Stavrogin

[Basil Valentine]

Does anyone else feel that the character of Stavrogin was less well fleshed out than the other major characters in the novel? After the first book, it seemed like he was going to be the main character, but then Verkhovensky increasingly becomes the focus for books 2 and 3. I never really felt that I understood S's motivations in the same way as V's, and was a bit confused by his suicide at the end - was this in part a response to having written in his letter to Dasha that he definitely would never hang himself?

I enjoyed it, though I found it harder to read than The Idiot, The Gambler, The Brothers K or C&P (maybe on a par with Notes from the Underground). I especially liked Lebyadkin - Dostoevsky is great at writing dialogue for these drunken ex-army types, viz "from Capt Lebyadkin, your friend most lowly, with the leisure to move very slowly"!

[mea505]

Hi.

I am a new member of this forum, and I just recently started reading The Possessed, by Dostoevsky. I am currently reading "The Sins of Others," and would like to discuss some of the novel with you. You seem to have complete understanding of the novel.

Thanks,

Mark

[Truthlover]

Does anyone else feel that the character of Stavrogin was less well fleshed out than the other major characters in the novel? After the first book, it seemed like he was going to be the main character, but then Verkhovensky increasingly becomes the focus for books 2 and 3. I never really felt that I understood S's motivations in the same way as V's...

Nicholas Stavrogin is real mystery. I think the author wanted to keep us second-guessing as much as possible, in order to provoke our curiosity about the underlying motives in the insane actions of Stavrogin. Even though he does have some psychological disorder (a good dose of sociopathy), his presence has something to tell us about hero worship, to which most of us easily fall victims. Peter absolutely idolizes Nicholas. The reason Peter Verkhovensky becomes more the center of attention, according to critics, is because the original editor did not accept the chapter "Stavrogin's Confession" which was to come near the end of Part II. The author then, in order not to rewrite the main argument, brings up Peter to center stage. In any case, I do not think this hurts the novel in the long run, because each of these two characters embodies the extremes that Dostoyevsky condemns: the purposelessness of the Russian aristocracy and the nihilism of the upcoming socialists.

[Gladys]

Nicholas Stavrogin is real mystery. I think the author wanted to keep us second-guessing as much as possible, in order to provoke our curiosity about the underlying motives in the insane actions of Stavrogin.

Doesn't Stavrogin suicide out of deference to Dasha, whom he has invited to Uri? Life means little more to him than to Kirilov.

[WyattGwyon]

Does anyone else feel that the character of Stavrogin was less well fleshed out than the other major characters in the novel? After the first book, it seemed like he was going to be the main character, but then Verkhovensky increasingly becomes the focus for books 2 and 3. I never really felt that I understood S's motivations in the same way as V's, and was a bit confused by his suicide at the end - was this in part a response to having written in his letter to Dasha that he definitely would never hang himself?

I recognize your name from somewhere, Basil.

I haven't read it for a while, but I'm not sure about fleshing out. I suspect Nikolai seems inscrutable because his motives and actions, unlike Peter's, are wholly his own; he is completely self-possessed (ha!)—a force of nature. Peter, on the other hand, and as you point out, is defined in relation to others, to Nikolai—who represents the raw, anarchic power he envies and seeks to harness and direct, and to the others he hopes to manipulate and control. His complexity is from weakness. Nikolai's mystery is from strength, albeit a self-consuming strength.

[Gladys]

...Nikolai—who represents the raw, anarchic power he envies and seeks to harness and direct, and to the others he hopes to manipulate and control...Nikolai's mystery is from strength, albeit a self-consuming strength.

Nikolai and Kirilov share existential angst. They have comprehensively and hopelessly despaired of finding meaning in life, in their own lives. All life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Hence Stavrogin behaves in a thoroughly erratic way, and Kirilov dwells grimly on the negative except that through suicide he might achieve some notional divinity.

Stavrogin commits suicide because, given the choice of suffocating Dasha or not in the Canton of Uri, the negative choice is as good as any other!

The demons are finally cast out from ailing mother Russia, and stampede like Jesus' possessed pigs into a lake and drown. Ironically, of course, Stavrogin and Kirilov are perhaps the most sympathetic characters in the novel. By contrast, the son of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky is truly appalling.

[WyattGwyon]

Nikolai and Kirilov share existential angst. They have comprehensively and hopelessly despaired of finding meaning in life, in their own lives. All life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Hence Stavrogin behaves in a thoroughly erratic way, and Kirilov dwells grimly on the negative except that through suicide he might achieve some notional divinity.

Stavrogin commits suicide because, given the choice of suffocating Dasha or not in the Canton of Uri, the negative choice is as good as any other!

The demons are finally cast out from ailing mother Russia, and stampede like Jesus' possessed pigs into a lake and drown. Ironically, of course, Stavrogin and Kirilov are perhaps the most sympathetic characters in the novel. By contrast, the son of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky is truly appalling.

Agreed to all of this—except that I find Shatov more sympathetic than our suicides.

[Gladys]

Agreed to all of this—except that I find Shatov more sympathetic than our suicides.

As I read about Shatov's disillusionment, I wondered whether the young Dostoevsky had followed a similar path in his ill-fated brush with nihilism.

[cafolini]

Excuse me, important: genetic engineers have discovered ways to grow teeth a third time.

[WyattGwyon]

As I read about Shatov's disillusionment, I wondered whether the young Dostoevsky had followed a similar path in his ill-fated brush with nihilism.

Perhaps. But when I try to think about parallels I get sidetracked by the thought that Shatov seems a lot more stable than our author. As I see it, malfeasance aside, he becomes a dutiful father and husband and settles down as a typesetter within a year — Dostoyevsky on the other hand . . . When did he write The Gambler, anyway? [rhetorical Q: That I can find] And did he really have a brush with nihilism? Or was it just a brush with nihilists? (I'm not trying to make a sly point or anything, I just don't know and am hoping to lazily profit from your wisdom:-)

An aside Gladys: You know, online behavior like Cafolini's used to bother me. But recently I visited my old friend Mike who is a professor of art living in the pine barrens of New Jersey. Using the two old printing presses that fill much of the floorspace in his basement, he plies archaic crafts, producing quasi-medieval manuscripts and poetry books illustrated with woodcut prints. There are a couple of computers on a work table on the downhill side of the house where the windows are, from which he daily prints out the next page of type to be set. At night he leaves the basement door open for a creature of the night, a homeless friend named Scott who is somewhere on the shallow end of the autism scale and meticulous by nature. Scott enters while the family above neddy in their snuggeries (D.T. — Under Milk Wood), takes the page from the printer, goes to the rows of wooden cases resting on a rank of slanted drafting tables against the long wall, and begins assembling the page of type in a shallow, adjustable metal box, following Mike's layout precisely. When he is done, he moves to the computer, sits down, and serially invades several online communities. Now Scott is a sweet, well-meaning man, but no one spends a solid hour in Scott's company without imagining a sock shoved down his throat. He just doesn't pick up those emotional cues, like the ones fairly screaming "Shut the f--k up!" On the last night of my visit, Mike and I entered the basement rather late to find Scott cackling inanely at the computer as he sent off a sally in which yet another of his correspondents was informed of the moral and temperamental qualities he shares with Hitler. Then I understood: "Oh, that's who is on the other keyboard! It's not really his fault I guess," which is what I imagine our dear friend Alyosha might have said.

[Gladys]

Perhaps. But when I try to think about parallels I get sidetracked by the thought that Shatov seems a lot more stable than our author.

The Gambler (with its thunderbolt ending) is a decade or so earlier and, two decades before that, Dostoevsky had spent 5 years exile/prison in Siberia. Anyone who can write the The Idiot - just after The Gambler - must be relatively stable. Prince Myshkin is even more sublime than Alyosha.

Then I understood: "Oh, that's who is on the other keyboard! It's not really his fault I guess," which is what I imagine our dear friend Alyosha might have said.

There are more things in heaven and earth...