Reading the Classics discussion

Please discuss Book 11: Ivan.

I'm very struck that the insanity plea is playing such a big part here. I was under the impression that pleading temporary insanity in a murder case was not commonly done until the 20th century. Clearly I need to brush up on my legal history. Frankly, from the way he talks, I tend to think Mitya IS insane, but it's still interesting that this is part of the debate here for the trial.

What on earth is with Lise? My husband could probably diagnose her but with my limited psychological knowledge she's certainly got something wrong with her, with all the crazy histrionics and fits.

The scene with the "devil" was interesting. At first when he was talking, I thought we had the mysterious narrator we've been wondering about, but this is clearly Ivan's inner conflict represented outwardly. Interesting story technique, but even though that chapter was very philosophical, I found it flowed nicely and I enjoyed it. I mean, how many of us talk to ourselves when we have to work out an internal conflict? But it is disturbing to see the level he takes it to.

It was a very interesting chapter, wasn't it? I though the confession of Smerdyakov was very interesting (and did leave a faint hint of satisfaction - I had him pegged, not Mitya) but he's a slimy little rat, he knows that if Ivan tells the story it will appear that Ivan agreed to Smerdyakov killing Fyodor - even if only in a silent manner. But it does leave him in a sticky situation. I still find myself hoping Mitya doesn;t get sent to hard labour, but cannot begin to fathom how he might escape this, especially when he seems such a bubbling buffoon.

not sure the women in the book are improving at all. Katya seems to have a touch of the martyr about her. I don;t think she loves Mitya (especially not after betraying her with Grushenka), but is planning to do the "stand my your man" thing regardless. Liza strikes me as an attention seeking teen who desperately needs a slap.

Can't quite work out the role Ritikin will play in this. if I'm right, was he not at the monestry? So is he a monk, or is he now planning on making his name in moscow with an account of the trial and trying to analyse Mitya's causes of killing? get the feeling he's going to cause trouble, but can't work out how.

And i'm now going to have to motor to the end - I can;t renew my library copy as it's reserved by someone else. I'm not returning it until I'm done, but will be incurring late fees... Hopefully a day or two of solid reading & it should be done!

I'm troubled by the discussion of atheism in this section and in others. What self-centered, ridiculous atheists was D. talking to? No moral code without a god? That's absurd. What about the social contract? I refuse to believe goodness is tied to spritiual faith and don't think Ivan makes a very reliable atheist. He's a prop. But I guess that may be the way I'm supposed to see him, as a silly extremist like so many of the other characters.

And, um, if you don't belive in god, you don't believe in satan either, Ivan. I was really interested to read an atheist character, but this isn't a good representation. Again, maybe that's the point...

I enjoyed this section (more than the previous book with Alyosha and the boys). It was nice to have Ivan back, although I'm still struggling to see how this book is so revered: the brothers are symbols, rather then real characters, the dialogue is far too elaborate and unbelievable and the pacing and plotting is almost amateurish in that it sprays all over the place.

Anyway - Book 11. I loved Ivan's discussion with The devil, it rivals his story of the Grand Inquisitor as the highlight of the book so far. I'm glad that Smerdyakov's confessed, but I see that he's slyly made sure that Ivan can't tell anyone without implicating himself: even giving him the money so that it couldn't be found in Smerdyakov's rooms. Also - how did the narrator know what the Devil looked like?

Intrigued to see how this pans out, but I can't see this getting more than 3 or 4 (at a push) stars from me.

Danielle wrote: "I'm troubled by the discussion of atheism in this section and in others. What self-centered, ridiculous atheists was D. talking to? No moral code without a god? That's absurd. What about the so..."

I think that is the point Dostoevsky is trying to make, that (from his point of view) the atheist idea is ridiculous. Ivan is an atheist, yet his arguments wind around themselves and just don't make any sense, even though he doesn't want to believe in a deity of any kind. He is presenting it in the most ridiculous way possible, without showing an alternative. But that's his prerogative as the author, stating his views in his own way.

I thought the devil was really funny and loved how he made fun of Ivan for going back and forth between believing and disbelieving while basically tormenting himself.

This made me wonder about book characters who contradict themselves. I've read book reviews that have made it out to be a negative thing, but in this novel it's purposely done since Ivan is supposed to symbolize that time period in Russia. That makes the whole thing pretty interesting, and after all, don't we contradict ourselves in real life too? So now I'm wondering why it's seen as a negative thing when book characters do it.

Phil wrote: "I enjoyed this section (more than the previous book with Alyosha and the boys). It was nice to have Ivan back, although I'm still struggling to see how this book is so revered: the brothers are sym..."

You bring out a very interesting point. How does the narrator know what the devil looks like? He is an image of Ivan's subconscious. I don't remember Ivan ever describing him to anyone except maybe if he did to one of the doctors. But the narrator would have to be a doctor who lived in that town.