July/Dostoevsky Reading: 'The Brothers Karamazov'

[Scheherazade]

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-15266/gifcat/dostoevsky.gif

In July, we reading The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, who said:
The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

Book Club Procedures (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=57103#post57103)

[genoveva]

Amazing! I will look forward to reading this thread!

[bazarov]

And when will the discusion start?

[Pensive]

I am looking forward to get my hands on it!!!

[papayahed]

I bought the book yesterday, my first impression is that it is quite large and has small print. People - I'm still trying to finish Godot!!!

[Ryduce]

Yeh I'm having alot of trouble finishing books over the summer.Between a job,working out,and music it's like I don't have any time.Then whenever I do get the time my friend shows up.I didn't finish Lolita or Love in the Time of Cholera,but I can't bring myself to put down Brothers.It's just too good.

[genoveva]

I've got both my copies, and *all* my notes from the class I took! Will I be tempted to read it again???????

[literaturerocks]

i just bought it today and the version i bought is over 1000 pages long so..it might take a week or two but if its reallly really good which ive heard it is... then it should only take a week maybe less...but first i must finish 1984..which is starting off quite weird actually..this whole negative utopia ...well enough on that ..LOOKING FORWARD TO READING THE BROTHERS!!

[Asa Adams]

Started it today, but i am tired. It will sap alot out of me...darn you Baz!!! :lol:

[crazy baby]

I am gonna get my copy from the liibrary as soon as possible. :)

[bhekti]

It's my third time reading it. And I don't mind at all!

[Scheherazade]

I have started reading it; however, it is going very slow for me.

Find it interesting that all the people who come to get the Elder's blessings are women. Why do you think? Women are more devoted believers? They are more gullible to believe in such? Men are too proud to seek help even from a man of God?

[MikeK]

I've never quite thought about that. I suppose it's probably just a touch of realism - you know, old ladies likely to be the most devout and likely to make such a pilgrimage. I'm no expert on 19th century Russian life, but it's probably something Dostoevsky may have noticed. (He, as with Tolstoy, went on a pilgrimage to a monastery himself. Maybe that's something that he noticed when he did.) I really don't mean to be dismissive, but I don't think the fact that they're women is crucially important.

I would say however, that it's definitely one of my favorite chapters of the book. It's a vitally important early chapter that introduces many of the themes and topics that will be brought up more in-depth later in the novel. If, after finishing the novel, you were to go back and read this chapter again, it would completely open up and reveal so much about some of the major themes of the novel. So I'd advise everyone reading this chapter - "Women of Faith" - to read it very attentively (Not that you wouldn't anyway).

[MikeK]

Interesting note about the "Women of Faith" chapter, for those of you who have a copy that doesn't include this note; one of the ladies comes and tells Father Zosima about her little son, Alexei, who was almost three-years-old and died. Just before beginning The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky's own three-year-old son Alexei died, prompting Dostoevsky to visit a monastery.

[superunknown]

Going for 50 pages a day, should be finished in 3 weeks since my edition is approximately 768 pages. We do get 2 months to read this, right? It is over 750.

[blp]

I've heard it said both that Dostoyevsky's sympathies are mainly with Alyosha - the regligious innocent - and that they're mainly with Ivan - the intellectual for whom religioius faith no longer makes sense, but who's obviously having trouble making sense of life without religious faith. I'm interested in the degree to which this can be answered by reference to the book alone and not FD's biography. As I remember it (I just finished it two weeks ago), there's a sentence somewhere around the middle that I think makes it clear that FD himself does not give credence to religious faith, despite the highly sympathetic light in which he depicts Alyosha and father Zosima. It almost seems as if he's saying that religion can work terribly well at tricking people into having equillibrium and behaving humanely, despite its intellectual unsustainability, and without it you're in trouble.

[Gallantry]

well Alyosha is called the hero of the novel.

[Scheherazade]

Going for 50 pages a day, should be finished in 3 weeks since my edition is approximately 768 pages. We do get 2 months to read this, right? It is over 750.Hi Superunknown,

Since we have 12 authors chosen for this year, we will read an author/a month, I am afraid. Those who are still reading can still post and continue to discuss the book after July as the discussion threads are always open.
you know, old ladies likely to be the most devout and likely to make such a pilgrimage.I agree with you partially but in the book, it is not only the old ladies who seek elders' help and guidance. Also, my question was a general one as well. Why is it that old ladies are the most devout, making such pilgrimages?

Finding the whole 'the Church/State' discussion a little confusing along with ecclesiastical courts debate. Any historic relevance?

[blp]

well Alyosha is called the hero of the novel.

Yeah, but that's not necessarily a simple endorsement of everything he says, does and believes. It might be that Dostoyevsky is saying you can only be a hero with a certain inability to face facts.

[ShoutGrace]

I'm interested in the degree to which this can be answered by reference to the book alone and not FD's biography.


As I remember it (I just finished it two weeks ago), there's a sentence somewhere around the middle that I think makes it clear that FD himself does not give credence to religious faith, despite the highly sympathetic light in which he depicts Alyosha and father Zosima.


Is there authorial intent? Is it relevant when criticizing the text?

If we disregard the fact that Dostoevsky was a Christian, then I suppose it is just the narrator who becomes 'sympathetic' or 'unsympathetic'.

[MikeK]

Finding the whole 'the Church/State' discussion a little confusing along with ecclesiastical courts debate. Any historic relevance?

This is one of the three parts of this book that can be very, very confusing; along with The Grand Inquisitor chapter and The Devil chapter. I think that there are two main things to keep in mind about the church/state/ecclesiastical courts discussion that might untangle things a little bit:

One: Beware of irony on the part of Ivan when discussing his article (and maybe more importantly...irony on the part of Dostoevsky as regards Ivan in this discussion).

Two: What sets up many of the ideas that will be in contention later in the novel are not only Ivan's thoughts, but just as importantly, Zosima's penetrating responses (about Ivan).

[bhekti]

I've heard it said both that Dostoyevsky's sympathies are mainly with Alyosha - the regligious innocent - and that they're mainly with Ivan - the intellectual for whom religioius faith no longer makes sense, but who's obviously having trouble making sense of life without religious faith. I'm interested in the degree to which this can be answered by reference to the book alone and not FD's biography. As I remember it (I just finished it two weeks ago), there's a sentence somewhere around the middle that I think makes it clear that FD himself does not give credence to religious faith, despite the highly sympathetic light in which he depicts Alyosha and father Zosima. It almost seems as if he's saying that religion can work terribly well at tricking people into having equillibrium and behaving humanely, despite its intellectual unsustainability, and without it you're in trouble.

FD gives no credence to religious faith. Religious faith is the dogmatic faith, the mechanical faith, which is embodied in the character of Ivan. In this sense, Ivan is so deeply, even radically, religious. Alyosha is different. Alyosha's faith surpasses religiosity. Unlike Ivan and Father Zossima, he goes out of the monastery and the monastic. (Really, Ivan lives in a "monastery"). Alyosha is overcome not by the Christianity's Christ, but by the Spirit of Christ himself, which is absurd, brutal and extreme in its acts of Love, and Alyosha owes Dmitri much for this gift.

[Gallantry]

Yeah, but that's not necessarily a simple endorsement of everything he says, does and believes. It might be that Dostoyevsky is saying you can only be a hero with a certain inability to face facts.

When does it say Alyosha lacks an ability to see facts?

[MikeK]

When does it say Alyosha lacks an ability to see facts?


Exactly right, Gallantry. Dostoevsky goes out of his way to call Alyosha a "realist" and describe him as someone who can "face facts". He has many digressions in the book about this (realism vs. idealism; miracles producing faith vs. faith producing miracles, etc...).

It should be noted that in mid-late nineteenth-century Russia "realist" was a charged word. Many commentators that I've read have pointed out that the prevailing style was for writers to call those sympathetic with their ideas "realists". To be a "realist" meant to be right. Dostoevsky adhered to the contemporary style. He went out of his way to make Alyosha a "realist" and not a "dreamer". This is what much of Book 7 is about.

[Madhuri]

I have asked for my copy from the library, I hope to get it by today evening. And seeing the volume of the book (some 1000 pages) I am not sure when would I be able to finish it, but I hope this time bound reading help increase my speed...

[literaturerocks]

i have started reading it im about 350 pages through..just started two days ago so it is raining today so hopefully i can get to may 500-600..it might increase your speed madhuri but do not read so fast so that you miss things..you do not want to miss anything about this book :nod: :D

[Madhuri]

i have started reading it im about 350 pages through..just started two days ago so it is raining today so hopefully i can get to may 500-600..it might increase your speed madhuri but do not read so fast so that you miss things..you do not want to miss anything about this book :nod: :D

Oh yes, I dont want to miss anything, but going by the fact that I am slow reader I was thinking if I would be able to finish it on time. I hope I do, without missing anything. Time bound reading might help, as otherwise I have this tendency to think I have all the time to read and may not finish it at all..he he he :D

I didnt find the book in the library, I think i'll have to visit the bookstore.

[Logos]

..Ididnt find the book in the library, I think i'll have to visit the bookstore.

It is available for reading on the site if you wish :)
http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/brothers_karamazov/

[Madhuri]

Hey thanks, Logos. I didnt know that books were also available online for reading.

[Logos]

Well there are hundreds of authors and thousands of stories, novels, and poems to be read here on this site, just check out the Author Index, click on a name and you will see what is available of theirs to be read :)

http://www.online-literature.com/author_index.php

"Welcome to The Literature Network. We offer searchable online literature for the student, educator, or enthusiast. To find the work you're looking for start by looking through the author index. We currently have over 1200 full books and over 2000 short stories and poems by over 250 authors. Our quotations database has over 8500 quotes."

[Madhuri]

Well, 1200 books, 2000 short stories and 8500 quotes, that is quite a lot to read. I think I need to browse more forums. Thanks once again Logos, I would definitely look up the author index.

[Scheherazade]

Rather intrigued by Alyosha's encounter with children.

I cannot help but think that the story line has the makings of a good soap opera... We have a central 'evil' character with a dark past and numerous affrairs and children (and he is rich!). His children are still trying to come to terms with certain issues and cannot stay away from their father for one reason or another. And to make things even more complicated, there are love triangles and tangles all over the place.

*dodges the rotten tomatoes flying in her direction*

:D

[Gallantry]

thank goodness this was written so long ago and so well that no one is gonna be foolish enough to make a tv show out of it.

[Scheherazade]

thank goodness this was written so long ago and so well that no one is gonna be foolish enough to make a tv show out of it.However well written it is, there is still too much melodrama going on for my linking, I am afraid. I mean leeks are leeks no matter how finely they are cooked and I ain't gonna like/eat them.

Does anyone else feel like hitting Katerina on the head with the very copy of TBK they are reading? I further feel like shaking her after the hit until she came to her senses: 'I will wait for him all my life!?!??!!'

Also what do you about Snergiyov's refusal to take the money from Alyosha? Would you accept it if you were in his position or act in a similar manner?

[MikeK]

However well written it is, there is still too much melodrama going on for my linking, I am afraid.

There's certainly a lot going on in this novel (murder, love triangles, etc...), and it will or will not suit various tastes, but it can hardly be called melodrama. (Melodrama usually taken to mean a situation where action or plot is more important than characterization. 'Empty' action in other words.) This story is really just the opposite. In TBK, every aspect of the plot serves another purpose of Dostoevsky, and usually provides support for a rather penetrating (I think) psychological, religious, cultural, or philosophical insight.

Book 4, for example, where Snegiryov tears up the money as you mentioned; This book provides some amazing insight by linking many various characters together through the theme of the book's heading ("Strains" or "Lacerations" - depending on the translation). How and why are Snegiryov, Katerina, Ivan, Father Ferapont, and the boys acting similarly throughout Book 4? How is Snegiryov's crumpling of the money similar to Katerina's proclomations about following Dmitri, as you also quoted above?

[literaturerocks]

yes i feel like hitting her and my copy is rather thick :) but i really found books V and VI to be absolutely amazing. though i am on book IX now those two books really stand out to me. dostoevsky was genious. a chapter that was particularly hard to understand but once i read through it pretty slowly it was really good. also scher i think that (it might have even said it in the book i dont remember) but ilyusha's father proudly throws the money down and the reason for that is that if he had accepted the money (even though he needed it badly) he feels he would have been dishonered. and he feels if this were to happen his son ,ilyusha, would never be able to admire or respect him. also in book four does anyone else notice how fyodor karamazov is so dishonest that he feels that everyone else around him is skeptical and dishonest as well? i think this is an important point that dostoevsky was trying to make as her forshawdowed this when zosima was speaking about not telling lies and how it will make you think that others around you are dishonest as well.what are your opinions?

[Gallantry]

earlier this summer I was reading this and meeting with some friends over lunch weekly to discuss the book. They ended up not finishing it due to summer classes and a mission trip to Honduras but I went ahead and finished it. One of the things that we did get to discuss before we quit meeting to discuss the book was the scene your reffering to where zossima says that a man that lies to himself begins to deceive himself. I would agree, its a fair guess to say that it is foreshadowing or at least supporting the development of fyodor's character.

[bhekti]

However well written it is, there is still too much melodrama going on for my linking, I am afraid. ...

I also think Dostoevsky's works are either comic or melodramatic. It might be the epileptic force working on the nerves, or the debts.

Henry James described Dostoevsky’s works as “baggy monsters” and “fluid puddings”, with a profound “lack of composition” and a “defiance of economy and architecture.

Joseph Conrad called The Brothers Karamazov “... an impossible lump of valuable matter. It’s terrifically bad and impressive and exasperating. Moreover, I don’t know what Dostoevsky stands for or reveals, but I do know that he is too Russian for me. It sounds like some fierce mouthings of prehistoric ages.” (from www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/quotations.html)

But it's alright. Definitely alright.

[mhler57]

I loved this book when I first read it 20 years ago land look forward for the chance to read it again. Just found this forum today so greetings to you all. I suppose the question is who is Dostoevsky really sympathetic to? Is it Aloysha and Father Zosima or was that a sop to the censors. 120 years later it's much easier to be sympathetic to Ivan who encapsulates all the uncertainties of the twentieth century and like Milton's Devil has the best arguments I will enjoy reading the book again to see if my opinions have changed.

[literaturerocks]

just finished yesterday and it was quite impressive. i really liked the book and look forward to discussing it. i might even have to put it on my books to read again list :nod: :D

[superunknown]

I was cooped up in a small town in the south of France during the holidays where there was nothing to do but read and I managed to finish it in a week. I'm glad I read it, it really is a great book (perhaps Henry James and Joseph Conrad had terrible translations, the Pevear and Volokhonsky one was great).

As to Alyosha's character, I have to credit Pevear and Volokhonsky with one important insight: Alyosha is referred to as an angel twice. Dmitri says he needs an angel of the earth when they meet in the gazebo, and later on after Alyosha causes a scene in Katerina Ivanovna's house, Madame Khokhlakov calls him an angel. Now, when you remove all the connotations that we've given to the world "angel" of goodness and purity, you find that Alyosha very much is in fact like an angel: that is to say, he serves the original purpose of the angel, that of the message bearer. Madame Khokhlakov calls him an angel after he has said to Katerina Ivanovna almost exactly what Khokhlakov told him outside. He also takes the money to Snegiryov from Katerina and in general spends much of his time carrying messages from one person to the other.

There's some questions that I feel were left unanswered. For starters, there's the issue of the narrator. He is clearly not Dostoevsky and in fact seems to be an amateur writer with a penchant for useless interjections ("as it were") and who, while he most of the time sinks into the background and becomes the "eternal narrator", at times shows himself to be human in moments of idiosyncracy or even incompetence. We know that he's a human being who lived between these people, and yet he never at any moment interacts with any of the characters (as far as we're led to believe). Which makes me wonder how he could have the omniscient eye of the eternal narrator while being an ordinary human being who did not interact with any of the characters. It's probably an irrelevant question to ask, but it's still an interesting one.

Another thing that was left unanswered was Lise. The last time we see her it's that horrible vision of an evil creature, but we never see anything more than that. I wonder what her inclusion really brings to the novel, and in particular what that last scene in which we see her adds to the overall context.

[MikeK]

There's some questions that I feel were left unanswered. For starters, there's the issue of the narrator. He is clearly not Dostoevsky and in fact seems to be an amateur writer with a penchant for useless interjections ("as it were") and who, while he most of the time sinks into the background and becomes the "eternal narrator", at times shows himself to be human in moments of idiosyncracy or even incompetence. We know that he's a human being who lived between these people, and yet he never at any moment interacts with any of the characters (as far as we're led to believe). Which makes me wonder how he could have the omniscient eye of the eternal narrator while being an ordinary human being who did not interact with any of the characters. It's probably an irrelevant question to ask, but it's still an interesting one.


That's an insightful point about the narrator. Many critics claim that Dostoevsky really pioneered a new technique regarding 'point-of-view'. Mikhail Bakhtin, in a famous essay, called Dostoevsky's novels 'polyphonic'. He said that Dostoevsky used a type of narrator, just as you described, so that the narrator could get into the voices and minds of each character. So that the narrator doesn't really have his own voice - or I should say that he uses his own voice very rarely. But when the narrator is talking about Alyosha, he speaks in Alyosha's voice, and likewise with Ivan, Dmitri, and every main character. It's a narrative technique called Erlebte Rede. This way, the theory goes, his novels don't have one authorial voice, but many competing voices, and this just adds to the richness and texture of Dostoevsky's novels.

I've probably done a very poor job of trying to explain my meaning, but there is a great deal of criticism on just this point - Dostoevsky's narrators. You should find some of it because there is a great deral written out there on many of the points you raised. As I mentioned, Bakhtin's article, "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics" may be the most famous as it is the one that introduced this idea of the 'polyphonic' novel.

[Scheherazade]

There's certainly a lot going on in this novel (murder, love triangles, etc...), and it will or will not suit various tastes, but it can hardly be called melodrama. (Melodrama usually taken to mean a situation where action or plot is more important than characterization. 'Empty' action in other words.) I cannot say I am familiar with this definition of 'melodrama'. The definiton I had in mind was:
melodrama - a story, play, or film in which the characters show stronger emotions than real people usually doCambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=49764&dict=CALD)

In this book, I think, every single character is pictured or act in this melodramatic way. When they are good, they are good; when they are bad, they are bad. When they love, they forget about reason and all; when they are jealous, they are green. As I said, I am very much reminded of a soap opera. This story is really just the opposite.
In TBK, every aspect of the plot serves another purpose of Dostoevsky, and usually provides support for a rather penetrating (I think) psychological, religious, cultural, or philosophical insight.I find the 'insight' parts too far and few and when they are there, they are impossibly long and somewhat preachy. They feel like lectures rather than part of a novel and a character's dialogue with another.
ilyusha's father proudly throws the money down and the reason for that is that if he had accepted the money (even though he needed it badly) he feels he would have been dishonered. and he feels if this were to happen his son ,ilyusha, would never be able to admire or respect him. I am aware why he refuses to accept the money; however, my question was that whether you would act in a similar fashion if you were in his place? Would you refuse to accept money offer even though your family were as poor and needy as his?

So far I have read 2/3 of it yet (OK, I admit, I have read other books in between) and now have to return the copy to the library as someone else reserved it. So far, I cannot say it will make it to my favorite books list. I think it is unncessarily wordy and long for the messages it is trying to give.

[MikeK]

I cannot say I am familiar with this definition of 'melodrama'. The definiton I had in mind was:Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=49764&dict=CALD)

In this book, I think, every single character is pictured or act in this melodramatic way. When they are good, they are good; when they are bad, they are bad. When they love, they forget about reason and all; when they are jealous, they are green. As I said, I am very much reminded of a soap opera. This story is really just the opposite. I find the 'insight' parts too far and few and when they are there, they are impossibly long and somewhat preachy. They feel like lectures rather than part of a novel and a character's dialogue with another. I am aware why he refuses to accept the money; however, my question was that whether you would act in a similar fashion if you were in his place? Would you refuse to accept money offer even though your family were as poor and needy as his?



When I said that it was the opposite of melodrama, I was thinking more of this definition, taken from dictionary.com:

melodrama

n : an extravagant comedy in which action is more salient than characterization

That's what I think of when I hear melodrama. The stuff, as you said, of soap-operas, where there is nothing deeper than what is on the surface. The action, the fluff, all of the gimicks used to keep an audience interested. I think of Dostoevsky as just the opposite of that. But, as for the definition that you used, whereby melodrama means characters that act in a stronger way than real people usually do, I would definitely agree. That is certainly one of the trademarks of Dostoevsky. I guess that I was just thinking of the word melodrama in a different way. All I was trying to say was that all of the action is hardly fluff, or superficial soap-opera stuff; in Dostoevsky it's usually quite meaningful.


Quickly, as to your other point about the 'insight' parts being too few and far between, I would just say that most everything in the book is an 'insight' part. That's kind of what I was saying with my point about Dostoevsky being the opposite of melodrama. Everything matters. If you read those parts of the book that you call melodrama for the 'insight' you will find it there. One quick example: The very plot of the book itself (which may seem a bit soap-operaish on the surface - a murdered father due to money and a love triangle) is really an extension of the religious/philosophical 'message' of the book. The story is 'really' about God, belief vs. unbelief, faith vs. doubt and atheism. The plot is just an extension of that. The murder of a father, which in a metaphysical sense is just what atheism is; the murder of the Heavenly Father. So that's what I mean when I say that the 'insight' is everywhere, and not just in little spurts, but if you're reading those parts as simple melodrama you won't get the insight out of it. (This may make more sense when you read Book 12.)

I lied, one more quick example. I don't know if you've reached that part in the book yet, but Book 10, 'Boys', may seem on the surface to be superficial or melodramatic, but it is quite the opposite. As a hint, read Book 10 as an acting out of the things that were said by the Grand Inquisitor. If you do that, what may seem like melodrama will become quite insightful.

[Gallantry]

I'm taking a class on the Russian novel right now, with Dostoevsky on the mind anew I figured I would bring back this post to get some more discussion on one of the best novels ever written. I'll be writing a paper on it at the end of the semester.

[JCamilo]

Jumping here,
I believe, because Literature is a little about beliving, that Brothers Karamazov chapter The Great Inquisitor (Where Ivan narrates to Alysha his "dream" about Jesus returning) is an example of perfection, one of the most perfect, momments of all our literature.
Other than this, I could take that Henry James critic to Dostoievisky is predictable, as James was a monster of control, planning, each piece in the right momment, clarity, equillibrium. Dostoievisky in other way was instinct, conflict, torture. (By no mean it means that Dostoievisky did not planned his novels or that he did not dominated the techniques, which would be an absurd, since he took to a new level Dickens way to create novels and bring characters interation). They are obvious oposites.
Conrad, I am not so familiar with his style to say anything but that reading Heart of Darkness, he is obviously not interessed to make the reader be lost in a labyrinth of words and excess like Dostoievisky, but rather in symbols and ideas...
Anyways, Nabokov also disliked Dostoievisky a lot, I think that The Idiot was the only book he considered any good...(But then, a rationalist like Nabokov, with profund dislike for psychology blablablas, hardly would like Dostoievisky...)

[Gallantry]

Yeah, its definitely important to note the differences in style and beliefs etc. when considering the merit of an author.

[bazarov]

Jumping here,
I believe, because Literature is a little about beliving, that Brothers Karamazov chapter The Great Inquisitor (Where Ivan narrates to Alysha his "dream" about Jesus returning) is an example of perfection, one of the most perfect, momments of all our literature.


I totally agree!