging eyes.

Pevear notes that the Kolya character spouts off half baked
socialist ideology and gives Dostoevsky the opportunity to
satirize it. After his near execution and exile to Siberia, D.
became quite conservative politically. Thus he has Kolya
repeat phrases of the radicals like " I never reject the
people, you know. I like to be with the people...We lag
behind the people--that is an axiom..." I imagine his
contemporaries could appreciate the humor of this aspect of
Kolya much more than we can, since we are reading it in
somewhat of a cultural void.

Ann, off the read the Oates article

P.S. Dan, I agree with Ivan that he is guilty of his father's
death. In Catholic terms, the difference between
Smerdyakov and Ivan is that S. committed a sin of
"commission" because he physically murdered his father.
Ivan committed a sin of "omission" because S. made it
obvious that if he left, Papa would be killed. In Catholicism,
there is always plenty of guilt to go around. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (143 of 149), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 11, 2001 06:43 PM 


Ann: Thanks for the Catholic terminology. I could have asked
my wife, but she's tired of hearing about Dostoyevsky
already. I'm sure there's a legal term for this kind of guilt as
well.

As a side-issue: Any lawyer or legal scholars out there can
tell me if this case happened today and all evidence
presented, could Ivan actually be charged because he knew
that if he left his father's life was endangered? Just curious.

Steve: I started reading that Oates essay on the web when
it suddenly dawned on me I have her damn book The Edge
of Impossibility: Tragic Forms in Literature on my shelf. I'm
going to read it and get back in a few days. Thanks for
reminding me of it.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (144 of 149), Read 23 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:48 AM 


I poured over the Oates essay last night and again, for
good measure, this morning. On the whole, it is an
interesting, thought-provoking work.

First of all, Oates observes the struggle between the dark
vision of Ivan against the Christian vision of Zosima as
unresolved within the structure of the novel, but mark her
words:

The problems of The Brothers Karamazov are not due to any
weakness on the author's part, but to his extraordinary
inventiveness.

In concluding her argument, Oates rewrites the above
sentence clearly, using it to describe all of Dostoyevsky's
work:

What has made Dostoevki so highly esteemed a writer is,
perhaps, not his understanding of human nature or his ability
to work intelligently with ideas, but rather his fluid
demonstration of the art of writing--the splendid
unpredictability of the writer as writer, who can leave nothing
unsaid.

Surprisingly, Oates supports this contention within The
Brothers Karamazov. I found the whole concept that the
Grand Inquisitor and Father Zosima are similar individuals
viewed from different temperments enlightening. Oates also
posits that Madame Khlokakov is a parody of Zosima,
spouting Zosima-isms in ludicrous contexts that, in effect,
call Zosima's philosophy into question.

This whole insight has caused me to seriously refocus my
attention. My ongoing argument that The Brothers
Karamazov rises above its darker aspects to illustrate the
affirmation of life, love, and faith is weakened when I draw
upon Zosima's words to back up the argument. Zosima and
the Grand Inquisitor--and I like this a lot--are the same
voices, only one coldly defines his vision from logic and the
other from the mystical stance. As a reader, I was mistaken
in accepting Zosima's vision as pure gospel; he is there as
another person for Alyosha to listen to as Alyosha
progresses within the novel.

I do have several problems with the piece, though. First,
Oates' opening thesis: 

Two visions--one existential and tragic, the other Christian and
'comic'--are unequally balanced in this novel and do not in my
opinion resolve themselves.

I'm glad, at least, Oates had the presence of mind to note
this is an opinion. I find the two visions do balance. Alyosha's
success over Rakitin's teachings with Kolya is a start.
Another Ivan is being created but Alyosha is able to take
the teachings of Zosima and begin to instruct him. 

Second, Oates' hero of the novel is Ivan, as it is for all who
favor the dark side smashing the light side within this novel.
Ivan is not the hero of the novel--Alyosha is. If you're going
to try to wrestle with an author's creation you shouldn't
usurp the importance of the character he is mainly
concerned with. Ivan's tragedy is there not just for the
reader; Ivan's tragedy is there for Alyosha. To ignore
Alyosha--as Oates does within this essay--is to ignore a
central component of the novel. I wish Oates had taken
more time to analyze the importance of Dostoyevsky's
chosen protagonist.

For me ("in my opinion," of course), the novel illustrates that
Alyosha is able to come through this maze and hear the
arguments from both sides of the vision--the tragic and the
Christian--and still utilize them to illustrate and model an
affirmation of life and faith. "Awww, he's a wuss and a jerk
and not much fun," some readers cry. And when ignored
within the novel, of course it seems that Ivan's vision wins
in the end and everything--as it did for Oates--is twisted in
his favor.







Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (145 of 149), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Candy Minx 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 12, 2001 11:12 AM 


Well, again I think this is a situation where a great deal of
comfort can be taken by seeing Christian faith as a saving
grace in a novel that is cautious about it's presentations

. Um...one thing I have noticed in some of these notes is
that parts that have been quoted as "Christian ideas" are
actually in some cases, NOT Christian!!!! They are spiritual
yes, but the passage where the prayers are made to birds
is not a Christian sentiment. It is a pagan sentiment. I
would be cautious at confusing spiritual and naturalistic
ideas with a blanket Christian reading because of a
personal longing for evidence of faith in some passages.
Particularily a straight ahead Christian "winner"slash hero.

Today with all the crossovers and new ageisms and spiritual
pop cultures...it is easy to apply some spiritual notions to
Christianity which history shows have been rebuked by
Christian officials and practitioners in past times.

Todays liberal attitudes in the Christian faith do not always
apply to this time period and this novel. we are seeing a
very open christian religion right now, and a lot of
assimilation of various world ideas...and it has affected
eveyone without us studying it we may not see it even in
our own personal faiths...


cautiously
Candy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (146 of 149), Read 22 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 12, 2001 11:25 AM 


Very interesting analysis, Dan. I also found the Oates
analysis thought provoking. She highlights so much of the
point, counterpoint parallels in the book that I hadn't
noticed. And she really affirms the creativity and complexity
of this book, which IMHO is what makes it great. Nothing in
BK is as simple as it first appears.

I had a harder time with the Freudian elements, specifically
the idea that criminals somehow do us a favor by acting out
the deepest, darkest impulses that we all share. Perhaps it
went over my head. Undoubtedly, she is correct in
emphasizing both the importance of the irrational and the
subconscious in Dostoevski.

For me personally, Ivan is not the "hero" of the novel, but
he is the most interesting character. I would have to agree
with you that Aloysha is the conventional hero, as well as
the center of the novel. Maybe if Aloysha had experienced
some of that old-fashioned Dostoevskian suffering, he
would have made an even stronger impact.

I have a couple of questions. You quoted the following: Two
visions--one existential and tragic, the other Christian and
comic--are unequally balanced in this novel and do not in my
opinion
resolve themselves. I found it very odd that she paired
"Christian and comic." How about you?

Also, at the end of the article she says that all of
Dostoevski's characters could belong to the same family. At
first I resisted this because Dostoevski is such a great
favorite of mine, but the more I thought about it the truer it
seemed. What do the rest of you think?

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (147 of 149), Read 16 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 12, 2001 06:24 PM 


Ann: "Comic" is the antithesis of "tragedy," especially in a
literary context. Generally, "comic vision" within a literary
work is that vision which finds a solution to everything and
instills a sense of "confidence that no great disaster will
occur" and that "the action turns out happily for the chief
characters," to borrow some wordings from M.H. Abrams' A
Glossary of Literary Terms. 

In that sentence, Oates wanted to show how she was
paring this work--between the existential perspective she
shall link with tragic vision' and the Christian she shall link
with comic vision. She places quotations around the word
'comic' probably because she is aware that her manner of
usage isn't actually in sync with its literary definition.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (148 of 149), Read 11 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:03 PM 


Thanks, Dan. I wasn't aware of the literary usage of
"comedy." I had assumed it always meant humorous, but
apparently not.

Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (149 of 149), Read 12 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 13, 2001 12:36 AM 


I'm sorry Dan, it's not in me to let that pass.

I don't know Ann, but I read her posts with great interest.
Her defense of Ivan as a character is not a subverted desire
to see 'the dark smash the light'. Joyce Carol Oates has,
over the course of an amazing career, brought the
advancing light of fresh creativity to literature. Her
admiration for Ivan does not spring from any desire to
minimize the light. I don't smash anything but walnuts (and
even there I do so with embarassing ineffectiveness)... yet I
admire Ivan as personality and literary achievement also. 

To say D's main concern in the novel was Alyosha is simply
false. Alyosha is drawn to faith, Ivan is questioning, Mitya is
intense, Papa is vital, Smerdyakov is mysterious. Let's
assemble those adjectives: faithful, questioning, intense,
vital, and mysterious. Who does that sound like?
Dostoevsky. They are all integral sides of his genius. You are
making the novel less than what it is and more of what you
are comfortable with. 

BK is not Star Wars. Ivan doesn't speak with the voice of
James Earl Jones. These are ALL opinions, but I personally
think you are employing Alyosha as an eraser, smudging
away all the disturbing elements of the novel, the very
unsettling things that make Dostoevsky incomparably
greater than, say, C.S. Lewis. 

Theology brings light to humanity through faith. Literature
brings light (when it does)with creativity and artistry, and I
believe in BK as written. The victory or defeat of Ivan's side
of things is utterly beside the point: the novel is beautiful,
brilliant, tormenting and honest just as it is... and even if
Ivan is who readers most often identify with, the book is no
less great for that fact, because it was written well. The
living, beating heart of the book is greater than your
Alyosha or my Mitya (actually my favorite character, truth be
told) or Oates' Ivan... and I wish I was hearing a little more
here about the art of the thing and a little less pedagogy
(and I include myself in that indictment). 

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (150 of 156), Read 34 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 13, 2001 01:34 PM 


The chapter '...And In The Fresh Air' is a favorite of mine,
containing the captain and his great cry 'Report to those
who sent you that the whiskbroom does not sell his honor,
sir!' 

The last paragraph in particular makes a very interesting
point: it is always interesting to talk to a distressed man.
The spontaneous crumpling of the bills is a surprise that
ends up seeming inevitable, and the crumpled and trampled
money is smoothed out and made 'good as new' by Alyosha.
Not the same with the crumpled and trampled characters...
they cannot ever be 'perfectly intact' again. We pay a deep
and mysterious price for having souls... but the reward is an
ever-expanding compassion and knowledge that runs
parallel to daily tragedies, but cannot repair them. This
novel is 3 novels, it seems to me: the tragedies, the human
kindness that can spring from witnessing or undergoing
tragedies, and the tenuous webs that can be strung
between the two courses by knowledge and effort. That
grey 3rd area depends upon the two poles, so it partly
OWES its existence to human misery. This book makes me
picture most unhappiness as a tumor attached to the organ
of pride, excise the tumor, destroy the pride. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (151 of 156), Read 35 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 13, 2001 01:47 PM 


I have not been keeping up with this thread but I did catch
this last post of yours George and I want to say -- I am SO
overwhelmed -- honored to be in any discussion of literary
matters with minds such as yours (among other CRs). You
always give such concise and yet in-depth analysis and
leave me with so much to think on! Thank you. 

I have barely begun this -- am deliberately taking it at a
snail's pace at the start -- hoping that might help me get on
my feet and able to think as I read. Looking forward to
coming back and reading the CC discussion at a later point.

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (152 of 156), Read 30 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 13, 2001 04:21 PM 


I cannot believe I'm being called to the carpet for wanting to
examine the 'hero of the novel' as the author saw fit to call
him:

In beginning the life story of my hero, Alexey Fyodorovich
Karamazov, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Namely,
although I call Alexey Fyodorovich my hero, I myself know that
he is by no means a great man, and hence I foresee such
unavoidable questions as these: "What is so remarkable about
your Alexey Fyodorovich, that you have chosen him as your
hero? What has he accomplished? What is he known for, and
by whom? Why should I, the reader, waste time learning the
facts of his life?"

The last question is the most fateful, for to it I can only
answer: "Perhaps you will see for yourself from the novel."

If Dostoyevsky wants to focus on Alyosha and, because he
is well aware of the power of Ivan, Smerdyakov, and others
around him, he takes the time to alert the reader, then I
want to examine that aspect. 

Oates barely mentions Alyosha because, frankly, he doesn't
fit well into her scheme. She fudged her essay by
white-washing Alyosha completely out of her thesis. For me,
it weakens her argument. She does a fantastic job of
deconstructing Zosima but she never chips away Alyosha.
For her, she believes undermining Zosima's authority
illustrates the essential weakness of the Christian aspect of
the novel. 

My point is that she doesn't address the central character of
the novel.


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (153 of 156), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 14, 2001 04:25 PM 


Dottie--

Thanks for the (I'm afraid undeserved) compliment. Looking
forward to your jumping in.

Dan--

We're getting nowhere. Your telling me that D 'chose'
Alyosha as his hero sounds just the same to me as hearing
Ishmael is the hero of 'Moby Dick'. Fine. But subtract Ahab
and you have no novel. Ivan CREATED the Grand Inquisitor,
for God's sake, and even you grant that Mr. Grand is an
equal intellect and spirit to Zosima. Ivan is not trying to kill
Kenobi in the Death Star, he is a conflicted character worth
deep study... not resentment. Your last post sounded like
you envision Dostoevsky and Alyosha on one side of a room,
defending themselves from the malignant powers of Ivan
and Smerdyakov on the other. Although I love the visual of
Dostoevsky throwing punches at Ivan, I still believe
Dostoevsky the WRITER is not against the Karamazov force,
he IS the Karamazov force, whatever spiritual sorrow that
cost him. I promise... I will reassess Alyosha with a more
open mind. I hope you can eventually find a way to see Ivan
through the eyes of Alyosha, because Alyosha understands
and loves him. 

The Oates essay tackled Zosima's ideas because his ideas
are Alyosha's... dealing with the two ideologies is
pragmatically impossible because they are one unit. She
values Dostoevsky's art over his agenda... and I happily
concur. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (154 of 156), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 14, 2001 06:08 PM 


I keep going back to the prologue, where D. declares
outright his affection and respect for the main character,
Alyosha. D. presents his novel as a means of "studying the
facts of his (Aloyosha's) life" so that the the second novel
will be comprehensible.

D. goes on to ask, "...But suppose they read the novel and
do not see, do not agree with the noteworthiness of my
Alexei Fyodorovich? I say this because, to my sorrow, I
foresee it. To me he is noteworthy, but I decidedly doubt
that I shall succeed in proving it to the reader. The thing is
that he does, perhaps, make a figure, but a figure of an
indefinite, indeterminate sort.....But strangeness and
oddity will sooner harm than justify any claim to
attention, especially when everyone is striving to unite
particulars and find at least some general sense in the
general senselessness. Whereas an odd man is most often
a particular and isolated case. Is that not so?"

He goes on to say, "....for if I, that is, the biographer
himself, think that even one novel may, perhaps, be
unwarranted for such a humble and indefinite hero, then
how will it look if I appear with two; and what can explain
such presumption on my part?"

"Being at a loss to resolve these questions, I am resolved
to leave them without any resolution. To be sure, the
keen-sighted reader will already have guessed long ago
that that is what I've been getting at from the very
beginning and will only be annoyed with me for wasting
fruitless words and precious time. To this I have a ready
answer: I have been wasting fruitless words and precious
time, first, out of politeness, and second, out of
cunning.....But still there are readers of such delicacy that
they will certainly want to read to the very end so as to
make no mistake in their impartial judgment."

So, folks, where is the "cunning" D. mentions? Is it that
Alyosha somehow assimilates all the points of view? He can
live with the dichotomies and still find joy and purpose in
life. That is Alyosha's greatness. He personifies the
mysteries offered up by life. He takes the punches and gets
right back up again to fight another round. In BK, he's
almost too good to be true, so the challenges D. had in mind
for A. in BKII must have been whoppers. Perhaps he was
going to parallel the Russian Revolution as Alyosha's story?

That resilient aspect of his character has me wondering
exactly what his challenges in the second novel would have
been.

As Oates points out, "...All of Dostoevski's novels deal with
the long preparation for the consummation of a violent act,
without which the works could not be imagined." That has a
disturbing sense of foreshadowing for A's. future troubles.

BK is Alyosha's story, with a variety of supporting
characters. As Dan pointed out, they are there for Alyosha
to act and argue against. They are there to highlight
Alyosha's remarkable dexterity with which he lives his life.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (155 of 156), Read 4 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 04:48 AM 


Kay--

That's the problem: it is BK we are dealing with, not BKII.
The very BK where Alyosha is 'too good to be true' and less
interesting to some for that fact. 

I agree, and always have agreed, with the moral
noteworthiness of Alyosha. I was disputing his artistic merit.
Unlike D's prophecy in the passage you quote, I am not
opposed to Alyosha for being indefinite, odd, or strange; in
fact, I think he is not strange enough. 

(BTW, when that passage refers to 'cunning' it means the
cunning of the words of the prologue up to that point, i.e,
getting to a point the reader has guessed at already).

D may have intended every single thing in BK to be filtered
through the screen of its impact upon Alyosha (though I
doubt it), but authorial intentions are tricky things.
Shakespeare intended to write Henry IV.1 as a history but
he found the character of Falstaff running away with the
story, and ended up with a strange (and very
successful)hybrid play instead. During the writing of Eugene
Onegin, Pushkin told a friend 'to my surprise, Eugene tried
to kill himself this morning!' 

Writers are not as much in control as we may think, and we
readers are sometimes blessed by that fact. There are huge
chunks of action in BK that the character Alyosha is totally
unaware of. They are not there for Alyosha, they are there
for D and for us. You say that the supporting characters of
BK (all the characters except Alyosha) are there for Alyosha
to 'act and argue against'. When does Alyosha argue with
Smerdyakov? Ivan's Devil? Fyodor? Lyagavy? Grigory? They
were put there because D is a great artist, not to have them
all go 1v1 with Alyosha. 

Frankly, the idea of reading this entire masterpiece with its
'polyphony' and its spiralling perspectives through the eyes
of ANY one character saddens me... it would be like reading
Don Quixote for just the Catholic references. 

The CR cover page has this to say about BK: 

'This acclaimed new English version of Dostoevsky's
magnificent last novel does justice to all its levels of artistry
and intention: as murder mystery, black comedy, pioneering
work of psychological realism, and enduring statement
about freedom, sin, and suffering.'

Alyosha is a saint in the making, with very little to do with
impulses to murder, black comedy, or psychological realism.
He is a major part of the book, but not ALL of it. D may have
intended that at the beginning, but he ended up with a far
different (and I think, greater) novel. 

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (156 of 156), Read 1 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 09:49 AM 


Fascinating discussion, folks. I'm only on page 249 of BK, but
have just been reading "The Brothers Get Acquainted",
"Rebellion" and "Grand Inquisitor" chapters. These seem to
amount to one grand soliloquy from Ivan. And, it's occurring
to me that Aloysha, Ivan and Dimitri could actually be three
facets of one personality. You might think, "yes, a very
contradictory personality" but I don't think so. And, all 3 of
them have moments of bleeding over into the others
viewpoints, personalities, etc. Is this a commonly held
assumption about this book that I'm just stumbling into?

Barb 

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (157 of 165), Read 32 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:43 AM 


George-

Perhaps I should have said that D. uses Alyosha as an
offering to the reader. Alyosha exemplifies the ability to
consolidate the differing philosophies into a livable whole.
Alyosha simply gets on with the business of living. The other
characters stop their lives because they cannot see beyond
their one dimensional viewpoints. Don't get me wrong - I
find them fascinating. However, Alyosha sees more than
one view and understands how to live with all the
dichotomies. Without Alyosha, BK would feel disjointed, one
dimensional, and incomplete. 

The novel would not hold together without Alyosha. He is
the glue linking all the others. In that sense, he is the hero.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (158 of 165), Read 24 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Candy Minx 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:32 AM 


Barb, yeah there are commonly held ideas about Dos. One
is he is the High Priest of Ambivalence. One thing I have
struggled with over the years is A so faithful?...or does he
contain a potential aspect of ambivalence: is it faith or is it
apathy?

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (159 of 165), Read 19 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 03:31 PM 


Kay--

That's what I've been worried about: no glue can hold
these 'others' together. 

A couple quotes from your quote:

'The thing is that he does, perhaps, make a figure, but a
figure of an indefinite, indeterminate sort.....But
strangeness and oddity will sooner harm than justify any
claim to attention, especially when everyone is striving to
unite particulars and find at least some general sense in the
general senselessness. Whereas an odd man is most often
a particular and isolated case. Is that not so?"'

and:

'Being at a loss to resolve these questions, I am resolved to
leave them without any resolution.'

The everyones striving to unite particulars are treated here
with disdain, in fact, they are the enemies of Dostoevsky's
whole project. D (wittily) resolves to have no resolution,
and no resolution and no arch-unity means no glue. 

I think we take the wrong path nominating Alyosha (or
anyone for that matter) as the bow on top of the BK
package. 

If we readers have learned from books like Ulysses and
Gravity's Rainbow that a novel does not necessarily need a
clean resolution or to light for itself all the fuses of the
messages contained within; if writers have been able to
escape the tyranny of the novelistic 'climax', if creativity has
eclipsed archaic forms, all of this has come about in no small
way because of Dostoevsky and his artistic daring. To
search for the old paths in this ever-new book might be a
mistake...

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (160 of 165), Read 16 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 04:27 PM 


Writers are not as much in control as we may think, and we
readers are sometimes blessed by that fact. 
--from George Healy's Guide to Literature, third edition (or
Post 155)

...especially when their words disagree with George's
theories. God, I love that argument each and every time it
comes up. I was waiting for it--I knew it was coming.

Well, since you know exactly what Dostoyevsky had in mind
or should have had in mind, carry on...



Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (161 of 165), Read 15 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 15, 2001 05:29 PM 


Really great books speak to readers in different ways.
Reading is a collaborative effort between the reader and
the writer, and our interpretation depends a great deal on
what we bring to the table. If I thought there was only one
way to interpret a novel, I wouldn't bother participating in
this discussion. What would be the point? Personally, I
relish hearing different view points because they broaden
and enrich my understanding of the book as a whole.

My point, and I do have one, is that disagreement is fine.
However, it is possible to disagree while still showing
respect for the other person's point of view. When the
notes can be interpreted as personal attacks, it is time to
move on. 

Barb, did you find the Grand Inquisitor a sympathetic figure?
Can anyone point me to the Biblical book and verse which
describe the devil's efforts to tempt Christ? I would like to
read that before I look at this chapter again. 

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (162 of 165), Read 13 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:51 AM 


Dan--

Sorry...I really didn't mean to upset you.

Ann--

You can try Luke 4.1-14. 

I hope none of my notes felt like personal assaults to you, if
so, please let me know. I have a deep interest in BK,
because I love the book. Maybe I went too far. The subject
of authorial intent is also absolutely fascinating to me, for
two main reasons: I often find my own writing carrying me
to a far different goal than I'd anticipated; and I think of
much literature as organic, alive with us even now,
companioning us, etc., and anything organic is hard to
cleanly resolve into symmetrical outlines of meaning. But I
run into a huge habitual force in myself and others, a force
invested in making everything in literature sensible and
ordered. Life is not so... why should every book be?
Dostoevsky is one of my heroes of meaningful chaos, so I
argued this pretty hard. Argued hard, and meant no
offense. I am sorry if any has been taken...

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (163 of 165), Read 12 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 08:43 AM 


One of my original points in saying that Ivan, Aloysha and
Dimitri feel like 3 aspects of the same person was that, if so,
deciding which of them is the main character of BK is
probably a moot point. Certain sides of my own character
are more attractive, interesting or comfortable for me but
they come as a set.

Ann, I'm really struggling with this "Grand Inquisitor"
chapter. Haven't had a chance for extended, concentrated
reading in the past few days which makes it even more
difficult. I keep rereading lines over and over again. In
addition, it seems like a fairly rambling presentation, but
there are moments that hit me very clearly and keep me
plugging to the next one. Thanks for supplying the biblical
reference, George. I'm hoping that will help. But, so far,
Ann, no, I don't find the Grand Inquisitor to be a
sympathetic character. In fact, there are moments that I've
wondered if he was Satan....

Barb

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (164 of 165), Read 9 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Candy Minx 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 09:15 AM 


Oh sorry Barb. I think this idea of three people as one force
is a great one. I didn't mean to tangent off or
misunderstand you. I got to stay out of here because I
don't have much time for several discussions right now.
Despite really loving reading this again. 

:-)

cheers,
Candy

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (165 of 165), Read 1 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:07 PM 


I find it interesting that Ivan pales when Alyosha mentions
the "everything is permitted" phrase. That emotional
reaction is intriguing when viewed in light of his passionate
"Grand Inquisitor" poem. I have to wonder if Ivan is paling
at the potential that kind of belief has for mankind or if he is
simply embarrassed to be thinking along those lines, and
knowing what Alyosha will think of him. Perhaps there's a
little of both?

BTW - I'm confused re: "poem" in this chapter. It's more of a
story, so I'm wondering if "poem" has a literary meaning
that I'm missing. Ivan also says he did not compose the
poem, yet it is his creation.

I'm struggling with the question of freedom in this chapter.
Is Ivan saying that mankind is too base, too incapable as a
whole to handle the promise of heavenly bread when his
body and immediate happiness requires earthly bread to
survive? And that is why the Grand Inquisitor assumes
responsibility for Man's sins, kind of like Christ did? The GI
admits he's answering to him and that he believes Satan is
the true lover of mankind. If that's the case, to whom is the
Grand Inquisitor answering for man's sins? The devil
wouldn't care. Or is his suffering due to his non-belief in
God, which he assumes to protect mankind?

Ivan seems to be saying that true love means accepting the
person as is, and not laying on too many impossible
expectations. Therefore, when Christ refused to bribe
mankind into following Him, Christ was not displaying love.
Mankind is not capable of handling the freedom to choose
delayed reward when his earthly needs and desires are so
powerful and that expecting better is not an act of love. Is
that a fair summation?

Barb-

Ok. I see your point about how all the Karamazov brothers
make a whole. Since they represent all aspects of the
Russian people, it is interesting to consider Ivan's
statement that he can survive until his 30th year only with
the strength of the "Karamazov force." He promises to see
Alyosha one more time before he does himself in. What
does that say about the Russian personality and Ivan's
state of mind? I have to wonder if he suspects Alyosha's
approach to life has potential, putting his own philosophy in
question. What an agony of spirit Ivan suffers!

K

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (166 of 183), Read 29 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Daniel LeBoeuf dan1066@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 05:34 PM 


No, George, I'm not at all upset. I believe in reader
response theory, but you're argument doesn't jive:
"Alyosha is the protagonist and that's going to be difficult
to understand," states Dostoyevsky; "Writers are not in full
control and he didn't mean that," to paraphrase George.
It's funny and damn difficult to argue with that logic.

I'll be stopping in when I get the chance, but I'll just
mention that school started today and I won't be able to
come in as often. But with Barbara, Kay and George going,
looks like they'll be a lot more interesting things to read
when I do return...


Dan


It's OK--they're all smoking!

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (167 of 183), Read 26 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 06:22 PM 


Dan-

We'll miss you. Pop in as often as you can, ok?

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (168 of 183), Read 20 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 09:02 PM 


George, thanks for the Biblical reference to the devil's
temptation of Christ. I hope to reread the Grand Inquisitor
section again this weekend with those words in mind. The
last sentence is rather chilling: "having exhausted all these
ways of tempting him, the devil left him, to return at the
appointed time." Is the "appointed time" Christ's passion
and death? 

Barb, the Grand Inquisitor chapter was just the kind of
thing that appealed to me when I was a college student
trying to unravel the meaning of life. Now that I have given
up :), the story does not have quite the same power,
although it is still one of my favorite parts of the book. 

I also like the earlier chapter, which expresses Ivan's rage
and despair at the suffering in the world. For me, Ivan is
not at all a cold intellectual, but a man who is genuinely
tormented by the unfairness of this world. I cannot "accept"
it, he says over and over.

Kay, I also wondered why he called The Grand Inquisitor a
"poem".

Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (169 of 183), Read 23 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 16, 2001 09:06 PM 


Dan,
I hope a little excuse like real life won't keep you away too
much. Your contributions to the CC discussions this past
summer have been invaluable. 
Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (170 of 183), Read 23 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 05:05 AM 


Dan--

Then that saddens me a bit... I was hoping you WERE
upset, since the sole intention of your previous post
seemed to be to mock and belittle what I say. 

You read my logic and see a circle; I'd like you to see the
straight line also. I'm not in front of my own argument, I'm
in the back of the line, right behind Harold Bloom, Rene
Girard, Camus, Bahktin, Oates, Jones, and Pevear himself.
But if you want to discuss this like my theories come, by
themselves, from some crazy fringe region with no support
and little validity, then we can I suppose. 

Nowhere did I mention 'reader response' theory... that's
not my issue here. 'Writer response to his/her own mind'
theory would be more accurate. Dostoevsky started work
on an ambitious novel tentatively called 'Atheism' around
1868. By 1869 the plan for 'Atheism' had transformed into a
new plan to write a five-book series called 'The Life of a
Great Sinner'; at that time, D felt 'Life' would be his
crowning masterwork. Meanwhile he was working on a
small novel-pamphlet called 'Demons'. In what Pevear calls
a 'creative upheaval', D decided to throw out all his work on
'Life' and fuse some characters and ideas from that book
into his new masterpiece... 'Demons'. The entire complexion
of that book changed drastically into what we have today. 

A writer as volatile, as great, as creatively free, as
schizophrenic as Dostoevsky oftentimes lands far afield
from his original conception of a novel- or vice versa. Much
like 'Don Quixote', which originally began as a spoof
designed simply to make money to finance Cervantes' REAL
literary endeavours, Dostoevsky's late novels were forged
under high-pressure circumstances by a high-pressure
genius. To say that I have no merit in seeing the glimmer of
a possibility that BK strayed somewhat from the leash of its
creator seems to me a bit close-minded. 

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (171 of 183), Read 24 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 08:56 AM 


George-

Are you saying that BK was intended to be about atheism?
If so, why did he change the title? 

Actually, I'm wondering if his purpose was to explore the
soul of Russia using the Karamazov brothers. If that's the
case, then what can we conclude about D's. perception of
the Russian people?

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (172 of 183), Read 19 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 04:36 PM 


Kay--

No, sorry, I was talking about the creation of 'Demons'(The
Possessed)... an entirely different novel.

What I was illustrating was that my argument does in fact
'jive'. The argument isn't even original to me. Dan said that
D's intentions in writing BK were fully realized and never
deviated from; I disagreed. 

Here's Richard Pevear, the highly recommended translator
of BK: '(D's) groping procedure, 'slipshod' one displeased
critic called it-- may seem surprising in so great a novelist,
the assumption being a good writer knows what he wants
to write before he sets about writing it. In fact, the
opposite is true, as most perceptive readers of Dostoevsky
have said.'

The opposite IS true, I believe-- Dostoevsky's intentions for
BK and his execution of BK are vastly different in kind and in
effect. 

Now this may be wrong-- all opinions run that risk-- but I
was disappointed that as acute a reader as Dan could act
like this argument comes from space and has no fractional
validity. He knows better. The argument is made pretty
convincingly by (among others) the translator of the very
edition Dan holds in his hands...

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (173 of 183), Read 20 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 04:55 PM 


Which is precisely why I have argued so often here that we
ought not pay an awful lot of attention to an author's own
commentary on what he has written. Not only does he have
only a tenuous grasp on what he is creating while he is
creating it, he is very unreliable in his opinions of what he
has created after he's created it.

Your argument does rock, George, and I don't blame you for
being proud of that, but I think the fact that it jibes is much
more important than the jive.

Steve


There is nothing safe about sex. There never will
be.--Norman Mailer.

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (174 of 183), Read 20 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 05:32 PM 


What "groping procedure" was the critic referring to in BK?
If he was referring to the various questions raised by Mitya,
Ivan, Smerdyakov, and Alyosha, I would have to say those
varying viewpoints are what made the novel work for me.
BK is a novel of ideas, more than plot.

Steve and George-

I understand your arguments to not put much faith in what
the author intends vs. what we read into his novel. It is
interesting, however, to step back and consider how the
story reaches the author's stated goal, at least in his own
mind. D. must have at least thought he had succeeded, or
he would have re-written his foreword. 

Any ideas on how he might he have defended his work, if
we assume he meant what he wrote? On what would he
base his arguments? Is there anything at all in the text that
D. could point to and say, "See? There it is. That's what I
meant when I said this is about Alyosha." Or, would he
step back and say, "Ah, well. So I lied. It's still one hell of a
read."

Of course a novel's meaning changes according to the
interpretation of the reader and the culture that forms his
outlook. But I don't think that necessarily negates the
author's stated goal, at least in his own mind. It's possible,
though, that all writers are somewhat delusional.

(All CR authors and wannabe authors excepted, of course.) 

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (175 of 183), Read 17 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 06:20 PM 


Steve--

Thanks!

(I can only hope you don't get accused of writing a
Concordance to my 'Guide For Literature') :-)

You're one jibe turkey.

Kay--

I hope and think that BK is great enough to sustain both
readings: 'That's what I meant Alyosha to be!', 'That's the
way I meant Ivan to fight!', etc.,

I was only trying to show that the Alyosha strain in the
book doesn't preclude or overcome the rest. 

In trying to reassess Alyosha more objectively, I find him
slightly more realized a character than I saw at first. He still
pretty much folds VERBALLY to Ivan, but in action he shows
a strong, unspoken understanding. This Ivan vs. Alyosha
mentality is screwy anyway; I can only hope to get along
with my friends as well as Alyosha and Ivan do.

For myself I'd like to head towards Mitya some more with
the posting time remaining, since I find him the single
greatest character in BK... aesthetically speaking. Let me
get my thoughts together.

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (176 of 183), Read 18 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 06:35 PM 


As to characters, I fall in with Barb's theory - that it takes all
four brothers to make the novel work.

Ivan is the most fascinating and complex to me, and I'm
looking forward to your reasons for choosing Mitya.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (177 of 183), Read 16 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 08:34 PM 


Kay, As soon as I finish Madame Bovary, I'm sitting and
reading this until I'm done! I can hear you all the way from
Tennessee saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah"..but I swear I'm not
budging off my back porch until I reach the end! 
The only problem is, I probably won't have much to
say...everything has already been said so well, here..

Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (178 of 183), Read 15 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 09:44 PM 


Well, I'm still confused on some chapters, so please jump
right in. I like getting a variety of views.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (179 of 183), Read 17 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 09:51 PM 


Kay, you expect ME to un-confuse YOU????

Beej, ALWAYS confused

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (180 of 183), Read 11 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ernie Belden drernest@pacbell.net 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 10:35 PM 


Hi everybody,
Just came back from our second vacation (Wisconsin) and
so my reading of D. has been suffering. Just the same this
book is easier for me to read many others and I also
consider it the best of D's books that I have read. My
problems is with names - perhaps my major obstacle in
reading. 

First of all this book is outstanding, deep meaningful and I
can't praise it enough. While D. can't get away from crazy
people and crazy behavior, this time I found true wisdom in
what I had been reading. The Elder is one character who is
incredibly portrayed. Yes, he has wisdom and seems close
to god. 

The translation is also a great improvement over the
translation in the other Dost. books I have read. Will
continue this note soon.
Ernie

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (181 of 183), Read 12 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 17, 2001 10:42 PM 


Ernie, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one lagging behind!
Barb Moors is still reading it too.


Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (182 of 183), Read 9 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:25 AM 


George, 
I'm glad you brought up Mitya again. I was just about to
ask why he was your favorite character. His emotional
weakness drove me crazy after awhile, and I did not have a
lot of faith in his transformation at the end. You must have
seen something different in him than I did. Please
elaborate.

Ann

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (183 of 183), Read 6 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 18, 2001 10:43 AM 


I have mentioned a couple times before a little book of
debates, between Cardinal Martini and Umberto Eco, on the
origination and effect of goodness in man. As I read The
Grand Inquisitor chapter, my mind kept going back to this
little book of debates, and I wondered if Eco got most of his
points of view from Dosteovesky. I don't remember the
name of this little book of debates off hand but if anyone is
interested, I can look it up.


Beej


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (184 of 187), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 19, 2001 10:48 PM 


I changed my mind somewhat about the Grand Inquisitor
after I finished the chapter. He did seem a bit more
sympathetic to me in the end. This image of the true
believer who eventually becomes disillusioned and carves
out a more pragmatic approach is certainly understandable.
However, I kept asking myself what right he had to make
the decision to construct that presentation. And, actually, I
can see asking the same question about the organized
church, particularly such a large, institutionalized one as the
Catholic Church. 

What did you all think about Aloysha's assumption that Ivan
was referring to the Jesuits?

Barb 


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (185 of 187), Read 21 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:20 PM 


One more question, who do you all think that the Grand
Inquisitor is? I thought of it as being written from the point
of view of the established church, but then realized that
others might think differently. And, maybe it's not the voice
of any concrete entity?

Barb


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (186 of 187), Read 18 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 20, 2001 06:46 AM 


I read it as criticism of the Church and an intense love for
those who need to blindly follow. 

What disturbed me the most was the Grand Inquisitor's
theory that only a few are capable of deferring to a
heavenly reward. That was the reason he gave for acting as
a buffer and directing their lives. He does not see the
people as capable of deciding for themselves the questions
of "miracle, mystery, and authority." That attitude can lead
to a tyrant. His statement that true love puts no conditions
or expectations on someone was an intimidating, ambitious
one that I find hard to trust. 

However, I thought the ultimate mood of the chapter was
one of forgiveness and understanding. When Christ leaned
over and kissed the Grand Inquisitor, I was just as moved
as he was. That created just enough doubt in his mind that
he let Christ go. The same phenomena occurred when
Alyosha leaned over and kissed Ivan. Ivan's "Literary theft!"
brought a smile.

The Grand Inquisitor professes love for the people, yet he
does not have respect for them. That is disturbing.

K



 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (187 of 187), Read 5 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 20, 2001 12:44 PM 


Ann,

I’ve been away from the board for a while (technical
difficulties), and I just read your message concerning the
Biblical passage of the devil's temptation of Christ. Luke
4:13, regarding the devil’s future return at the “appointed
time,” reads in my translation (the New Revised Standard
Version) as “[…the devil] departed from him until an
opportune time.” The reason I mention this is because that
particular wording made me make the connection between
that sentence and the title of chapter 2 in book seven, “An
Opportune Moment.” In that chapter, Rakitin eggs on
Alyosha’s spiritual revolt by offering him sausage and vodka.
The echo of the phrase “opportune time” in the chapter’s
title made me view that chapter as a corollary of Christ’s
temptation by the devil. (And probably lead me to the
connection I mentioned before - that Rakitin wants to be a
critic, and that the devil tells Ivan that he works as a critic.) 

BTW, I thought that the "appointed/opportune time" would
be when Jesus was praying in Gethsemane, grieved and
agitated knowing that his arrest was at hand, while his
disciples slept even though he asked them to stay awake
with him and pray. Or perhaps during the crucifixion itself? 

-Marcy

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (188 of 190), Read 20 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 20, 2001 04:06 PM 


Barb--

I first read 'The Grand Inquisitor' separately from BK, very
long ago. I always regretted that... it seems to me pretty
autobiographical of Ivan, and I always have trouble taking it
as a 'parable' that can stand alone. There are some
ideological aspects worth considering, but the strongest
part of the tale is that Ivan is the Grand Inqusitor. It's no
accident that Ivan only tells this story to Alyosha, because
Alyosha is Ivan's Jesus. 

TGI's secret and Ivan's secret are one: they believe in the
devil (as manifested in the human psyche), but they don't
believe in God. 

If TGI's voice and Ivan's secrets are the same, so is their
voice. The tale is half cry for help, half barbaric yawp.

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (189 of 190), Read 19 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 20, 2001 04:31 PM 


My affection for Mitya is hard to explain. I like when
Dostoevsky PUSHES himself to extremes, because I think
emotional extremes are what he's best at. Mitya lives in the
post-extreme, which is a bit unrealistic (nobody lives at this
constant emotional edge ALL the time), but then I don't
personally turn to D for 'realism'. 

Let me modify Smerdyakov's phrase-- It's always
inspirational to talk to a passionate man. Regardless of the
morality of the passion (a la Anna Karenina), passions this
intense are like distilled life, which is what I do ask from
writers like Dostoevsky or D.H. Lawrence. 

In the chapter 'Delirium' I was struck by how, in the
maelstrom of words and feelings, Mitya speaks very little.
His face, his carriage, his silences all carry enormous
meaning. There's this line: 

"Only one fixed and burning feeling made itself known in him
every moment,'like a hot coal in my heart', as he recalled
aferwards."

Only Mitya (and D) can make a burning feeling every
moment still not seem like enough-- Mitya is trying to burn
right through TO something and can't quite get there. 

Sure he is ridiculous, fragmented, brutal, and frightening...
but he is also the opposite of those things too. 

Ivan can sometimes be dismissed as a second-rate Hamlet,
Alyosha as a holy fool, Papa as an unholy fool, etc., 

Mitya however cannot be dismissed- he is the engine of the
plot, the source of much of its intensity, and the one who
LIVES out the adage 'everything is permitted' only to find
that nothing is permitted for long.

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (190 of 190), Read 8 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Steve Warbasse wk4@qwest.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 20, 2001 11:01 PM 


The tale is half cry for help, half barbaric yawp.

Interesting statement, George. I have to say, however, that
my perception of it is colored by my union electrician friend
who upon reading of some horrific murder or some
unimaginable chile abuse, is wont to say, "That is a cry for
help!" (A joke. Get it?)

Having explained my problem, let me hasten to add that I
have always been very fond of Mitya. This was never a
chore. I am rolling through the section about the boys and
will do the trial one more time again. I shall return.

Steve

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (191 of 193), Read 23 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 21, 2001 03:44 PM 


Barb, I just reread The Grand Inquisitor and now there is no
doubt in my mind it is the Church.


Beej

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (192 of 193), Read 12 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 21, 2001 05:03 PM 


Mitya's Dream
Part III, Book 9, Chapter 8

"She went out. Mitya was calm, and even looked more
cheerful, but
only for a moment. He felt more and more oppressed by a
strange
physical weakness. His eyes were closing with fatigue. The
examination
of the witnesses was, at last, over. They proceeded to a
revision of
the protocol. Mitya got up, moved from his chair to the
corner by
the curtain, lay down on a large chest covered with a rug,
and
instantly fell asleep.
He had a strange dream, utterly out of keeping with the
place
and the time.
He was driving somewhere in the steppes, where he had
been
stationed long ago, and a peasant was driving him in a cart
with a
pair of horses, through snow and sleet. He was cold, it was
early in
November, and the snow was falling in big wet flakes,
melting as
soon as it touched the earth. And the peasant drove him
smartly, he
had a fair, long beard. He was not an old man, somewhere
about
fifty, and he had on a grey peasant's smock. Not far off was
a
village, he could see the black huts, and half the huts were
burnt
down, there were only the charred beams sticking up. And
as they drove
in, there were peasant women drawn up along the road, a
lot of
women, a whole row, all thin and wan, with their faces a
sort of
brownish colour, especially one at the edge, a tall, bony
woman, who
looked forty, but might have been only twenty, with a long
thin
face. And in her arms was a little baby crying. And her
breasts seemed
so dried up that there was not a drop of milk in them. And
the child
cried and cried, and held out its little bare arms, with its
little
fists blue from cold.
"Why are they crying? Why are they crying?" Mitya asked,
as they
dashed gaily by.
"It's the babe," answered the driver, "the babe weeping."
And Mitya was struck by his saying, in his peasant way, "the
babe," and he liked the peasant's calling it a "babe." There
seemed
more pity in it.
"But why is it weeping?" Mitya persisted stupidly, "why are
its
little arms bare? Why don't they wrap it up?"
"The babe's cold, its little clothes are frozen and don't warm
it."
"But why is it? Why?" foolish Mitya still persisted.
"Why, they're poor people, burnt out. They've no bread.
They're
begging because they've been burnt out."
"No, no," Mitya, as it were, still did not understand. "Tell me
why it is those poor mothers stand there? Why are people
poor? Why
is the babe poor? Why is the steppe barren? Why don't
they hug each
other and kiss? Why don't they sing songs of joy? Why are
they so dark
from black misery? Why don't they feed the babe?"
And he felt that, though his questions were unreasonable
and
senseless, yet he wanted to ask just that, and he had to
ask it just
in that way. And he felt that a passion of pity, such as he
had
never known before, was rising in his heart, that he wanted
to cry,
that he wanted to do something for them all, so that the
babe should
weep no more, so that the dark-faced, dried-up mother
should not weep,
that no one should shed tears again from that moment, and
he wanted to
do it at once, at once, regardless of all obstacles, with all
the
recklessness of the Karamazovs.
"And I'm coming with you. I won't leave you now for the rest
of my
life, I'm coming with you", he heard close beside him
Grushenka's
tender voice, thrilling with emotion. And his heart glowed,
and he
struggled forward towards the light, and he longed to live,
to live,
to go on and on, towards the new, beckoning light, and to
hasten,
hasten, now, at once! "What! Where?" he exclaimed
opening his eyes,
and sitting up on the chest, as though he had revived from
a swoon,
smiling brightly. Nikolay Parfenovitch was standing over him,
suggesting that he should hear the protocol read aloud and
sign it.
Mitya guessed that he had been asleep an hour or more,
but he did
not hear Nikolay Parfenovitch. He was suddenly struck by
the fact that
there was a pillow under his head, which hadn't been there
when he had
leant back, exhausted, on the chest.
"Who put that pillow under my head? Who was so kind?" he
cried,
with a sort of ecstatic gratitude, and tears in his voice, as
though
some great kindness had been shown him.
He never found out who this kind man was; perhaps one of
the
peasant witnesses, or Nikolay Parfenovitch's little secretary,
had
compassionately thought to put a pillow under his head; but
his
whole soul was quivering with tears. He went to the table
and said
that he would sign whatever they liked.
"I've had a good dream, gentlemen," he said in a strange
voice,
with a new light, as of joy, in his face."



 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (193 of 193), Read 11 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, August 21, 2001 05:11 PM 


Sorry for the inferior translation above... I don't have the
patience to type all that in from the Pevear.

This was a very telling scene for me. Mitya thirsts for good
here, a good that shines through and springs from the
lower-class-Apocalypse Now-like setting. 

But Mitya thirsts even for good with 'with all the
recklessness of the Karamazovs.'

Mitya's questions seem more honest to me than most of the
answers in BK: 

"No, no," Mitya, as it were, still did not understand. "Tell me
why it is those poor mothers stand there? Why are people
poor? Why
is the babe poor? Why is the steppe barren? Why don't
they hug each
other and kiss? Why don't they sing songs of joy? Why are
they so dark
from black misery? Why don't they feed the babe?"

And his reckless good is ultimately human- it rises, it wanes,
but it is trying to defy that cycle.

It is segments like these that haunt me long after the book
is closed.


  
Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (194 of 194), Read 9 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:12 PM 


Thank you for the notes on the Grand Inquisitor, everyone.
George, I agree that the Grand Inquisitor is Ivan's voice,
especially since he is supposed to have written the poem.
However, Ivan is using another voice as the narrator in the
poem and that narrator is interesting, in and of himself. It
sounded like a multitude of possibilities in the beginning,
very much like Satan after being expelled from heaven
initially, I thought. But, eventually, the Church seemed most
likely, reflecting Ivan's disillusionment with it or with
humanity or both.

Marcy, thanks for the note about the opportune moment
reference. I'm reading that chapter just now and it helps
with my view of what is happening.

Barb 
  
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (195 of 199), Read 22 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 23, 2001 08:32 PM 


George, I absolutely agree with your post #188. But I
would go on to say, not only does the GI believe in Satan
but actually, says he (Structured religion? The Catholic
Church?) bows to him (Satan) simply by acknowledging that
man can do nothing else (by the mere fact of being human)
but accept Satan's temptations.


Beej

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (196 of 199), Read 22 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:51 PM 


Marcy,
I've been away awhile, but I wanted to thank you for the
reference to an "opportune" moment. That makes more
sense than my clunky old translation and it certainly does
tie in with BK well.

George, that's an excellent defense of Mitya. I see him now
in a more positive light, although I'd like him even better if
he traded in some of that excessive emotion for a bit more
intellect.

The segment about the starving baby is genuinely touching.
Dostoevsky has a real sensitivity to the plight of the poor
which reminds me of Charles Dickens.

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (197 of 199), Read 19 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:07 PM 


Beej-

I interpreted GI a little differently. The Church bows to
Satan because it feels Satan has a more realistic picture of
Man's capabilities. I suppose that could mean because Man
is a sinner, but I did not interpret the GI to mean that.

The GI condemns Christ for expecting too much. GI insists
that true love does not set impossibly high conditions. True
love accepts people where they are.

To a certain extent, I can buy that. Yet, I think there is a lot
to be said for wanting better and expecting better of loved
ones. We need something to reach for. That's the point at
which Ivan and I part company.

Is it love to simply give up on someone and set an anything
goes kind of standard? I think that is faulty reasoning on
the GI's part. Yet I understand his point of view, and
respect his reasons for it.

Very few are capable of deferring to heavenly reward when
their bellies are so needy of earthly bread.

When Christ kisses the GI in understanding and
forgiveness, the GI lets him go. He realizes that it's the
hope of Christ's ultimate love that allowed Him to forgive
the GI. Christ was rewarding the GI for his love of the
people.

When Alyosha kisses Ivan, Ivan cries, "Literary theft!" A.
realizes that the GI is Ivan, and that even Ivan, who does
not believe in God, - even Ivan holds hope there might be
one. 

Ivan even promises to see Alyosha before he throws down
the cup. That speaks to his room for doubt about there
being a God after all. 

Alyosha balances each of the Karamazov brothers. He
represents faith and hope for a better world, or at least a
liveable one.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (198 of 199), Read 21 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:37 PM 


Kay, I was speaking of the temptations in the desert and
man's inability to choose spiritual 'bread' over basic human
needs...not, per se, that man was a sinner.
Anyway, as the GI says, it was mote issue because the
ones to 'saved' had already been chosen. 

I don't think the GI set up an 'anything goes" standard at
all, in fact my take is simply that he allowed, as the Church,
guidelines and forgiveness in order to free man from the
anguish of not being able to follow Christ's example of
foregoing human needs for the sake of spiritual needs...an
anguish that served no purpose, anyway.

I think Ivan struggled between believing in a God who
would set superhuman demands on man, or the idea of no
God at all...and I think it was less devastating for him to
believe in no God at all.

Maybe I need to read it again.



Beej

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (199 of 199), Read 13 times
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 24, 2001 08:14 AM 


No, I like your last paragraph very much.

Ok. It wasn't an anything goes attitude, but it was an
expectation that man is going to sin and needs the Church
to absolve him of those sins. I find that very cynical to give
up on man that way. 

The GI discusses that responsibility. His stance is, "they're
gonna do what they're gonna do, so we'll just absolve
them." I'm not sure that's a wise position, though it might
be a loving one. It's not necessarily a bad thing to hold
higher expectations. Sometimes by expecting more, you
encourage a loved one to achieve better for herself. That's
another point at which I take issue with the GI.

One problem with the GI's stance is that it works only if he
truly has the well being of the people at heart. If not, the
GI would become a tyrant and would manipulate the people
to his will. Did the GI ever speak to the Inquisition and if so,
how did he justify it? I need to re-read the chapter.

I've wondered if that chapter was paralleling the political
scene in Russia at that time. Was the GI's speech a veiled
attempt to caution the people politically, or was it simply a
treatise on atheism?

K

 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (200 of 217), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 24, 2001 05:31 PM 


Kay,
Some of the young radicals of the time were atheists, and
after his near execution, D. turned definitively to the right.

The GI presents himself as a kind of benevolent dictator who
assumes the burdens of freedom to protect weak human
beings. 
His story was set in the 1500's when the Spanish Inquisition
was burning people to death who would not conform to
orthodox Catholicism. In addition to this chapter being an
expression of atheism, it is also an attack on the Catholic
Church, which organized the Inquisition. It is difficult to see
anyone connected with the Inquisition as a benevolent figure.

In this chapter, D. also comments on the Jesuits, a Catholic
religious order of priests. D. detested the Jesuits, who like to
think of themselves as the intellectual elite of the Catholic
Church. The Jesuits were heavily involved in the
Counter-Reformation and developed a reputation as being
underhanded and manipulative. I was educated by Jesuits
and I have a more positive view. Of course, times change. :)

In addition to being anti-Catholic, there are also signs of
anti-Semitism in D's books, which reflect the terrible
anti-Semitic history of Russia and its successor states. There
is a part where a character talks about a Jewish ritual
sacrifice of a Christian baby. Someone asks Aloysha if the
story is true. He replies that he doesn't know. I found this
disturbing since A. is presented as a saint in this book. These
horrible rumors of Jewish ritual murders were spread
throughout Russia and resulted in terrible pogroms against
the Jewish people.

Ah, well, if only our literary heros were not products of their
times.

Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (201 of 217), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 24, 2001 07:41 PM 


Ann-

I would have liked to hear the GI's justification for the
burning of heretics. I'd guess it would have to do with his
stance that the Church is there to provide miracle, mystery,
and authority. What an opportunity that was for someone
who had such a benevolent love for the people. 

The chapter is loaded with sarcasm and cynicism, but the GI
doesn't actually speak to the reasons for the Inquisition. That
would have been too hard to pull off, I think, and keep his
tone of righteous anger on behalf of the people. (Why am I
suddenly reminded of Monty Python?!)

I'm not sure why I'm on this kick, except that though I found
the chapter relatively convincing the first read through, I am
struck by its fallacies the second read through.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (202 of 217), Read 33 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 24, 2001 08:07 PM 


Kay,
At this stage in my life I find the idea that freedom may be
too big a burden irrelevant I am more concerned with
questioning if it is anything more than an illusion.

When I was young, this chapter made a much bigger
impression on me.
Ann

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (203 of 217), Read 36 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:41 AM 


Ann--

I just had to say that I thought your last post was beautiful.

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (204 of 217), Read 33 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 25, 2001 09:09 AM 


Ann-

Freedom may well be an illusion, but if so, I live comfortably
with that illusion. For me, it's better than just drifting all the
time, with nothing to anchor life to. We each must find our
own anchors. Some find faith. Some find atheism. Some find
mankind. To each his own. But we must find something.

I was just challenging the GI is all. His words are persuasive
upon a first reading. Yet I find them disturbing and missing
some key points. Some find them absolute. To each his own.

Ivan appeals to me as a character, mainly because he holds
all those doubts, including the one that hopes there is a God
after all.

To me, Mitya is good at heart when it comes to the injustices
of the world. Yet, he never quite grows up. He's a prime
example of one of the GI's needy, self-centered people. He
is not one of the chosen ones capable of handling freedom.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (205 of 217), Read 33 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 25, 2001 03:56 PM 


Kay--

You're right, Mitya's not capable of handling absolute
freedom. Who is? He does try though...

Ivan tries to kill God. Alyosha tries to love God. Smerdyakov
tries to make a God (Ivan). Mitya has nothing whatsoever to
do with God, unreliant on thoughts outside of himself. An
enormous risk, this freedom...

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (206 of 217), Read 33 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Saturday, August 25, 2001 07:06 PM 


Risk? Perhaps. But having the right to freedom is what keeps
us moving - maybe not always forward, but we're moving.
Having the right to freedom keeps us from stagnating. It
keeps us pushing for answers, just as the Karamzovs do. I
doubt we're in disagreement on that.

Ultimately, I think that shove we get from freedom is what
keeps us interested, involved, and responsible in life. When
there is only an illusion of freedom, as the GI describes, we
stop growing. 

Mitya doesn't look outside himself for answers, and that's
part of his problem. He's locked into a mindset that doesn't
allow other points of view and finds himself isolated. Even
with Grushka behind him, he's running solo. I don't see Mitya
as having much reserve to get him through the tough times.
Alyosha doesn't either, since he's willing to help him escape,
against his better judgement.

Alyosha's freedom and strength are that his world view
allows for contradictions. He has the qualities of a survivor.

I don't think Ivan has those qualities. He's expecting suicide
at age 30.

I loved this novel because of all the questioning going on.
The plot is more a line on which to hang the various
arguments.

I find it interesting that CR's have such different views from
the same novel.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (207 of 217), Read 28 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 05:17 AM 


Kay--

You're right: we are in agreement on many things. The
questioning, the angular arguments, the ability to create
characters that can be seen so differently by various
readers... all those aspects of D's gift are very cool. And we
agree about freedom as catalyst- it's very potent. 

But there's something else about D I consider cool also- the
inability of the reader to rest on the adjectives of judgement
when it comes to his characters. 

Mitya is greedy. But how, specifically? Is it when he steals
money to buy food and drink for an entire town? Is it when
he pawns his most valued possessions in an attempt to pay
back the theft? Or is it when he risks everything he has for
the love of another? 

Mitya is self-centered and doesn't look outside himself for
answers. But when? Who understands best the women of
BK? Who is more self-centered: Mitya or the careerist
prosecutor at the end? Mitya or Ivan? Mitya or Papa? 

As for reserve to get through the tough times, what other
times ARE there in BK? And who is at the middle of the
tempest? Mitya. Who turns from suicide to love? Mitya. And
who, 13 years later, would've returned from God knows
where to ignite the never-written sequel to BK? Well, you
know...

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (208 of 217), Read 26 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Marcy Vaughan vaughan@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 07:22 AM 


Ann, in msg #200 you made the following comment about
the Grand Inquisitor: “It is difficult to see anyone connected
with the Inquisition as a benevolent figure.” I had that
thought too when reading that chapter, and there is an essay
by D.H. Lawrence, “Preface to Dostoevsky’s The Grand
Inquisitor” where he uses that idea as his basis for an
argument in defense of the Catholic church. I thought I’d
post a few sections from this essay:

“If there is any question: Who is the Grand Inquisitor? – then
surely we must say it is Ivan himself. And Ivan is the
thinking mind of the human being in rebellion, thinking the
whole thing out of the bitter end. As such he is, of course,
identical with the Russian revolutionary of the thinking type.
He is also, of course, D. himself, in his thoughtful, as apart
from his passional and inspirational self.”

“Man can but be true to his own nature. No inspiration
whatsoever will ever get him permanently beyond his limits.
[…] These three demands, for miracle, mystery and
authority, prevent men from being ‘free.’ They are man’s
‘weakness.’ Only a few men, the elect, are capable of
abstaining from the absolute demand for bread, for mystery,
and authority. […] This, then, is the GI’s summing up of the
nature of mankind. […] Christianity, then, is the ideal, but it
is impossible. It is impossible because it makes demands
greater than the nature of man can bear. And therefore, to
get a livable, working scheme, some of the elect, such as the
GI himself, have turned round to ‘him,’ that other great
Spirit, Satan, and have established Church and State on
‘him.’”

“Is it true that mankind demands, and will always demand,
miracle, mystery, and authority? Surely it is true.” (Lawrence
does back up this statement, but I just don’t have time to
type it all.) Lawrence then says, “But is it then to betray
Christ and turn over to Satan if the elect should at last
realize [this? …] After all, the whole of Christianity is not
contained in the rejection of the three temptations. The
essence of Christianity is a love of mankind. If a love of
mankind entails accepting the bitter limitation of the mass of
men, […] then accept the limitation, and have done with it.
[…] And is that serving the devil? It is certainly not […] It is
serving the great wholeness of mankind, and in that respect,
it is Christianity. […] Where D. is perverse is in making the
old, old, wise governor of men a Grand Inquisitor. The
recognition of the weakness of man has been a common trait
of all great, wise rulers of people, from the Pharaohs through
the great patient Popes of the early Church right down to the
present day. They have known the weaknesses of men, and
felt a certain tenderness. This is the spirit of all great
government. It was not the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition.
[…] The Spanish Inquisition was diabolic. It could not have
produced a GI who put D’s sad question to Jesus. And the
man who put those sad questions to Jesus could not possible
have been a Spanish Inquisitor. […] The man who feels a
certain tenderness for mankind in its weakness or limitation
is not therefore diabolic. The man who realizes that Jesus
asked too much of the mass of men […] is not therefore
satanic. […] So let the specially gifted few make the decision
[…and] let the many accept the decision, with gratitude, and
bow down to the few, in the hierarchy. What is there
diabolical or satanic in that?”

I don’t think I agree with Lawrence in his acceptance of
mankind’s limitations and feeling it is futile/unfair to expect
anything more of mankind. (I’m really still chewing over this
whole thing.) But I thought it was a good essay and I’d put
some of it out there. It’s been very helpful to read the
discussion you’ve all been having on this issue. 

-Marcy

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (209 of 217), Read 27 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 08:42 AM 


Marcy-

As you know, I do not accept the GI's arguments on
accepting man's limitations as a reason to give up on him.
When you love someone, it's your responsibility to help them
achieve more than he thought he could. Man is capable of
rising above his instincts, at least on an individual instance
by instance basis.

George-

Yes, Mitya drives the plot. BUT to whom do Ivan and Mitya
turn when they are troubled or in trouble? Alyosha. It's
Alyosha's faith that they lack. And it's Alyosha's faith that
holds comfort for Ivan's angst and allows Mitya's eventual
escape from the labor camps. It's Alyosha's faith that they
count on and survive with. It's his faith that creates
circumstances for them to be better than they are. His
expectations for them make them stronger. 

LOL - This is a prime example of the reader bringing her
world view to a novel and shaping meaning. The discussion
has been a fun one. I'm always fascinated at the different
interpretations readers have from the exact same text.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (210 of 217), Read 30 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:19 PM 


Kay--

I think you're overestimating the effect of Alyosha's faith. I
have no quarrel with that faith, except to say that I agree
with Pevear when he says Alyosha's voice in the book is
'embryonic and unoriginal'. 

But it is Alyosha's wiilingness to bribe gaurds that will
facilitate Mitya's escape, not his faith. And if he's been
comforting Ivan, then he must feel ambivalent himself about
said comfort, since Ivan sinks into a mental abyss (perhaps
never to return). 

The faith of the novice monk is inarguable... everyone should
be so lucky as to have beliefs that comforting and
impervious to assault. I'm not against that, and never was. I
just don't find it artistically convincing. 

I'll try to explain better, since this has been a tricky topic
here. King Lear dies in the haze of a horrific and deluded
madness with the corpse of his daughter at his feet. Now, he
could've lived, he could've comforted himself with the
thought that Cordelia was in a better place, that he would be
joining her soon, that the evil that had caused such wreckage
had been exterminated. He could've had an Alyosha-like
reaction to the tragedy and reclaimed his crown and moved
on.

That would've been spiritually more comforting to the reader.
And it would've been horribly wrong, artistically. A
personality like his would overcharge in that situation- his
heart and mind would burst. And it did. 

I can't tell you whether or not I find Alyosha convincing
because he has almost no discernible personality. He is,
(Pevear again) 'simply a reactor to events'. 

The fact that Alyosha cannot save his father's life, Ivan's
mind, Mitya's soul, or Smerdyakov's personality all testify to
his youth, and the limitations his inexperienced voice is
subjected to. He tries to comfort, and quite nobly. But his
words as yet are not connected enough to reality to sway
any of the people in the book from their dark paths. Maybe
later, in the sequel to BK, he would've impressed me. Maybe
he would've been realized as a character. I don't know. But I
have to deal with the book at hand. And here he is just as
jarring to me as it would've been to hear King Lear confront
ultimate tragedy and say 'Oh well, God must have had a
reason for all this. Gimme back my crown.'

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (211 of 217), Read 29 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 01:02 PM 


By the by, I hope there's some give to this proposition:

'LOL - This is a prime example of the reader bringing her
world view to a novel and shaping meaning.'

If I only left a book confirming what I already thought when I
started reading it, I'd not read at all.

I am an agnostic, it's true. But, for example, If we were
discussing, say, Blake's 'Jerusalem' I'd probably sound like a
Christian to you. I find its vision of God convincing both
morally and artistically, and my own beliefs don't matter at
all when I'm swept up in its holy dialogues. Same with most
of the Old Testament or the Koran or The Divine Comedy
etc.,

There are some Christians here, I'm sure, and I'm also sure
they can read an atheistic work like Prometheus Bound with
pleasure and profit. World views shouldn't be blinders. I am
against Alyosha aesthetically, and I am with Jacob for the
same reason. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (212 of 217), Read 30 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 01:45 PM 


I read Prometheus Bound with pleasure and profit, George.

I read BK the same way. 

I interpret the novel differently than you. 

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (213 of 217), Read 25 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 02:48 PM 


Kay--

Glad you liked P.B.

I was just trying to clarify my take on this, since I felt it was
a bit misunderstood. Sometimes my posts tend to wander.
Your take is pretty clear... I'm glad you've put it out there.
Can't get too many angles on such an amazing book.

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (214 of 217), Read 21 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, August 26, 2001 06:23 PM 


I think I understand your view on Aloysha. If I'm reading
you right, you are saying that he was not convincingly drawn
and was not a significant player in BK. Is that a fair
summation, or do I still have it wrong?

For me, Alyosha was a fully realized character and was
important in that he was so important to his brothers. They
looked to him for understanding, approval, and comfort.
They needed his non-judgmental approach, which came in
part from his faith.

I also looked at the way he became mentor to Kolya and his
little friends. That left me with a sense of hope. I think A.
was just as significant as Ivan, Mitya, and Smerdyakov.

If I've misunderstood your posts, I am sorry.

K


 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (215 of 217), Read 18 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 27, 2001 04:48 AM 


Kay--

I actually only had 3 small points on this:

1.) Melville wrote 'Pierre' after 'Moby Dick', and I'm sure he
intended P to be as good or greater than MB. It just didn't
turn out that way. Alyosha IS a major character in BK, and
I'm sure D meant him to be as good or greater artistically as
his father and his brothers... for me, it just didn't turn out
that way.

2.) Despite Alyosha's importance, his approval can't be that
important to his brothers, because the trajectory of the
brothers in the book is unchanged by A's presence.
Hypothetically subtract Alyosha from the novel and think how
it would've played out: Ivan would've raged his way into a
nervous breakdown. Mitya would've been framed for murder
and sentenced to jail. Papa would've been killed. All the
same. The only pragmatic difference plot-wise is the
theoretical escape we never see. 

3.) Moral and ethical greatness does not automatically
translate into a great character. Morally, Emma Bovary is
very, very wrong. For whom does she provide
'understanding, approval, and comfort'? She is still the
greatest character in her novel.

Those points are just opinions obviously, and could be badly
in error. That's one of the great things about CR... the math
can be outstanding: one error plus one error can equal two
better understandings when the 'posters' work it out
together. 

 
 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (216 of 217), Read 17 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 27, 2001 09:39 AM 


George-

Thanks for clarifying.

1) Alyosha stands out for me because he's such a welcome
relief to the passions of his brothers. I feel for them. I
admire their questioning. I think they are more vividly
drawn. But (you knew I'd have a "but..") for me, it's
Alyosha's consistency, faith, and flexibility that permeate the
novel. He seems real to me. So, though he isn't as
interesting or vividly drawn as Ivan, Mitya, or Smerdyakov,
Alyosha is as strong a presence and influence on me as a
reader as his brothers.

2) You say Alyosha's approval can't be that important to his
brothers because the trajectory of the brothers in the book is
unchanged by A's presence. I grant you that their behavior
does not change. But, even if Mitya and Ivan don't change
their behavior, that doesn't mean that Alyosha's acceptance
and approval of them isn't important to them. I think the
reason they seek him out and admire him so much is due to
his personality and beliefs. He's a gentle soul.

3) True. Moral and ethical greatness does not automatically
translate into a great character. What attracts me to Alyosha,
though, is his ability to accept people as they are and to try
to change the things he can. Is Alyosha a character I'd like
to write an essay on? No. I'd choose Ivan. But, is Alyosha a
character I admire and will remember? For me, the answer is
, "yes."

As to opinions being right or wrong - I agree - that's
immaterial. My English teachers taught me that what's
important is being able to back up your argument. I think
we've both done that. Thank goodness English isn't like
math, where there's a cut and dried right or wrong. Though I
enjoyed the tidiness of algebra and diagramming sentences,
I thrived on the grays that led to mind engrossing
discussions in English and History.

K


 

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (217 of 217), Read 21 times 
         
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      George Healy malword@ameritech.net 
 Date: 
      Monday, August 27, 2001 04:06 PM 


Kay--

Exactly.


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (218 of 221), Read 13
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 29, 2001 06:29 AM 


Hello all -- well, the tail is wagging the dog here but I thought
I'd chime in -- after my few earlier posts saying I was reading
this and not saying anything really -- and let you know that I
AM indeed still at this one -- I'm at about p.290 and am thus
far totally enthralled with this book. 

Though I did read a bit here and there in this thread and drop
my little non-posts into the mix -- I have not yet truly read this
discussion and am purposely saving it up for when I am at the
end of the book. Even so -- I must confess that I sat down and
began the thread -- reading about 50 or 60 notes before the
eyes gave out. I decided that it might help to read this
sprinkled through the book reading -- and after completing the
chapter on TGI I felt I needed some reward before embarking
on TRM chapter -- that's where I am now -- reading the Elder's
life story as told by Aloysha. 

Now -- WHY was it that I've been afraid to read these
Russians? I am thinking about that question and keep
returning to Gogol -- I didn't finish Dead Souls when we read it
here on CR -- but later -- and was not ready for more Gogol
anytime soon certainly. But all these years -- this avoidance of
the big Russian authors. 

Thanks CC for getting me started -- Beej -- I may jump on
that AK paperback the minute it's out!

Dottie -- planning to take the Russians on the long weekend in
Germany though not much will get read I'm sure
ID is an oxymoron!


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (219 of 221), Read 17
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Kay Dugan okaychatt@yahoo.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:17 AM 


Dottie-

Glad you're enjoying BK. It's not an easy read, but it's a
fascinating one. When you're ready, jump in with your
comments. Another take is always welcome. This novel seems
to cause intense reactions. 

Now, I wonder how Beej's progress in BK in coming
along............. Ha!

K



 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (220 of 221), Read 21
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Beej Connor connorva@mindspring.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:43 AM 


Kay, I'm still chugging along in BK.. (boy, I will nevah
encourage you to read another book again! You might then
expect me to actually read it, too!)

Dottie, P&V's translation of Anna Karenina is gorgeous and,
trust me on this, much easier to read than BK..I'm glad to hear
you want to read it.)


Beej


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (221 of 221), Read 18
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:41 PM 


Beej -- I'll bet you are further than I am though, aren't you? 

Kay -- I am really not finding this to be all that difficult a read
-- but then I am really not reading it at all fast either. It's sort
of a slo-mo read -- but I'm really savoring it as I said.

Dottie -- finishing Part II today 
ID is an oxymoron!


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (222 of 222), Read 3
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Friday, August 31, 2001 10:13 PM 


Hi all,
I've been away climbing mountains in Colorado, but I
just caught up on all the posts here and I wanted to let
you know how much I have enjoyed your discussion of
BK.

Marty, thank you so much for elaborating on the D. H.
Lawrence essay on the G.I. Lawrence pinpointed what
has been bothering me about it, and that is associating
the protagonist with the Inquisition. For me, it negates
any attempt to present him as a benevolent dictator.

Kay and George, I have been fascinated by your give
and take on Aloysha, probably because my own position
is somewhere in the mushy middle. Like George, I am
an agnostic. I do not think that, artistically, Aloysha is
as successful a character as either Ivan or Smerdyakov.
There is not enough grey in him, not enough conflict. In
fact, he possesses a religious and moral certitude that
is foreign to me. 

However, I cannot ignore his appeal. I love this
character, and I love him precisely because he is so
different from most people who are convinced that they
are right. Aloysha can love others unconditionally, even
when they don't conform to his expectations. It isn't
exactly that he "forgives" them, it's more that he
"accepts" them exactly as they are. He is even willing to
set aside his principles to help someone he loves, as
when he decides to help Mitya escape.

Aloysha may or may not be a realistic character, but he
speaks to me because he is someone I so much want to
exist. What wouldn't we all give for a brother, or a
friend like Aloysha?

Ann


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (223 of 223), Read 7
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ernie Belden drernest@pacbell.net 
 Date: 
      Tuesday, September 04, 2001 04:35 PM 


I had to temporarily discontinue my reading of BK.
Reasons: Can't find the time to do both my own reading,
reading postings and reading the book. My computer time
is limited. But close to the truth is that when I read D. I
get too emotionally involved. He and his characters almost
take over my life. I hard a hard time with the intensity of
the various characters their raw emotions...
So I deal with these more personal problems by reading
other stuff in between and finally coming back to D. and
the BK. I wonder if I am the only one who is plagued by
this problem. 

Now as to the posted comments. They are absolutely
incredible and I admire the people who posted them.
Actually these opinions, more than anything else make me
go back to finishing this book.
Ernie


Ernie -- I agree BK characters take over and keep the
reader glued there -- and I have had other instances of
books which did this to me where, like you, I had to go
read another book or two or three at one time so that I
could pick up a different mood at the moment I needed
to escape the main book and it's stranglehold on my
life. 

And I have no argument with your assessment of the
wonderful and informative posts and opinions offered
here at all. Wonderful to have such people with whom
one can discuss a book like this! This is my first Russian
encounter -- I'm not counting Dead Souls -- Gogol
because I didn't finish it (I don't believe so anyway)
and I didn't do well with what I did read of it. THIS time
-- this book -- BK that is, is turning out to be a
wonderful experience. I am still reading what seems to
me -- or FEELS to me to be slowly, almost walking
through a dream but yet I found just now that I was
finishing part2 Aug 29th and am now in the last book of
part3 -- and I swear I didn't read any BK on the trip
except for the chapter in the castle in Zell on Sunday
night -- a very short chapter at that! Maybe I need to
see if I have other things to do -- I must have been
doing nothing but read since Monday evening {G}.

Ah -- what a crew!

Dottie
ID is an oxymoron!
  

 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (202 of 206), Read 20
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ernie Belden drernest@pacbell.net 
 Date: 
      Saturday, September 22, 2001 05:10 PM 


Dottie,
Thank god I am not alone in getting carried away
emotionally and having to escape to keep my sanity. But
after reading one mystery I came to the conclusion that
while I react to the emotions I did not really follow or
understand the content. My best example would the the
Grand Inquisitor. I had just read that chapter quickly
and was confused by the whole thing. I may have given
up but Ann urged me to continue on. I got the idea of
getting some two books Twentieth Century Views, A
Collection of Critical Essays and picked out the one's
that appeared most meaningful to me. So I came across
The Preface to D's The Grand Inquisitor (D. H. Lawrence)
and yes, this made sense. After first ignoring the
chapter I now saw it as the essence of D's view of the
world and mankind in particular. I was less touched by
Freud's D on Patricide. But while still picking out and
reading essays I started to get a basic understanding of
D I did not have before. In truth I had felt strongly
turned off by D's morbidity and his morbid characters. I
was annoyed by their emotional outbursts, most of
them senseless I thought and their strange way of
relating to each other. Reading the Brothers is perhaps
my 4th book by this author and every time his books left
me with negative feelings. His sadness and morbidity
seems to rub off and I did not see any true wisdom, just
irrational human behavior. 
Well I now continued reading the Brothers and I finally
fully (I hope) understood the Great Inquisitor chapter
which deals with D's fundamental view of mankind and it
is not a pretty one, but for the saints. So, I hope I can
go on and on and finish the book at this late date.
Forgot to mention postings which helped me and I
admired by Ann, yours Dottie, Kay Dugan, Marcy Vaughn
and last but not least those made by Don.
Ernie


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (203 of 206), Read 12
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:53 PM 


Ernie,
I admire your persistence in continuing with THE
BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Dostoevski is not everyone's
cup of tea, and I can certainly understand why so many
people begin, but never finish, this book.

The book you cited, Twentieth Century Views, A
Collection of Critical Essays, sounds interesting. Is it all
about Dostoevski? 

Ann


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (204 of 206), Read 10
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Barbara Moors bar647@aol.com 
 Date: 
      Sunday, September 23, 2001 11:20 PM 


Well, count me among the late readers of The Brothers
Karamazov but I finally finished it today! I'm relieved to
find that there is still some talk about it here and that
the thread hasn't timed out. Dostoevsky has done this
to me with everything we've read by him. I struggle
through his writing, consider giving up, puzzle over
almost everything and finally finish feeling incredibly
glad that I've read it.

A while ago, I bought a cheap, used copy of the Norton
Critical Edition of BK and am reading Dostoevsky's
letters that they've included. They are making me
remember how much D hated the socialist movement in
Russia. And, I'm realizing that the Grand Inquisitor may
actually be his symbol for that movement. Read the
following excerpt from a letter to the publisher of the
Russian Herald which was printing it in installments and
see what you think:

Two days ago I sent to the office of the Russian Herald the
continuation of the Karamazovs for the June issue (the
ending of the fifth book, Pro and Contra). In it is concluded
what is said by "a mouth speaking great things and
blasphemies."  A contemporary nay-sayer, one of the most
vehement, openly declares himself in favor of the devil's
counsel and maintains that it insures mankind's happiness
more that Christ. It is an omen, and a striking one for
Russian, stupid socialism (but terrible, because our youth
is in it): bread, the tower of Babel (that is, the future reign
of socialism)and the total enslavement of the freedom of
conscience--that is what the desperate nay-sayer and
atheist comes to. The difference lies in that our socialists
(and you know very well that it is not merely the
underground nihilists) are conscious Jesuits and liars who
do not admit that their ideal is the ideal of coercing human
consciousness and reducing humanity to a herd of cattle,
while my socialist (Ivan Karamazov) is a sincere man, who
admits openly that he agrees with the 'Grand Inquisitor's'
view of humanity and that Christ's faith (seemingly) raised
man much higher than he is. The question is brought to a
head: 'Do you despise humanity or respect it, you, its
future saviors?'

And, they give the impression of doing all this in the name
of love for humanity. 'Christ's law is difficult and abstract,
unbearable for weak men' and in place of the law of
Freedom and Enlightenment, they bring them the law of
chains and enslavement by bread. 

I had forgotten that in the temptations, Satan had
advised Jesus to feed the people before expecting them
to be able to develop their spirituality. Jesus then
replied with that famous line, saying that "Man does not
live by bread alone." Dostoevsky seems to be saying
that socialism has adopted Satan's argument,
underestimating mankind.

Barb 


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (205 of 206), Read 12
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Dottie Randall randallj@ix.netcom.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, September 24, 2001 07:39 AM 


Barb thanks for that excerpt -- I will be looking for the
Norton edition when I revisit this one which I am
positive I will do before too terribly long. I absolutely
crawled thru this book -- comparatively speaking. But I
rolled the text around my mouth and mind like some of
that wine up there in Ernie's neck of the woods -- and I
loved this first completed experience of any of the
Russians (aside from Lolita here a while ago). I think
what it really is -- this is the first reading that I truly
accomplished on my own -- I started well after everyone
else -- and I truly felt I was on my own as far as
reading. I am especially glad that it worked out that
way -- somehow I had more of a connection with the
book than I had anticipated and think that the
lengthened time spent working my own way through it
may be a key to that.

At any rate -- I loved this book -- and will not be so shy
of starting another Dostoevsky or Tolstoy down the
road -- which I believe will be to my advantage.

Dottie


 Topic: 
      August: The Brothers Karamazov (206 of 206), Read 10
      times  
 Conf: 
      Classics Corner 
 From: 
      Ann Davey davey@tconl.com 
 Date: 
      Monday, September 24, 2001 01:56 PM 


Barb,
Thanks for that excerpt from D's letters. It really makes
the whole GI chapter so much easier to understand. It
is not really a religious parable at all, unless you
consider socialism a "secular religion." 

And congratulations for finishing! With a book this long
and involved, that's an accomplishment.
Ann