Fyodor Dostoevsky

[TottyMan]

Ive finished The Brothers Karamazov sum time ago, loved it. Im in the process of reading The Idiot.

Love how Dosey talks thru his charactors.

 

[SFG75]

Loema-the desire to not be cured, to not have a given situation solved is a key argument that F.D. uses against the Fourier socialists. The attack on enlightenment principles and utopian socialism is definitely in full force in Notes. He's correct though. In reading how people work against their own interests merely for the sake of doing so, I'm reminded of how people have voted against their various *interests* that rationally and intellectually, they shouldn't do if they have their wits about them. He connects with the reader in that regard and reminds them of a key point-who is to say what set of *interests* is paramount over all others? FD is quick to point out that independence of thought and action are perhaps THE main *interests* that humans possess and that if you offer them a stream to drink, they will throw themselves in to drown, demonstrating, however madly, that they are the ones who make the decision, all rationalism and cold, caluclated decision making aside.

 

[LoeMa]

I’m not so familiar with Fourier, but so far as I know he wanted to create a society where everybody is equally free and happy. But not every human being is the same and so happiness is not the same for everyone. Someone is happy when he/she gets flowers on Valentine’s Day, the other one is happy in suffering from his/her desires or other problems.
And Dostoyevsky is the genius who knows this and shows this “abnormal” idea of happiness that is somewhere in every one of us. And for that reason the works of Dostoyevsky may be a terrifying mirror for all readers (not only for me ).

Inspired by this excellent discussion (I learned a lot) I’ve started reading “The House of the Dead.”

Greetings

 

[SFG75]

Someone is happy when he/she gets flowers on Valentine’s Day, the other one is happy in suffering from his/her desires or other problems.

Isn't that the truth!? For every person who is genuinely happy on Valentine's Day, there is some Keats like soul who loves his/her "woe is me" drama. As I've said earlier, some people's *chaos* is really their *calm.*

And Dostoyevsky is the genius who knows this and shows this “abnormal” idea of happiness that is somewhere in every one of us. And for that reason the works of Dostoyevsky may be a terrifying mirror for all readers (not only for me ).

I'm early into The Brothers Karamazov work , but I can already see that occuring. The father is just the most wretched human being to ever grace the face of the earth.

Spoiler

Each of the three kids is essentially given up by him and raised through Gregory, his servant, or Muisov the cousin and his closer relation. There is also an interesting scene where he meets his sons at a monastery to talk about property and solve problems, but instead, becomes the source of contention in the meeting that ends on a particularly sour note. Right now, I'm to a part where the sone who entered the monastery is beginning to find out that some of the base inclinations that his father possesses, he has too.

In real life, this reminds me of people who detest their father or mother, but who in all reality, are just like them in every way. Mannerisms, speech, temperment, etc. are but a few ways that this is most obviously observed.

Inspired by this excellent discussion (I learned a lot) I’ve started reading “The House of the Dead.”

Do share details when you feel like you wnat to. We're not all reading the same book, but there are a lot of underlying details and themes that stretch across his different works.

 

[LoeMa]

Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of time for reading at the moment. So I’ve just read a few pages of The House of the Dead – but I have to say Wow! It’s so typical Dostoyevsky that I’m looking forward to read more.

Greetings

 

[Flowerdk4]

I am glad to see other Dosto readers here!

I have read a couple of his books and shall read all of them.

As I simply love his work, I have bought a dvd of the Idiot. Its a tv serie of 10 chapters and was made in 2003. I love it and enjoy the russian language very much. Check out www.russiandvd.com

Right now I am reading "the house of the dead".

Flower

 

[LoeMa]

I’m in the middle of The House of the Dead and this excellent spirit of the underground can’t be overlooked.
But I’m afraid that at the moment my mood is too happy to appreciate Dostoyevsky in the right way. On the cover of one of my books it says, that you have to read D. when you are feeling sad.
I think this could be right, because then you can understand this living in the underground and this kind of suffering and also the possibility to get out of this suffering – as we discussed.
So should I wait for bad times to finish the book? No, because it’s really great and I’m sure knowing this book can help me in the future to manage life better.

Greetings

 

[SFG75]

On the cover of one of my books it says, that you have to read D. when you are feeling sad.
I think this could be right, because then you can understand this living in the underground and this kind of suffering and also the possibility to get out of this suffering – as we discussed.
So should I wait for bad times to finish the book? No, because it’s really great and I’m sure knowing this book can help me in the future to manage life better.

Greetings

I don't know if you have to be sad. The Brothers Karamazov is a sad book and has plenty of existential dread in it. At the same time, the ultimate point in it is that we can choose the dread or we can choose to exist meaningfully. Aloysha's point of view is one that the others see great value in at the end. They recognize that while they are deeply flawed individiuals, individuals who have done many, many things wrong, there is still hope for them.

 

[LoeMa]

I’ve finished The House of the Dead. Maybe it’s the book itself and not my mood that makes the difference. It’s really great and probably it describes the worst time of Dostoyevsky’s life, but it doesn’t seem so depressing to me like the Notes from underground.
I’m not sure about the reason. Maybe it’s, because The House of the Dead is more a story about what happened and the Notes concentrate on the innermost part of one person and therefore they seem to be more “shocking”?

Greetings

 

[SFG75]

I’ve finished The House of the Dead. Maybe it’s the book itself and not my mood that makes the difference. It’s really great and probably it describes the worst time of Dostoyevsky’s life, but it doesn’t seem so depressing to me like the Notes from underground.
I’m not sure about the reason. Maybe it’s, because The House of the Dead is more a story about what happened and the Notes concentrate on the innermost part of one person and therefore they seem to be more “shocking”?

Greetings

I did a quick Wiki search and discovered that The House of the Dead was written after his mock execution and subsequent banishment to Siberia. He used the experience to write vividly about it in HoD. The guy's personal life for an eight year stretch is just unbelievable. Check this out:

Dostoevsky was arrested and imprisoned on April 23rd of 1849 for engaging in revolutionary activity against Tsar Nikolai I. On November 16 that year he was sentenced to death for anti-government activities linked to a liberal intellectual group, the Petrashevsky Circle. After a mock execution in which he was blindfolded and ordered to stand outside in freezing weather waiting to be shot by a firing squad, Dostoevsky's sentence was commuted to a number of years of exile performing hard labor at a katorga prison camp in Omsk, Siberia. The incidence of epileptic seizures, to which he was predisposed, increased during this period.

Wiki....wiki...wiki.....
I remember reading from another source that I can't remember just now, that the mock execution ultimately caused two poor souls to commit suicide and a third to be commited. No wonder the guy had somewhat of a bleak outlook on life at the time.

 

[Flowerdk4]

SFG75,
I have got Crime & Punishment on my desk and I shall start reading it very soon, so I am right behind you. How far are you in the book??
Flower

 

[SFG75]

SFG75,
I have got Crime & Punishment on my desk and I shall start reading it very soon, so I am right behind you. How far are you in the book??
Flower

The book has six sections with about four or five chapters in each. Right now, I'm in section two, chapter 5. I'll be more than happy to re-read when you start, there are a lot of fascinating things to pore over. This is one work that I'm trying not to rush through for the sake of being done.

 

[Flowerdk4]

Great!
I shall start reading this weekend. I have the article you mentioned in another thread too.

So far I have read the following books by Dosto:
The double
The Idiot + the dvd of the books
Poor people
The dead house

On my shelves I have:
The brothers Karamazov
Evil spirits, also called the possesed.
and Crime & Punishment is on my desk, ready to picked up!

I am very excited by this as its great to discuss Dostojevsky with other people. Would be great if other people join us.

Flower

 

[Flowerdk4]

SFG75,

Which books have you read of Dostojevsky?


About Crime & Punishment. I have read capter 1-4 of section one now!

Here are my thoughts:

Dostojevksy doesnt waist any time, you get right into Raskolnikov´s state of mind right on the first page!

He has the thoughts about killing the pawnbroker before receiving the letter from his mother, but been in doubt. The thought of killing her, have occipied his mind and the poverty doesnt affect him so much. In fact he stops doing anything to get some money.

He compaire Marmeladov´s daughter, Sonja with his own sister.
He feels that they both "sell themselves", are able to endure and they have a purity about them. "Purity costs", he says.
Marmeladov drinks his feelings of shame away but Raskolnikov does not want to do that.
Marmeladov says something about foregiveness in chapter 2. That God will forgive "them" too as they have not considered themselves worthy and someday they will all understand. What is it they will understand???
Marmeladov mentions something about his wife almost being forced to marry him and that he could not stand to look at the poverty she and her children were enduring. Marmeladov does fine for about a year but then he cannot take it any more.
Is Marmeladov a "picture" of what Raskolnikov believes his sister´s future husband could turn out to be. Both men marring out of pity and wanting to support their poor wifes???

Raskolnikov meets this young girl on the bench. First he protects her, gives money for a cab but at the end, he says something about let things stay the way there are.
He also regrets leaving money at Marmeladov´s house.
Why does he regret giving money in both cases? Because he understands that money cannot change their situations??

Raskolnikov says something in chapter 4 about what they (mother and sister) thinks. I cannot translate it all , but it has to do with them only wanting to believe in the good in people and even if they suspect another side of the coin, they try hard to hide the truth for themselves.

I think its interesting to see how people do not take responsibility for their own lives. Its like everyone wants to transfer the responsibility onto someone else and the excuses are many.
Raskolnikov does not want the guilt placed on his shoulders by his mother and sister and I think that what makes him think and feels that he has to act NOW.

These are my thoughts so far. Would be interesting to read about yours and see what observations you have done.

Flower

 

[SFG75]

SFG75,

Which books have you read of Dostojevsky?

The Possessed, The Brothers Karamazov, Notes from Underground, and I'm now into section four of Crime & Punishment.

He has the thoughts about killing the pawnbroker before receiving the letter from his mother, but been in doubt. The thought of killing her, have occipied his mind and the poverty doesnt affect him so much. In fact he stops doing anything to get some money.

Supposedly, Dostoyevsky was in a similar situation before he wrote the book. He was deeply in debt and asked anyone and everyone he knew for help in that regard. The picture of Raskolnikov slinking around the rooms to avoid the landlord was a bit humorous, but not overly so.

He compaire Marmeladov´s daughter, Sonja with his own sister.
He feels that they both "sell themselves", are able to endure and they have a purity about them. "Purity costs", he says.

That part to me contains shades of nihilism in that no matter what you do-it doesn't really matter.

Marmeladov drinks his feelings of shame away but Raskolnikov does not want to do that.
Marmeladov says something about foregiveness in chapter 2. That God will forgive "them" too as they have not considered themselves worthy and someday they will all understand. What is it they will understand???
Marmeladov mentions something about his wife almost being forced to marry him and that he could not stand to look at the poverty she and her children were enduring. Marmeladov does fine for about a year but then he cannot take it any more.

To me, this is just Marmeladov....being Marmeladov. He's a drunk, drunks are social-and he's a social drunk. Not only that, but he's older than Raskolnikov and quickly engages him in a conversation, using flattery to find his way in. It was also interesting to read how

Spoiler

Sonya engaged in prostitution in order to bring home more money for the family.

Religious symbolism was huge here as the mother then stayed at her daughter's feet and refused to budge. Reminded me a lot of the story of Jesus washing his disciple's feet. You also could compare her to Mary Magdalene in that regard.

Is Marmeladov a "picture" of what Raskolnikov believes his sister´s future husband could turn out to be. Both men marring out of pity and wanting to support their poor wifes???

I don't believe that he felt that his sister would end up like Mrs. Marmeladov, but he didn't want her to sacrifice her life and dreams on his behalf. Later on in section three, he says as much to her face when he insults Luzhin and then proceeds to upbraid his sister for her choice. I believe that he wants her to live her own life and to do so out of her own desires and willpower, without consideration of other people's desires. Once again, philosophical overtones around this one as the sister appears to be a dependent personality type, who could use some existential ideas in regards to finding one's intrinsic interests and needs in this life. By living for others in any way, you are not necessarily living the way that you should, hence, no self-actualization.

He also regrets leaving money at Marmeladov´s house.
Why does he regret giving money in both cases? Because he understands that money cannot change their situations??

Later on, he also

Spoiler

gives money to Marmeladov's family when he is trampled under a team of horses.

It's a situation to me, where he gives to those in need, only to consider his own needs lastly, and then subsequently, regret it.

 

[SFG75]

You mentioned previously, Raskolnikov finding out about Sonia's occupation. In the chapter where he gives the money to the Marmeladov's, the following line is uttered, just begging for a psychological interpretation.

Well, he exclaimed involuntarily, all of a sudden, 'what if I'm wrong? What if man isn't really a beast-man in general, I mean, the whole human race, that is; for if he is not, then all the rest is just prejudice, just imagined fears, and there is nothing to stop you from becoming anything you like, and that's as it should be!'

Page 44


In a sense, I somewhat gather that Raskolnikov is a sociologist to a degree. he realizes that prostitution and dowry-marriage are more similar than people realize, they also have a relative meaning given to each by society at large. In speaking of "imagined fears" and the like, is he not alluding to depression, and other mental maladies??

 

[Flowerdk4]

The Possessed, The Brothers Karamazov, Notes from Underground, and I'm now into section four of Crime & Punishment..

Allright then! I see that we have read different books.

Supposedly, Dostoyevsky was in a similar situation before he wrote the book. He was deeply in debt and asked anyone and everyone he knew for help in that regard. The picture of Raskolnikov slinking around the rooms to avoid the landlord was a bit humorous, but not overly so..

I only pointed this out as the thought of killing the pawnbroker came out of poverty. I reckon that his sisters situation "helps him" in a way.

That part to me contains shades of nihilism in that no matter what you do-it doesn't really matter. .

Ok. That makes sense.

To me, this is just Marmeladov....being Marmeladov. He's a drunk, drunks are social-and he's a social drunk. Not only that, but he's older than Raskolnikov and quickly engages him in a conversation, using flattery to find his way in. It was also interesting to read how

Spoiler

Sonya engaged in prostitution in order to bring home more money for the family.

Religious symbolism was huge here as the mother then stayed at her daughter's feet and refused to budge. Reminded me a lot of the story of Jesus washing his disciple's feet. You also could compare her to Mary Magdalene in that regard. .

I dont think the story of Marmeladov is just for nothing, I think it has a purpose. And all I could think of what the purpose of him, seing a "may-be-future" of his sisters.
I see what you mean about the religious symbolism. I didnt think about that. Its like both the mother and the father, feel the same kind of (dont really know what word to use here) towards the one who acts. The daughter/mother + the mother/the father. Like they make themselves useless and little. Hope you know what I mean?

I don't believe that he felt that his sister would end up like Mrs. Marmeladov, but he didn't want her to sacrifice her life and dreams on his behalf. Later on in section three, he says as much to her face when he insults Luzhin and then proceeds to upbraid his sister for her choice. I believe that he wants her to live her own life and to do so out of her own desires and willpower, without consideration of other people's desires. Once again, philosophical overtones around this one as the sister appears to be a dependent personality type, who could use some existential ideas in regards to finding one's intrinsic interests and needs in this life. By living for others in any way, you are not necessarily living the way that you should, hence, no self-actualization..

I do understand what you mean. And I think that Marmeladov is a picture of what could happen if you DONT find your own meaning etc etc. That you get depended on other peoples good will etc. and have a lot of guilt to carry around etc.

Later on, he also

Spoiler

gives money to Marmeladov's family when he is trampled under a team of horses.

It's a situation to me, where he gives to those in need, only to consider his own needs lastly, and then subsequently, regret it.

So he acts like his sister. Thinks of other people first before himself.

 

[Flowerdk4]

You mentioned previously, Raskolnikov finding out about Sonia's occupation. In the chapter where he gives the money to the Marmeladov's, the following line is uttered, just begging for a psychological interpretation.

Well, he exclaimed involuntarily, all of a sudden, 'what if I'm wrong? What if man isn't really a beast-man in general, I mean, the whole human race, that is; for if he is not, then all the rest is just prejudice, just imagined fears, and there is nothing to stop you from becoming anything you like, and that's as it should be!'

Page 44


In a sense, I somewhat gather that Raskolnikov is a sociologist to a degree. he realizes that prostitution and dowry-marriage are more similar than people realize, they also have a relative meaning given to each by society at large. In speaking of "imagined fears" and the like, is he not alluding to depression, and other mental maladies??

I read that a few times too!

I understand it through existentialism.
Kierkegaard talks about freedom. That you have to realize that you have absolute freedom of choice. That fact and thought can scare/overwhelm even the best of man. And in understanding just how much freedom you have, you understand that you have to act yourself too! You, THEN, realize that you alone are responsible for your own life.

Imagined fears=hell. That you go to hell. What Sonia is doing is a sin. Prejustice=what the priest tell you will happen if you do so and so.

 

[ions]

Ahhh in my absence you begin talking of the greatest of them all! Had useful threads been shut down for something like this then I'd never have been inclined to leave.

I have only skimmed the thread and really have nothing to add other than some advice: Beware the translater. Language translation is a science. In that science there are intangibles; tone and word-play that simple deciphering will not communicate. Early translators,*ahem*Garnett*ahem would leave whole sections out if the passages were not completely understood or if she determined them unimportant. She knew better than Fyodor or Lev of course! Many translators decipher the language then transform it into their own voice. A good example of this is a recent translation of War and Peace where the translator has included curse words to make it more appealing to modern audiences. The goal in a translation is to capture the original as closely as possible. Not modernize or leave things out if they were beyond you.

I can not say I have read all translations but I have done some research. There is a bit of a resurgence in translating Russian work since Oprah picked the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation of Anna Karenina and the artful science of translation has been under examination. Consensus among the experts say that Pevear and Volokhonsky are the way to go. There was an article in the New Yorker late 2005 where Pevear and Volokhonsky are profiled.

To compare the Garnett and the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations of The Brothers Karamazov os to alight on hundreds of subtle differences in tone, word choiceword orderand rhythm.

The awards for the translations also indicate that they're the boks to be reading. Myself I've read the Garnett translation and the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of Crime and Punishment. The latter is much better. I haven't read the Garnett translation of Anna Karenina completely but I have compared passages that I particularly liked in the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation and again found the latter significantly better.

Consider Dostoevsky's Demons, improperly translated as Devils. Or Notes From Underground which has been translated as Notes From the Underground. Was Dostoevsky referring to a specific underground that his narrator spoke from? If they can't get the title right how can you rely on the contents? Don't cheap out, get the new translations! And no, unfortunately I receive no kick-backs from Pevear-Volokhonsky.

 

[Flowerdk4]

Ions,
I agree with you, that its very important with the right translation. I do however not read Dostojevsky in English, but in Danish.
Some of his books, I have read in an old translation but I have got The posessed and C&P in a fairly new translation. The translator received some kind of price for this translation and so far I believe its good. I do however miss what the old translator did, and that was to write a little intro to the book. Guess you cannot have it all, eh?

Flower