Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This is a place to discuss general background information on the book, the society in which it was written, the author, etc. (no spoilers, please).

My understanding is that it was published in 1880 and set in the period of the 1860s. The narrator speaks as a man (at least I assume he is a man and not a woman) of the 1860s. There was a bit in the first few chapters about women of the last generation and a comparison of that sort of women to women of "today" (being the 1860s). it was something to do with the mother of one of the boys., whom I guessed must have been a woman of the 1840s.

The 1860s must have been as interesting a time in history as the 1960s. I recall a character in Dickens novel Bleak House who was all into activism (and not at all into housework) and social issues that may not have interested women of her mother's generation.

Does anyone have any insight into why Fyodor Dostoyevsky may have created such an unsavory yet strangely sympathetic character with his same first name in Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov?

More on using familiar real life names in the book, which may explain why the father is named Fyodor.

In May 1878, Dostoyevsky's three-year-old son Alyosha died of epilepsy, a condition inherited from his father. The novelist's grief is apparent throughout the book; Dostoyevsky named the hero Alyosha, as well as imbuing him with qualities which he sought and most admired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bro...

David wrote: "Does anyone have any insight into why Fyodor Dostoyevsky may have created such an unsavory yet strangely sympathetic character with his same first name in Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov?"

I'm curious why you find him strangely sympathetic?

Genni wrote: "I'm curious why you find him strangely sympathetic?"

At the news of his first wife's death,while he is drunk and rejoices in the street. . .

. . .but others say he wept without restraint like a little child, so much so that people were sorry for him, in spite of the repulsion he inspired. It is quite possible that both versions were true, that he rejoiced at his release, and at the same time wept for her who released him. As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naïve and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are, too.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov (pp. 2-3). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

Also, since learning Dostoyevsky's used his own and his dead son's names for characters in the book I am picking up on the self-deprecating grief and guilt being expressed through the character. The character seems to be developed more as a pathetic person than a malevolent person.

I was surprised to learn this was serialized and not initially published as a fully completed novel.

"Dostoyevsky spent nearly two years writing The Brothers Karamazov, which was published as a serial in The Russian Messenger from January 1879 to November 1880. The author died less than four months after its publication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bro...

Does anyone know if it was written for serialized publication with the obligatory cliff hangers?

David wrote: "I was surprised to learn this was serialized and not initially published as a fully completed novel.

"Dostoyevsky spent nearly two years writing The Brothers Karamazov, which was published as a se..."

Good question. If so, I'd like to adjust my own reading schedule to take breaks after each of the serialized publications.

David wrote: "I was surprised to learn this was serialized and not initially published as a fully completed novel.

"Dostoyevsky spent nearly two years writing The Brothers Karamazov, which was published as a se..."

I didn't know about that. It may not have been obligatory but it sure would have helped the sales.

David wrote: "Genni wrote: "I'm curious why you find him strangely sympathetic?"

At the news of his first wife's death,while he is drunk and rejoices in the street. . .. . .but others say he wept without restra..."

That line really touched me. This line does not only apply to wicked or pathetic people. Lots of people who have chronically ill (whether physical or mental) family members feel both mixture of sadness of loss and a feeling of release at the same time.
It's so easy to point our finger at other people but the four fingers folded inside the fist are pointed at ourselves. Dostoevsky reminds how we are all much simpler than we think of ourselves to be and finds the common ground we all stand on.

"As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naïve and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are, too."

David wrote: "At the news of his first wife's death,while he is drunk and rejoices in the street. . .
. . .but others say he wept without restraint like a little child, so much so that people were sorry for him, in spite of the repulsion he inspired. "

I guess I would have had to be there. :-) I am not convinced that he's a sympathetic character...yet. lol Later, in his conversation with Alyosha, he demonstrates a pretty thorough knowledge of his own depravity. He acknowledges, yet seems ultimately unconcerned with it. For me, this is what makes him an UN-sympathetic character.

Also, since learning Dostoyevsky's used his own and his dead son's names for characters in the book I am picking up on the self-deprecating grief and guilt being expressed through the character. The character seems to be developed more as a pathetic person than a malevolent person.

This is a great observation, but for me, it rather causes me to feel sympathy for the author rather than the character of Fyodor...

Genni wrote: "David wrote: "At the news of his first wife's death,while he is drunk and rejoices in the street. . .
. . .but others say he wept without restraint like a little child, so much so that people were ..."

That IS true.. He knows his fault but doesn't care enough to do anything about it... It makes one understand him and still not like him at the same time.. :-)

Borum wrote: "He knows his fault but doesn't care enough to do anything about it... It makes one understand him and still not like him at the same time.. :-) ."

That's pretty much how I feel at this point. :-)

Genni wrote: "Borum wrote: "He knows his fault but doesn't care enough to do anything about it... It makes one understand him and still not like him at the same time.. :-) ."

That's pretty much how I feel at th..."

If that was what Dostoevsky intended and he wanted acknowledgement of his sins but not sympathy or forgiveness for it, he must be a pretty harsh and brutally honest critic of himself. It's as if he were castigating himself like an ascetic monk. Not many people are able to be totally admissive of their faults and weaknesses.

This is a great discussion of Fydor, but it really belongs over in the Book 1 thread more than the background information thread. I would love to have one of you summarize it over there, and then continue the great discussion in that thread.

On the narrator in Brothers K (In the event some would consider this a spoiler, I'll place this in spoiler format, although it mostly just points to a critical resource (Mikhail Bakhtin) who has focused on Dostoevsky.) (view spoiler)[This unique narrative voice has drawn a lot of critical attention. Perhaps the most influential literary theorist on Dostoevsky is Mikhail Bakhtin, who argued that the peculiar invisibility of Dostoevsky's narrator enables the novel to relay a number of different voices: the narrator gives everybody a chance to speak for themselves. And given how much of the novel is taken up by dialogue – rather than the monologue of a single narrator or character – it might also be no surprise that Bakhtin calls Dostoevsky the master of a "polyphonic" ("multi-voiced") style in his Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics.
http://www.shmoop.com/brothers-karama... (hide spoiler)]

I'm afraid I find F.D. one of those writers I have to read at least twice to comprehend -- and make an investment in Russian history, both cultural and political as well -- without the same excitement for the story and characters that I experience with Tolstoy or Pushkin, my favorite Russian authors. So this read I've decided to monitor the discussion from the sidelines and see what that feels like. Thanks for all the tantalizing comments to date.

A bit more on Bakhtin (1895-1975):
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/m...

Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881)

Timeline of Russian cultural history: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/russia...

1861: Alexander II emancipates serfs, launches reforms.

Lily wrote: "..given how much of the novel is taken up by dialogue – rather than the monologue of a single narrator or character – it might also be no surprise that Bakhtin calls Dostoevsky the master of a "polyphonic" ("multi-voiced") style...

I'm having a little hard time getting used to Dostoevsky's polyphonic style, compared to Tolstoy's natural style.

Imagine listening to a person with multiple personality disorder, who talks so much that it feels stuffy, and you just want to get out and get some fresh air.

In the book two thread we veered away from the text somewhat and began a limited discussion on literary theory and how that influenced how we read. I addressed my concern that we should focus on what the text means. Not everyone agrees and I respect that. I think an equally important, and ultimately complimentary question is "what does this text mean to me," but I don't think anyone has a problem with that question. A third question though that I haven't seen addressed directly is what did the text mean to Dostoevsky's intended audience? I think it would be worthwhile to explore this question. First we may have to ask who in fact the intended audience was. We at least can agree that it wasn't us - English speakers spread all over the world encountering the text in translation. However we answer the question of who is the intended audience, then the question that follows is whether we can place ourselves in that audience or not. Sometimes we may find that an author has intentionally excluded us, or at least made it difficult for us. I experienced this with Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza by Gloria Anzaldua. I wanted to be part of the authorial audience and understand this book (I had to for comps!) But there were a number of obstacles, the biggest coming at the end of book one when Anzaldua explicitly says straight white men are what's wrong with the world. As a straight white man this was a hard statement to get past!

I doubt anything that is read in this group would be so exclusive, but it's worth keeping in mind that you may not be the intended audience and you may actually be intentionally excluded sometimes from what you read.

Having said that, what are the challenges in placing ourselves in the authorial audience? We touched briefly in the book two thread on how many of the cultural references that presumably Dostoevsky's audience would have caught are lost on us. (But the blow is softened by the Internet!) What are the other obstacles? How much knowledge do we have to have to be part of the authorial audience? What are the implications of reading outside of that audience?

And then there's yet another level to explore. Everyman asked in the opening thread who the narrator is. Even at the end of book three I think that's an open question. Someone suggested it may be a monk, which I think is plausible. Whoever it is, how do we position ourselves within that narrative world? Are we a traveler passing through who has been stopped by a merchant who wants to tell his (long) tale? I don't want to get too abstract, but at some level we (should?) enter the text and actually participate in the narrative world. Not so much that we try to plan a trip to the monastery, but certainly we should feel some empathy for the characters.

And I think this is the challenge of doing a good reading of a text - keeping all these questions (and more) in mind while simultaneously reading on several different levels.

Jeremy wrote: ". How much knowledge do we have to have to be part of the authorial audience?.."

I don't know, but I'd propose that one measure of a classic is that it is able to reach across generations (or centuries) to speak to readers on a level of their shared human experiences - the ones that go beyond details of time and place. Alternatively, another measure of a classic is that the more often you read it, the more you know about its cultural background - the more you get out of it.

but at some level we (should?) enter the text and actually participate in the narrative world.
This is my natural approach to reading most novels. I've even been (gently) mocked in this group for seeming to believe that the characters are real people. I tend to search my own experiences for people who have similar characteristics, or for similar situations I have been through, and to use these to guide my understanding of the novel. I don't suppose this was my reading approach when I was a teenager (or it might have been....for different types of easy reading books).

BTW, the revelation that at the end of book 3 we still don't know the narrator...is a bit of a spoiler - not much, but something to keep in mind. Lily likes to use those spoiler tags (which I've never got the hang of), which might be helpful in this thread.

re the spoilers and off-topic diversions in the early discussion threads: there seems to be a strong desire to have the "book as a whole" discussion up early (or earlier than October). There seems to be enough general participation in this read to justify it (will it drain too much from the discussion of each individual week's read? I may be wrong, budon't think so, ). I am starting to feel a bit uneasy with what I read in the individual weekly threads as I can't seem to find how the observations emerged from that week's reading. I am just starting on Book 4 right now.

Theresa wrote: "BTW, the revelation that at the end of book 3 we still don't know the narrator...is a bit of a spoiler - not much, but something to keep in mind. Lily likes to use those spoiler tags (which I've never got the hang of), which might be helpful in this thread. ."

The discussion is open through the end of book 3, so a comment regarding the end of book 3 would not be considered a spoiler. Comments on anything beyond that would be problematic.

I do believe that opening a "book as a whole" thread before most of us have read the book would defeat the purpose of reading the book together as a group, so I would not be in favor of it myself.

To use spoiler tags, you surround whatever you want hidden with the tags < spoiler > hidden text < / spoiler > (without the spaces in the tags.) Hope that helps!

Theresa wrote: "I've even been (gently) mocked in this group for seeming to believe that the characters are real people."

Characters in books become like friends to me. For example, Middlemarch is one of my favorite books. Dorothea is part of my extended family. Blood Meridian is another one of my favorite books. I don't consider The Judge as part of my family, but he haunts me nonetheless. I laugh out loud when I read and sometimes cry. But I know that not everyone experiences novels this way. My initial thought, as I was reflecting on the act of reading, is that unless you enter the story and suffer and rejoice with the characters then you're probably not enjoying the novel. But then I considered, in light of the comments so far, that maybe you can enjoy the novel in a different way. If you approach the novel as a theological or philosophical debate then plot, setting, theme, and all the other literary devices fade into the background or disappear altogether. The characters are no longer "real," not in even in the narrative sense. They become mouthpieces for the author to convey his philosophy, or they represent competing worldviews or theological positions. That's not to say that you can't read a novel on both levels simultaneously. But if you approach a story exclusively from the position of it being a vehicle for a philosophical, theological, or political message, are you doing a "good" reading of the text? Is there any such thing as a "good" reading or a "bad" reading. I suggest there is, but I'm interested to know what others think.

Having said that, I'm not in an anyway arguing that sometimes novels aren't driven by a political or philosophical position - The Stranger and Darkness at Noon are the first examples that come to mind. But do we have to enter the story before we can extract the philosophy?

As to revealing that we don't know the narrator being a spoiler, I had to think about that. I can't think of any story, (though my reading isn't nearly as broad as some people in the group), where we have a third person narrator who isn't identified early on in the novel but is later. Typically if the narrator doesn't reveal himself in the first chapter then he remains anonymous. Now it's possible that a narrator could shift from the third person to the first person and give us a clue, but I think that's rare. (It actually happens in the book of Luke though - the narrator switches to "we" for a few verses). Can anyone think of an example where the story is written in the third person and the narrator is revealed late in the story?

Joseph Conrad does something like that in more than one of his books to wonderful effect, I won't say which. Even then it wasn't very late. I agree that it's rare and Dostoevsky doesn't seem to be playing that game. Even so, after the literature of the 20th century, it's difficult not to ask questions about the narrator, even if the author doesn't seem to intentionally develop a coherent narrator. I've even found myself questioning the reliability of Jane Austen's narrators. I think of Sense and Sensibility in particular, because it reads like a version of events that would be presented by a friend of some of the characters (I think it's fair to say that Austen's a friend of her heroines, which makes me wonder what she is to her antagonists).

I'll reserve my thoughts on Dostoevsky's narrator in BK for the book discussions so I can address specific quotes.

Jeremy wrote: "...They become mouthpieces for the author to convey his philosophy"

While I prefer to read novels as simple stories about people I do sometimes approach the novel by taking the long view of how it fits into various world views. One often noted aspect of the so called "western canon" is that it is very male centered, that most of the dead male authors promote a patriarchal world view, and that this is inherent in the way they portray men and women in their novels and treatises. So sometimes I take a step back to try to assess just how much this is on display in the work I am reading. If it is very prominent, then the work will likely be less useful to me as a guide in my own life as a female (unless I strongly want to be the sort of female that fits neatly into the patriarchal world view). I do not often take the philosophical or theological approach to assessing the author's biases, but I don't mind reading about it occasionally, from others, though I don't know much about it and don't benefit too much from the discussions on possible theological biases.

There used to be some adage about never discussing politics, religion, sex, and I think, money, as the discussion would veer off into what was once considered disagreeable territory.

Jacob wrote: "(I think it's fair to say that Austen's a friend of her heroines, which makes me wonder what she is to her antagonists.."
That is an interesting question. From the books I've read, I don't recall that her antagonists stayed antagonists - even the antagonists that the heroine didn't end up marrying did not themselves end up being ruined or vilified. They just married someone else.

Jeremy wrote: " Can anyone think of an example where the story is written in the third person and the narrator is revealed late in the story? "

Check out Atonement by Ian McEwan. I can think of a couple others where the narrator is revealed later, but they are first person narrators.

Thomas wrote: "Check out Atonement by Ian McEwan."

I read that a few years ago. I'll have to go back and look at that one. What I remember is the twist. Can I give spoilers about other books here? Let me try to use spoiler tags. (view spoiler)[ The narrator turns out to be the same person as the little girl who claimed to be assaulted. Then it turns out that the happily ever after narrative was a fiction (within a fiction) and the "real" story was much more grim. The problem I'm having is that I also liked the movie and I think I'm conflating the two in my memory. spoiler> (hide spoiler)]

Jacob wrote: "Joseph Conrad does something like that in more than one of his books to wonderful effect, I won't say which.."


Thought provoking observation about Austen. But why can't you say which Conrad book you're talking about? I've only read Heart of Darkness and The Secret Sharer, which if I remember correctly are both first person narratives.

Jeremy wrote..."

Just because I personally wouldn't want to know about narrative level shifts in a novel. (view spoiler)[Lord Jim does some strange things with the narrator. It's certainly worth reading. I think it would be a good choice for this group. (hide spoiler)]

Reading through the threads I see some people are reading the book for a second or even third time. Everyman commented (I'm paraphrasing) that it's almost as if you have to read the book so that you're prepared to read the book. But elsewhere Theresa expressed concern that those who had already read the book (or have read ahead) are making observations that aren't included in the section open for discussion and may be shaping the conversation, intentionally or unintentionally, in a particular direction. As I follow the discussion I've been thinking about how the experience of initial reading compares to rereading. Here's a quote I found interesting:

"For instance, the initial act of reading inevitably involves expectations that aren't met, predictions that don't work out, details that are missed, patterns that aren't completed. As I've said, it's a perplexing walk. That sense of dislocation - with its consequent surprises - is among the fundamental experiences the first time through a text, especially a complex one. But it's precisely that sense of dislocation that's erased with the map of re-reading. That is, the foiled expectations are reduced, from the perspective of the re-reader, to false starts - and what is essential to the reading experience is converted into mere error" (Authorizing Readers p.100).

If one of the pleasures of reading with a group is to help each other stumble through the maze of the text, how does it change the experience when we have experienced guides who effectively take us by the hand and lead us on a direct path? Is that something people appreciate, or does it diminish the enjoyment of reading the book the first time? (I'm not even suggesting that is actually happening in the current discussion. I'm only theorizing at this point).

A related question is do you read the introduction before you begin a novel? Often the introduction is full of spoilers. More than that, in many cases the introduction is written by another author or critic. So not only are there spoilers, but there's a particular interpretation of the novel that is given a certain authority by the introduction's author. How does that affect your reading of the book?

Jeremy wrote: "For instance, the initial act of reading inevitably involves expectations that aren't met, predictions that don't work out, details that are missed, patterns that aren't completed. As I've said, it's a perplexing walk. That sense of dislocation - with its consequent surprises - is among the fundamental experiences the first time through a text, especially a complex one. But it's precisely that sense of dislocation that's erased with the map of re-reading."."

Most of you know that Everyman, Roger, and I (and maybe a few others in the group) went to St. John's College, which has a very conservative Great-Books based curriculum. Every year the curriculum is challenged by the college community to change in some respect. One year when I was a student, a member of the community argued to a gathering of administrative leaders that the program was not "creative" enough. I don't remember what the suggestions were to make it more creative, but it is a program that consists almost entirely of reading and discussion, so it's a valid argument. What I remember most vividly is the response of one tutor to the argument. He said, "Reading is creative. Reading is a creative act."

I think that's absolutely true because reading involves all those things Jeremy quoted -- expectations, predictions, dislocations -- and maneuvering around and through those things. Reading is not passive (at least not the type of reading we do in this group.)

Engaging an unfamilar work of art -- literature, music, or what have you -- is always a challenge because it doesn't necessarily fit the pattern we expect. For me the enjoyment of re-reading is that once I know the pattern, I can observe other details. It's hard to notice the fine details in the landscape when everything is new and unfamiliar.

Jeremy wrote: "A related question is do you read the introduction before you begin a novel? Often the introduction is full of spoilers. More than that, in many cases the introduction is written by another author or critic. So not only are there spoilers, but there's a particular interpretation of the novel that is given a certain authority by the introduction's author. How does that affect your reading of the book? "

Great question. I usually skip introductions, and if I read them I read them after the thing they introduce. I would think a really good introduction would let the reader know how to approach a book, maybe give some insight into the unique "pattern" of the book. Maybe it would be analogous to a map: it can help the reader to find her way, but it doesn't reveal the sights or tell her what the trip will be like.

What are some examples of good introductions (if such things exist?)

I never read introductions. In general I'm a stickler for spoilers not because plot is the most important thing to me - I reread novels often so knowing what's going to happen doesn't ruin a book for me. I'm a stickler for spoilers because I don't like being told how to interpret something before I read it which is exactly what you're talking about.

I think the biggest risk for people who have read a book already is that they can insert meaning from later in the book into earlier sections when it isn't warrented. It can warp interpretation; we might start seeing foreshadowing everywhere even if it lacks textual basis.

The best thing we can do, whether we've read the book before or not, is demand proof of interpretation. Because this is my approach to a multi-week reading and disgussion, I don't worry about the leading interpretations of people who have been there before. I can always demand proof. If it's there, I'd like to be aware of it; if it's not there, then their interpretation is, at that point in the text, unfounded. It doesn't matter if they WILL be right (in 200 pages). If they're not right yet then they're not right at all. I should really say "we" since I welcome this criticism as well.

Jeremy wrote: "How does that affect your reading of the book? ..."

I'm a cynic here, Jeremy. How does the life one has lived to date affect the reading of a book? How does the life one hopes to live tomorrow affect the reading of a book?

Some of us have been reading and discussing this article on re-reading, reading the ending first, and spoilers generally. A slightly different take than the Authorizing Readers citation you provide, but also insightful:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

Here is a Man Booker judge on the topic of re-reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo... (The writer even makes me reconsider Eleanor Catton's The Luminaries, which I never imagined being interested in reading again.)

Aren't there a bunch of linguists and philosophers who argue over what a text (or work of art) is, its independence or lack of independence of its creator, and the role of the recipient in according it meaning? French ones, maybe?

Lily wrote: "How does the life one has lived to date affect the reading of a book?"

Life experience is a factor that can't be eliminated. And it impacts what we see and focus on in the text. It is impossible to read a book purely isolated and in a vacuum. In our culture we often are pointed in this direction, which I find completely absurd.

Personally, I am not a purist, if I know bits and pieces already, that doesn't diminish for me the discovery of unveiling the story page by page. What I don't like are spoilers in connection with major turning points in the story.

Thomas wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "For instance, the initial act of reading inevitably involves expectations that aren't met, predictions that don't work out, details that are missed, patterns that aren't completed. A..."

Very well put :)

Lily wrote: "..I'm a cynic here, Jeremy. How does the life one has lived to date affect the reading of a book?.."

In what sense of the word are you a "cynic"?

Thomas wrote: "What are some examples of good introductions (if such things exist?)
..."

Like you and Jacob, I used to skip the introductions or read them after I finished the book. Now, however, I always read the introduction. But I can't recall an introduction that was ever so good that I paused and said, "Wow! What a great introduction!" I'm going to be aware of that going forward though.

And I agree with Jacob - once you've read the book you'll see foreshadowing where you probably didn't see it before. One of the other potential hazards is that when we reread we move away from immersing ourselves with the characters (the narrative audience) and start looking at "big picture" ideas. Some people can do both at once, but I usually don't process the overarching themes of a book until I've finished it. For example, I'm currently reading Catch-22 with a friend. This is my second reading and her first. The first time I read the book I was in the military and I strongly identified with some of the characters. Now, eight years removed from the military, I find that on my second reading I'm not as drawn to Yossarian as I was before, but I am seeing much more clearly how Heller presents the absurdities of war. But my friend, who generally reads Patterson and Sparks, is struggling to find a plot and make sense of the structure and the nonlinear presentation.

But I think that leads into Lily's comment. Where we are in life when we read impacts how we read. Another personal example - one of my favorite books is The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene. When I first read the book I was a Fundamentalist Christian. Though I liked the book, I couldn't relate to the whiskey priest. I agreed with the characters who judged him. On my second reading, fifteen years later, I was fully in sympathy with the priest. Now the interesting question for me is what changed? Did a second reading allow me to read the book as (I believe) it was intended? Or was it that my own religious beliefs had changed that allowed me to identify with the priest? I suspect the latter. So, even though I advocate for multiple readings, where we are in life may be the biggest influence on how we interpret a work.

As to the article on spoilers, I understand where the author is coming from. Knowing what's going to happen provides us with a coherence you wouldn't normally have on a first reading. In our novel, where the number of characters keeps multiplying, I can see the appeal of skipping ahead to read the last few chapters so that you know which characters and details are necessary to understand the plot and which ones aren't. The last time I did this though was with Bonfire of the Vanities. About halfway through the suspense was killing me so I read the ending. Big mistake. I didn't care to finish the book after that. On the other hand, I actually recommend people read The Sound and the Fury out of order, at least if they're not experienced with modern fiction.

Anyway, I appreciate having a space to discuss how we read. For a fascinating book on the subject I recommend If On A Winter's Night a Traveler.

Jeremy wrote: "Where we are in life when we read impacts how we read. Another personal example - "

This is very relavent to our reading of The Brothers Karamazov. If you read the book when you're a young or old religious devotee, or an atheistic intellectual, or a sensualist (I'm not sure how many of this type would actually read Dostoevsky), then you'll identify with different characters, sympathize with their arguments or speeches, and, simply, side with them in the drama. If you re-read after a major change in your life, as I am, then you'll see things quite differently. I'm harder on some characters than I used to be and more understanding of others.

Great discussion! Thanks, all.

As to Nemo's question about what kind of "cynic", I'd probably say "distrustful doubt." As Jeremy picked up, while it may make sense to read an introduction later, reading one may have no more or less impact on one's reading than simply life itself. Lots of things impact how we react to a text, especially one as rich as BK.

Jacob wrote: "Jeremy wrote: "Where we are in life when we read impacts how we read. Another personal example - "

This is very relavent to our reading of The Brothers Karamazov. If you read the book when you're ..."

Right. If had read more of the western canon before having read Virginia Woolf's "A Room Of One's Own" and "Three Guineas" I would not have gotten as much out of it. I did used to read some of the classics but they didn't speak to me on the level of my personal experiences. Having read Woolf's treatise, along with other feminist works, I have a better understanding of why I sometimes feel excluded from enjoying the hero's journey from the point of view of the hero.

I do mean that sincerely, that I get more out of these readings from this point of view. For example, I can appreciate the myth of Demeter and Peresphone in a way that allows me to understand the relationship of a woman and her daughter as something not at all antagonistic (as such relationships are often portrayed in both literature and popular culture). It is a useful myth. Useful in the way that the hero's journey is useful to men. I find it harder to relate to the kind of life journey that is experienced by the hero. It is too...patriarchal? Some women do experience that kind of journey and can relate, but most, I think, are excluded from that and live lives of eternal weaving and unweaving while waiting for something to happen

In case anyone is interested: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

The bit about "Shakespeare's sister" was the best.

This has been an interesting discussion on first reading vs. re-reading. I do, though, want to be sure that people who have read a book under discussion here -- not just BK but any book -- for the second (or third or fourth or, in the case of Thomas and The Republic, perhaps tenth [g] time) don't skip or avoid the discussion for fear that their knowledge of the book will appear to reveal spoilers.

I do ask re-readers (or those reading ahead of the schedule) to use care to avoid spoilers, but I don't want this to become such an obsession that it turns people away from the discussion. Just exercise your best efforts, but even more important, participate and share your ideas and thoughts on the chapters under discussion.

Can we have a "Dostoevsky: His life and ideas" thread?

It would give people the proper venue to share their knowledge and insights about the author, his philosophical and religious views, while keeping the weekly discussion threads clear of any potential spoilers.

I tend to think that, just as the life experience of a reader influences his understanding of a work of art, the life of a writer must necessarily impact his works as well. "Nothing comes from nothing."

BK has a reputation as a great philosophical novel. That's the main reason I voted for it. Unlike Jeremy, I could not care less about the plot and setting, and I can't say I empathize with any of Dostoevsky's characters enough to rejoice or weep with them. Half way through the book, I get the sense that many of his views and life experiences are very different from mine. I'd like to find out what he really believed and why.

Nemo wrote: "Can we have a "Dostoevsky: His life and ideas" thread?

I'd second that. Although I am way behind in the reading, I've done enough listening/reading to say that I do not find the characters ones with whom I can readily relate. But given that this is considered such a great novel, I'm willing to put some more effort into reading and comprehending it. (I did not vote for it, I intended to sit this one out, but the discussion has drawn me in.) I would also be amenable to Nemo's other suggestion for a thread for Schiller's The Robbers. I have downloaded it, but have not tried reading it yet. But it does seem as if it might be useful background -- otherwise, will treat like Thomas' cartoon re names. ;-0...

Nemo wrote: "Unlike Jeremy, I could not care less about the plot and setting, and I can't say I empathize with any of Dostoevsky's characters enough to rejoice or weep with them."

Is that the way you read most novels, or is there something different about BK that causes you to read it that way? Do the characters lack depth? Are you approaching the book as if the plot is only the structure on which to hang the author's philosophy? (I'm not challenging you, just curious).

Jeremy wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Unlike Jeremy, I could not care less about the plot and setting, and I can't say I empathize with any of Dostoevsky's characters enough to rejoice or weep with them."

Is that the way ..."

I'm not sure I can answer your question adequately, but just to give an idea where I'm coming from.

I was once told that the way I read novels is unusual: most people read about the author to understand the novel better, I read the novel to understand the author better. If your focus is the novel, as a stand-alone work of art, the plot is very import --more important than the characters, according to Aristotle, but if your focus is the writer, his writings always reveal something about his life, character and philosophy, they make up a jigsaw portrait of the writer himself, which fascinates me more than the plot.

The characters in BK are very in-your-face, for lack of a better word. They pour out their innards on you whether you like it or not. This is not how people normally interact with one another, I would think. As a writer, Dostoevsky doesn't seem inclined to give his readers the freedom to explore on their own, but insists on controlling what they see, hear and think. I find it ironic that the most famous chapter in his book talks about freedom.

Nemo wrote: "most people read about the author to understand the novel better, I read the novel to understand the author better. "

That is interesting. I don't consciously take that approach to reading individual novels (to understand the author) but I do consciously take that approach to understanding the western canon. I make a point to stop occasionally and ask myself "what were these creators thinking" "what are their biases" "who (ie, women) is not well represented among these authors and how does that bias the tradition (given that one author's work is heavily influenced by those who came before them in their cultural tradition). I don't obsess over it, but I do make a point of stopping to take a step back and try to understand the authors and their cultures based on what they write about (and what they don't write about or choose to ignore).

Nemo wrote: " if your focus is the writer, his writings always reveal something about his life, character and philosophy, they make up a jigsaw portrait of the writer himself, which fascinates me more than the plot...."

Yes, and if you focus on the "great authors" as a select group, their writings always reveal something about the nature of the society that elevates them to the status of "greatness".

Theresa wrote: "Nemo wrote: " if your focus is the writer, his writings always reveal something about his life, character and philosophy, they make up a jigsaw portrait of the writer himself, which fascinates me m..."

Yes, and conversely, a person's favourite authors always reveal something about that person. One can judge a person by the authors s/he keeps company with. Like friends, those accompanying authors might come and go as the person's life changes.

Speaking of which, I wonder which books Dostoevsky kept close at hand the most besides the Bible.