Finishing The Brothers Karamazov

I stretched it out as long as I could. It was unnatural, for me, to only read a couple pages a day, but I forced myself.

When you get right down to it, it is a court-room drama. You’ve got the witnesses for the prosecution, you watch them build their case, you hear the conversations of the spectators … then the defense puts up ITS case. You hear the speech of the prosecutor – the speech of the defense lawyer.

And because it’s Dostoevsky – both of these speeches are panoramic polar opposites. Dostoevsky was all about opposites. We hear about “parricide” – what on earth is Russia coming to when children murder their own fathers? Where is the soul of Russia? Where is their moral compass?? But then we hear the other side of the argument: Just because someone beget someone else in a moment of passion, doesn’t mean that he deserves the name “father”. The moment of having sex with someone is long past … how about the “father” who shuns his responsibilities, who doesn’t feed his kids, clothe them, give them guidance … Does that person also deserve to be called “father”? And what kind of society is Russia that it keeps creating these monster-fathers?

Dostoevsky gives BOTH sides equal time. Brilliant man, that one.

I became convinced by both sides. I read the speech of the prosecutor and was completely on his side. It made me think, it made me reflect … It was all so well-put, so argued. Then I read the speech of the defense lawyer and had to re-think my position. Because that, too, was so well-put, so passionately argued.

Dostoevsky does not let you be comfortable, in a nice neat little black and white world.

Obviously, he believes that there is something purifying in suffering. Without suffering, a man cannot really join the human race. You can only have compassion if you, too, have suffered. This is the fire Dmitri MUST go through. Come hell or high water – Dmitri MUST suffer – because it is only through suffering and sacrifice and pain will he be able to give up his former selfishness and violence – and join the ranks of good and honest men.

That’s where Dostoevsky’s genius lies, in my opinion. And why, too, he was so controversial (and probably still is).

The universe he creates in his books is indeed a moral universe. There is a God. There is a right and there is a wrong. Yes. HOWEVER – all of that is meaningless if you do not dip into your own wrong-ness, if you do not experience your own capacity for sin, if you do not indulge the dark side.

Ivan. The brother Ivan. The torment he experiences is because of this. He is the one, the only brother, who pretty much straddles both sides. Alyosha is a good person. He sees the darkness, he knows darkness exists, but he always chooses the lit path. Dmitri is the opposite. He is appetite run riot. He lives in a world where all the dark stuff and vices are given complete freedom. He sees the light, he knows that light exists, but he always chooses the darkened path.

But Ivan? The brother who represents the intellect, the thinking man?

He is the one who truly suffers.

He is the one who ends up being unable to tell what is real and what is not. He wants so badly to believe in God, he is terrified by the darkness, by night, by the devil … It drives him mad. He almost dies from it.

This is the price you must pay for being a thinking man, a rational logical man.

It is a tremendous book. There are a couple of digressive chapters which I fully resented while I read them. Ie: Jesus, why do I care about Father Zossima’s 30 page long death-bed advice? Also: What the heck do I care about the little consumptive boy?

But at the end … it becomes clear. It becomes clear why those chapters were there in the first place.

And so there is a huge payoff.

The last chapter is so FULL of emotion, so JOYOUS, so … redemptive.

That’s what I mostly remember about the ending of Crime and Punishment, too. I was moved to tears by the fact that Dostoevsky, of course, had to have Raskolnikov punished … Raskolnikov had to pay for what he did … BUT … at the end … you get the sense that through paying for his crime, through suffering so deeply, through intense guilt, etc. … Raskolnikov is going to get better. Raskolnikov will no longer live a life of cynical isolation and distance from his fellow human beings. He has joined their ranks.

For some people (like Alyosha Karamazov) – joining the ranks of humanity, and having compassion for others, is easy. It is the only logical thing to do.

But to others … like Raskolnikov, like Dmitri Karamazov … it is NOT so easy. It takes tremendous suffering to come out on the other side.

I’m very sad I finished the book. I knew as I was reading it that it was one of those “epochal” reading-experiences.

This entry was posted in Books and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Finishing The Brothers Karamazov

  1. susie says:

    Sheila –
    You gotta go get The Brothers K by David James Duncan. In reading your descriptions of the brothers I could see the parallels in Everett, Irwin, Peter and Kincaid. You can check out the link on Amazon here:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/055337849X/102-6346250-1125728?v=glance
    It is not classic literature, but it’s a great read, and as I said it is the only book I’ve ever read and upon finishing the last sentence I turned it over and began reading it again. I read it again every couple of years when I don’t have anything else to read. I would love to know if you see more parallels between the two books – I’ve never read The Brothers Karamazov – although you have definitely motivated me to give it a shot.
    Take care,
    Susie

  2. red says:

    susie:

    Thank you for the link! I will most definitely check it out – I remember you mentioning it to me a while back.

    You might have an interesting time yourself reading Dostoevsky’s book – since you read that one first.

  3. John says:

    Have you read “The Master and Margarita” by Mikhail Bulgakov? His “Heart of a Dog” short story is pretty good, too. Bulgakov’s a nice 20th century counterpoint to Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.

  4. red says:

    John –

    No, I haven’t … Damn, I have to keep a running list. Write all of these suggestions down …

    Thanks!

  5. John says:

    I recommend the Mira Ginsberg tanslation of M&M.

  6. beth says:

    read roger angell. just because everyone should.

  7. red says:

    John – thanks. I’ll keep my eye open.

  8. CW says:

    I know how you feel Red… I never really “read” the Brothers Karamazov – it’s kind of like Dame Rebecca in that I keep going back to it and reading it again and again.

  9. John Cunningham says:

    I wonder if you read the new translation of Brothers K by Pevear and Volokhonsky? they are supposed to be a vast improvement over previous translations.

  10. red says:

    John – I read the Constance Garnett one. I didn’t mind it – it’s certainly elevated language a lot, but that’s okay – it seemed to “go” with the book. I read her translation of Anna K, too.

Comments are closed.