Summer Reading '10: Brothers Karamazov

[Dark Muse]

I wasn't a fan of Alyosha at the start, and happened to feel the same way, but then he grew on me later on in the novel. I think it was when I started to see the way he affects others, and how others respect him, that he grew on me. In particular, the way the children respect him made a large impression on me.

Oh I don't dislike Aloysha, I was not saying what I said as way of criticizing him. In spite of, or because of his flaws, or eccentricities, or whatever you may like to call them, I have always liked them, even if I do think he should spend less time worrying about his brothers love relations.


He struck me as being a bit naive about children, particularly in that whole rock throwing incident, and when he was gushing over how he thinks school boys are like the best thing in the world..

[Dark Muse]

I take Ivan to be an agnostic, not an atheists and frankly by the end of the novel I think he's more of a believer than not

Yes I would agree that Ivan strikes me as being more agnostic as I am reading his conversation with Aloysha within the tavern.

He does not deny the existence of God but simply rejects the idea of contemplating upon weather or not God does in fact exist. He recognizes the inadequacy of the human mind to contemplating or understand the concept of God and thus he sees no good in attempting to do so. He simply accepts it for what it is and it is irrelevant to him if as he put it "Man created God or God created Man"

Or at the very least he sees no purpose or point in trying to prove which side is correct.

[ktm5124]

I find it very enlightening how Dostoevsky debates the question of God. The Russia that he shows us seems to be on the cusp of a religious crisis - several characters in the novel question the existence of God, and flip-flop on the issue (for instance, Madame Khoklakov changes her mind quite a few times). There is the "everything is permitted contingent" - Ivan, Smerdyakov - the intellectual atheist - Rakitin - and the zealous few such as Alyosha, Zosima, and the monks. But the author's sympathies seem to lie with the believers. After all, elder Zosima's prophecy comes true, Alyosha is the hero of the novel, Ivan is plagued by his reason, etc etc. Those who are godless (Rakitin, Smerdyakov) are all besmirched. One could take from the novel a sophisticated defense of religion, as well as an attempt by Dostoevsky to halt an atheistic trend in Russia.

I have my reservations, though, since I have not yet even finished the novel, and I know very little about Russia in those times.

[Virgil]

I find it very enlightening how Dostoevsky debates the question of God. The Russia that he shows us seems to be on the cusp of a religious crisis - several characters in the novel question the existence of God, and flip-flop on the issue (for instance, Madame Khoklakov changes her mind quite a few times). There is the "everything is permitted contingent" - Ivan, Smerdyakov - the intellectual atheist - Rakitin - and the zealous few such as Alyosha, Zosima, and the monks. But the author's sympathies seem to lie with the believers. After all, elder Zosima's prophecy comes true, Alyosha is the hero of the novel, Ivan is plagued by his reason, etc etc. Those who are godless (Rakitin, Smerdyakov) are all besmirched. One could take from the novel a sophisticated defense of religion, as well as an attempt by Dostoevsky to halt an atheistic trend in Russia.

I have my reservations, though, since I have not yet even finished the novel, and I know very little about Russia in those times.

No question Dostevesky's sympathies are with Alyosha and the believers. Rakitin and Smerdyakov come across as detestable at best and of course worse. The question I have is whether Dostevesky's theology is the same as Zosima's. Or is it more complex?

[Dark Muse]

Dostoyevsky's sympathies might lie with Aloysha, and while I do not dislike Aloysha, as the story progresses up to the point I am at, I am starting to like Ivan more and more. Probably because he is so cynical.

I do agree that the way the question of Religion is presented within the book and seeing the various different characters struggle with their own beliefs and view of religion is quite interesting, and I do most enjoy Ivan's arguments on the issue.

The only thing I want to know, is why are most the women in the story so obnoxious and why do they all run around acting like a bunch of children.

Does it have to do with the Patriarchal mind set of the time period and the religion?

[Quark]

I have my reservations, though, since I have not yet even finished the novel, and I know very little about Russia in those times.

Maybe not, but what you wrote was pretty accurate. Much of the Ivan-Zossima conflict is a reproduction of then contemporary differences of opinion. Even parts of the story that seem like they must be creations of only Dostoevsky (like Ivan's brush with the supernatural) actually come from discussions going on during the time the novel was being written. You can uncover a lot of this by reading Dostoevsky's A Writers Diary which was written around the time he was composing this novel.

Dostoyevsky's sympathies might lie with Aloysha, and while I do not dislike Aloysha, as the story progresses up to the point I am at, I am starting to like Ivan more and more. Probably because he is so cynical.

Yeah, Aloysha is supposed to be the hero, but he's a little difficult to relate to as he doesn't seem to have much of an inner life. For much of the novel, his opinions come across more as verdicts than anything else, and that closes down the scenes he's in considerably. Alyosha has an occasional brush with doubt or a moment of contemplation, but most of the time it seems like he already knows what to believe instinctively and that makes him somewhat uninteresting compared to Ivan. The other brothers have ideas and feelings that come across as partial and evolving which makes them more dynamic and interesting.

The only thing I want to know, is why are most the women in the story so obnoxious and why do they all run around acting like a bunch of children.

Does it have to do with the Patriarchal mind set of the time period and the religion?

That's a big question. Time period is probably the best single answer, but, even for 19th century Russia, Dostoevsky isn't particularly flattering to women. Not much later, Chekhov starts writing and his women are far more respectable.

No question Dostevesky's sympathies are with Alyosha and the believers. Rakitin and Smerdyakov come across as detestable at best and of course worse. The question I have is whether Dostevesky's theology is the same as Zosima's. Or is it more complex?

*Spoilers*

Well, Zosima's theology is rather incomplete and it doesn't fully match Alyosha's. Zosima seems to stress the omnipresence of sin and the final moment of salvation, but his theology doesn't take anything into account between those two points. The fact that he admits sin exists is supposed to be an improvement over Ivan, but we're still not quite where the novel wants us to be. If we took Zosima's views as the final thoughts on religion then we probably wouldn't be able to explain why Alyosha tells Ivan that he isn't responsible for Fyodor's death. After all, Zosima's story is all about how anyone who sets up the conditions for a sin to be committed has also sinned. Alyosha's theology, though, moves beyond Zosima's vision of shared guilt and a distant salvation. Alyosha shows that every moment counts--not just some big moment when the monks will show everyone the image of Christ. Instead, the last speech in the novel argues that simple memories of goodness and love from the past (not some mythical Christ-image in the future) are what matters. That's why Alyosha works with children. He's trying to establish those memories that will keep people virtuous even when they're tempted by circumstances. In Zosima's universe, if you're tempted by circumstances or have contributed to those circumstances you've already sinned. Alyosha, though, recognizes that all the children will get caught up in circumstances like those in the novel. What's important is how they respond. This is why Ivan isn't guilty. He contributed to the death of Fyodor (like so many did), but since he wasn't drawn into actually murdering the man he isn't guilty.

In this sense, Zosima's theology is a stepping stone between Ivan's and Alyosha's.

[Dark Muse]

That's a big question. Time period is probably the best single answer, but, even for 19th century Russia, Dostoevsky isn't particularly flattering to women. Not much later, Chekhov starts writing and his women are far more respectable.

The way the majority of the female characters are portrayed it does seem as if they are being cast in the typical stereotype of women of the 19th century in which women were as a rule viewed as being like children, and not seen to possess much intellect but seen more as creatures of feeling.

But even so there are many works of the 19th century that challenge these ideas in thier portrayal of women, but there is almost that sense that Dostoevsky simply lacks an understanding of women.

[OrphanPip]

I think what Ivan is saying is that he doesn't like the way that God decided for us to live. Like instead of free will God could have just told us what to do and made us all happy. If we never knew pain, suffering, loss, etc then how could we ever miss it.

At it's most basic Dostoyevksy is just being blatantly anti-Catholic.

The parable I think is discussing tensions between institutions that regulate faith and the nature of faith as being fundamentally about free will (according to Dostoyevsky I think). It would be difficult for Dostoyevsky to criticize institutionalized religion in Russia, so the ever hated Catholic church is easier for him to attack even though it's simple enough to level the same kind of criticisms on the Russian Orthodoxy.

The first part of the parable involves the appearance of Christ at the auto de fe in Seville. The crowds recognize him, but the Grand Inquisitor makes it clear that his power over the people is absolute. Here we have an explicit position of the Inquisitor, I think as a representative of organized religion, standing directly in the way of the "truth," or rather the personal faith of the believers.

The second part is the Grand Inquisitors little speech about the relationship between happiness and free will. It seems that Ivan's opinion is that God giving people free will has made life more difficult; that requiring people to have faith without proof was cruelty because they now have to decide for themselves. There's an echo of this in Notes from Underground, but unlike Ivan the Underground Man cherishes the freedom that causes so much trouble: "two and two is five can also be a wonderful thing." (paraphrased)

The way the majority of the female characters are portrayed it does seem as if they are being cast in the typical stereotype of women of the 19th century in which women were as a rule viewed as being like children, and not seen to possess much intellect but seen more as creatures of feeling.

But even so there are many works of the 19th century that challenge these ideas in thier portrayal of women, but there is almost that sense that Dostoevsky simply lacks an understanding of women.

That's probably a fair thing to say, whenever he does give women more prominent roles in his novels they always seem to be prostitutes. Although, to be fair the spread of Liberal ideas about women arrived later in Russia than they did in France and England.

[Virgil]

At it's most basic Dostoyevksy is just being blatantly anti-Catholic.

The parable I think is discussing tensions between institutions that regulate faith and the nature of faith as being fundamentally about free will (according to Dostoyevsky I think). It would be difficult for Dostoyevsky to criticize institutionalized religion in Russia, so the ever hated Catholic church is easier for him to attack even though it's simple enough to level the same kind of criticisms on the Russian Orthodoxy.

I hadn't considered his anti-Catholicism as an indirect way to attack the Russian Church. I assume that's possible, though I don't recall any other Russian Church criticism in the novel.

I took the anti-Catholicism as part of his general xenophobia personality. Dostevesky took pride in his ethnicity and country (which is not a bad thing) to a level where he put down other cultures. He was extremely anti-European. In TBK you will find anti-semitism, anti-French, anti-German (oh he had a strong thing against the Germans) and even anti-Polish, which is a little surprising since they are fellow Slavs.

I do think there is a philosophical point he is making in The Grand Inquisitor parable outside of the xenophobia. Ivan singles out the Jesuits, which are an religious order engaged in intellectual discipline and use of rationality to understand God. Dostevesky's theology embraces the irrationailty, the notion that man's rationality is limited to the full understanding of the spiritual. What is ironic is that Ivan is the "rational" character, the one most like the Jesuits.

[Dark Muse]

Although, to be fair the spread of Liberal ideas about women arrived later in Russia than they did in France and England.

Oh that is interesting!

[Virgil]

I want to highligh a particular early passage where the narrator is giving us Alyosha's character because I think it holds the key to understanding all the characters in the novel.

Some will say, perhaps, that Alyosha was slow, underdeveloped, had not finished his studies, and so on. That he had not finished his studies is true, but to say he was slow or stupid would be a great injustice. I will simply repeat what I have already said above: he set upon this path only because at the time it alone struck him and presented him all at once with the whole ideal way out for his soul struggling from darkness to light. Add this that he was partly a young man of our time—that is, honest by nature, demanding the truth, seeking it and believing in it, and in that belief demanding immediate participation in it with all the strength of his soul; demanding an immediate deed, with an unfailing desire to sacrifice everything for this deed, even life. Although, unfortunately, these young men do not understand that the sacrifice of life is, perhaps, the easiest of all sacrifices in many cases, while to sacrifice, for example five or six years of their ebullient youthful life to hard, difficult studies, to learning, in order to increase tenfold their strength to serve the very truth and the very deed that they loved and set out to accomplish—such sacrifice is quite often almost beyond the strength of many of them. Alyosha simply chose the opposite path from all others, but with the same thirst for an immediate deed. As soon as he reflected seriously and was struck by the conviction of immortality and God exist, he naturally said at once himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I reject any halfway compromise.” [p26, 1.1.5]

I'm using the P&V translation and 1.1.5 refers to Part I, Book, 1, Chapter 5.

The struggle from “darkness to light”—darkness as the metaphor for torturous strain on the psyche that all human flesh must endure as simply a fact of living—shows that Alyosha has broken free from the limitations of human flesh. Each major and even second tier characters in the novel undergo this struggle and other than a few (Father Zossima, for instance) cannot break through the ceiling of human limitation. Alyosha simply sees beyond the limitation, while Demtri and Ivan for instance are caught within their own particular cycle of repetition. The characters who cannot break free are stuck within a labyrinth of their own being.

[spookymulder93]

So everyone got upset due to the fact that a dead body started to decay and smell? That's what happens when you put people on a high pedestal and suddenly find out that they're just human too.

Father Ferapont has got to be the funniest dude in this story.

And Grushenkas going back to the dude who dumped her 5 year previous.

This is like a soap opera!

[Dark Muse]

One thing I did not understand about that chapter is when Ivan says "it's not that I do not believe in God, it's that I don't accept the world he gave us" or something like that. (I'm sure I've butchered the sentiment quite much here...) What do you think it means to not accept the world?

I tend to agree with Spooky about this, particularly after finishing the Grand Inquisitor, it seems that Ivan does not have an argument against the existence of God, but he does not see man as being fit for free will.

He does not like the way the world is and the way in which God did allow man to simply decide for themselves and ceased to really intervene with man's choices, he seems to be making the argument that it is impossible and even unnatural for man to live by the rules in which God laid out for them if man is left complete by their own devices and makes the case that men need to be governed that men are in the end happier when they are ruled over by another and do not have not responsibility of having to make the choices for themselves but have the choices made already for them. That man is incapable of choosing goodness but at the same time is in agony over his sins and suffers for them.

[spookymulder93]

The feds just picked up Dmitry. I wonder did he put the kibosh on the old man? I mean where could he have gotten all that money?

[ktm5124]

Just finished - wow!