Summer Reading '10: Brothers Karamazov

[Virgil]

I don't think it's age that keeping Zosima in the monastery. Remember that it's his tragic vision of the world that motivates him to enter the monastery in the first place. In his youth (or perhaps middle age) he begins to believe that the only way Christianity can survive is if it's cultivated by a small, sheltered group of monks. The world is far to corrupt and disordered to see truth, Zosima believes.

Oh I don't remember that. Thanks. You've got the novel on your fingertips way better than I do. This definitely deserves another reading, possibly early next year.

But, I also think we should remember that it's Zosima who sends Alyosha out of the monastery. I forget that section of the book, though. Does anyone recall what the motivation for that was?

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, so it's not completely clear to me what Zosima's philosophy is.

If you're looking back over the book, check the "Mutiny" and "Grand Inquisitor" chapters for Ivan's take on the issue, maybe the last chapter for Alyosha's view, and the section on Zosima's past for the monk's explanation.

Ok.

huh? I was closing down a Freudian reading not opening one up:

I know. I was just teasing.

[Quark]

I don't recall this tragic vision of his. In what chapter can I hear him profess this?

I was mostly talking about Book VI where Dostoevsky recounts the life and thoughts of the monk. It's up to the reader whether you want to call his views "tragic," of course, but that's a little beside the point. Mostly, my post was just responding to Virgil's suggestion that Zosima joined the monastery because he was old. I was saying that it was more a matter of principle than physical limitations that lead him to the monastery.

All in All I wouldn't say that this entire book is a must read because the actual story is kind of unbelievable to me. The only chapters that are must reads are The Grand Inquisitor and Ivans Nightmare and The devil. The rest of the book reads like a soap opera and soap operas are pretty silly to me.

In the novels defense (am I really saying this about one of the greatest novels of the 19th C?), Ivan's philosophical questions are tied in with the rest of the novel.

Remember, Ivan says "let's take the example of children" in "Mutiny." Funny enough, Alyosha ends up with children, too. One of the children is to die unjustly, just as Ivan's stories depict in "Mutiny."

Ivan's point in "The Grand Inquisitor" is that people don't know what to do with freedom and quickly fall into anarchy or totalitarianism. Similarly, Dmitri finds himself either in lawless revels or in the grips of the state.

Ivan suggests that all things are lawful, even murder. A crime (murder) is committed by Smerdyakov.

Almost everything Ivan brings up has some resonance with the rest of the novel. It's hard to come to a conclusion on what Ivan even means without reading the rest of the novel.

[Rores28]

I finished this about a week and a half ago and was completely blown away. Undoubtedly there is much I misinterpreted and missed, but what I could glean was immensely enjoyable.

D's ability to make you believe one side of an argument and then immediately the other is pretty staggering. This happens throughout the novel but in its closing with the defense and prosecution is where it is most impressive.

The two points that most touched me in the book were, the problem of freedom, and the limits of rationality.

The Grand Inquisitor is of course a crowd favorite not just because of what it says but at the outlandishly entertaining presentation. I think this problem of giving people freedom as if its a gift, when it will in turn only cause internal turmoil, is best illustrated in Dmitri. Has there ever been a character whose base impulses and overt behavior were so at odds with their moral or noble compass? Free will for Dmitri seems to be the most exquisite form of torture and not at all to be regarded as any sort of gift. The irony being that had there been a whole society of Dmitri's I think they would have fervently insisted on the acceptance of this gift and not in fact aligned with the Grand Inquisitor.

I think there is interesting stuff then going on with Fyodor who possess they same wanton impulses but not the conscience, and Alyosha who has the conscience but not the desires (or else the desires are small and easily suppressed or transmuted to something noble). I don't really quite know what to say about that though....

The limit of rationality theme was definitely my favorite. I will start by saying my education background is in science and that I am now agnostic, but was long time atheist and I've been in more existence of God arguments than I care to remember. That being said somewhat recently I have come to some degree to relinquish the dogmatism of rationality.

Anyway, I thought the most piercing moment of this book occurred in Ivan's Nightmare when he asks the devil (who has just been going on about his interactions with God) whether or not he believes in God. A seemingly ridiculous question, but still the devil in some degree side steps, he says something to the effect of "oh I don't know Je pense donc je suis right (I think therefore I am)?"

It took me a minute but then sort of staggered me, because a very common perry/thrust in god arguments is

"Well you can't disprove god." - Speciously a good point until of course you realize

"Well than I believe in a flying spaghetti monster." - this being equally unprovable would seem to break down the previous argument, whereby it spiral into .. "its just a matter of faith etc.. etc.."

but Dostoevsky takes it a step further and says I think therefore I am, merely refocuses the doubt of what our observable experience can tell us. This doesn't prove God, but it shows that the atheist is equally guilty of this leap of faith. Everyone makes some sort of leap of faith in other words in shaping/believing in something even if it is just that grass is green. Its funny because while I was familiar of course with I think therefore I am I never considered this application which I think is an exceptionally interesting one.

There's more I wanna say but I don't have time now. It seems as though I'm a little late to the show though

[Virgil]

Excellent post Rores. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. Nicely put on the two core themes: "the problem of freedom, and the limits of rationality."

The limit of rationality theme was definitely my favorite. I will start by saying my education background is in science and that I am now agnostic, but was long time atheist and I've been in more existence of God arguments than I care to remember. That being said somewhat recently I have come to some degree to relinquish the dogmatism of rationality.

That is interesting. You seem to be following in my footsteps. People who really deal with science realize quickly how limited rationality is.

[Mr. Pedantic]

What did everyone think of the actual murder of Fydor Pavlovitch? Did he deserve it? Was Pavel Smerdyakov justified in taking his neglectful and immoral father's life?

I love how Dostoevsky is able to make us wonder whether destroying 'the buffoon' is immoral with the character of Fetyukivitch. "what is a father? a real father? What is the meaning of that great word? What is the idea in that name?" Fetyukivitch is able to articulate what I was thinking the whole with that question.

I believe that Smerdyakov slays Fydor Pavlovitch because he wants to accept Ivan as a surrogate father. He engrosses himself in Ivan's belief of a lawless law, or a world without God. Ivan realizes that the murder was his fault for indoctrinating Smerdyakov with this belief, which causes his mental lapse in the chapter "The Devil". But I keep asking myself 'is his grief justified?'

Also, According to wikipedia "The Brother Karamazov" was supposed to be the inauguration of a four part epic story titled "The Life of a Great Sinner". I'm positively livid that it was never completed, due to Dostoevsky's untimely death.

[Virgil]

What did everyone think of the actual murder of Fydor Pavlovitch? Did he deserve it? Was Pavel Smerdyakov justified in taking his neglectful and immoral father's life?

Well, no one deserves to be murdered. But he was a terrible father. Still I felt some pity for him.

I love how Dostoevsky is able to make us wonder whether destroying 'the buffoon' is immoral with the character of Fetyukivitch. "what is a father? a real father? What is the meaning of that great word? What is the idea in that name?" Fetyukivitch is able to articulate what I was thinking the whole with that question.

That was brilliant!

I believe that Smerdyakov slays Fydor Pavlovitch because he wants to accept Ivan as a surrogate father. He engrosses himself in Ivan's belief of a lawless law, or a world without God. Ivan realizes that the murder was his fault for indoctrinating Smerdyakov with this belief, which causes his mental lapse in the chapter "The Devil". But I keep asking myself 'is his grief justified?'

Not sure I can buy into the "surragte father" part. I think Smerdyakov really beleived in atheism and didn't value Fydor's life. There is a hollowness at the core of Smerdyakov that goes beyond Ivan.

Also, According to wikipedia "The Brother Karamazov" was supposed to be the inauguration of a four part epic story titled "The Life of a Great Sinner". I'm positively livid that it was never completed, due to Dostoevsky's untimely death.

Oh what more brilliance we have lost out by Dosteoevsky's early death. Thank god we got The Brothers Karamazov.

[Dark Muse]

I finally finished the book. It took me longer than I had anticipiated becasue I have to admit that though I did enjoy the book, I felt that towrd the middle of it, it began to get a little slow, and so the reading started to drag a bit at parts for me.

But I have to say that I did find everything following the murder to be quite interesting. I rather enjoyed reading about the trail proceedings in Russia and thought it was a bit humorous the way in which it became so much an event for public entertainment, and the special seats for important people behind the judges, and the reactions of the ladies in the court.

Even though the narrator tells you ahead of time what is going to happen to Dmitri, I still I could not help but root for him to be acquitted and I was so disappointed that the jury found him guilty.

Well, no one deserves to be murdered.

Haha I have to disagree with you there. As for as I am concerned both Smerdyakov and Katerina would have deserved to be murdered.

I think Smerdyakov was in fact a certifiable psychopath and Katerina I never liked her from the start of the book but as the story progressed she grew to be completely loathsome to me, and I wished she would have followed in Smerdyakov's footsteps and took her own life.

Grushenka ended up becoming my favorite character in the whole book.

[Mr. Pedantic]

But I have to say that I did find everything following the murder to be quite interesting. I rather enjoyed reading about the trail proceedings in Russia and thought it was a bit humorous the way in which it became so much an event for public entertainment, and the special seats for important people behind the judges, and the reactions of the ladies in the court.

Yes, the courtroom scene was indeed brilliant. It reminded me of the crucifixion of Christ, or rather a perversion of it because of the spectacle. The men all wanted his head and the woman were weeping for him or in this case fawning over him. Of course, this is because Dimitri is the ever handsome devilish rouge.

I don't necessary agree with your conviction against Katerina. She was wronged by just about ever character in the book, and she truly loves Ivan. I'm quite glad she was able to keep it together. Because it was supposed to be part of an epic, Dostoevsky might need her for later installments.

I'd have to say that, like the narrator, my hero is Alyosha Karamazov. He's smart, forgiving and has perspective. He's the only one of brothers anyone can trust. Although one might have difficulty believing in his overwhelming benignity, he's arguably the only 'good' character in the novel, which only extenuates his divinity. Hurrah for Karamazov!

[Virgil]

Haha I have to disagree with you there. As for as I am concerned both Smerdyakov and Katerina would have deserved to be murdered.

I think Smerdyakov was in fact a certifiable psychopath and Katerina I never liked her from the start of the book but as the story progressed she grew to be completely loathsome to me, and I wished she would have followed in Smerdyakov's footsteps and took her own life.

Grushenka ended up becoming my favorite character in the whole book.

I'm just seeing this now. I agree with you on Smerdyakov based on his actions, not his personality. He is a scary person. I'm with Mr. Pendantic (above post) on Katarina. While she is not so likable for various reasons, I can't say she deserves to be murdered. She has her personality issues as do every character in this novel. I think that's what makes this such a fascinating book - the deep flaws within every character. I like Grushenka too. She reminds me of various Russian immigrants in NYC.

[Dark Muse]

I don't necessary agree with your conviction against Katerina. She was wronged by just about ever character in the book, and she truly loves Ivan. I'm quite glad she was able to keep it together. Because it was supposed to be part of an epic, Dostoevsky might need her for later installments.

The problem with Katerina for me is that for one thing I find her flaws to be particularly unbearable, and I do not find her to have any redeeming qualities. There is nothing about her throughout the book of which I at any moment liked or felt any sympathy towards. Than the straw that really broke the camel's back was the way in which she turned upon Dmitri in the courtroom.

Even Smerdyakov I think I would have been able to feel some sympathy for if it had not been for the whole torturing animals thing and setting Dmitri up for the murder of Fyodor. As for the killing of Fyodor itself, well while the act of murder is wrong, I think pretty much everyone who knew him had good reason to want to kill him. But I could relate to Smerdyakov's misanthropic nature, and general dislike for pretty much everyone. There were things about his personality that I found sardonically amusing. But in the end I cannot say I really felt the least bit sympathy for him, becasue of what he did to Dmitri and the whole hanging cats when he was a boy, and telling Ilyusha to torture the dog.

[Rores28]

I did want to say that I have never laughed so long or hard at a single sentence in a book as I did in BK., and wanted to know if anyone else found this part hilarious.

I can't quote it but its when the narrator, in recounting some newspaper article, relays the name of the town, and says that's he's been concealing it all this time, the implication being that it is a sort of silly sounding name for a town.

I think it may have had to do with the fact that it was so deep in the book before the town was named, or maybe that the narrator was insecure about such an irrelevant fact, but I could not stop laughing.