A while back, I got a copy of The Brothers Karamazov from a book sale my college library was holding. I am now curious about the age of this book, since the book lacks any publication dates or other hints as to its age.
In my searches, I saw several copies that were similar but never the exact same. I have, thus far, found no copies that are exactly identical to mine (there's always something different). This makes me more curious as to the age of this book.
Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as “problematic” in class and our professor was like, “That’s cool, but ‘problematic’ doesn’t really mean anything. It means that the thing you’re describing has a problem, and in and of itself that’s not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else it’s not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like you’re trying to say that this is bad, but you don’t want to say ‘bad.’ Is that right?”
So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”
Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.
Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I can’t help but think of this professor being like, “Good starting point, now let’s get specific.” I think when we have to commit to saying “that’s ___” it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever we’re claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes it’s art, and it should be full of problems, because that’s what art is.
we need to bring back old school tumblr communication and im so serious. sending an ask to a mutual just to say hello. seeing three different asks in your inbox all asking how your dentist appointment went. seeing a post you think one of your mutuals would enjoy and tagging them/sending it to them in the dms. nowadays its just silently liking a post or (if youre feeling extreme) replying under posts. WHAT HAPPENED TO US!! we used to be a proper community!!!! #LetsBringWhimsyBack
Ivan’s uhhhh it wasn’t really a discussion but more of him being lectured at by a sleep paralysis demon, but that was an incredibly interesting chapter. I’m taking a second to process it before I read what alyosha probably will have to say about it.
I found it interesting how the demon was described as having out of fashion and worn out clothes. I’m not sure if this is meant to show that the Christian religion is going out of style due to science’s discoveries, or that the demons themselves are going out of style. But he was also copying Ivan’s ideas from his teenage years so maybe he was supposed to represent Ivan’s out of style ideas.
The demon seems to think that without God there wouldn’t be anymore suffering caused by God but rather only what humans do to themselves. But he also seems to desire an end to his “job” as demon because he wanted to chant for God that one time.
So I just finished Demons and there's one thing I will never understand about this book and that is: what about the story made people think, 'Ah, yes. Orange triangles would make a perfect cover for this book.'
Picture under the cut.
On a side note I notice a lot of Dostoevsky books get geometric covers.
The part in tbk 'Rebellion' where Ivan says that in the world after earthly life in which there should be perfect harmony, wronged children could forgive their attackers, but mothers dare not, absolutely dare not forgive the perpetrators of horrific crimes to their children hits hard
Ivan is only moral from a distance; he said so himself that it was impossible to love thy neighbour up close. But how can someone who feels so strongly about this! about such human suffering be at the same time so ignorant about his bro SMERDYAKOV (but i mean at least he's self aware)
And at the same time he is not completely simply a scholarly academic bc. THAt one part in strains/lacerations in the drawing room. just shows the young man side of him so much like Khokhlakov said aughgh and i find it weirdly appealing : ) love my mildly schizophrenic character
Mitya and Stavrogin could have met, according to the timelines (I think Mitya would be a little older), but I think Mitya would be the one victimizing Stavrogin, not the other way around.
another brothers k moment i can't stop thinking about is how ivan's been putting up with fyodor being drunk and a general embarrassment like the entire book but the moment he loses it is when fyodor forgets that ivan and alyosha have the same mom.
I feel like there's 2 things I'll never understand about Ivan Karamazov.
One is:
Why do people consider him an atheist?? Like I'm no expert on atheism but he litetally says multiple times that he believes in God?? (I quote one of those times in my 'Everything is Permitted' essay if you're interested). I don't know if it's me not understanding atheism? Or maybe I'm just missing something? Anyway.
The second is:
Why people say he's an alcoholic?? From memory it says pretty early on that he's not interested in drinking and debauchery.
So yeah.
If anyone wants to (staying civil) explain this to me please feel free.
I've been reading TBK recently and one thing that's stood out to me is that throughout the book people keep throwing around this line, allegedly said by Ivan, and misrepresenting it to mean something quite different to what I think he intended.
Before I get into it though I would like to preface this by saying I am not an Atheist, nor do I know any Atheists personally so if I'm misinterpreting or misunderstanding Atheism I apologise in advance and welcome your feedback.
Now, without further ado, one thing which is curious, if rather frustrating, about this line is that Ivan never said it. It is a line which arose from a concept of Ivan’s which Miusov, I believe, mentions when the Karamazovs go to the monastery at the start of the book. And, in fact, unless Miusov himself failed to mention it, the line was never said in the first place. The phrase 'everything is permitted' is a summary of a much more nuanced idea which Ivan expressed some five days prior to the events at the monastery and which Miusov repeats here.
It is clear on reading this passage that this can be summed up, if some of the nuance lost, in the phrase, 'Without God, everything is permitted.'
Shortly after Miusov repeats this idea of Ivan's, Dmitri clarifies by saying this.
And as is seen in the text, it is Father Paissy who confirms Dmitri has understood correctly and not Ivan. It is clear that were Dmitri, and it seems Father Paissy's, understanding of what Ivan has said to be summed up, again with some of the nuance lost, it would be with the phrase, 'Everything is permitted.'
Thus it is clear that we are already two steps removed from Ivan by the time we reach that phrase, which shows us that it is not something he said, but rather, I would venture to posit, a misunderstanding of his original idea. In fact, curiously enough, the most accurate quotation of the idea comes from Rakitin.
So why is he constantly misquoted? I would venture to say that it is because most characters don't fully understand Ivan's philosophy and mistakenly believe he's an Atheist. If Ivan was an Atheist and believed there is no God than, it stands to reason, by his own word, everything would be permitted. Hence, characters, looking at his idea with an Atheist lens, misunderstand the idea and misquote him. But despite what he said over the cognac Ivan does believe in God, what he cannot accept however is his world, as we see from his conversation with Alexei in the tavern. He says, ‘And so, I accept God, not only willingly, but moreover, I also accept his wisdom and his purpose, which are completely unknown to us…’ Thus it is clear that Ivan does believe in God. But his philosophy is so detailed, and so contradictory—it is my personal belief that Ivan’s beliefs on God and religion are contradictory—that most people who talk to him mistakenly believe he is an Atheist. Which is why he is so consistently misquoted as saying ‘everything is permitted.’
But as proven above Ivan does believe in God and this puts his idea in a new light. In fact, it means that if one wanted to some up his idea he is saying everything is not permitted. Because God does exist. Because man’s belief in immortality is not destroyed and thus some things are immoral. I am by no means saying that Ivan is a Christian. It is my personal interpretation of his character that he believes in God but as he cannot accept his world he rejects Him and is thus not a Christian. However, due to his belief in God one cannot paraphrase him by saying ‘everything is permitted’ because that is not what he meant. He does believe in God, thus if one wanted to some up his idea it would be with the phrase, ‘Without God, everything is permitted’ or ‘everything is not permitted’.
However, on hearing the version of his idea that other character’s attribute to him, Ivan states that now that the word has already been spoken, he won’t renounce it, even stating that Dmitri’s version is ‘not so bad.’ However, he does mention that Dmitri has naively rephrased his idea, perhaps hinting that he has not understood it. It is up to interpretation whether the version he won’t renounce is his own original version or the version other characters attribute to him. I would venture to posit that it is quite possible that Ivan is conflicted by these two interpretations of his idea and that is why he turns pale upon Alexei mentioning it after their conversation in the tavern. It is clear from his reaction to believing himself guilty of his father’s death that he does not really believe ‘everything is permitted’.
Therefore, it is clear that the phrase, ‘everything is permitted’ is mistakenly attributed to Ivan by characters in the book as it is a summary of a misinterpretation of a much more nuanced idea.
funniest tbk scene for me is dmitri jumping up at alyosha and yelling 'money or your life!' to scare the poor guy. and alyosha is like 'wtf?? this is what you do at a time like this??' and mitya is like 'well i was actually thinking of killing myself rn but then i decided it would be really funny to scare you so i did that haha. but actually i really should kms' and if that doesn't describe his whole character
Hey friend! Don’t have to respond to this publicly, but I can’t invite you to join the translating community through a side blog. Mind DMing me it if you don’t want to answer this publicly?
Hello! I've actually joined already through my main blog Literaturewit65. Thanks for letting me know though.
