Discovering Russian Literature discussion

Please begin discussion Part One of Demons. If you have not finished this section of reading be aware that spoilers may be posted here. But you can begin discussion at any time.

PART I.
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY
CHAPTER II. PRINCE HARRY. MATCHMAKING
CHAPTER III. THE SINS OF OTHERS
CHAPTER IV. THE CRIPPLE
CHAPTER V. THE SUBTLE SERPENT

I've always enjoyed the tongue in cheek description of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky which starts off the book. He reminds me a lot of some of the professors that I had in college. Their personalities were so much more...constructed than the average person's, almost as if they were creating this ideal image of themselves rather than interested in being themselves. They were usually pretty popular, especially with underclassmen, because they were generally easy graders, spent a lot of class time talking about themselves, and did shocking things that impressed kids who had heretofore been very sheltered (such as talk openly about drug use, show porn, curse in class).

One of the things I find interesting about this book is the narration style, which reminds me of the way that The Brothers Karamazov was narrated.

We are presented with a narrator of whom is unknown to us, as we are given no real information of who the narrator is, or why he is telling us this story. All that we do know is that he is a close friend and confidante of Stepan Trofimovich.

But he does seem to have a certain omnipresence/omniscience as he is able to provide detailed accounts of events that happen even when he himself was not acutally present to witness.

And in spite of his close connection to Stepan he seems to be more of an observer of events than an active participant.

Is the narrator reliable?

And what is the effect of telling the story in this way? What do you think was Dostoevsky's intent in using this narration device?

I think that such a narrator was needed in order to create enough distance to show the main characters' sheer ridiculousness. The narrator sets the tone of the book without adding much else. He's sort of a stand-in for the community. It reminds me a bit of the narrators in Jeffrey Eugenides's The Virgin Suicides.

One of the many things that stands out to me so far, is the similarities between the 1860's in Russia/Europe and the 1960's in America! The idea of a 'free kind of love,' of women's liberation, of freedom of serfs (civil rights movement in 1960's), of a higher ideal way of living that seeks to overturn the old way of living. And I think of Father's and Sons (for anyone here who has read that) too, as both works deal with the liberal generation of the parents (Varvara and Stephan et al) of the 1840's vs the generation of nihilism (and negation) of the 1860's.

Silver wrote: "One of the things I find interesting about this book is the narration style, which reminds me of the way that The Brothers Karamazov was narrated.

We are presented with a narrator o..."

I may be confusing Demons with Karamozov, I going by memory only here, but I belive the narrator himself calls into question his objectivity and reliability more than once.

I agree that the narrator seems to be a stand in for the community, for the contemporary society of which Stephan and the narrator are a part. I think that we are to view this story from the viewpoint of Stephan and the narrator's generation. We see the events through the judgments of those who think they have layed down ideas that are being distorted and ruined by the newer generation.

Terry wrote: "Silver wrote: "One of the things I find interesting about this book is the narration style, which reminds me of the way that The Brothers Karamazov was narrated.

We are presented wi..."

I have not noticed that yet in my reading thus far of this book but it is true that the narrator is very close to Stepan which certainly would have an affect upon his ability to be objective.

It has been a while since I have read it but I do think that the narrator is Karmazov does question his own reliability, but such may happen later down the line in this book as well.

For he is connected to the various different individuals of whom he is speaking about and so his own feelings must affect the way in which he relates the events.

I'm starting to think it is Karmazov I'm recalling--I seem to recall the narrator, at one point, pretty much saying he "might" be prevaricating. I'll have to scan through the ends of each book.

I think I’m a bit lost in our current discussion.
I counted three names here:

Karamazov
Karmazov
Karmazinov

(the three names hint on pretty much the same, but that’s another story)

When we say Karamazov, we refer to the different book – The Karamazov Brothers
When we say Karmazinov, we refer to the character in ‘Demons’.
Karmazov is apparently a typo.

So I guess Karmazinov is the center of our attention now.
OK, then meet another prototype for another character, Karmazinov this time.

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


If it’s true, that is, Karmazinov is a parody on Ivan Turgenev, then the narrator must be at least partly Dostoevsky himself. And then he has to be cautious and reserve and sure make a proviso for objectivity, for there are so many real people involved..
And by the way, we’re yet to see the battle between ersatz Dostoevsky and ersatz Turgenev in the book, but in our latest voting, Dostoevsky won.

And please no spoilers with all this looking in the back of the books :)

Christi wrote: "One of the many things that stands out to me so far, is the similarities between the 1860's in Russia/Europe and the 1960's in America! The idea of a 'free kind of love,' of women's liberation, of ..."

These are all ideas which arose out of The Enlightenment and which are still being pursued today, if not in our own countries, in others. Dosteovsky was very much against these ideas and wished Russians to return to the values of The Orthodox Church, of 'Holy Russia'.

My Notes say: 'Dostoevsky saw mankind having lost its moral bearing, wafting directionless in the tempest that is life. Instead of liberating Man for the better, the Enlightenment had renounced his spiritual connection. Where Dostoevsky saw a creature of God, his contemporary philosophers were seeking a new definition of modern man, out from under the definition of God....Dostoevsky and Friedrich Nietzsche epitomize this philosophical schism: at one end, Dostoevsky calls for Man to embrace faith and Christian morality; at the other stands Nietzsche, rejecting religion as unnatural and entreating Man to transgress contemporary moral values.'

Can any Russian speaker here tell us the meaning of the word Karamazov, if any, and if it is connected linguistically to Karmazinov?

Terry wrote: "I'm starting to think it is Karmazov I'm recalling--I seem to recall the narrator, at one point, pretty much saying he "might" be prevaricating. I'll have to scan through the ends of each book."

My Notes say:

'An examination of the narrator's credibility in The Possessed reveals that although his position as
narrator entitles him to certain conventional advantages, he is as thoroughly mystified and possessed as his fellow townspeople. The narrator is by definition the first possessor and spellbound captive of his story; and all references to narration in his text may be understood as more or less veiled commentaries on his own storytelling methods.'

'As far as we are given to know, the narrator has never left his provincial town. He alone has no past history, so that except for the (always unexpected!) arrival of characters from outside, he can report the motivating prehistory of the others only as it sifts down through the various concentric societal circles of America, Switzerland, and Petersburg to become part of local rumor and legend.'

There are a lot of purposeful, ironic contradictions in The Posessed/Devils/Demons such as in the introductory paragraph about Stepan 'I am even inclined to suppose that towards the end he had been entirely forgotten everywhere; but still it cannot be said that his name had never been known.' These contradictions demonstrate Dostoevsky's recognition that in fiction 'everything is true' and also illustrate Coleridge's idea that to appreciate fantasy the reader 'willingly suspends his disbelief'.

It's the back of a different boook--not Demons. The nature of the narrators in the two books is very similar.

As my reading progresses my initial impressions of the narrator has been altered for as the story advances it seems he no longer is an observer of events but begins to take a much more interactive role within the story and so he himself has become one of the "players."

This certainly does make him a good deal less objective, as well as brings his reliability more into question.

Also I am curious, does anyone know much about Dostoyevsky's mental state? One thing I have noticed it seems that in most of his works, at least that I have read there is at least on instance in which one of the characters contemplates suicide. In addition it seems that his books consist of something of a menagerie of neurotics.

I do not think any of the characters of which we have presently been introduced to within Demons is truly altogether mentally stable and this does seem to be a recurring theme for Dostoyevsky.

Mickey wrote: "I've always enjoyed the tongue in cheek description of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky which starts off the book..."

I have read Demons one year ago and Stepan is my favourite character of this book.

I will follow the discussion.

Also I am curious, does anyone know much about Dostoyevsky's mental state?

Dosteovsky had an altogether traumatic life from childhood to adulthood. His despotic father was murdered by his peasants and when he was 28 he was accused of 'taking part in conversations against the censorship, of reading a letter from Byelinsky to Gogol, and of knowing of the intention to set up a printing press.' He was condemned to death but after eight months' imprisonment he was, with twenty-one others, taken out to the Semyonovsky Square to be shot. Dostoevsky wrote: '...They made us put on the white shirts worn by persons condemned to death. Thereupon we were bound in threes to stakes, to suffer execution. Being the third in the row, I concluded I had only a few minutes of life before me.....Suddenly the troops beat a tattoo, we were unbound, brought back from the scaffold, and informed that his Majesty had spared us our lives.' The sentence was commuted to 4 years hard labour in Siberia. One of the prisoners went mad as soon as he was untied, and never regained his sanity and, not surprisingly, the experience also left a lasting stamp on Dostoevsky's mind.

He was an epileptic and mentally unstable before he went to Siberia but his friends described him as 'mad' when he returned. It is now thought that he was bi-polar and he suffered bouts of extreme depression, when he was sometimes suicidal. This mini-biography details some of the traumas of his life:-

http://fascinatingpeople.wordpress.co...

MadgeUK wrote: "Also I am curious, does anyone know much about Dostoyevsky's mental state?

Dosteovsky had an altogether traumatic life from childhood to adulthood. His father was murdered by his peasants and when..."

Thank you for providing this information, it does shed some light upon his writings. I found the part about the printing press to be particularly interesting considering the incident with Demons with Shatov and his own reaction to Liza wanting to create her own printing press.

I've not read Demons, I'd love to join but I'm really busy these days. I'll try to catch up soon.

There is something strange in the whole affair regarding Dasha, Nikolai, and Liza, perhaps because of the fact that no one will really talk about what acutally happened, it is all speculation, whispers, rumours. We are led to beleive that while courting Liza, Nikolai had some inappropriate relations with Dasha, but I cannot help but wonder if there is not more to the story than what is suggested.

From what we have seen of Nikolai's character he seems like an obvious choice to blame for such scandalous behavior, and so while it should be easy to beleive that he would do such a thing for some reason I am not entirely convinced he had done it. I cannot help but to wonder if in fact, Peter is not the guilty party in regards to Dasha. Perhaps becasue of the fact that we really don't know that much about him.

I am also curious about the significance of Marie. Previously within the story she had been only mentioned in passing as the poor crippled sister of the drunken and abusive Lebyadkin. But now she is becoming a focal part in the story.

Why is Liza so insistent upon wanting to see her? Is it only meant to be a sort of morbid curiosity becaue of what she heard about the girl?

There is something about Maria (is that name suggestive of the Virgin Mary?) that seems almost martyr or saintly in the way in which she does seem to live in a start of almost elation. In spite of her great sufferings in this world she is able to transport herself outside of those circumstances and remains joyful as if untouched by her sufferings. She is able to alter the perception of the realtionship with her brother and what seems to happen to her physical self does not seem to truly touch her. It is as if she does transcend reality/the physical world.

I just finished part 1 and am intrigued by the relationship Nikolai has with Liza, Dasha and Marie.
What was Liza's obsession with meeting Marie?
Why did Shatov punch Nikolai?
It also seems like Liza became engaged to Mavriky very quickly after the incident at Varvara' s home.

Book I is typical of Dostoevsky in that he focuses on the character development, which is then incorporated to produce a scandalous climactic scene. He also creates a sense of disarray that sets the scene for the chaos that is to follow.

I don't think that the novel can be thoroughly understood unless we link it to the political events in Russia at that time. Dosteovsky meant it as a criticism of the Russian political system and it is an analysis of the moral and spiritual failings within the educated class and minor nobility which, in his strong opinion, brought the country to its knees and presaged revolution.

There is a wealth of contemporary references in Demons which locates it in post-reform Russia - after the emancipation of the serfs and reform of the legal system and local government. In the next section the narrative refers to the difficulties the nobility had in coming to terms with the emancipation of serfs, characters debate the merits of the new law courts, and the zemstva - limited local self-government etc. The effects of cholera and cattle disease are also discussed.

A young intelligentsia had arisen which challenged the romanticism of the earlier generation and which was impatient about the slowness of change in Russia. They admired the French Revolution and the changes which were taking place in Western Europe in general and wanted to 'annihilate' many of the old ways (and old leaders) - hence they became known as nihilists. This is what the males in Demons are and Dosteovsky, having once been a nihilist himself but now reformed, is very critical of them and their political philosophy. Dosteovsky had himself heard the fiery oratory about revolutionary destruction at the Congress of the League of Peace and Freedom in Geneva and in Kirillov he mimics the 'arch-destroyer' Bakunin and in Verhovensky we see the ruthless, murderous character of Nechaev (see refs to the Ivanov affair).

Dosteovsky presents Nikolai Stavrogin as a Byronic figure who represents the Russian nobleman's alienation from his roots; he is empty and spiritually lame. The lameness of his wife Maria and the reference to broken legs by his mistress Liza, the poem written about broken legs are metaphors for the club-footed Byron and devils in Russian folklore who were often lame. They are also metaphors for the other meanings of lameness - unsatisfactory, unconvincing, weak - conditions which Dosteovaky thought were afflicting Russian society through the actions of nihilists and socialists, and those who strayed away from the church and God.

In reading the descriptions of the nihilists in Demons however, we perhaps need to remember that Dosteovsky had been broken physically and mentally by his imprisonment in Siberia and had come out of that experience a very bitter and pessimistic man. Not all intellectuals took his extreme position, particularly not his religious position vis a vis the Russian Orthodox Church, and some saw the need for further reforms, particularly for the introduction of a democratic (more representative) government as had happened in England, America and France. The limitations to freedom still imposed by the Tsarist regime and its secret police still kept the Russian people in a state of servitude - without Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

(Perhaps I ought to have posted this at the beginning of Part Two??)

Awesome commentary, Madge!

I'm very behind. Blame the booker. But I will catch up and am very impressed by the discussion so far.

MadgeUK wrote: "In reading the descriptions of the nihilists in Demons however, we perhaps need to remember that Dosteovsky had been broken physically and mentally by his imprisonment in Siberia and had come out of that experience a very bitter and pessimistic man. Not all intellectuals took his extreme position, particularly not his religious position vis a vis the Russian Orthodox Church, and some saw the need for further reforms, particularly for the introduction of a democratic (more representative) government as had happened in England, America and France. The limitations to freedom still imposed by the Tsarist regime and its secret police still kept the Russian people in a state of servitude - without Liberté, égalité, fraternité."

After his imprisonment, Dostoevsky blamed enlightenment, especially those from France, for ruining Russia. We can see this anti-nihilism not only in Demons, but also in his other books--Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, etc. He came to believe that traditional Russian values, including the Orthodox Church, would be the salvation of the world against the wind of Enlightenment.

Turgenev was one of those who took a different route and became at odds with Dostoevsky.

Yes, he blamed The Enlightenment at a time when the Russian people were just opening up to liberal ideas, which had been slower making headway in Russia because of the hold the Russian Orthodox Church had. Both the Church and the Tsar punished radicals whereas the beliefs like the Divine Right of Kings had been thrown off in Britain in 1649, in France after the Revolution and America never had it. Russia subsequently lurched from one totalitarian system to another instead of gradually adopting the ideas of the Enlightenment as other nations had done:(.

I'm reading Demons now, I'm in the middle of Part II I believe, this discussion helped to crystallize things a bit for me in what is probably the most challenging work of fiction I've ever tried to read, so, thanks.

Did anyone change his mind about Turgenev because of the way Dostoevsky portrayed him? I mean I understand this was just his personal point of view, but I can't help but think less of Turgenev now.