Re-reading TBK; your invitation to a discussion

[SFG75]

Last winter, I read The Brothers Karamazov and it left quite an impresssion upon me.  I experienced a number of emotions at the time as I was going through somewhat of a career change and it was a very disconcerting time.  Perhaps one shouldn't consider changing employment when reading Dostoyevsky, but now that I look back upon it, it was a great early winter and the book was indescribable in regards to describing the peril and raw events that we all go through in our lives.  If anything, I gained a greater appreciation of the complexities and nuances of this life.  I'd like to have a discussion with other members and perhaps have a book discussion of this great book.  

I re-read the first section simply titled Fyodor Karamazov and remember very clearly, the description of this most man.  To abandon a child is one of the worst things a human being could ever do.  To reject your own blood and flesh represents in action, the highest form of callousness.  Fyodor carried it out to an art form not just once, but twice.

At her death almost exactly the same thing happened to the two little boys as had happened to their elder brother, Dmitri.  They were completely forgotten and abandoned by their father.  They were looked after by the same Gregory and lived in the cottage, where they were found by the tyrannical old lday who had brought up their mother.

I have read countless stories of "parents" like Fyodor.  They are the careless one who leave their child locked in the car on a 100 degree day.  They are the ones who leave infants and toddlers to fend for themselves in a home littered with trash and unsanitary conditions while they are out partying.  Like most of these people, Fyodor doesn't sense that he's evil, nor is it ever pointed out to him that he is that way-he just is.  

Is Fyodor essentially evil?  Mentally ill?  Can we really judge him?  Just some things to consider.  

I know that I'm missing other matters in this early portion.  Feel free to post and I'll address them as well.

[Worm]

Hi SFG75,
I think anybody should read a work of Dostoevsky (or any work) in a responsible manner, esp. if the reader himself is going through a disconcerting period.  
It's too easy to mix things up with inaccurate thinking.

Well, concerning Fyodor Karamazow, from my point of view, he's not an essentially evil man.  If you read a part with him in it, he's most of the time playing around and ridiculising someone.  He never hit any of his children, he gave them a lot of money, ... he wasn't bad in a villanesque way.

When I read Iwan's movingly beautiful story of the cup, I noticed how right after that chapter, a chapter about Fyodor began ... as if implying that the father is an extension of Iwan in the future, if he would keep on drinking that cup .. Fyodor's life is empty, all he knows is the cup.. and he keeps on drinking from it..
He never really was a father.  He never really was a household-man.  He stayed the drunk of his 20's.  He stayed with the cup.
This inner battle, was the source of his neglectfull parenting.
...Who is to blame for his not growing up?... I don't know ...

His situation is very interesting ... look at what happened to Iwan, he ended up searching for devils under the tables ... maybe Fyodor stayed with the cup, because else he would have gone insane as well?


And I add to that, that I love Fyodor Karamazow a lot ... I don't hate the character, despite his flaws.  He's so beautiful.

[Radio Saturday]

Note:  It's been a while (unfortunately) since I read "The Brothers Karamzov" and I should read it again, but this is what I remember.

Fyodor struck me as something of a grotesque, closer to Dickens than most of D.'s other characters. He seems not so much evil as animal -- constantly "in heat," seeking only pleasure and avoiding all responsibility.

On the other hand, interpreting the character in this way means that it becomes almost a commentary on evolution. To me, anyway.

(I'm thinking as I type; could you tell?  )

[Worm]

Thx for your post, Radio Saturday, but could you explain to me why interpreting Fyodor the way you do, makes it a commentary on evolution?


no spelling errors!  

[Radio Saturday]

Mostly because, if Fyodor is interpreted as an animal, it means that each of the brothers has tried to escape their father's spiritual genes in their various ways -- Alyosha to religion, Ivan to human intellect, Dmitry to other people and Smerdyakov right back into his father's animality. So I guess I didn't mean so much evolution as the realization that humans, without God, are simply animals. They can choose to become otherwise, but without Him, humanity is lost to its own lusts and bodily needs.

Sorry if this is unclear or, more likely, nonsensical. I try but fail far more often than I succeed.

[Astolfo]

  I think reading the Karamazov Bros is highly recommendable, and oce you read it you'll have to get back to it, eventually. At least I know that I do, and I will keep on doing it, if only for incredible sideshows such as the onion and Grushenka story.

   And yes, Pops Karamazov has both something of the grotesque and the obscene, and the whole "in heat" dimension of the character is directly connected with the sensualist theme, used by FD to introduce us the whole K family. Also, let us not forget that Smerdiakov, the Hidden Bro who is the only one who actually performs the taboo act the other bros dream about or are haunted by, is the living proof of Pops dissolution, which is moral before than sexual. The mere fact that Pops kept him in his house for all those years, for that matter, speaks of his psychological perversion.