The Obscure Reading Group discussion

This first week of discussion is on Part 1, Books 1 through 3, of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.

Some of us have read the entire book in the past, but let’s try to avoid spoilers and keep our comments in this thread to Part One only.

Anyone new to this author? Any initial thoughts about the writing style?

I think we’re introduced to most of the characters here. What do you think of them? Do you have a favorite brother?

Dostoevsky has chosen to tell this story using himself as narrator, looking back on something that happened in "our district." Does this make a difference?

Of course these are just questions to get us started. Feel free to ignore and jump in with any thoughts or ideas you’re interested in. And it's February in Australia, so we can start anytime!

OK, as it is Feb. 1st (rabbit, rabbit, rabbit), I'll go first with a minor observation that, each time I hit it, seemed more and more incongruous (but typical of Dostoevsky).

The patriarch and buffoon (as he calls himself and so well backs up with both words and behavior) Fyodor Pavlovich has an amazing array of literary and Biblical allusions. Yes, he uses them in inappropriate ways, but nonetheless, they don't seem to entirely fit a man whose passions indicate less respect for books (even the Holy one) and greater respect for boozing and wenching (the sensualist, as FD more than once points out about the hot-blooded family).

But it's not just Fyodor. Right down to characters like Smerdyakov, you get literary allusions. Schiller is especially popular. It's all the other Fyodor, of course, the author. When it comes to his characters, he's generous with his own impressive reading experience and spreads the wealth among his novel's characters.

No, not evenly, but still, to the point where a reader might say, "Wow. Are all of these characters spending THAT much time with German literature, the Old Testament, the New Testament, etc., despite indications to the contrary?

Of course, it could be argued, with the exception of the peasants, such knowledge was more prevalent in Dostoevsky's time. No TV. No Internet. No streaming podcasts and music into your earphones. (Amen and fire up the samovar!)

I fully intended to join this read, but after the first 2 chapters I could not make myself return to the book. My head is just not ready to work this hard right now. Sorry, I know I'm missing out as I enjoy these discussions, but there we are. The rest of you enjoy!

It's Feb 1st in Singapore. Yes, time to fire up the samovar!

"No, not evenly, but still, to the point where a reader might say, "Wow. Are all of these characters spending THAT much time with German literature, the Old Testament, the New Testament, etc., despite indications to the contrary?"

That is an astute observation, Ken. There is a lot of Biblical allusions in this work quoted often by Fyodor Patrovitch and Ivan that seemed out of joint with the curmudgeonly life they live. I wonder if Dostoevsky meant for us to see the mingling of good and evil in his characters. The wicked and noble, the sensual and cultured dwell side by side.

We'll miss you Diane, but totally understand--you have to be in the mood for this one.

That is a great point, Ken. For some reason I took the father's allusions in stride--they seemed to strangely fit, maybe as Laysee says, the sensual and cultured dwelling side by side. But when I got to the meeting between Dimitri and Alyosha, Dimitri's poetic ramblings seemed almost over the top. (My copy offers some footnotes with references, but I liked this one particularly: "Apparently Dimitri's own composition." :-)

I guess I can believe that knowledge was more prevalent in Dostoevsky's time, as you say, Ken. The drunks were certainly a lot more interesting!

I’m not joining you this time, but I remember discussing this novel in my Russian Lit class in 1966!
Here’s an interesting article about one of the themes in the book that I most appreciated.
I don’t know if the link will work. Have a great discussion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-...

Interesting and heartbreaking article, Sandra--thanks for sharing it. So many themes in this book.

On a lighter note, I've just realized I've been picturing Fyodor Pavlovich as Yosemite Sam.

“Come back here you muley-headed maverick”
“When I say whoa, I mean whoa!”
"Ya double-crossers! I’m a-comin’ back, and I ain’t comin' back to play marbles!"
“Say yer prayers ya long eared galoot!”

You’re funny!😂

I am a little late but have finally finished Part 1. Some of the things that struck me while reading it...
- I came in with the sense based on others' statements that this wasn't the most exciting book in the world and I am finding that to be generally true. I admit to wanting to read other books in my stack first before opening the cover of this one but it also isn't the worst book in the world.
- What is up with the debate regarding belief in God and atheism? I am always surprised to find this sort of open religious debate in a book that is pre-20th century. I mean the discussion of atheism in particular.
- Looking back to the questions that Kathleen poses at the start of this thread. I both am and am not new to Dostoevsky. I made an ill-fated attempt to read Crime and Punishment in college, in Russian no less. I didn't get very far. I owned the book for a number of years before selling it on eBay.
- There are lots of long paragraphs of over-explanation of the characters' thoughts and motivations or the character verbalizing their thoughts, motivations and emotions, often to each other in grandiose style. This leaves me baffled a bit as to why an author would write this way.
- What a dysfunctional family! Except for Alexei, Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan and Dmitri all seem to bounce from one emotional extreme to another. I dislike them all but each has at least some redeeming qualities...except maybe Fyodor Pavlovich.
- I like the author narration of the story as if it was something that happened in his hometown. For me if gives the story a feeling of authenticity.

Another thing that I am curious about is how this book is going to wrap up, which may, in the end, keep me reading it. Will it be profound or a flop? No, don't answer!

I am curious, however, how this will all come together.

Darrin wrote: "What a dysfunctional family! Except for Alexei, Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan and Dmitri all seem to bounce from one emotional extreme to another. I dislike them all but each has at least some redeeming qualities...except maybe Fyodor Pavlovich."

I agree with you, Darrin. The Karamazovs were a dysfunctional and unhappy lot. I dislike all of them. That said, I won't mind having a samovar of tea with Alyosha who is naive and too unbelievably angelic. The ladies - Katerina, Grushenka, Lise - did not fare any better. They came across as vain, selfish, histronic, irrational. There's an intensity to the characters' arguments and self-justification that wore me out and I needed breaks in between.

I must say that Dostoevsky did an excellent job evoking a sense of impending doom. Recall that episode at the end of Book 2 when Zassimov fell at Dmitri's feet at one point and no one knew why. I wondered at its significance.

The knee drop is explained in next week's section (Part 2), which I just finished. That said, I will say I really liked that touch, not just because of the mystery but because it seems to touch on the "mystery" aspect of religion and monastic life.

We also get a little of the controversy over this monastery's particular "take" on what being a monk means, bringing me back to debates over those orders that stay within their walls and those orders that go out to live the hard life among the poor.

Darrin wrote: "What is up with the debate regarding belief in God and atheism? I am always surprised to find this sort of open religious debate in a book that is pre-20th century. I mean the discussion of atheism in particular."

I wonder about this too, Darrin. I think on one level anyway, his writing about this provides a way to talk about what is true and what is good, which seems to be at the heart of Dostoevsky for me. It doesn't feel like he's already decided, which makes it feel more like an exploration. And maybe these dysfunctional characters serve his purpose--playing out varying ideas to extremes.

And what you say about the grandiose style, I think this is one of the aspects I really enjoy, about this--people going off for a page or two on their thoughts and feelings. Crazy, but fun!

I agree with Laysee, the characters seemed too histrionic for me, especially in this first portion. It wasn't an issue when I read Crime and Punishment as the whole thing (and everyone in it) seemed a little. . . unhinged. In this it felt a bit over the top.

There is a good overview of the novel on Wikipedia which includes a list of the major characters as well as a book by book synopsis of all of the parts of the novel. I did not read it all because I don't want to read any spoilers but it did give me a better understanding of where this book is going and the philosophical underpinnings of the text.

Even though I get a hint of where the novel is going, I still feel like reading something like this helps me to understand what I am reading and enjoy it more. I remember doing something similar with Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury which I read in high school. Fortunately there was a critical text in our library as well that I read along with the book to fully understand what I was reading.

I don't have the philosophical and religious educational depth to understand where many of the ideas are coming from so this helps a lot and makes it less tedious.

Darrin wrote: "I don't have the philosophical and religious educational depth to understand where many of the ideas are coming from so this helps a lot and makes it less tedious. "

I'm crew in the same boat, Darrin. My view of a book is generally "I'm enjoying it +/-." or "Can't deal with this."

To my surprise, I am actually enjoying the Brothers, even though I find that I generally dislike all of the characters for various reasons. Although Alyosha is supposed to be the hero, I'm finding him a bit wet.

I'm also finding humour where I didn't expect it, which helps, even though I am not a fan of humour in general.

Something else that occurred to me as I was reading the conversation between Ivan and Father Zosima and the other monks in Book II, Chapter 5, which, in my edition, is translated as So Be It! So Be It!, is the irony of a debate that centered around the relationship between the church and the state. A little less than 40 years after this book was published in 1880, there would be a revolution that turns Russia into religion-less, communist state.

Darrin wrote: "Something else that occurred to me as I was reading the conversation between Ivan and Father Zosima and the other monks in Book II, Chapter 5, which, in my edition, is translated as So Be It! So Be..."

Darrin, this is a really good point. In the Elders chapter, the talk about socialism is prescient. "For socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question... the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth."

What grabs me right from the start is how quickly and how deeply conversations go in Dostoyevsky. No hemming and hawing and wells and all rights. I don't know how real that is, did people ever really talk like this? But my gawd, could you imagine participating in such conversations with your friends and new acquaintances today? Not just talk about the weather or latest tik tok meme, but how to live our lives, what we're doing, whether we love humanity....

This section cracks me up because we still have these type of people today:
"The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular" or "the more I detest men individually, the more ardent my love for humanity." (A Lady of Little Faith). This is just a step away from today's Yes yes, I want to be a good person and make the country better, but get all "those people" away from me!

Cherisa writes: "What grabs me right from the start is how quickly and how deeply conversations go in Dostoyevsky. No hemming and hawing and wells and all rights. I don't know how real that is, did people ever really talk like this? But my gawd, could you imagine participating in such conversations with your friends and new acquaintances today? Not just talk about the weather or latest tik tok meme, but how to live our lives, what we're doing, whether we love humanity...."

Yes, the conversations DO fill a void for readers who are fed sound bites on TV and through texting and social networks. They remind us of all of those (ahem) DEEP conversations we once had at college in the dorms when we first began searching for the meaning of life.

As a corollary, it seems these characters debate material that comes from their READING. Today, many people are fed short, memorable, repetitive propaganda on the same technological devices alluded to above. That's it. They have the answers quickly, painlessly, and they'll brook no argument.

Perhaps, then, reading these philosophical talks in Dostoevsky fills a void in our own lives?

Maybe we have lost the art of deep conversing if we ever had it at all. Reading does a lot for us that we don’t necessarily have IRL, not just what we might have had in our salad days. Traveling back to tsarist Russia to listen to deep conversations is certainly one example.

I felt that except for Alyosha again, other characters were not being particularly honest with each other or, the underlying reason for what they were telling others, was not what it seemed on the surface. The last chapters where Alyosha visits the home of Katerina Ivanovna at Dimitri's request for example...I don't find her to be a particularly honest person, particularly in her inability to make known her preference for either Dmitri or Ivan...either she is playing with their feelings or does not know herself what she feels and has no ability to resolve it in her head and with the two gentlemen.

At this point, and forgive me because this is not directly related to The Brothers Karamazov but is related to people having real discussions about things that matter. Basically I want to recommend a book called, In: A Graphic Novel by Will McPhail. Check it out...

Now back to The Brothers.

Darrin wrote: "At this point, and forgive me because this is not directly related to The Brothers Karamazov but is related to people having real discussions about things that matter. Basically I want to recommend..."

This sounds really good, Darrin. But you get no thanks from me for adding Book #328 to my TBR. :)

Ken wrote: "Perhaps, then, reading these philosophical talks in Dostoevsky fills a void in our own lives?"

Yes, they do, Ken. And thank you, too, Cherisa, for your observation about how deep the conversations go in Dostoevsky's book. It has compelled me to think harder than I typically do when reading for fun:
"How much do we love humanity?" (Great question, Cherisa)
"If you wished someone dead but did not kill him, does it make you any less a murderer?"
There are other weighty issues which are best kept for later.

I agree with Laysee, and love the philosophical talks in Dostoevsky, precisely because they are so hard to come by these days. And also because as a reader, I can be passive, whereas in a conversation, I would never be able to hold my own. :-)

Two details that I found interesting:
Alyosha is sure Katya doesn't love Ivan, that she loves Dimitri. I wonder what makes him think this? He is embarrassed when he says something out loud about women, because of his lack of experience, but sometimes observers gain insight.

I also noted that in Fyodor's house, in the dining room I think, hung two prominent paintings: one of a former governor, and one of a former bishop. That battle between church and state that Darrin mentioned above, playing out on the very walls of the house.

Anyone else running a little behind in their reading like me?

This first part felt very dense and it took a long time to get through. I found it rewarding though.

Things I liked:
1. Philosophical discussions--plenty of that!
2. I don't know why--maybe the portent of death or just that he's over-the-top awful, but I have a liking for the old man Fyodor, and just love it when he goes off on everyone.
3. The comparisons between the brothers. They're so different yet have threads of commonality, which feels very real, and makes each of them intriguing.
4. The twist on the wholesome family story. :-)

I've started the next part and it's going much faster. If you're reading but not keeping up with the schedule, I hope you comment whenever you're ready!

Kathleen, I am behind as well but will likely start participating in the week 2 discussion anyway. I am not really worried about spoilers at this point.

I'm sorry that I am so behind but I am determined to finish this book! I know that the conversation has moved on, but I hope my late entry will buy me a little grace. :)

I find Fyodor Pavlovitch to be a thoroughly repugnant character. He reminds me of my own grandfather, who also loved to be the center of attention, to make ridiculous unfounded accusations, and to stir the pot to get everyone riled up. Add to that the implication that Pavlovitch was the one who raped the disabled Lizaveta and nurses a lecherous passion for the beloved of his own son, and he is just contemptible.

The other characters are not really any more likable. Katerina Ivanovna's desperate clinging to Dmitri and her willingness to tolerate his cheating make her pathetic, while Grushenka seems to be a heartless gold-digger.

Alyosha is like those children who are raised by alcoholics and drug addicts. Their roles are reversed and the children become the adults, developing an overwhelming sense of responsibility for their parents that leads them to take care of and protect them with the selflessness of an actual parent. Alyosha's brothers, both older than him, all look to him to unravel the tangled skeins of their mismanaged affairs. They should be taking charge of their father and protecting their younger brother, not looking to him for answers.

Cindy wrote: "I'm sorry that I am so behind but I am determined to finish this book! I know that the conversation has moved on, but I hope my late entry will buy me a little grace. :)

I find Fyodor Pavlovitch t..."

Glad you're here, Cindy, and there's no need at all to be sorry or worry about being late. I think we are all taking this behemoth at different paces.

There's not much to like about these characters, is there? I agree about Fyodor, and what a perceptive comment about Alyosha! He does seem to feel the responsibility for his brothers and they don't lift a finger for him. Some codependency going on, perhaps?

I second the motion on arriving fashionably late, Cindy. You're here!

As for Alyosha, what I find most interesting is Zosima's insistence that he leave his trademark "good boy" haven (the monastery) and wade out into the world -- weird brothers & father, love, marriage. Given A.'s surroundings, one wants to ask Father Z. "WHY?"