The Fyodor Dostoyevsky Group discussion
This topic is about
The Brothers Karamazov
The Brothers Karamazov
>
Week IV - 21/02/2014 - 27/02/2014 - Book V
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Samadrita, Creator cum Novice Moderator
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jan 09, 2014 01:49AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
I think it's in this section where the true nature of each brother is starting to materialize while female characters consolidate as volatile, overly dramatic and manipulative creatures (specially self-centered Mme Hohlakov and her rather inconsistent daughter Lise), quite a contrast to the rational and self-controlled discourse shown by the male characters.
Mod
Garima wrote: "BOOK V is blowing my mind. "
Ha Ha Ha...
Mod
"
Good one. :) I am on to Book X but just cannot find enough time to read and participate in discussions these days. Damned work!
Garima wrote: "BOOK V is blowing my mind."LOL. love it!
Mod
Pertinent comment regarding the female characters in this one, Dolors. Male characters have incredible depth and are wonderfully humanized under Dostoyevsky's magical touch. While nearly all the female characters disappoint with their recurring traits of haughtiness, insincerity, lust for material comforts and their inherent inability to respond to situations without going into hysterics.
In Brothers Karamazov with the exception of a couple of characters everybody else seems to be in a pathological condition - they're all probably meant to be understood as being in need of or access to the cure or way of life that Father Zosima embodied.There's a more reasonable range of female characters in Crime and Punishment but then only a couple of characters in that book are in a pathological condition.
The Grand Inquisitor sequence was the high point of the novel until now, Ivan' turn to grab the spotlight and prove he is as tormented by the fundamental questions as his brothers. Although Dmitry still presents himself as shallow and self center for now. Does anyone else picked up in The Grand Inquisitor a note of vehement condemnation of the Catholic branch of cristianity when it comes to religious dogma and the militant church who knows better than Christ what is best for humanity?. I believe Dostoyevsky wanted to contrast this aspect with the traditionally less ambitious and tolerant view of Orthodoxy.
Mod
Magnificent observation Algernon! Although I also wonder about Dostoevsky's notion of Mother Russia arising as the savior of the world by grace of God. I felt Orthodox nationalism soaked not only Ivan's discourse but also the whole narration.
Pathological and on the edge, each one of them, irrespective of male and female, with the exception of Alyosha and Elder, if one may... I remember hazily but a glimpse of a stronger female in Dostoevsky's entire fiction is perhaps 'Nastasya Fillippovna' in the Idiot... else, as Jan-Maat aptly said, Dostoevsky's real concern lies somewhere else and all else is used for its fulfilment....!Ivan is the one who is partly like Raskolnikov, questioning the very basis of morality and Smerdyakov is an offshoot of that very radicality or apparent pseudo-radicality embodied by Smerdyakov...
Absolutely Algernon, you are spot on... there is a reference to Jesuits more than once and as Dolors pointed the children sequence, it refers clearly to a more pragmatic form of religious leaning which only expands as the story moves...!
There is an inherent comical flavour to the whole tale and perhaps the hysterical side of female sex comes in aid of making the humor flow at times, not always is it humorous... Even the male characters are without fail peculiarly volatile, bordering insanity at times... this becomes clear as the story expands to incorporate more people...!
Mod
Re female characters- disappointing, yes. It seems as if Dostoyevsky has gathered the hysteric/dramatic lot of our female counterparts and placed them all in his novel. I think it's blatantly deliberate on authors' part in order to keep focus of a reader on the comparative good/unique/tolerant qualities of male characters. Marfa is not even a good cook in comparison to Smerdyakov... according to Fyodor, of course but still.
Mod
Point taken regarding the morbid state of characters but again, female characters are drawn at a superficial level, like Samadrita mentioned, they lack depth in their portrayals which makes them outright irritating. They don't even make me laugh *sad face*. I hope some redemption can be seek as the story moves further. It's a minor gripe in contrast to the huge scope of the book but somehow it bothers me.
I think it is deliberate, Dolors wrote in her review that the novel is Russia on trial, but another way of seeing it is that the novel is showing Russia on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Which means that we see all these brittle characters, hysterical, on edge, apart of course from the couple of people who have found the answer that allows them to navigate the swirling threatening waters of modernity in safety. They have a compass that saves them from getting lost. Or something like that.
Mod
Possibly. Time, place and all that jazz should be taken into account. It requires a little effort though. Here's an extract:
Dostoevsky was a skillful self-examiner whose biography was inexorably linked to the fictional lives of his characters. The glaring flaw in Dostoevsky’s canon is his weak and oftentimes stereotypical portrayal of women. Women are never the protagonists of any of Dostoevsky’s major novels and often act as throwaway, ancillary characters or plot devices to further the moral and spiritual development of the male protagonist. Dostoevsky was also fond of female stock characters that became cultural archetypes from their use in the Bible and other paternalistic texts. His work is fraught with saintly prostitutes who act as quietly suffering female redeemers and weak minded and histrionic damsels in distress. It would be easy to simply condemn Dostoevsky for his portrayal of women or apologize for his literary shortcomings with tired excuses that he was simply “a man of his time.” But such an analysis fails to recognize the complex
socio-economic, religious, and political viewpoints that Dostoevsky struggled to reconcile within his female characters. Herein lies the central paradox of Dostoevsky’s portrayal of women: he intends to use them as didactic plot elements but his commitment to crafting believable characters imbues them with the same complexity as his male characters. Though he oftentimes reverted back to familiar biblical tropes for his women, Dostoevsky’s fascinating struggle with the female psyche and his own complex beliefs defy any label and actually end up exercising agency.
Link: http://toto.lib.unca.edu/sr_papers/li...
Dosteovesky's women are quite distinct from those of his contemporaries, his writing is also didactic which can leave little space for characters to be well rounded, with moral or spiritual challenges getting the character a bit of lifelike energy. I remember the female characters as being more rounded in Crime and Punishment, though Grushenka is reasonable here I feel. They're all terribly tormented though, suffering and imposing suffering on others.In part this might reflect Doestoevsky's own personal life and his relationship with Apollinaria Suslova.
Garima wrote: "Tej wrote: "Pathological and on the edge, each one of them, irrespective of male and female, with the exception of Alyosha and Elder, if one may... I remember hazily but a glimpse of a stronger fem..."Yes, I agree, there is no central focus on any of the female characters and they are shallow too but at the same time they are not portrayed as weak or meek beings...! But the grounds are slippery on which most of the characters stand... and so are them! The story as a whole strikes in an entirely different vein where these characters are mere trifles but indeed, they are weak on their own, no doubting that! But then, Dostoevsky it seems wanted them like that and society is replete with such figures, maybe more so in the patriarchal times such as those...! The point that is irksome is maybe what Dostoevsky never meant to address in the first place and merely painted the female protagonists as he found them suitable for what he wanted to strike the most in his story.
Although it is not the point but I feel, without wishing to be biased, Dostoevsky wasn't being anti-female here but merely wanted his story to have weak characters on the whole to highlight those two sane voices- his hero Alyosha and Zosima!
Even Dostoevsky's heroes are not infallible, as even is Allyosha or Zosima here... there is that lack in each of the figures he has painted, irrespective of the sexes!
Garima wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "I think it is deliberate, Dolors wrote in her review that the novel is Russia on trial, but another way of seeing it is that the novel is showing Russia on the verge of a nervous b..."Ha... I read that before, and there is another one...
http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/163....
Jan-Maat wrote: "Dosteovesky's women are quite distinct from those of his contemporaries, his writing is also didactic which can leave little space for characters to be well rounded, with moral or spiritual challen..."Yes, that is very plausible!
Mod
And I read that one but my main concern is with this novel. I'm not even suggesting the terms anti-female or misogyny. That won't be fair but clearly I'm not convinced... and that's my problem perhaps ;)
Garima wrote: "Tej wrote: "Garima wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "I think it is deliberate, Dolors wrote in her review that the novel is Russia on trial, but another way of seeing it is that the novel is showing Russia ..."Not that, it's not a problem with you...ha! It's mostly deliberate from Dostoevsky and he does this with non-chalance and impunity... thats how it is... perhaps you will agree with it by the time you reach the end, or you may not like it still... :)
Have you read the introduction in P&V, yet?
Mod
Hopefully but in any case it's a good food for thought :) I never read intro until I finish the respective book. Too many spoilers and dangers of developing preconceived notions.
Garima wrote: "Tej wrote: "Garima wrote: "Tej wrote: "Garima wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "I think it is deliberate, Dolors wrote in her review that the novel is Russia on trial, ut another way of seeing it is that t..."Absolutely, it should always be at the end unless you are not concerned for the spoilers...
Although I still don't really think it would convince you out of your dilemma :), it still is quite interesting in the way of deciphering Dostoevsky's approach to his fiction and characterizations!
Garima wrote: "And I read that one but my main concern is with this novel. I'm not even suggesting the terms anti-female or misogyny. That won't be fair but clearly I'm not convinced... and that's my problem perhaps ;) "Not at all, it is a perfectly fair concern, personally Doestoevsky's attitudes on politics, religion, nationality don't work for me either - I know I'm damned according to his scheme! Still he is an impressive writer and I appreciate that.
Doestoevsky is in part drawing on his own relationships with women, some of which were, ahem, a little odd, also I heard somewhen that he was trying to write the same novel - as though he had an ideal in his mind but couldn't get it right on paper so aspects of the same characters and ideas are being worked out in each of the different major novels as he gets closer to saying what he wanted to say. But for sure a reasonable, rounded and fair presentation of women (and perhaps men too) falls by the wayside in that, increasingly all we get is types, or conditions, psychological states pitched against each other.
On the plus side, unlike many nineteenth century male writers, he doesn't feel the need to kill his women characters to reestablish control and social/moral order.
Mod
Thanks for your comment, Jan. I did get to know a little about his relationships with women and can see where he is coming from. He surely is an impressive writer undoubtedly with his share of imperfections too. Some supplementing reading happened as a result of this discussion: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307...
Garima wrote: "He surely is an impressive writer undoubtedly with his share of imperfections too. Some supplementing reading happened as a result of this discussion: "Oh he was a weird man and that's no doubt ;)
I think the way he handles the family though is very contemporary, at least for me in the UK, for example the Marmaladovs (Heh, heh) in Crime and Punishment, this family made up out of the two broken fragments of other families, the step/father an unemployed drunk, the children sickly, the mother domineering - this was like families I could see around me growing up, divorce remarriage, crazy implausible relationships it was all here. You see similar strained, awkward families in Dickens, but in Doestoevsky it is twisted up to a rougher, even more damaged level.
Samadrita wrote: "Male characters have incredible depth and are wonderfully humanized under Dostoyevsky's magical touch. While nearly all the female characters disappoint with their recurring traits of haughtiness, insincerity, lust for material comforts and their inherent inability to respond to situations without going into hysterics."With the exception of Grushenka who is nearly invisible, almost a figment of fantasy, but in control of foreshadowing and suspense as Book V concludes.
And was it Book IV when Grushenka, shockingly and rather sensually present in the room, was coldly and sensuously relieving Katerina of her delusions.
Garima wrote: "BOOK V is blowing my mind. "LOL... ;)
Interesting comments about Dostoevsky’s portrayal of female characters. They certainly do not have the depth and complexity of many of the male characters. I don’t sense, however, that Dostoevsky feels animosity toward the women in his novels. In my reading of his writings I don’t recall ever having come across anything indicating that he was misogynistic. Curiously, Tolstoy, who was misogynistic, created much more fully-conceived and lovable female characters than Dostoevsky. I seem to recall reading that Virginia Woolf found this paradox (about Tolstoy) very disturbing. I agree with Jan-Maat that the female characters in Crime and Punishment are more rounded. At least Sonia Marmeladov is. I find the character of Madame Khokhlakov fascinating. Though she seems somewhat scatter-brained, her conversation has a stream-of-consciousness-like connectedness. Her various ramblings provide important atmosphere and background for the novel—such as the false rumors and perceptions of the murder that have spread throughout Russia.
