Printable View
Yes, I agree with you on Dmitri's sense of honour, however, Brynner acts like a king or pharaoh (remember his role as Ramses II) with every move, every gesture being hardly thought of, Dmitri is a way much "simplier soul".Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That's a good way of summing up their personalities. I would caution people, though, from viewing Dmitri as a duplication of Fyodor. To completely understand why I think you have to look at nineteenth century fiction as a whole. The money-grubbing, selfish, ineffectual father is a figure that comes up again and again. You can see him in Stendhal's Red and the Black, Balzac's Lost Illusions, Dickens' Dombey and Son. Or, if the father isn't ineffectual, he's nonexistent. The orphan literature of the nineteenth-century is immense. Part of the reason (and I stress that this is only part) is that by having the father fail to give a place for his children, the child then has to rely on institutions and to some extent his or her own will. This is perfect for novels that want to explore society (as Realist fiction frequently does). It gets the children out of the house. Dmitri is one of those children that has to leave and attach himself to some institution. In this case, it's the army. By necessity, then, he has to live a much different life than the father. Even though Dmitri inherits many traits from his father, I think he ends up becoming a little different through the course of his life which takes him away from his father.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianfan
Yeah, definitely. I remember Dmitri laughing frequently in the book, but I don't think Brynner even gives a smile.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianfan
Well, I just managed to start with it recently. I've liked whatever I've read so far but it's still not enough to comment about or discuss. So I'll get back to this discussion when I have really got something to say about it.
I am holding off commenting to give people a chance to read. Since I may be flying home early next week, I'll probably jump into the conversation in about a week from today. :)
Oh wow, Quark and Virgil (among other good discussers) are in the discussion this time. I will have to make a real effort here to listen to my podcast of the novel. I also have the novel in print to refer back to. With Walden and Alice in Wonderland going on at the same time I hope I can keep the stories straight. However I have them all on podcasts so I am set. I only listened to one chapter of each book so far....so it might take me awhile to complete all three.
Dmitri is especially full of laughter in the interrogation scene (I am in the Third Torment right now). Does Brynner possess the same mirth during this scene in the movie?
Very interesting. Indeed, I have read three Dickens novels and all three feature orphans as main characters - Great Expectations, David Copperfield, and Hard Times. And as Dickens is a well-known satirist and critic of society, it would seem that the orphan, as you say, would be an effective vehicle for his criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
At the same time, I prefer not to think of Fyodor as an archetypal character, because at least from my own breadth of reading he seems to be quite an original personality - his buffoonery, that is. When I came to the scene in elder Zosima's cell, I thought to myself: this guy's quite a character. And he has continued to amuse me as an original character ever since. The way he loses his wits around Grushenka still has me in fits...
David Copperfield isn't an orphan though, he has a strained relationship with his step-father and attends a boarding school, but isn't an orphan. Although, I think the absentee father, dead in this case, functions in the same way. Though, I think Copperfield is less about society and more about how an individual defines themselves. Remember the opening line of David Copperfield: "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."
Anyway, on topic I would be interested in discussing the "Parable of the Grand Inquisitor" told by Ivan to Alyosha when more people have read that far. I think it's one of the more interesting parts of the novel.
Woah, this is fortunate, I just started reading this book two days ago.
I just started reading it today and I'm only 60 pages in but so far it's a good read. I like the way Dostoevsky tells the story. I though this was going to be like a totally serious book but there is a lot of humor here.
Fyodor is epic. The Man has caused the deaths of 2 women without even physically harming them and even forgot he had kids. Acting like your foolish than you really are can be funny at times so I can see where he's coming from.
You're reading Walden, Janine? I wouldn't have thought you would go in for Thoreau. Good luck with the podcasts. I would assume that the audio would be helpful for dialogue in the novel (of which there is quite a lot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
In a word, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
No, I don't mean to say that Fyodor's is just some stock character without a life of his own. Really, I was trying to talk about Dmitri and why, while sharing some traits with Fyodor, he ends up a different person. Maybe the point is more commonsensical than I was making it. All I was going for is the fact that Fyodor doesn't provide a place in the world for his sons, so they have to forge their own path--often allying themselves with institutions other than the family. Ivan goes off to university and becomes an intellectual. Aloysha join the monestary as a novice. Dmitri--even though being very much like his father--leaves and joins the military. With a set up like this I think we have to take the sons not simply as personalities, but also as people who have lived lives and have certain allegiances. The paths of their lives lead them into connections with other groups and that affects their identity. In this sense, we can't just take Dmitri or any of the sons as just random people. They also represent the groups they've come across. Clearly Ivan is not just a singular creature. Dostoevsky uses his character to cover a whole range of practices that are certainly not just limited to his one fictional intellectual. The idea is that these are things that are widespread. This goes for each of the brothers. In post #21 back on page 1 I quoted a description of Smerdyakov that links him with a wide swath of Russian society: the peasantry: "There are a good many "contemplatives" among the peasantry. Well, Smerdyakov was most likely one of them" (150). Again, I don't mean to suggest that the characters are just types and that they don't have any life of their own. I just think you have to acknowledge that Dostoevsky (or at least his narrator) means these characters to resonate with existing types (or possibile types) of people in Russian society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Well, David Copperfield is one of those works that you could say is about anything and everything. While certainly having something to do with autobiography, psychology, and just David's personality, it's also about child labor (David in the warehouse), marriage (David evolving notion of it from Dora to Agnes), the carcareal (David's friend and benefactor is placed in a debtor's prison). All of this is pretty topical stuff for the time. It's not just meant to be about the fictional character David, but is supposed to resonate with Dickens' readers' idea of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
That might be out of step with Virgil's good suggestion that we discuss the story beginning at the start and moving on toward the conclusion. If you put a spoiler tag on it, though, I'd be willing to entertain conversation about that rather famous part of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Alrighty--just finished my other book and have started reading! I'll probably be a lot slower than most of you, since it seems like the bulk of my reading seems to be done right now in the bathroom, where no kids will be...:D
I find the relationship between Alyosha and Fyodor to be rather interesting, and curious. I would have thought with Fyodor's lifestyle, and religious views that he would have been more scornful of Alyosha's chaste and virtuous life, his faith and his entering into monastery life, it seems that Alyosha is the only person whom Fyodor has any genuine adoration for.
Does Fyodor have such affection for Alyosha because of the fact that he knows Alyosha is not "threat" to him, he knows that Aloysha is not after any of his money, and that Alyosha certainly would not get into any squabbles with him over women. While his other sons have their own agendas, Alyosha does not seem to actually want anything of his father nor try to make any demands of him.
Does that mean you're also typing from the bathroom? That kind of weirds me out, Shannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Shannon_
That's an interesting question. I'll have to go back to the text to find a good answer, but off the top of my head I remember that there's an attraction of opposites that's common in this book. Smerdyakov, the stupid servant (although this comes into question somewhat later on), is attracted to Ivan, the intellectual. Dmitri, while being incredibly dissolute himself, is attracted to high-minded poetry (this comes out later) and high-minded women (Katya, at least initially). Fyodor may be curious about his opposite in Aloysha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I had considered the opposite posibility as well. That is a reoccuring theme which shows itself throughout the book in varrious different ways. In speaking of this attraction of opposites I find Katarina a bit annoying in her devotion to Dimitri.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I started the Brothers K two months ago but left it in the states with one quarter of it read. I recently was able to retrieve it once again and due to the fact that my brain leaks, start over. I am now inspired.