Riot’s Classic Literature Reviews: The Brothers Karamazov Pt 1
Much like my last classic literature review (Jane Eyre) cultural references to The Brothers Karamazov were few and far between. Unlike the Bronte sisters though, I already had some experience with the all-too-well-known, Fyodor Dostoevsky. (Attempting to type his name just now triggered a Vietnam flashback of the Senior-year term paper I had to write). The AP English class I took was given, what seemed to me at the time, the insurmountable task of tackling Dostoevsky’s, Crime and Punishment. Now my confessions for that particular title and what happened my Senior year of High School are threefold. 1) I am most certain that I didn’t read the whole thing cover to cover. 2) If I did, I don’t remember even a little bit of it, not even the main character’s name and 3) I certainly did commit a great atrocity of the English world; at a bonfire party at the beach with my friends, I used said book as kindling. You’ll have to forgive my immaturity on this one. For nearly two decades, this was the only impression that Dostoevsky ever left in my life. So, why take up the task of diving into another of Dostoevsky’s work, one that is actually longer than the aforementioned title that traumatized me so? To be quite frank, JBP told me to do it (if you know, you know) and being halfway through the story, I’m certainly glad I did.
Even by dividing the book into two separate reviews, it would be an incredible task to try and summarize the plot of the book thus far. So like usual, I will try my best to evaluate some of the themes that are already starting to show. What I will recommend outright is that if you are looking to pick up an edition for yourself, this copy seems to provide a very good translation, combined with an extremely helpful notes section and character list. Believe me, you want something to help you keep track of the characters. Each character has a slew of different nicknames and surnames that are difficult to keep track of. A simple glance at this chart will let you know how complex the whole storyline actually is. (Hence why I’m staying away from a plot synopsis). Also, make sure you set aside at least an hour or so for each sitting to start getting into this one. While Dostoevsky writes (so far) in fairly short and easily consumed chapters, he also has no qualms about using large paragraphs for exposition and dialogue. While I was in grad school, I was often told that a writer should limit the size of their paragraphs to ensure the reader’s attention stays to the page. While this might be something that has only developed over time and because of society’s ever increasingly short attention spans, it’s refreshing to dive into books where the authors culturally assumed otherwise. This is (to me) what makes classic literature what it is and what essentially dates these works in our hearts and minds. The Brothers Karamazov is not an easy read by any means and is particularly dense in philosophy and theological queries. Yet, interspersed throughout are these emotionally intense, page-turning, social-drama storylines that keep the reader wanting more.
Morals vs. Depravity: Certainly, I would argue this is going to be the main theme of the book and Dostoevsky queues us into this idea quite nearly from the gun. The reader is first introduced to the story’s main villain, Fyodor Pavlovich, a drunkard and womanizer who fathers three (maybe four? Hope to find out later) sons and immediately abandons them all. Though the entire plot of the story ends up being about the tenuous relationship the three sons have with their intolerable father, Dostoevsky really highlights the dichotomy of good and evil through the relationship of his characters. This is particularly shown, in the youngest son Alexei Fyodorovich, (seems Dostoevsky loved injecting his name everywhere) who is not only a monk, but a fresh-faced and innocent boy who is essentially running from one scene to the next trying to put out all the small fires his family creates. It is within Alexei (or Alyosha, or Alyoshka, or Alyoshenka, etc.) that the reader is really confronted with all the emotional conflict, as he struggles to grapple with the impending death of his mentor and the imminent implosion of whatever semblance of family life he has. All the while he’s shown contending with his boarish father, desperately trying to emotionally subdue his overly aggressive elder brother, Dmitri and being challenged on theocracy and the tenants of his entire belief system by his other brother, Ivan. Dostoevsky spends a majority of the novel’s first half evaluating God, religion, and the foundations of morals all the while setting the plot of the story, which is entirely entrenched in what their lack of morals translates to in real life. Alexei is surrounded by people that are so far gone in their depravity that it certainly seems that all that is left to do is to take that final dip into hell.
Family and The Love of Brothers: Regardless of the circumstances that surround them and the seemingly inevitable plunge into chaos that awaits them, the three brothers are shown to have a tremendous depth of love for each other. While it seems easily argued that the two eldest, Ivan and Dmitri, are far from those loving feelings, there appears to be enough of a respect between the two that would argue otherwise. If anything, their shared love for Alexei hints enough at this and while the two are enmeshed in a lover’s triangle (while also dealing with another lover’s triangle involving their father, gross) they both openly admit that their struggle isn’t necessarily with each other. Ivan, the most nihilistic and openly atheistic of the bunch, whilst attempting to philosophically tear down his little brother’s entire belief system, still inevitably shows how tenderly he cares for Alexei. It will be interesting to see how the social conflict between Ivan and Dmitri plays out and Dostoevsky doesn’t hold back on his foreshadowing when it comes to the divide between the two, even as simple as the fact that they are born from two different mothers. With all the biblical motifs, there is certainly a Cain vs. Able vibe, but the existence of Alexei makes that allusion illogical. I emphasize “the love of brothers” because there is truly no love lost between any of the sons and their drunkard father. The conflict of which is sure to come to a head between them, even more so than the brutal assault that Dmitri already dished out on Fyodor.
The Hysterical Woman: Now I wouldn’t want to go out of my way to say that this is a major theme, but coming from the last two reviews of the Bronte sister’s work, it’s interesting to see how drastically the viewpoint on women’s roles in a story are when written from a man’s perspective. I would be lying if I said I thought the women in Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre didn’t have their bouts of hysterical depictions. Dostoevsky simply takes it to a different level. First of all, there is actual hysteria in his female characters. Second, I have yet to come across a woman in the story that is portrayed in a remotely dignified way. (Maybe Alexei’s love interest in Lise? But even she, when thinking Alexei wasn’t being true to her feelings, immediately broke down into hysterics). With these reviews, I don’t typically dive too far into the author’s life, I’d rather evaluate the work simply on the merits of its words. But it begs the question just how Dostoevsky really viewed women. At the very least, almost all of the drama surrounding these interpersonal relationships point the finger at the fault being the depravity of the men of the story (mainly Fyodor and Dmitri) but characters like Grushenka and Katerina really dive deep into the stereotypical, manipulative woman. Again, this likely ends up getting tied into the religious overtones of the story and whatever role (I am sure) the devil plays in it. The hearts of the characters are corrupted by many things: pride, lust, greed, etc. Regardless, hysteria as it was determined/defined at the time carried all sorts of social implications that have been passed along in time, I just wonder how much of it is necessary.
Wrap-Up: Being that I haven’t yet finished the book, I will leave my thoughts there. The plot synopsis at the end of the novel implies that there will be a few more elements and themes to come, most likely involving crime, man-made law, and the moral implications that come with all that mess. Stylistically, Dostoevsky (or should I say, his translation) carries all of the same antiquated air of speech and tone that most classic literature has. Yet, I would certainly say I had a much easier time absorbing the words than I have previously. When he is not diving headfirst into theology and philosophical inquiries, his storytelling is fast-paced and incredibly interesting. The maze of characters and how their fates will inevitably be intertwined, is a web I most certainly am fine to be caught on. I definitely believe that the Russian identity is one of the main focal points of the story. How religion and politics play into it is an entire research paper that I most certainly don’t want to write. Also, the historical implications of organized religion and national identity is something I am certain The Brothers Karamazov is trying to evaluate. Unfortunately, I think the very long segments of theological exposition are going to lose a lot of potential readers. Having grown up in the church and received an undergrad degree from a Christian university, reading through his thoughts took me back in time to my studies of theology. Kind of like riding a bike. He grapples with not only the basis/logic of faith (which any honest believer would say they have as well) but also unabashedly dives into the moral conundrums that plague every society throughout time. Knowing that this novel was written in 1879 affirms that people haven’t shaken any of the bonds that sin and depravity have had on humanity. Many of the moral issues brought up in the novel are things we are still openly struggling with as a society today. (The elder Zosima’s imploring of his followers to protect the innocence of children comes to mind). Humanity’s free will (certainly a theme that I will address next time) comes into direct conflict with moral objectivity and certainly the various belief systems, along with their core tenants, only adds fuel to the fire when moral objectivity cannot be agreed upon. Outside of the existence of a higher power, can there be any moral high ground worth striving for? Does a society filled with imperfect beings have the capacity to create or set standards that should be followed by everyone within its boundaries? What actually determines right or wrong? These are all questions that are not only worth asking, but are inevitably what the reader of The Brothers Karamazov are confronted with. It’ll be interesting to see what answers Dostoevsky comes up with.
コメント