July/Dostoevsky Reading: 'The Brothers Karamazov'

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superunknown

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeK

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:

Quote:

---

melodrama - a story, play, or film in which the characters show stronger emotions than real people usually do

---

Cambridge Dictionary

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by literaturerocks

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I cannot say I am familiar with this definition of 'melodrama'. The definiton I had in mind was:Cambridge Dictionary

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.

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.

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...)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I totally agree!