And just like that, it’s Week 2. It’s been fun to see so many people diving in. I can report that this is now, by far, our biggest DM to date. Promising news for the magnet industry!
So OK, you’ve bought the book and you’ve read a few chapters. Which is awesome. But don’t get overconfident. I agree (so far) with the ‘marchers who’ve said this is more of a treat than a slog. Book 2 in particular started to downright zip along. But could it be that the very enjoyability of the read (so far) turns out to be the thing that gets you to let your guard down? to put the book aside for a day, then two? Be vigilant, ‘march-mates! There’s a long road ahead with tens of thousands of pages left for us to read (collectively) afore we’re through.
On a less overwhelming note, there’ve been a few questions about how to know when the next thread is up. And I can report that it’ll always be Wednesday, usually (hopefully) by 2 pm PST. Some other tips:
* if you want to jump straight to the deathmarch page to see where things are at (rather than going to the site’s home page) you can find that here.
* If you use an RSS reader you can also subscribe to the site here to see when the latest post has gone live.
* I also announce each week’s post in my poem-of-the-not-quite-every-day mailing list, which features short poetry by Levertov, Snyder, Brautigan, Li Po, Oppen, and other swell poetry-folks. If that interests ya, just send me a note.
Looking forward to the next stretch of the trail. Merry ‘marching all…
-Cecil
Next Wednesday: Let’s meet up at the end of Book Three, Chapter 5, where I’m told “there will be no horror.”
(which is to say: please use this Week 2 thread for comments on pages 0-122; aim to finish reading that section and shout out here by end o’ day Tuesday)
But where do we post our comments? Here or at the Deathmarch page?
Hi ML,
Actually, it’s the same entry in either spot. The deathmarch page is just a way to filter things down to only view deathmarch entries (as opposed to the main page, which shows deathmarch + everything else on the site). In both cases, you get the most recent entry up top, and then scroll down for older posts.
Make more sense?
-Cecil
Sorry if I got this wrong, but I’m leaving my week two comment (for pages 1-59) here. As funny as the book is I am struck by its existential heaviness and its authenticity. It feels like you’re boarding a large time capsule, smelling the incense at the monastary, watching the women teeter on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Life was hard. Harder than anything we modern westerners know. I admire Dostoevsky’s commitment to exploring psychological and spiritual truth in the thick of the hardship.
I can’t say I felt this was an easy, breezy read.
Hi Roxana,
Not wrong at all. You can comment here on everything from the beginning up to the end of this week’s reading on page 122. Also, I really agree — there’s much weighty material here, alongside the fast moving Fyodor-ish mayhem. I think mainly I was just happy to see that that unlike Gravity’s Rainbow, I don’t have to read most sentences three times. 🙂
-Cecil
This isn’t my official week’s post, but the meet up next week “where there is no horror” (p. 122) is the end of Book 3, Chapter 5, not the end of Chapter 6 (p. 127). Just trying to help to make up for posting last week’s comment in the wrong place!
>>>
update: Thanks T OM in KS — fixed now! -Cecil
What I found most striking about these first 59 pages was Dostoevsky’s characterization.
Chapters 1 and 2 made me view Fyodor Pavlovich as a neglectful, pathetic drunk (which he was) but also a more conniving, wicked person (which I thought he was). As I read further along, his patheticalness made him into another character. He is a very entertaining character.
Out of the three son, I am most curious about Ivan. He seems the more complex.
On another note, has anyone noticed that they carry around this book like a bad habit. I carry it with me into the living room, the kitchen, the car. I think I’m unconsciously hoping osmosis will do the rest.
Working to catch up. On p. 44 I came across a passage I remembered from my first reading, a real humdinger of a piece of cautionary advice:
“Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself.”
A lot of heavy truth there. I would have it tattooed on the back of my hand if it were a little shorter.
I *did* get it tattooed on the back of my left hand. I just got a magnifying glass tattooed on the back of my right.
Another “process” question: this post isn’t in the deathmarch category, so it doesn’t appear in the swart/deathmarch listings page. Are the posts updated to the new category when the following week’s post is published?
As for the book, I suspect my experience is a bit different than most readers: I opted to go with an audio version of the book, using the Gutenberg version as a backup. Am I cheating? Not sure. Thus far, I’ve found myself reading sections in text form that were confusing when listening. I’m thankful I did, as remembering names is quite a bit easier when you know how to spell them.
Sadly, I won’t have a dogeared book when I’m done, as Julia may.
>>>
yikes! — fixed now! Thanks a lot for catching that, Kitt. They’ll all end up on the deathmarch page. This is just bad-sloppiness. Also, no problem about the audio version. If the words enter the brain, it’s all square. -Cecil
When I read literature from another age and culture, I often find myself wishing I had a more complete knowledge of the world in which the narrative takes place.
For example, this names business. I know we have nicknames & pet names: i.e. William, Bill, Billy, Billy Bob, etc. But apparently at this time period in Russia it was carried to an extreme. If it weren’t for the List of Characters provided in the front of our official version, I’m afraid I’d be hopelessly confused as to who’s who.
Then there are these periodic interludes of long, philosophical discussions/arguments such as p. 59-70. It seems here is an explanation how in future decades a deeply religious society in which “everyone” was part of the Russian Orthodox Church, could give birth to an atheistic communist regime: In the words of Father Paissy, “The Church ought to be transforming itself into the state, from a lower to a higher species, as it were, so as to disappear into it eventually, making way for science, the spirit of the age, and civilization.” A society in which everyone marches to the same drummer is most easily taken in a different direction by a new drummer.
Finally there’s this exclamation by Dmitri to Alyosha “It’s a pity you never hit on ecstasy” (p. 105), in the midst of a monologue that sounds like he was on that very drug. Could the inventors of this drug have gotten its name from this passage?
“It’s a pity you never hit on ecstasy” (p. 105)
That passage made me laugh as well, for the same reason. Especially the “hit on.” Such foresight, Dmitri!
Fyodor is an incredible character. Horrifying and horrible, and yet in at least a couple places, seemingly the smartest guy in the room. Or maybe just the most honest. The way he gets the better of Miusov every time is both comic and brutal.
wheeeeee–this week’s march covered a lot of territory–money, lust, devotion of all sorts, stinking lizaveta’s mystery child, and lots of confessing before the fact; does that make absolution less arduous afterward (it’s just like money in the bank!)? seems like an abdication of will to me: “i’m an insect so i’m going to go ahead and be an insect! in fact, i’m going to wallow in it. now give me points for honesty!!!” only alyosha seems to be trying. and now the dying elder wants him to go out and live in the world; is it a test?
I think this would make a great soap opera, with long philosophical discussions thrown in. I keep thinking of Love and Death, though I think that was supposed to be a spoof of Tolstoy.
Well, I finished reading this weeks section which means I am very impatiently waiting on Wednesday now so that I can begin reading again.
I’m having trouble with the nicknames vs. real names too, and leaving the book for a few days and the picking it back up again isn’t helping anything. I’m reading an old Penguin Classics copy that I had on my shelf and unfortunately it doesn’t have a list of characters up front, so I’m out of luck there. Learning you guys have one reminds me of the horror of learning that other copies of A Clockwork Orange have glossaries in the back. I had to figure it out on context! Context!
Anyway, this book is kind of a conundrum to me. I’m 142 pages in and still feel like I’m still just barely being introduced to the story. Of course, I have a another 240 pages to go just in this volume, so I’m sure we’ll get into it.
After a thirty-minute reading session last night I discovered I’d passed week 2 target. That must say something about the readability of “The Brothers K”. After Alyoshas’ conversation with Dmitri/Mitya/whoever, the impression I’m left with is that almost everyone in the book, so far, suffers from bi-polar personality with no medication yet available. Even Alyosha is being left with glimpses of the same malady.
Erin’s Mom, Lynn Barrett
I am in the middle of the week 2 section and still finding the book a hard read. I enjoyed the philosophical discussion about socialism and the Church, which has some truth about it when you think of tithing etc.
Are there any characters here that are not dishonest and generally awful (except Alyosha)?
Gail
Dostoyevsky’s characters remind me a little of pachinko balls bouncing in totally unpredictable ways to the floor of their shocking desires. Why anyone in this book wants any of the things they want is a mystery, especially to the wanter, which I guess is part of the point—“Here God gave us only riddles. Here the shores converge, here all contradictions live together” (p. 108). Or maybe better:
“Because when I fall into the abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I’m even pleased that I’m falling in just such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful. And so in that very shame I suddenly begin a hymn.” (Dmitri K., p. 107)
In a world like that, the saints so far seem like the ones who watch it all and manage to not judge. Or judge and still forgive: “You are the angel on earth. You will listen, you will judge, and you will forgive … And that is what I need, that someone higher forgive me.” (Dmitri to Alyosha, p. 105)
I have no idea where things are going, but neither does anyone else in the book it seems, or even–maybe most of all–Fyodor “Heavy” D. himself. Onward and downward!
There is a list of characters in front of my book with pronunciation. It says that the z in Karamazov should be pronounced like the z in zoo, not the z in Mozart. Which is the opposite of what I thought it was.
Thanks for the comments about the narrator – I had not noticed him as a person in the town – I don’t know why because it is so obvious. But in any case, I am wondering whether he is or will be an actual character in the book, perhaps a minor character like a bartender or something. Also, I wonder if an author ever does that on purpose – so the reader could try to guess who the “real” narrator is. It might be an interesting device – like a detective story.
At first I thought the discussion on Ivan’s article about church and state was kind of irrelevant to modern America – there is no powerful church that could become the state. But then I realized the point about the separation of church and state is alive and well today – take the stem cell research situation for example. If someone is a political leader and really has a deep religious conviction against stem cell research – it must be hard to separate himself from that.
I had two things going during the reading this week. 1. Footnotes. When did I become fascinated by footnotes? These footnotes are almost as fun (even if somewhat distracting) as the regular text! My favorite so far has been the explanation of “When in Rome Do as the Romans Do” on page 37 (note on page 780). But now, when the occasion presents itself, I’m going to use the Dostoevsky version: “Hey You! Don’t Take Your Ordo to Another Monastery!” 2. A year ago last spring, I visited my son who lives in Kiev, Ukraine, and we did the required monastery tour. Since the monasteries were not a priority during the Communist regimes, they are in pretty bad shape structurally, so I feel like I really had been walking through some of the monastery scenes Mr. D. describes. I’m a little behind on my reading (gotta stop flipping back to the footnotes), but plan to catch up big time this week.
I can say that I read this week, but I am still wading through Week 1’s section being in the muddle that I am, and for what it’s worth I enjoyed Fyodor’s musings on the illogic of hell, that is to say, his strange moments of clarity are lovely.
Just throwing my name in – got a bit more reading to do tonight. Just had a quick scan through the comments, glad to see everyone is enjoying it so far! Although there are twelve million pages left, so I’m hoping the enthusiasm lasts 🙂
Stuart.
I found the start of Book 3 (chapters 1 & 2) to be particularly poetic and clear. In fact, for me it was a breath of fresh air. The backstory of Grigory and Marfa, and subsequently of Lizaveta and how her baby became the servants’ baby reminded me of the fateful encounters of Dickensian characters, when some sort of mystical (aka coincidental) occurence changes their lives.
What struck me is how *sensual* these passages were (in synch with the title of Book 3, The Sensualists):
the austere silence between G and M, speaking “very little to each other…only of the most necessary daily things”; Marfa’s “special Russian dance,” afterwich Grigory “pulls on her hair a little”; the kid born with 6 fingers, and how this “struck [Grigory’s] heart with grief and horror”; the image of Lizaveta dying next to her newborn in the bath house…(pp 92-100).
I appreciated the simple clarity of this particular tale in the story, given the contrast with the weighty and heady discourses from previous pages. I enjoy reading the verbose thoughts of the elders and Ivan, filled with philophical and idealogical paradox, but the clarity of the above simple spiritual tale feels like order in an otherwise chaotic world that Dosto creates.
Seems like a good example of form reflecting content, since it makes sense that the content would be most challenging (for me, at least) amid verbal masturbation regarding the church, the state, criminals, good and evil, etc. The simple story of how this baby came to Grigory and Marfa, on the other hand, is clear and sensual, as opposed to the elders’, et al, lengthy and verbose pontification.
Fyodor is a wild character, shameless and self-aware, rich and boorish (well, that’s nothing new)and from the first paragraph, I do wonder about his “dark and tragic death,” which the narrator will disclose “in its proper place.” For some reason, I think that will also make order of this chaos. And I have a feeling that the narrator is from the monestary. Don’t quote me, just a hit I got somewhere while reading…
Marching on!
alex.
I like Dmitri’s quote about going head first into the abyss.
Also, although I thought the discussion of church and state was a bit unnecessary, I still thought the discussion of church, state, and socialism was interesting when considered in light of where Russia was going to be in the not too distant future.
I think comparing the Church to a “loving and tender mother” (p.65) says a lot, given the characterizations of women and mothers in particular. The elder is sending a lot of mixed messages about women, and I’m even more curious about the role of women in BK.
Not quite finished with this week’s piece – I’m in the
Bahamas, so it’s hard to drag myself into 19th Century Russia. I plan to finish the rest on the flight home tomorrow.
Just hit 122. Scribbling notes in the back of the book to try and keep up with all the love and hate, as characters and relationships twist and turn “as unexpectedly as in an Arabian tale.”
-Cecil
Just completed this week’s marching, and enjoyed reading through everyone else’s comments so far. My favourite passages are those describing Fyodor Pavlovich’s buffoonery, which form a hilarious and disturbing “see-” to the “-saw” of theoretical discussions regarding church and state. I enjoyed Zosima’s summarizing of Ivan’s almost Kierkegaardian predicament,
‘in all likelihood you yourself do not believe either in the immortality of your soul or even in what you have written about the Church and the Church question’ (70).
But the Fear and Trembling comes from Alyosha and Dmitri’s conversation. Dmitri’s drunken (‘cognac is cognac’) tremble and Alyosha’s fear that he is on the bottom rung of the Karamazov ladder destined to carry on till the top. (It sounds more like an escalator to me than a ladder but I take his point).
I am loving this march so far, and the verve with which our peculiar and suspect narrator introduces new characters such as Lizaveta and Smerdyakov: ‘I am ashamed to distract my reader’s attention for such a long time to such ordinary lackeys’… hmmm.
The woman’s struggle with faith towards the beginning of this section is something that really resonated with me. If I take nothing else away from the march, I think that bit was worth it.
I’m in Hondouras doing some medical work, but I managed to read a ton while waiting for flights. I even passed Justin.
Not sure if my question counted as a comment, Cecil, so I am adding another to this week before it’s Wednesday again.
I would like to also comment on So-Called Bill’s call out of the quote on p 44 about a man who lies to himself. That bit alone has me continuing in the March. Just amazing.
I am also surprised that it seems so modern, not set in 1880 (or whenever). I am also surprised by all the Christianity. Was he trying to convert the masses or educate or is that how it was in Russia in those times? I guess he is educating me, huh?
ml
What a kerfuffle! All the variant spellings are starting to confuse my addled mind, and the identities of some of the more minor characters are escaping me.
I wouldn’t like to get stuck in a conversation with a drunken Dmitri. Black coffee, anyone?
Alyosha is obviously gagging for it, and seems ready to grab the hand-rail and start climbing those steps. A lot of this week’s reading seemed to do with nature vs. nurture. Alyosha can recognise a lot of his holy self in Dmitri, even though the latter is a self-confessed “insect”, and vice versa. No pun intended.
Curious that the author gave Fyodor his own name, considering the character of Fyodor (which is definitely getting more complex as we work our way into the book).
It stuck me in the preface about how the author spent time in prison and how he allowed that experience to shape him for the better. Very humbling. So we know the author is coming from a much more advanced place than his character Fyodor, yet it makes you wonder if he’s drawing parallels or just having fun there.
Poor Marfa and Grigory and their 6-fingered son. I’m curious about why 6 fingers was such a horrible thing and the background of that, especially considering Grigory is painted as one who loves children. I guess this is a major case of things having changed from Russia in the 1800s… no more shunning a babe just because of an extra digit or two.
the examination of dmitri is a self-administered colonoscopy
the insects clogging the tubes!
the examination of alyosha is a seance where the ectoplasm is as warm as mother’s milk
ivan has outsmarted all our examinations, we dont know what to do with him, he is traumatized by his own genius
Smerdyakov may prove to be the hidden thorn in well-manicured gnome-bespotted garden — he is the son of a “stinker” and a “karamazov”
he grunted, took a drag from his unfiltered cigarette, pushed his cowlick in its unintended direction and said, ” I can be evil because I am karamazov”
everything is permitted, not only according to ivan’s left-field, masturbatory theory-thwacking theology but also according to the “moral steps” theory of alyosha — the angel with a thorn in his side — or a insect in his heart… and a PENCHANT TO KILL???
the ecstasy of fyodor as he left the father superior’s picnic, was contagious — but maximus had bad breath???
marfa is a good wife
greg is a good serf
al is a good brother
A week away and already 60 pages behind, need to catch up…
Shoutout!
Week 2 and I’m still with the pack. I have to say I’m enjoying it more than I thought; this being my first foray into Russian literature. Unfortunately, my copy doesn’t have a cast of characters & Mr D. likes to switch back & forth between the proper name & the nickname. I think I’ll start a chart – six degrees to Fyodor.
This week’s comments got me thinking more about Ivan’s weird take on Church/State relations, which I’d only skimmed before. Then that got me thinking about Molly’s comment on Dostoyevsky having been a prisoner.
It seemed strange to me, too, that Dostoyevsky would give over so much space to an argument that entails turning the clock back on the whole 19th century, or maybe resetting it to before Peter the Great. Part of the problem is that when I think “church & state,” the church looks pretty much like Jerry Falwell in a Christian rock arena and the state like Abraham Lincoln holding up the Bill of Rights with a dewy-eyed “only you can prevent forest fires” sort of look.
Having been a prisoner himself, Dostoevsky might be imagining a totally different kind of state—the one that enjoys a monopoly on violence. The state you face as a taxpayer is very different than the one you face in San Quentin, or on the wrong side of an air raid. Is the way we currently treat those who oppose the state’s interests really the best, or even the only way of relating to other persons? Or are there alternatives we don’t consider anymore because the state’s been around for so long, and keeps telling us what a swell job it’s doing?
Ivan himself doesn’t seem to believe what he’s writing, so maybe it’s all just meant as a thought experiment. But one effect was to start me brooding about how often the state sells itself to us as the only option for ensuring a free and just society, when in fact there might be others—not necessarily the church, either Falwell’s or Zosima’s, but maybe something a little more forgiving of our foibles and failings. I can’t imagine any of our Karamazovs flourishing, or even surviving, in the 21st century American state. There’s no scope here for their wretchedness and passions, and maybe that’s our problem, not theirs.
What do you think?
Alex mentioned the Dickensian characters. I think Dickens is an interesting parallel for Dostoevsky. I find Dickens more accessible, mostly because British culture is so much more familiar than Russian culture. But their work does seem similar in some noticeable ways: length, variety of characters (also number of grotesque characters), and the moral focus of their work. I’m hoping that the characters in this book will begin to draw me into it in the way that some of Dickens’ characters draw me into his.
I remember a note from my 12th grade English teacher, on my paper about “Crime & Punishment,” saying that it wasn’t appropriate to use character’s nicknames in formal papers. But again, Dostoevsky kept calling Raskolnikov “Rodya”, so I picked up his habit. I’m keeping up with the Brothers K nicknames well enough, mostly because of the list of characters at the beginning. Here’s a list of characters for those with a different version of the book: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/brothersk/characters.html
Oh crap. Am I too late. I keep forgetting about posting at the end of each week.
Onward!
And Mom, you’re dead on. You should’ve been a psychologist instead of an editor/medical technologist.
Love, E.
Present and accounted for, behind a few dozen pages. But hey, it’s my birthday.
Present and accounted for, behind a few dozen pages. But hey, it’s my birthday.
the book has gotten richer, more interesting, and more of a joy to read. at least until the last few pages — the bit in the dilapidated gazebo with dmitri and alexei has gotten a bit tedious, but i guess we’re still getting some necessary exposition (tho i’m starting to wonder how much of it is relevant at all). but, my favorite of favorite sections was the random story about stinking lizaveta. crossing my fingers that ‘karp with the screw’ shows up again later, just for his name alone.
Trying to keep up!
Zosima bowing to Dmitri? Interesting stuff. Rakitin’s hypothesizing is devious, I love it.
I really liked Rodney’s pointing out the different take on church and state that F.D. must have had, coming from the state he had to deal with in his life. And we all know how broken our own justice system of today is. Interesting to think… about the possibility of a better way. Although of course the idea of church rule rightly gives us all the serious heeby jeebies. Good food for thought though.
Phew! Barely made it. What a book. Great things are yet to come. How could these three brothers be anything less than fascinating considering their father’s proclivities. Nothing like an indifferent, mad parent to bring the most out of his children.
I’m reminded of “The Last American Man,” the biography of Eustace Conway, who’s been described as “a cross between Davy Crockett and Henry David Thoreau.” Conway accomplishes some amazing things, and a primary motivator seems to be his father’s unbelievable indifference to him and all he does.
This lead me to believe that those of us from relatively stable, loving homes have been deprived of certain things that might push us toward greatness, or at the very least, eccentricity of a high order.
That said, greatness and eccentricity can be costly. As Richard Thompson wrote, “There is no rest for the ones God blessed, and he blessed you most of all.”
I’m on a trip and horribly behind, but I have the next 3 days off, and I’ll catch up, I swear!
Well, I’m still behind but steadily making up ground. Hope to be caught up by by the end of week 3! (And might even have some legitimate commentary to offer….)
ok, i’m running behind about 30 pages. was hoping to finish tonight, but sleep overcomes…
Theres nowhere Id rather be than posting comments in the back of the pack, just before the week’s deadline. Things that stuck out for me:
Zosima to Alyosha – “seek happiness in sorrow” – is that the only way for a moral human being to make it thru a troubled world?
Narrator periodically putting up apparent contraditions: Dmitri is strong but sickly, his gaze is firm but vague.
Narrator putting out a couple of “nota bene”s to help the reader understand. But why do so in that way?
D being a good brother to A by offering the kind of advice most little brothers most cherish (but Alyosha?), “Many women like frankness, make a note of that”
“Little Yid” sighting, p. 83.
At the end of this week’s reading, D saying, “Ill sit and wait for a miracle. But if it doesnt happen, then..” So, if no miracles, then murder?
A bit behind, as I’ve been suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance as I try to read Dostoyevsky while vacationing in the happiest place on earth. Still interested in the odd way the narration is handled–almost like a roving camera that constantly shifts point of view. As in the paragraph on pp. 84-5, which begins from Miusov’s POV, but shifts to Ratikin almost without warning.
Also really enjoying, if that’s the right word, the character of Fyodor. A horrible guy, but so interesting to watch.
Kind of in a happily confused state about the book right now. But am marching on. Perhaps next week’s comment will be more enlightened.
Yes, re: church and state and Rodney’s comment that the discussion seems to draw into question the state’s sole right to punish those who divert from its code. Someone at one point says something along the lines of ‘the church would not become the state’, but rather the ‘state would become the church’. I think there is something very eery about those lines in their smug reluctance to take responsibility and their unwavering faith, even though they are framed as being a positive transformation.
I found it strange that their discussion immediately moved to questions of crime and punishment, as if that is the only way in which the state influences the individual. Perhaps it’s just a forewarning of some criminal act about to be committed, but i think it is strange and (again!) eery that Zosima performs this ‘bow’ to Dmitri. In the eyes of Zosima, the Karamazov-brothers and possibly Dmitri in particular, have already committed some crime, the judgment has already been passed no matter what plays out in the story. This doesn’t seem a ringing endorsement of church justice. And Zosima (i know he’s ill so i should lay off, but) doesn’t make any effort i see to intervene, to mend, to heal or save or prevent, rather he does this creepy, condemnatory bow.
who there is
who doesn’t love
one’s own
Adam’s apple
Spent last night racing to catch up. Have to admit the first week was difficult, too many superlatives, just wanted to ask him to get to the point dammit. I enjoyed this week much more, better stories. It strikes me that it is similar to Dickens work and that I can tell that it was originally presented in a serial format as many chapters end with a tease about what’s coming next.
Still trying to care about any of the characters.
Slow going for me. I liked Fyodor’s excoriation of the monks on p. 74: “…even Christ forgave her who loved much…”
“Christ did not forgive that kind of love…,” escaped impatiently from the meek Father Iosif.
“No, that kind, monks, exactly that kind, that kind! You are saving your souls here on cabbage and you think you are righteous! You eat gudgeons, one gudgeon a day, and you think you can buy God with gudgeons.”
Just love that phrase “saving your souls here on cabbage” and the distinction between “righteous” self-denial and true love and forgiveness.
Rodney K. wrote:
“But one effect was to start me brooding about how often the state sells itself to us as the only option for ensuring a free and just society, when in fact there might be others — not necessarily the church, either Falwell’s or Zosima’s, but maybe something a little more forgiving of our foibles and failings.”
Great question, Rodney. There are examples of societies that are “more forgiving.” However, these are usually extended families, clans or villages. Unfortunately, once a society reaches a certain size people seem to either require or desire more regulation.
“I can’t imagine any of our Karamazovs flourishing, or even surviving, in the 21st century American state. There’s no scope here for their wretchedness and passions, and maybe that’s our problem, not theirs.”
I don’t know if I agree with this. Perhaps I’m not certain what you mean when you say “There’s no scope here for their wretchedness and passions….”
Could you elaborate?
Week 2 and im still marching on! Next week i will try to post something when im not at work! Surprisingly i am way into this book, the philosophical discsusion is heavy but certainly welcome.
I’m keeping up but need to reread to see the whole and the parts. Picking up on Rodney’s comment question about the Russian state and whether the debauched Karamazovs could thrive in 21 century America, I’d say they could. The might have had some trouble avoiding surveillance during the last administration, but there are cults aplenty to provide a semblance of family and identity for the likes of Alyosha and blogging opportunities for Ivan and junk culture for Dmitri and their dad.
Yes, the Russian “state” seems opposite the church but so infiltrated by it. State in the novel seems to translate to authority, law, and an unforgiving power over the lives of these characters, the lucky of whom own land or have carved out a niche. It’s interesting to read characters’ surmising on on the spiritual and moral promises of “socialism” in pre-communist Russia, Tsarist Russia.
I don’t think Papa Karamazov is a whole lot different from a certain male type that exists in many cultures: sires kids with different women; wheels & deals as a “businessman”; abandons his kids.
Yeah….what he said. One of these days I will write a real post as soon as I catch up…still on the first week’s allotment……I like seeing the images of the monastery as they’re conjured up in my mind….
Marie Jensen
Well, I’m caught up with last week but dragging this week. The good news is I now have the right edition, which also means larger type, so I expect to pick up steam this coming weekend.
I agree with the general thread that the twists and turns of this gang seem to fit modern American dysfunctional family life and types pretty well – like Arrested Development with fewer laughs…
Given that I am doing this late I will brief: love love love the characters, the complexity and the relationships as they are developing.
Things moving a bit slower for me this week, still loving it though. This is a really thought-provoking read for me, and I find myself thinking about the characters and their situations quite often.
i’m way behind and late to post, but resolve to do better next week.
Uh oh! I should be 8 hours ahead since I’m in England, but here I am a day late! Currently typing this on my brother in law’s blackberry. I am trying to keep up though my new niece and her mom are keeping me busy. It helps that the book is a much easier read than I anticipated. I managed to read 37 pages while hiding out in the bathtub. I can’t wait to find out what happens in the coming chapters. Will try to post on time next week and am back home on the 15th.
Am struck by how psychologically astute Dostoevsky was. I’m impressed by the detail with which he creates these characters’ shortcomings, weaknesses, pathologies, motivations, etc. For someone who was living in a heavily religious time, his view of human nature seems very advanced and modern to me. Fyodor is so deeply disturbing to me. He feels very three-dimensional, almost unfictional – like he belongs in a textbook case study.
One of the things I found most interesting about this section was the discussion in the early part of it about the relationship between Church and State. It gave me an insight on how different 19th century Russian thinking was from contemporary American thinking on this topic. And yet, in some ways, the same.