The Fyodor Dostoyevsky Group discussion

This portion covers Book I: A NICE LITTLE FAMILY and Book II: AN INAPPROPRIATE GATHERING - starting from Book I Chapter I. Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov to the end of Book II Chapter VIII. Scandal

I'm done reading Book I and well, I'm hooked. It's always exciting to encounter an unreliable narrator and Dostoyevsky has managed to stirred the interest from the very first page. The three brothers have been introduced in this section and I'm quite taken up with the portrait of Alexei.

There are many biblical references and end notes though I'm not looking at each one of them. The section regarding 'elders' was particularly intriguing to me since it reminded me of the concept of 'Guru' which is a part of the eastern tradition and cultures (as mentioned by Dostoyevsky too). And the underlying criticism to 'elders' can be applied to 'Gurus' too.

There is so much one can find in this first book alone and as far as translation is concerned, P&V is rocking for me. On to Book II now.

Garima wrote: "I'm done reading Book I and well, I'm hooked. It's always exciting to encounter an unreliable narrator and Dostoyevsky has managed to stirred the interest from the very first page. The three brothe..."

Yay you started. Meanwhile, I am stuck at the 40% mark and need to get back in the game. Alexei shines in the beginning and later on Ivan outshines him.
And thematically speaking, this book is a mine of wealth. Importance of faith, morality, the deep disconnect between day-to-day living and spirituality - everything is discussed and expounded on.

Samadrita wrote: "Garima wrote: "I'm done reading Book I and well, I'm hooked. It's always exciting to encounter an unreliable narrator and Dostoyevsky has managed to stirred the interest from the very first page. T..."

I finally did. I'm enjoying the light humorous tone of the narrative too which is helping with the reading pace but I'm sure the denseness of the text in further chapters will slow me down which happened with NFU too. We will see.

I have been enjoying this book very much. Unfortunately, due to so much other things that I need to get done beforehand, I will have to stop reading it for a while.... I really wanted to read it with you all now but life always gets in the way!

I just finished Books I and II.

Samadrita, it's true, the exploration of the "Importance of faith, morality, the deep disconnect between day-to-day living and spirituality" helped along by hilarity as Garima stated. I laughed out loud.

The Karamazov family dynamics in the spiritual center of the dying elder's (Father Zosima) cell as well as the Father Superior's dinner, were simultaneously mortifying, as seen through Alyosha's eyes...and humorous.

At moments it seemed a 19th century version of a modern day reality show. A spectator sport.

Daisy wrote: "I have been enjoying this book very much. Unfortunately, due to so much other things that I need to get done beforehand, I will have to stop reading it for a while.... I really wanted to read it wi..."

Sorry to hear that, Daisy. Life gets in the way of our reading sometimes but I hope our flexible schedule will help you stay on track.

Ce Ce wrote: "I just finished Books I and II.

Samadrita, it's true, the exploration of the "Importance of faith, morality, the deep disconnect between day-to-day living and spirituality" helped along by hilarit..."

Yes it was so embarrassing wasn't it? Especially for Alexei. The way Fyodorovitch Karamazov behaved added to the ludicrousness of the situation but it was irritating all the same.
All the hilarious and dramatic happenings have the tonality of a soap opera, but then out of the blue Dostoyevsky inserts Ivan's profoundly spiritual thoughts on the follies of human nature and Father Zossima's anecdotes and his uplifting thoughts on universal brotherhood and my reverence for this masterpiece increases manifold.

Great remarks Garima!
I am half way of the novel, yesterday I finished Book VIII and I realize that years spent in Siberia reading and rereading the New Testament filled this novel with biblical references that I miss most of the time. Every single scene, every single character can be related to some of the passages of the New Testament.
But I also chose to keep reading, get the plot first and maybe if I ever decide to read the Bible, try to understand all the religious symbolism imprinted in this epic.
Also, I was wondering about the jesting tone that you Samadrita point out in your last comment. My Garnett's translation doesn't come as particularly teasing. There are some scenes that might have been comical, for example, the buffoonery shown by Fyodor when they meet with Father Zossima in Book II, which for me was quite revealing about the nature of each character. But I found there was more self-pity and irony that hilarity. Or at least that was my reading of it.

For me the first two books serve the purpose of presenting the basis of a very complex spiritual chess game and its players:
- Fyodor - A man who has abandoned all hope of redemption. He doesn't seek for salvation, he lives on the joys of life ignoring morality and enjoying the hedonistic pleasures of life no matter what.
- Ivan - Cold, analytical, strategist, very sharp witted. He believes human beings are essentially bad and corrupted, like his own father whom he despises.
- Alyosha - Untainted, faithful, pure hearted and embracing. He is Ivan's opposite, he believes human beings are essentially good, like Father Zossima.
- Dimitri - He is a blend between Fyodor and Alyosha. Seeks for earthy pleasure but is fearful of God. He will have to prove himself to the reader.
More characters will be introduced as the novel advances.
So we have the players situated on the board and the chess game is about to start involving the constant spiritual struggle, conflicts dealing with faith and the double edged sword of moral responsibility and the burden of free will.

Samadrita wrote: "Alexei shines in the beginning and later on Ivan outshines him."

Samadrita I don't know how far you've read but I thought Alyosha outshone Ivan in the end.
(view spoiler)[ Are you talking about The Great Inquisitor chapter? That was the most magnificent exposition that vouches for atheism that I have ever read. But I thought the end was quite ambiguous, because even though Iván certainly makes the best of Alyosha's spiritual counterarguments he is completely moved when his brother approaches and kisses him on the lips mimicking imprisoned Jesus in Ivan's story. And Iván is dumbstruck by that gesture. It seemed to me that deep down he is seeking for forgiveness and for a transcendental revelation and that he badly wants to see the world as Alyosha's does, but he is much wiser and experienced than his brother, hence his constant inner struggle. (hide spoiler)]

Dolors, you are so right about the Biblical allusions. I feel the disadvantage of not being acquainted with the Bible while reading TBK myself. A long time ago I had a pocket-sized Bible which contained a summary of the events in both the Old and New Testaments, but that was read when I was a kid. And I retain nothing aside from the Noah's Ark chapter (which for obvious reasons had appealed to a child's imagination) and Cain and Abel's story.
So yes a reading of the Bible has to be included among future reading endeavours.

And as per your last comment regarding Alyosha and Ivan, till the portion I have read Alyosha seems like a very kind-hearted, well-meaning, stubborn believer in the basic goodness in human beings and an ideal specimen of humanity in this context. But somehow Ivan won me over with his sharp cynicism and his suppressed desire to be a believer. I guess I could have related with Ivan the most because my world views are somewhat similar to his. Ivan is bitter about the cruelty of humans but then he also wishes for humanity to redeem itself, he sorely desires it. And his dilemma struck a chord with me.
So yes in the conventional sense, Ivan doesn't outshine Alyosha. But I admire his humanely flaws more than Alyosha's perfect humanity.

Ce Ce wrote: "At moments it seemed a 19th century version of a modern day reality show. A spectator sport. "

This is so true.

Dolors wrote: My Garnett's translation doesn't come as particularly teasing. There are some scenes that might have been comical, for example, the buffoonery shown by Fyodor when they meet with Father Zossima in Book II, which for me was quite revealing about the nature of each character. But I found there was more self-pity and irony that hilarity.

That particular chapter was especially funny. I can't say anything about Garnett's translation but in P&V, the tone certainly encourages the reader to have a good laugh. The same humor can be found in Gogol's prose too. Irony is definitely there but instead of tut-tut, I'm doing ha-ha more ;)

Dolors wrote: "For me the first two books serve the purpose of presenting the basis of a very complex spiritual chess game and its players:
- Fyodor - A man who has abandoned all hope of redemption. He doesn't se..."

Excellent summation, Dolors. I'm done reading Book II and by the end of 'scandal' my head was literally spinning. Poor Karamazov brothers, they have such a clownish and incorrigible father. This section also touched upon the subject that what it means to be a Karamazov in the eyes of outsiders. The points regarding faith and love for Mankind were quite insightful and suggests that they both are surrounded with so many conditions to survive in this world governed with practicality. I'm yet to form a concrete opinion regarding all the characters introduced till now since I know it's too early to say anything with surety after giving a little peek into your and Samadrita's comment. :)

Garima wrote: "That particular chapter was especially funny. I can't say anything about Garnett's translation but in P&V, the tone certainly encourages the reader to have a good laugh. The same humor can be found in Gogol's prose too. Irony is definitely there but instead of tut-tut, I'm doing ha-ha more ;) "

Humor is so subjective. Informed by our culture. Our life experience. Socio-economic background. The time in our life...maturity in the sense of passage of years. I am reading Garnett's translation and was humored by each of the characters in turn. They read, in my eyes, as perfectly imperfect caricatures for a morality play.

Samadrita wrote: "Dolors, you are so right about the Biblical allusions. I feel the disadvantage of not being acquainted with the Bible while reading TBK myself. A long time ago I had a pocket-sized Bible which cont..."

I am not at all well versed on the Bible...but the Trinity is divine. I think it is no accident that there are three sons who seem to encompass the human condition.

I searched the religious significance of the number three or trinity...the search could probably turn into a lifetime of study...but simply...here are a few nuggets...

All things that are specially complete are stamped with this number three.

God's attributes are three: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Three persons, in grammar, express and include all the relationships of mankind.

Thought, word, and deed, complete the sum of human capability.

When we turn to the Scriptures, this completion becomes Divine, and marks Divine completeness or perfection.

Three is the number associated with the Godhead, for there are "three persons in one God." Three times the Seraphim cry, "Holy, Holy, Holy"--one for each of the three persons in the Trinity (Isa 6:3).

Ce Ce wrote: "Samadrita wrote: "Dolors, you are so right about the Biblical allusions. I feel the disadvantage of not being acquainted with the Bible while reading TBK myself. A long time ago I had a pocket-size..."

Fantastic post Ce Ce, I think you are onto something with that comment. You actually enlightened a scene will appear later on for me. I need to take a mental note to comment on that when the time arrives. Jesus rose on the third day and there's another passage in the Book of Revelations that also mentions a weeding in which a miracle is perfumed on the third day. (view spoiler)[ The Cana of Galilee chapter (hide spoiler)]

Dolors wrote: "Jesus rose on the third day and there's another passage in the Book of Revelations that also mentions a weeding in which a miracle is perfumed on the third day"

Yes, I think the bible and scripture is filled with the number 3...starting with the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost...

The third day was the day on which the earth was caused to rise up out of the water, symbolical of that resurrection life...

Three is a number of RESURRECTION, for it was on the third day that Jesus rose again from the dead...

It was at the third hour He was crucified...

It was for three hours that darkness shrouded Jesus...

It was twice times 3...I believe 6 hours...when Jesus cried that he was forsaken...

Hi all, I just finished books I and II and I'm taken by Dostoesky's style. My translation is not annotaded so the Bible references fly by me unnoticed. Your comments are enlightening. :)

I find it interesting that Dostoevsky chose to give his own first name (Fyodor) to the father, the apparent "baddie" of the story, although as some mentioned he is rather clownish which somewhat diminishes or obscures his evilness... but that may be the result of the unreliable narration, which is interesting too: it feels to me as if the narrator is a member of the village or monastery who tells the story to an audience years later. Either that person obtained privileged information from confessions or he (she?) is filling in the gaps for storytelling or edification purposes. I'm enjoying his lively narration style, in particular his asides and comments on the various characters and on the narration itself. I agree with Ce Ce (*waves and smiles at my favorite sneaky tortoise*) about the near-caricatural aspect of the protagonists, like characters in a play.

{I'm skipping comments with spoilers or hints of future developments}

I browsed Wikipedia's article on the book (I basically looked at the pictures! I am terminally spoiler-averse ^^). They mention Optina Monastery as a source of inspiration:



Optina Monastery, one of the few remaining such monasteries at the time, served as a spiritual center for Russia in the 19th century and inspired many aspects of The Brothers Karamazov.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brot...

More pictures:



Inside the monastery


The monastery in the 19th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optina_M...

ETA: more pics & background from a blogger's visit to Optina:









http://wordscene.wordpress.com/tag/mo...

Apparently Dostoesky used Father Ambrose of Optina as inspiration for Zossima:




Fyodor Dostoevsky came to Optina in 1878 after the death of his son Alyosha and was profoundly affected by his meeting with St Ambrose. The novelist used Father Ambrose as a model for Starets Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov
http://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/10/1...





http://en.orthodoxwiki.org/Ambrose_of...

These are great posts, BP.

Book Portrait wrote: "Apparently Dostoesky used Father Ambrose of Optina as inspiration for Zossima:

Fyodor Dostoevsky came to Optina in 1878 after the death of his son Alyosha and was profoundly affected by his mee..."

I'm ecstatic on seeing all your posts, Book. Thank you so much for sharing these wonderful images and the information you provided along with them.

Regarding the names he provided to his characters is certainly interesting. Like you already mentioned, the 'hero' as per the novel, i.e. Alexie, was the name of his son, who died at a tender age of three months short of three years old. I reckon, it's a common practice among writers. Again chiming the name of Gogol here - his favorite name for a character was Ivan, which was the name of his younger brother who also died quite young.

Book Portrait wrote: "it feels to me as if the narrator is a member of the village or monastery who tells the story to an audience years later. Either that person obtained privileged information from confessions or he (she?) is filling in the gaps for storytelling or edification purposes. I'm enjoying his lively narration style, in particular his asides and comments on the various characters and on the narration itself."

Very good point. The narrator although highly unreliable, is most likely someone from monastery only so there's a lot of speculation involved regarding the true colors of all the characters. Let's see how it evolves by the end.

During Ivan & the Elder's discussion of ecclesiastical court (Book II Chapter V) I couldn't help but think of Dostoevsky himself, who was condemned to four years of hard labor in Russia:

“If it were not for the Church of Christ there would be nothing to restrain the criminal from evil-doing, no real chastisement for it afterwards; none, that is, but the mechanical punishment spoken of just now, which in the majority of cases only embitters the heart; and not the real punishment, the only effectual one, the only deterrent and softening one, which lies in the recognition of sin by conscience. (...) all these sentences to exile with hard labor, and formerly with flogging also, reform no one, and what's more, deter hardly a single criminal...

During this discussion, mentions of Ultramontanism came up but I'm not sure what it is and how it fit in Russia's history...

ETA: Found the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramon...

Ce Ce wrote: "Samadrita wrote: "Dolors, you are so right about the Biblical allusions. I feel the disadvantage of not being acquainted with the Bible while reading TBK myself. A long time ago I had a pocket-size..."

Another enlightening post. I'm also curious regarding the same age difference among the 3 brothers. They all are 4 years apart age wise so I wonder if it's just don't-think-too-much point or some underlying purpose is behind the same.

BP:- Thank you for your greatly informative posts. Love all the pictures. I had been trying to conjure up an image of Father Zossima in my mind and these pictures of Father Ambrose root him in reality somehow.

And Ce Ce, your findings on the Divine Trinity throw much light on the symbolisms hidden within the narrative. Thank you so much.

But I was wondering, aren't there 4 brothers technically? Even though Smerdyakov is obviously a secondary character.

Why do I feel like I'm sitting with my Dad reading this book?! I guess he taught me to love the classic.
Alyosha reminds me of my brother!
I don't normally have such familial feelings about books, so what's going on?!

The construction of 'elders' is so poetic and interesting. Strange that the surrender of will involved in the relationship of novice/disciple to elder is described as 'not sacramental'. What does this mean?

Book Portrait wrote: "During this discussion, mentions of Ultramontanism came up but I'm not sure what it is and how it fit in Russia's history..."

The thing to be aware of, as in the story of the Grand Inquisitor, is that Roman Catholicism is not equivalent to Orthodoxy for Dostoevesky, both are distinct for him and one is the true faith!

Ultramontanism doesn't fit in to Russian history except for something for a few people to be frightened of in regard to odd things that foreigners do. That's probably the point.

Samadrita wrote:"But I was wondering, aren't there 4 brothers technically? Even though Smerdyakov is obviously a secondary character."

I think that there are three brothers is significant in that it makes the novel into a modern folk tale (specifically in Russian folktales there are a lot involving Three Brothers on a quest, two of whom will fail while the youngest succeeds generally through being the most humble and kindly) although there is probably also an interplay with the alternative idea that there are four brothers, each representing a part of their Father even as there are four gospels in the new Testament.


When Tolstoy ran away from home at the end of his life he went first to visit a Starets (I've forgotten which one).

I join the chorus of appreciation for those pictures, Book. Delightful visual impact that combines perfectly with the story. I wonder if all the monks/elders were supposed to wear long, white beards like that, I have the impression that must have been the Orthodox fashion. Also those rounded domes of the colorful churches which reminds me of "onions", which will become an important symbol in the forthcoming chapters.
I also noted how religion is basically linked to nationalism, "Mother Russia" is mentioned several times next to exalted proclamations of guilt, faith or love for God. I guess that also has to do with Orthodoxy rather than with Catholicism.

Book Portrait wrote: "I browsed Wikipedia's article on the book (I basically looked at the pictures! I am terminally spoiler-averse ^^). They mention Optina Monastery as a source of inspiration:..."

Hello to Book, my favorite HARE! ;-) Thank you for searching these lovely images. So richly enhancing to our read.

In true Proustian fashion, memories of relatives by marriage who had escaped the Ukraine in WWII. They took my husband and me under their wing in our youth. I cannot tell you the difference they made in our life. But with your images I remembered the two of them (now deceased), the delectable Ukrainian food (eating it, but also helping to make it) and their orthodox church with an onion dome in the US Midwest. The interior was lovely with color (that pure blue was prevalent), gold and crystal and painted icons & stylized angels.

Book Portrait wrote: "{I'm skipping comments with spoilers or hints of future developments}"

The same is true for me. LOL, I am one of those who won't watch theatrical trailers before I see a film...or read reviews of a book...or god forbid read the end before the beginning. The joy is in the discovery.

Okay, so I have a lot of lag to cover-up, but I must thank once again Garima-Samadrita for this initiative, as TBK always makes me shake of the scum of life that clouds my eyes like few other books or other things in collect and I started it again today because of this initiative! Now, its a personal resolution to read it once every year :)

I must mention this as something that struck me as the image of Fyodor Pavlovich right from the first time and I remember him and his character most ardently with this passage... it had me in thralls, the first time....ha!

Exactly three months after Sofia Ivanovna’s death, the general’s widow suddenly appeared in person in our town, right at Fyodor Pavlovich’s house. She spent only about half an hour in our little town, but she accomplished a great deal. It was evening. Fyodor Pavlovich, whom she had not seen for all those eight years, was tipsy when he came out to her. They say that the moment she saw him, without any explanations, she at once delivered him two good, resounding slaps and jerked him three times by his forelock; then, without adding a word, she made straight for the cottage and the two boys. Seeing at a glance that they were unwashed and in dirty shirts, she gave one more slap to Grigory himself and announced to him that she was taking both children home with her, then carried them outside just as they were, wrapped them in a plaid, put them in the carriage, and took them to her own town. Grigory bore his slap like a devoted slave, without a word of abuse, and while helping the old lady to her carriage, he bowed low and said imposingly that “God would reward her for the orphans.” “And you are a lout all the same! the general’s widow shouted as she drove away. Fyodor Pavlovich, thinking the whole thing over, found that it was a good thing, and in a formal agreement regarding his children’s education by the general’s widow did not afterwards object to any point. As for the slaps he had gotten, he drove all over town telling the story himself.

It was a great solace to read Dostoevsky the first time, writing about these characters whom I saw with wonder in those teenage days, that how can such creatures exist and how can they be tolerated, even at such close range, almost unavoidable range! Dostoevsky did provide (and perhaps always will) an un-precedented consolation in the conundrum of existence.....

Going through the excellent posts above, the pictures of monasteries and Elders, I was reminded very fondly of the works of the great Andrei Tarkovsky and all the Rusophiles or otherwise must visit 'Andrei Rubelev' (if not already), it is one of the most awe-inspiring work to titillate the very being with all quintessentially Russian monastic bearings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N5oiR...

Samadriate, I couldn't resonate more strongly with your initial impressions of Ivan: 'somehow Ivan won me over with his sharp cynicism and his suppressed desire to be a believer'.

At this early stage I find the contrast between the young pious Aloysha and his elder more intellectual brother Ivan to be very important. *Aloysha has not received the same level of education as Ivan*. He appears satisfied with a life of servility in the monastery, and finds solace through his faith. On the other hand, Ivan has a supreme intellect, and feels the need to consult others about the nature of truth (epitomised by his published work). By these two brothers we are confronted by the polarity of faith and reason, a timeless paradox. At this point the conclusion of the absurdist process from camus: 'that hopeless encounter between human questioning and the profound silence of the universe' appears relevant to Ivan, who so earnestly yearns for the equanimity of his younger brother. This implies how it is 'easier' to find an account of truth through faith rather than reason, and how Ivan's intelligence could in fact block his path to spiritual transcendence.

Tej wrote: "Going through the excellent posts above, the pictures of monasteries and Elders, I was reminded very fondly of the works of the great Andrei Tarkovsky and all the Rusophiles or otherwise must visit..."

Tej wrote: "Okay, so I have a lot of lag to cover-up, but I must thank once again Garima-Samadrita for this initiative, as TBK always makes me shake of the scum of life that clouds my eyes like few other books..."

That's one great resolution, Tej. My best wishes to you but for this year, I'm really glad that you decided to reread TBK. The passage you quoted had me in splits too and more so because I actually know people like Fyodor. They very much exist..sigh!

And thanks a lot for pointing out the movie. It was on my to-watch list and now seems like perfect timing to catch it up.

I found the discussion of Church and/as state in Zosima's cell so fascinating and novel! And Zosima was so wise...

Garima wrote: "Book Portrait wrote: "Apparently Dostoesky used Father Ambrose of Optina as inspiration for Zossima:

Fyodor Dostoevsky came to Optina in 1878 after the death of his son Alyosha and was profoundly ..."

Garima wrote: "Book Portrait wrote: "Apparently Dostoesky used Father Ambrose of Optina as inspiration for Zossima:

Fyodor Dostoevsky came to Optina in 1878 after the death of his son Alyosha and was profoundly ..."

I, too, was struck by the passage on crime and punishment Book 1, Chapter 5. The argument, of course, is made by the elder, who has the Christian bias of a churchman. Would it have been Dostoevsky’s position? It’s been twenty years or so since I read House of the Dead (Dostoevsky’s memoir of his years in prison) but one thing I seem to recall is that Dostoevsky was making a point that some criminals are devoid of conscience—they are incapable of guilt or of recognizing that their criminal behavior is wrong. They can brutally murder children without a qualm. In their case the “recognition of sin by conscience” would be pretty much an impossibility. If I were able to have a conversation with Dostoevsky my question to him would be: how would this passage in The Brothers Karamazov apply to such criminals?
During his years in Siberia Dostoevsky lived in daily contact with dangerous criminals and clearly the criminal mentality made a deep impression on him. Crime (specifically, murder) is an important element in all of his major novels written after his prison experience. Recognition of sin by conscience is, of course, the major theme of Crime and Punishment, but Raskolnikov wasn’t at all like the hardened criminals Dostoevsky lived amongst in the Siberian prison.

Dolors wrote: "For me the first two books serve the purpose of presenting the basis of a very complex spiritual chess game and its players:
- Fyodor - A man who has abandoned all hope of redemption. He doesn't se..."

Dolors wrote: "For me the first two books serve the purpose of presenting the basis of a very complex spiritual chess game and its players:
- Fyodor - A man who has abandoned all hope of redemption. He doesn't se..."

Dolors wrote: "Great remarks Garima!
I am half way of the novel, yesterday I finished Book VIII and I realize that years spent in Siberia reading and rereading the New Testament filled this novel with biblical re..."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the three brothers represent three different aspects of human nature. Ivan represents the intellect, Dmitri represents the passions, and Alyosha represents spirituality. One can immediately see this kind of representation in the early part of the book.

What a fitting quotation to describe Fyodor and his excesses and flaws, Tej. I was very taken with the adjectives Dostoevsky used to describe him in chapter four of Book I: He was wicked and sentimental. Adjectives that in turn might be applicable in turn to his sons.
I also found Fyodor's buffoonery and self-bantering in the gathering that takes place before Zossima, which overflows with guilt and self-disgust, quite revealing. I find guilt is one of the major issues in the novel and that it affects all characters. The only difference is that the good natured ones blame themselves and seek punishment as some sort of purification and the evil ones blame others while feeling despondent.

I don’t really see the narrator as unreliable and I’d be interested to know why some readers find him such. It seems to me that he is trying to provide accurate information from wherever he has found it. Actually I think the narrative voice is twofold. At some points it is the voice of someone living in the town telling as much of the story as he knows or has heard from various sources; at other points it is simply the voice of an omniscient narrator who knows the unexpressed thoughts of the characters and who knows everything that was said and done at an event at which he was not present. Sometimes there is a mélange of the two voices.

David wrote: "I think the narrative voice is twofold..."

Really good points David! I agree with you about the narrator being a mix of unidentified storyteller and roaming omniscient point of view (pov).

I actually really like the unidentified narrator with his relaxed prose and his colorful commentary on the protagonists and on the narration itself (the conclusion of his introduction immediately conveyed the character!).

The switch of pov to different protagonists was a little jarring. It actually felt more like limited third person given how deeply and how long we accompanied each one and that was jarring because some omniscient narration would be expected from our unidentified narrator but not such a prolonged switch to the point that he disappeared and it felt like the narrator had been replaced (sorry I'm rambling a little in my pre-coffee state!).

Might the unidentified narrator turn out to be unreliable? We could argue that any first-person narrator is unreliable in the sense that they offer their own perspective on a story that is as reliable as a subjective opinion is... unless "unreliable narrator" means that realising that the person who was telling the story was heavily biased (say the Butler in Remains of the Day or Humbert Humbert in Lolita... HH is actually pretty direct so we know where we stand!... maybe an unreliable narrator is more like Kevin Spacey in the Usual Suspects?) and that we should be reframing the whole story in our mind because the unreliable narrator strung us along and that shock unveils a whole new way of understanding the story, reinforcing its "message" (not the right word but I can't find the one I have in mind! {ETA (Edited to Add): actually we might wonder why our unidentified narrator tells the story: to edify villagers? to entertainment them?... how "truthful" is his way of presenting the story?})...

I'm thinking out loud. Sorry about the ramblinessiness. :)

Jan-Maat wrote: "The thing to be aware of, as in the story of the Grand Inquisitor, is that Roman Catholicism is not equivalent to Orthodoxy for Dostoevesky, both are distinct for him and one is the true faith!"

Thanks for the comment Jan-Maat. I have the impression that faith is at the heart of TBK and I want to reread chapter 5 of Book I: it feels like it's a key chapter, that Dostoevsky is setting something up, that the story will illustrate what is being discusssed. I don't know where the story is going but that meeting with the Staret (Dmitri being singled out and honored, Ivan being revealed as brilliant but "ungrounded" (I can't find the word!), Aliocha being told his whole future by his friend) and in particular the philosophical discussion feel central to the book opening...

We know that Dostoevsky's time in Siberia deeply changed him... I'd like to know more about the man and the dramatic changes that Russia underwent in the XIX century, and in particular the role of the Orthodox Church, to measure the full impact of what Dostoevsky is telling us, beyond the Karamazov family story...

Tej wrote: "Okay, so I have a lot of lag to cover-up, but I must thank once again Garima-Samadrita for this initiative, as TBK always makes me shake of the scum of life that clouds my eyes like few other books..."

I love that presentation of Fyodor Pavlovitch's character! We hear the narrator mocking him (or wonder about Fyodor acting like a clown). Thanks for the Andrei Rubelev link! :)

David wrote: "If I were able to have a conversation with Dostoevsky my question to him would be: how would this passage in The Brothers Karamazov apply to such criminals?"

I'd like to have Dostoevsky over for dinner too! :) I really like your comments... You make me want to read a biography of Dosto ASAP!

David wrote: "I don’t really see the narrator as unreliable and I’d be interested to know why some readers find him such. It seems to me that he is trying to provide accurate information from wherever he has fou..."

The narrator is unreliable precisely because he's providing the second-hand information about the Karamazov family. There are gaps in his memory which leaves many loose threads in the end. It has an air of legend re-telling around it where a reader can draw many other conclusions besides what it is being told to us. I agree about the point of him being an omniscient narrator but can't vouch for it till I read the whole book. The whole matter of reliable/unreliable narration is a debatable so it's important to see how it fits in our reading experience. You have certainly given a nice food for thought here, David. Looking forward to more comments from your side.

Book Portrait wrote: "David wrote: "If I were able to have a conversation with Dostoevsky my question to him would be: how would this passage in The Brothers Karamazov apply to such criminals?"

I'd like to have Dostoev..."

I have read Troyat's. Dostoievski

Kalliope wrote: "I have read Troyat's. Dostoievski

Thanks for the rec Kalliope! I just ordered Dostoïevski from Gallimard's new line of paperback biographies. Probably not as good as their regular biographies but good enough for a quick introduction. Do you have a recommendation for a book on Russian XIX-century history?

Book Portrait wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I have read Troyat's. Dostoievski

Thanks for the rec Kalliope! I just ordered Dostoïevski from Gallimard's new line of paperback biographies. Probably not as good..."

I have read Russia: A History. On the cultual, I recommend Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia. I think the latter is in the group's bookshelf.

Kalliope wrote: "I have read Russia: A History. On the cultual, I recommend Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia. I think the latter is in the group's bookshelf."

Thanks! Natasha's Dance sounds perfect. Just ordered it. :)

I'm now looking at XIX-century Russian art... The Russian Museum seems to have a very nice collection...

http://www.rusmuseum.ru/eng/museum/


Anton Chekhov looked back on the 1860s as a "hallowed time." This book is devoted to works of painting, graphic art, sculpture and applied art from this decade, painting a comprehensive picture of one of the most exciting periods in Russian culture. The publication includes two articles on the art of the 1860s, discussing the creations of such leading masters as Fyodor Vasilyev, Nikolai Ge, Ivan Kramskoi, Konstantin Makovsky, Grigory Myasoyedov, Vasily Perov and Ivan Shishkin and other lesser-known artists - Eugene Gustav Ducker, Carl Gun, Lev Kamenev and Vasily Pukirev. The texts are supplemented by an article on the history of the collection of the art of the 1860s in the Russian Museum, a chronicle of the period, an album section, a catalogue of works and biographies of artists (many accompanied by archive portraits).
http://www.rusmuseum.ru/eng/editions/...



Orthodox Church live photographs
http://www.rusmuseum.ru/eng/exhib/len...