The Brothers Karamazov 2024-2025

@gegengestalt's blog for the @keepingupwiththekaramazovs Book Club! I'll be posting my commentary on the chapters as I reread on this blog to keep it as an archive and reblog posts related to it.

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.9 The Sensualists

Violence invades the space of the house, forcing its way through doors and remaining between the walls, contained inside by the shut windows. Dmitri is gone, but his words linger in the air and violence remains. The physical wounds on the body of Fyodor Pavlovich are a tangible reminder of the state of alert that the characters must remain in, although not everyone is conditioned by the invasion of violence in the same manner. The servants, Grigory and Smerdyakov, must guard from within the lion’s den. What for them is an invasion of their lives and by extension the integrity of their physical bodies is a question in the case of Ivan and Alyosha. Fyodor fears Ivan’s answer to the question. While he was threatened and beaten for Grushenka, he came to foolishly believe Grushenka was in the house, because of course, Dmitri always wants something from him; a bug and a sensualist like himself, a parasite, so an object of desire through which they live out their tumultuous relationship must exist.

On the other hand, Ivan was a distant being, and now he’s stepped too close. The moment when Fyodor was being held back by Ivan must have been like the terrible moments before death. Ivan could have let him go. He did not this time. Why is Fyodor so scared of Ivan? Is it because he’s afraid of “truth shining” on the black stain that he has turned his home into? As long as the vipers consume one another, they will die alone in their nest, and nobody else will be hurt ever again. In any case, Ivan steps away and rejects the right to kill. He claims his right to wish, and asks to be spared from condemnation. Because Ivan knows— he knows Alyosha knows— that Jesus said sin starts in the heart, all he asks is not to be seen as a villain. What could be a gesture of ideological opposition is instead a plea for compassion and a step towards mutual understanding.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.8 Over the Brandy

The Brothers Karamazov is often called a novel of ideas; however, this reading may understate the underlying dynamic between the realm of ideas and discourse and the realm of emotion and unspoken pathos*. The ideal elements of the conversation over the brandy— the Russian people, the Church, the existence of God— are overflown by an unstoppable vital force, brought about by Fyodor Pavlovich's drunk and uninhibited state, rather than an order of ideas. In return, discourse itself heightens sensations and excites Fyodor's sadistic joy, particularly against the holy and the feminine; and Ivan’s growing anger, which manifests as dismissal of symbolic ideas. See, for instance, his refusal to engage with Smerdyakov’s words at the start of the chapter.

Alyosha, on the other hand, engages with ideas and his own emotions with sincerity. When asked a question, he will answer earnestly, when hearing of depravity, he will blush. The back- and- forth comes to an end when the unspoken rises to the surface, in the form of Alyosha's convulsive tears. He has run out of words and through him, the pathos of the shrieker, the defiled, manifests.  This interruption breaks Ivan out of his shell of distance and irony, no longer standing in the margins,  letting his anger rot: “his mother, I think, was also my mother, wasn’t she?”. With those furious words, he claims his place as an orphaned son of the humiliated Mother— a stray son of this degraded Earth— as well as eligible for parricide of the Father and God. The taboo is out in the open.

*In the Greek sense, if it wasn't evident.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.7 Disputation

Why did Balaam's donkey speak? She was given spiritual insight by God Himself, but faith doesn’t seem to have reached this one. Nor it will ever reach the soldier while he was being skinned alive, according to Smerdyakov. At least, not as long as he can't move a mountain. The implications of his speech somehow bring back the heart of Ivan’s infamous article, that God’s mission is unachievable in Earth. So we might as well save our own skin while we can.

This line of reasoning adapts constantly to get the most utility out of every new situation that arises, however, it is weak in itself; as there is no logical causality between the first premises. The sin of renouncing God being a minor offence (if it’s a sin at all) does not necessarily imply that by renouncing God there is no sin at all. Their connection hinges on the third point, that is, that there cannot be authentic faith with doubt. The problem is that the first premises already assume its truth. It is a petitio principii fallacy because with the argument that doubting in the heart is not sin, he concludes that there are no gradations of true faith and thus one should live in an utilitary manner because… Doubt already banishes all faith.

And yet, Smerdyakov still admits that two men may be able to move a mountain, and dares to trust that he will be forgiven in the end! First it's a minor sin, then it's no sin, there is no faith at all, and in the end, he expects mercy. There is no conclusion, but a punchline so unexpectedly gentle in comparison to his literal and crude line of reasoning  that one can’t help but wonder whether there was any point to begin with. There's no point to prove other than being unlike the superstitious and ignorant peasant Grigory; but nevertheless, he's relegated to the role of the court jester. The fallacy meets nothing but the irony of his masters and Grigory’s hysterical yelling, never to leave the realm of pointless showing- off.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.6 Smerdyakov

Smerdyakov is an artist, Fyodor Pavlovich says. He may love Balaam’s donkey the same way he loves his “guard dog”. The artist plays with appearances and the dark nook and crannies of the world, and chooses to bring forth something or… Nothing at all. I'm not talking about that kind of artist.

Smerdyakov approaches the world with dissective hands. He arranges lifeless things into a semblance of art, either playing a pointless game of make- believe with the little corpses in his childish cruelty, or taking pride in cooking dishes to fill the belly of the beast. Living things are paste for his hands to reduce to nothing. They can all be spun by dissective hands until they amount to nothing. He plays aimlessly and loses interest. Words, too, are living things to dissect and arrange with sophistry. Not quite an idiot, as he's quite inquisitive, asking questions, nitpicking. But the isolation he's faced since birth and his silent conceit prevent him from turning words into more than dead instruments. Ideas breathe through other ideas. In that sense, in the sense of the idiot as one's own, he becomes the idiot when he merely contemplates in silence. Hoarding impressions and ideas for himself, he does not reach the last step of dialectics, in which ideas come alive again, rising from death by the skeptical scalpel and giving way to speculation.

Wrapped in elegant clothes, exuding a sickening fragrance, shiny curls and boots steeped in pomade, covering the stench of his origin, his conception, the stench of death. Likened to an “eunuch”, young, yet wrinkled and passionless, effeminate: ageless, sexless and fatherless. Ironically, it's this ostentation of his and mimicking of a higher- class appearance and language that brings the deplorable negation of all into the light. Had he stayed in the dark, forgotten as a wretched epileptic fool— the object of collective shame; the absence of responsibility and compassion wouldn't be staring at everyone in their faces with a glint of spite in his eyes. He was called less than human, and chose never to forgive. Balaam's donkey carrying the burdens obediently, waiting for her time to speak.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.5 Confession of an Ardent Heart: Heels Up

Dmitri wants to degrade himself and yet prove he's still a man of honour. This split of his conscience exacerbates his obsession to the point of mania. He's committed to pursuing his low passions and banishing himself from respectable society, yet he's tormented by the debt of three thousand rubles to Katerina Ivanovna, the material embodiment of the silent struggle for power in their relationship. Shedding Katerina's money to fuel the fire of a bacchanal for Grushenka’s amusement, he shed the skin of the betrothed man. His failed attempt at seduction left him “bare as a falcon” in more ways than one. What is Grushenka to Dmitri? In simple terms, he has fallen into obsessive eros. But this eros must be considered further beyond carnal desire alone. In her, he is depositing the future of his entire being, whether he projects shame or joy onto his image of her. There used to be Dmitri, and now there is a wretched Dmitri that has lost complete hold of himself, leaving his fate to miracles.

His anxieties culminate in a fixation on his own father and rival, Fyodor Pavlovich, who keeps the three thousand rubles that can buy Dmitri's freedom from conscience in a sealed envelope, destined to the mutual object of their desires. Dmitri stalks, watches, grinds his teeth and fears. We know there will be murder from page one, there is no suspense in that regard. Every piece of the murder case is laid down in advance for us: the victim, the fatal and endogamic web of love triangles, the motive, the other pieces on the board, the time and place of the crime and a sense of foreboding. The authentic psychological drama of this chronicle: will he kill, or will he not?

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.4 Confession of an Ardent Heart: In Anecdotes

For all his claims that he does not use money to assure the company of women, Dmitri only uses money to aggrandize his own personality, the “framework”, as he puts it, money is his vehicle to partake in grand and reckless gestures that may or may not bring him warmth. I don't deny he shared genuine joy with others in his recklessness from time to time. Joy and shame coexist in him side by side, but all he does is give himself in pieces, never taking the whole of himself out of the back- alley.

The virtuous and educated Katerina Ivanovna looks away from him with contempt, and his spite is roused from shame because he feels seen through by that young lady who is everything he is not. The deep irony in calling himself a fine fellow: just then, he implied his own lack of character, virtue, intelligence and education. She is superior to him in every way. By making that vulgar proposition, he addressed her as if he were a streetwalker. A spontaneous act of malice. Was the proposition enough of an offense? I believe it was. After all, what reason does Katerina have to believe him when he claims to have the money she needs?

Then, something astonishing happens. Katerina Ivanovna steps into his room, without anyone's knowing, as if she had appeared from thin air, and she’s determined to take the money for her father. The situation is completely absurd. Why would she risk being seen and expect to get 4500 rubles from Dmitri Karamazov, the man who squanders any the money he finds in his pockets, the man who is a known scoundrel, the man who would make such a proposition with no guarantee that he would keep his word? Had she sacrificed herself, had he really meant to hurt her, what consolation would have she gained when it was her who walked to his house herself? He realized immediately that she was not looking for any consolation, that her martyrdom belongs to her alone. And yet she is determined to get the money, terrified, but sincerely convinced she would get the money.  Only the union between the idealism of an institute girl and deeply- rooted emotional masochism could explain why she appeared at Dmitri's door.

Both of their souls were bare. Dmitri spares none of his darkest feelings, as he confesses beyond the mere facts. In an instant, Dmitri understood all of this absurdity... And he became filled with the insects of hatred. He hated her, for making him feel that way, for expecting the very same man he sees himself as, for being so much more beautiful than he ever will be, even when she decides to walk into Sodom? Whatever it is, he almost fell madly in love, too, with that terrible "image" of Katerina. He gave her his mother's inheritance—spontaneous nobility triumphed over spontaneous malice that day. What ecstasy, what magnanimity! Perhaps he thought in his rapture that it doesn't get much better than that, while he was at the end of his own sword. For the two of them, it will not.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.3 Confession of an Ardent Heart: In Verse

Dmitri Karamazov wants to make a confession. He seeks to be forgiven, but most importantly, he seeks to be found guilty. He must be guilty of the sin that has overcome the very essence of himself in his eyes. No uniform can hide the fact that he's a Karamazov and that there's no cure for that. Dmitri's speech is ecstatic and unpredictable, juxtaposing his own pathos with the deplorable condition of Humanity as a whole, magnifying and sublimating the confessed shame. In spite of his self- deprecation, there is pride: he must sublimate the lowest of himself. His humiliation becomes the humiliation of man because his despair is one over himself, unable to look at his own person without shame as a member of Humanity, but rather an abject insect, in a paradox that takes him from the tragic figure of man to the insect. There is sweetness in it too, decadence can make a dear feeling out of despair. He degrades himself another day, the order of things is accomplished. And can have an excuse to drink some cognac as a treat along the way.

"To insects —sensual lust": for Dmitri, sensual lust is a swarm of locusts and a tempest, it is degradation. The insect imagery delivers an image of inhumanity and powerlessness, and yet such a judgement is human, all too human. He loves God like a guilty dog does, he has been given all that ecstasy but no map, though he could never have one, because a man like Dmitri will never finish understanding these things: there is something simple- hearted about that. Is there beauty in Sodom? The answer to the mystery: Sodom was built in the search for it. Not two beauties, but the choice to cherish Proserpine or mold her into the mirror of our desires. Proserpine, deep in the Underworld, is nowhere in sight, absent except for her whispered name in the lips of Demeter, away from the mother earth, the Madonna that nevertheless glows in the heart —the dark, frightening and confusing heart, as is the world that birthed it.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.2 Lizaveta Smerdyaschaya

"Born of the devil's son and a saint". Of the saint stumbling upon Hell, away from her guardians, or the son of the Devil lurking in Heaven. There's nothing sacred in the marshy ground to him. Different perspectives, the same cruelty. Irrational, crude evil. "Born of the devil's son and a saint" seems like the introduction of a Byronian hero, but most human suffering wouldn't make a good novel. It's nothing but a distraction for the narrator, an anecdote of the suffering of common people he deems uninteresting. Afterwards, Grigory Vassilievich can only point at the miracle and keep earning his salary the next day.

Treated like little more than a fascinating creature or a human- shaped animal, yet why should we, like the townspeople, necessarily attribute Lizaveta's humbleness to idiocy, just because she cannot justify herself? Would she need to justify herself? Why should her compassion be less believable than the shallow motivation of the atrocity she suffered? I believe Lizaveta came to understand it.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

3.1 In the Servants' Quarters

Grigory Vassilievich, the vigilant, Grigory Vassilievich Kutuzov, the mad guard dog of Fyodor Pavlovich, the dog in the manger. Neither eats nor lets eat. He bows his head for the master and bows his head for his God. As the guard dog he will stand in front of the door, to protect the master and prevent anyone from leaving the place where they belong. Of course, Fyodor Pavlovich can't leave either. He doesn't want to, as long as his loyal dog is there to remind him he's safe when his "soul trembles in his throat". And Grigory could walk away and leave his master to his fate, he could bring more freedom to those who depend on him, but he doesn't, because he has found some semblance of power over others in his foolish, obstinate, devoted keeping of the gate. He is as committed to his life of austerity and obedience as much as Fyodor is committed to his swamp of decandence and filth.

The guard dog loves wee ones and meek ones who need nothing but his protection, but will bark when someone tries to sneak out the door. Marfa Ignatievna has bigger aspirations, Marfa dances like she did when she served a nobler house —it's very likely she came to the house alongside Adelaida and was married to Grigory shortly after. But she has entered and now can't leave. Grigory will not let her. The guard dog will keep the master of the house safe and everyone else in their places of the hierarchy. Drawn by the need to obey some larger force of nature, he enforces "nature" around him in his need to affirm his beliefs that otherwise would be simple superstitions. All he deems unnatural shakes him to the core. It's not that he loathes it, he simply cannot understand it. The eyes of his deceased six- fingered infant look back at his cruel ignorance. Only a sign can cure him of his heartache.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.8 The Scandalous Scene

Let's bring our attention back to Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov for a moment.

He's a secondary character who will never appear again, but one who has set the tone for Book II and gone on a little character arc of his own that has shown all he has to offer as a character and supported the unveiling of others' personalities. The way the narrator has paid special attention to the inner state of mind of such an unimportant character is peculiar, to say the least. Fyodor Pavlovich is the object of his spite and the cause of the tension within himself as much as he is the object of Fyodor's performative game of shame and shamelessness. The one buffoon is gone, nothing will disturb him and his gentlemanly ways and he can love Humanity again.

But there isn't much more to Pyotr Alexandrovich nor his peace will last. Fyodor was right when he remarked that he seeks an image of nobility over sincerity, and his image of nobility can only go so far. At his age he will probably be trapped in that flat portrait of his own vanity for the rest of his life, and he will be happy as long as he tolerates people enough to speak of his big aspirations. On the other hand, Fyodor claims to be sincere. His understanding of sincerity takes form on the stripping of the world around him rather than honesty of the heart —there is much you can pretend to be sincere about for the sake of a scene. He gives up on responsibility and ends up believing self- control has given up on him.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.7 A Young Man Bent on A Career

Zosima's sending of Alyosha into the world until he one day returns echoes that of Fyodor Pavlovich, but unlike him, his command is not an expression of self- serving and pitiful love, but the passing of his torch, a light in the darkness that brought Alyosha to the monastery rather than a ravenous and consuming force —Alyosha is the one who must let go of him.

Alyosha is far from feeling comforted. Right when he finds himself worried by his profound doubts, Mikhail Rakitin stands outside, waiting for him. Envious and two- faced, he is still somehow a friend of Alyosha and the voice of temptation. Like a shadow, he walks beside him and voices his unspoken fear: that blood will be shed in his family. He paints the scene of the potential crime in a nearly voyeuristic manner, painting the least flattering portrait of this dysfunctional family one could imagine. A dog that's already showing its teeth and a viper on the wall, perhaps waiting for a chance. Temptation of the will, temptation of sensuality: the chaste young man admits he understands, and probably wishes he didn't have to, but that nest of vipers is his home after all.

Rakitin, by the way, is a stand- in for the targets of the author's criticisms. His point of view— reductive and materialistic— is meant to be the wrong one in this situation, however, one could hardly blame him for seeing the Karamazovs the way he does after such scene. As the town's gossiper, he gathers impressions and reflects the shallow voices of sensationalism. Even when he has Alyosha admit what he normally wouldn't, he will always miss the heart of the matter because he wants Alyosha to voice those fears, not understand them.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.6 "Why is Such a Man Alive?"

Lines beyond twenty- eight years, sunken sallow cheeks: the signs of debauchery in the son are unlike the bloated and rotten father's, as if the latter drained life out of his own descendants in his chase of earthly pleasures. The picture of the collapsing Karamazov family is complete at last —Fyodor Pavlovich's social cannibalism ended up with father and son in a feud over the same fortune and the same woman. The sordid scene echoes Ivan's earlier implications of virtue being nonexistent in a natural existence, as the icons around them can't save the sanctity of family from being dragged through the mud.

Dmitri expresses an expectation to make amends with his father. He speaks of an idyllic dream of a stable family: the military man coming back home, his lady, the "angel of his heart", and an old man to care for. However, by the time he's pronouncing these words, he has disliked his father for long, he has almost lost his property and freedom to him, and he's been courting another woman - an "enchantress", no less. He defends his betrothed publicly, but while doing this, the world understands his betrothed is no more worthy than a low woman to him.

"Outwardly it's the truth, but inwardly, it's a lie" —perhaps this naively contradictory line is the key to Dmitri's behaviour, how he might have sincerely held that dream despite the circumstances and why he knowingly took this farce of a meeting seriously. Dmitri is capable of fixating on beautiful and ridiculous ideas, as well as impulses, no matter the truth of the circumstances, and his heart is always 'open', in the non- definitive state of the man living the moment. The narrator teases us dedicating an entire paragraph to his unsettling gaze right from the start, as if saying: this is an unpredictable man, and no sign will truly tell you what he will choose to do in the end.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

Article about Dostoevsky's views on the matter of the immortality of the soul, as the short conversation between Zosima and Ivan interested me greatly and I went on the search of what virtue and immortality exactly mean for the author. I was convinced it couldn't be saying the punishment in Hell is the main motivation for virtue, and I was correct, as no argument speaks of Heavenly rewards. In the text, God is inseparable from immortality, and immortality is inseparable from the world, as it's not entirely an issue of trascendence. Usually idealism is accused of disregarding life on Earth for big ideas of perfection, but the world in which all life is instrumental to one's desires is the one Ivan described in that gathering.

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.5 "So Be It, So Be It!"

Paradise on Earth —the question lingers in the air. The chapter centers around sociopolitical discussion that the average reader at the time was most likely familiar with: ecclesiastical courts. On one hand was the modernization of State power and justice, and on the other was the deeply rooted hold the Church had on the country. Ivan's article was applauded by both the clergy and atheists because he is fundamentally saying the Church and the State can't coexist as separate powers. The Church having a small place in the State becomes State, the paradise has no choice but to become Earth. Ivan suggests the State becoming Church is the only way to achieve the Christian mission —the Earth is brought closer to paradise.

However, Ivan presents himself as an atheist in society. No wonder people started to see the article as mockery after the initial reception. What seems like an endorsement of the Kingdom of God might as well be a disguised impossibility of the realization of the ideal of justice. Miusov slyly brings up Christian socialists upon seeing Paissy's enthusiastic faith in the divine mission, as if implying that he's no different than socialists who are often accussed of "daring to create paradise on Earth".

Zosima engages with the topic at hand sincerely and respectfully. His belief in the possibility of justice based on repentance and redemption is surprising and probably absurd to many modern and non religious readers, however, reading it as a standalone speech is a mistake. Zosima's affirmation of the idea seems like agreement while being quite different from Ivan's. The perspective Ivan chooses to present is one of negation (a Church that can't become the Kingdom of God is no Church, creating a little paradox!) whereas Zosima's is one of affirmation because he believes the deeply rooted Christian conscience of the people would be a foundation of the ecclesiastical courts and this Kingdom of God, and not the other way around, following God as a historical destiny. Ivan's premise has been read beyond the shape of its words not through exam but through dialogue. Most sense that ideal justice does not belong to our world, but hearing it is another matter, or rather: what does it mean to affirm or negate the ideal of justice? The idea doesn't just mean what it merely is. It's woven by whoever pronounces it and the world of discourse it's thrown into. This chapter delves into an extremely specific matter, but through it, the ideas have entered the text and are here to stay.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.4 A Lady of Little Faith

What does the possibility of nothingness mean for us? Why do we love, and can we love purely for the sake of it? Madame Khokhlakova was fine until she started thinking about it. These sort of questions plague her and make her suffer from her "little faith". She claims nobody else is thinking about it, but in reality, she has spoken for many by daring to make these questions, even if they might make her look foolish or selfish in front of others.

Once someone asked me: "Why try at all if it all ends? What do you think?" and my answer was: "Precisely because it all ends. It's the same for everybody, and we already have it hard as it is. You might as well make things nicer on the way there." Intuitively, Zosima's words of "active love" to Madame K. seemed to mean something of that sort in my eyes. Death for a great idea has been looked upon as commitment to a greater good, but can you live for your "good"? In death, "you" become lasting and static, like your idea. The death you have to accept for yourself may be found in life —in the sense that when you live seriously, you may have to do away with ideas you had of yourself or what is right until the end, you have to kill your fantastic selves. It's tedious, just like most pain around us. Dreams protect us from it like armour, but truly loving entails summoning your courage against shame and disdain in those little moments.

Zosima has a positive outlook on humanity alongside his notion of what it is to be a responsible human being. Man was made to be happy, so one becomes more human by active love. Paradoxically, such advice offered to someone struggling with their faith creates a situation in which the swaying of faith may create a stronger desire to actively love, if one has enough commitment to live seriously... Even if there is nothing at the end. Madame Khokhlakova's answer to her dilemma sits right beside her in a wheelchair, acting. Her great dreams of altruism involve leaving her life in a fantasy of moral martyrdom, but Zosima tells her to do what she can. Loving her daughter Lise unconditionally, no matter how pesky she can be, is the best place to start.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.3 Peasant Women who Have Faith

Truly I hadn't noticed before how much of a microcosm of the entire book this chapter is until I started writing this. Pain and hunger weaken the body, the wails of the klikushi pierce ears, the faces of the dead stay in the back of the eye: pain is a very present question, a far cry from a philosophical hypothetical or idle thoughts. The immanence (meaning, present and within the world) of the pain carried by the peasant women seeking healing and the immanence of the experience of God in the earth are the bare bones of recurring dilemmas that will keep coming up in the future.

Out of the different exchanges that Zosima has with the peasant women, two stand out to me: the grieving mother and the young widow who is implied to have poisoned her abusive old husband and feels sick with guilt. Both emotions are throughly explored; grief, guilt, and the despair that often accompanies them. Grief and guilt have unique ways of alienating us.

Every passing of a loved one takes away a piece of ourselves, the past becomes a tomb, and in cases such as the death of a child, the future no longer exists— it is then when we realize we truly don't have futures. How cruel it is that an emotion every human will experience in their lives feels so profoundly lonely? The grieving mother feels despair, she doesn't want to be herself, she rejects a world without her little Alexey in it. The promise of Heaven alone, that is, transcendence, is not enough (more on that later). She has no use of it when her heart has been ripped out of her own world. On the other hand, the widow suffers from guilt, a pain that alienates in a similar manner. Alone with the weight of what she's done, the widow is alone with her emotion and afraid to die and of what has become of herself —if only it hadn't come to that, if only it had been different from the beginning. Guilt is self- conscious, yet it tends to drive you away from the present reality.

With compassion, Zosima offers love in the world itself as an antidote, to heal alongside others to return to themselves as human beings of the world who are responsible towards others; the mother is told to start by grieving alongside her husband and to never abandon him, and the widow's guilt must transform into responsibility. It circles back: the threat of despair has taken them away from the world and up to the monastery, and only afterwards they can return and heal. The last of the peasant women ends the chapter in a positive note, bringing joy and going back home with more. What do we mean when we talk of behaving like a human being, and is there something as being so human it becomes self- negating?

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.2 The Old Buffoon

The two voices of the opposed father figures, Fyodor Pavlovich and Zosima, are brilliantly distinct and compliment each other in a fascinating dialogue between the most debauched man in the district and the saint (one who is said to love sinners the most).

Fyodor's voice is layered with irony and performativity, whereas Zosima's voice is hieratic, laconic and directed at the depths of the heart itself. Their dialogue is fascinating because it's a duel hidden as confession. One is trying to provoke skin- deep responses and the other speaks to the soul itself. At the end Fyodor admits his own intention of making a scene and his hypocrisy, confirming, in a way, Zosima's assessment of not just his character but of lies themselves—both are having a dialogue with what remains "mysterious", one fills it with simulation, and the other is not afraid to reach into it and bring it to Earth. It seems unlikely that Fyodor will fall down to his feet and accept the supreme truth like the fictitious version of Diderot in the anecdote, even if he trembles thinking about it.

But Zosima is not "talking about Diderot" when he talks about lies. Fyodor doesn't speak the truth he feels within himself, instead, he anticipates responses to those around him. He can't bear to live seriously, so he both secretly rejoices daydreaming his victimhood and finds instant gratification in eliciting the responses he imagined in people, taking complete control of the situation and placing himself at the center of the stage. He's distanced from both himself and others because he lives in spectacle. He rebels against the gaze of the Other by drawing it into his own spectacle. His buffoonish nature is a parody of itself as well. Fyodor Pavlovich is surprisingly self- aware, but he sees no point in stopping the show. Nobody is safe from it, his provokations seek to bring others to his level. His character invites us to wonder how a person who is supposedly filled with shame could act so shamelessly and how beautiful lies are really that different from ugly ones.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs

An interesting open access article I found about Postmodernism concerning Fyodor Pavlovich: I was surprised to find some analysis ideas I had thought of myself when studying those topics: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2175qsg.15

[confessionofanardentheart]

2.1 They Arrive at the Monastery

A liberal, an intellectual, a beautiful boy, a landowner and an old buffoon walk into a monastery… It seems like the beginning of a bad joke, but it's the beginning of three fateful days.

This group mostly composed of people who mock what is sacred seems like a thread to the sanctity of the place, however, the monastery stays silent, solid and quiet, the monk keeps smiling. The real tension is not between the group and the religious nature of the place, but among themselves, specifically, Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov and Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov. Every pretension of sophistication by Miusov is mirrored by Fyodor Pavlovich's buffoonery and vulgar allusions, making it so that his feelings of disdain are redirected towards him. This form of doubling so characteristic from the author is present in the entire novel: when the character's idea looks back at them in the form of someone else, sometimes in a parodic manner such as in this case. Fyodor's sensualism and lack of tact are a crude caricature of Miusov's materialism and contept — and so are the old landowner Maximov's ridiculous demeanour and "von Sohn"esque phisiognomy to Fyodor's buffoonery and debauchery. By the end of the chapter, tension has began inside Miusov himself: he is already anticipating a loss of composure and the degradation of his own ideas when they leave the comfortable confines of his mind.

--------

Links:

@keepingupwiththekaramazovs