My translation by David McDuff (Penguin Classics) contains the author’s note. Thanks for starting us off by pointing out that this mysterious narrator is one of the characters in the novel. The sentence that peaked my curiosity:
“But strangeness and oddness are sooner a cause of harm to their possessor than any guarantee of attention, particularly in a time when all are striving to unite the details of existence and to discover at least some kind of general meaning in the universal muddle.”
I don’t know anything about this story and look forward to discover meaning in today’s universal muddle! I feel the reading of this story may help my angst at today’s rapidly shifting political situation here in the USA. In the very least it will challenge my reading comprehension. I am already hugely grateful for your work, Dana.
The introduction is fascinating in how it positions Alyosha as an eccentric character. Dostoevsky masterfully contrasts the eccentric individual against a world already filled with oddities and foolishness. Sometimes it's within this universal chaos that such an eccentric person truly stands out. Yet we'll discover whether Alyosha is truly this figure—or if perhaps someone else fills this role?
For now, we just need to immerse ourselves in the story - the first part is simply an engaging family narrative.
I've read book 1 by now, I've tried to go with the flow without worrying if I don't understand everything at first. Now I will reread more slowly using your handy guides and taking notes, I think this method will work best for me. All I can say for now is that I really liked the atmosphere and the characters, there's something deeply real and heartwarming about them. Can't wait to go on this adventure with you all!
Yeah!!! We've practically begun our journey already. Write down your questions - we really need to go with the flow and not worry about anything. And their family is truly something else, in the best traditions of Dostoevsky: each character "loses their mind" in their own unique way 😅
The bookmark was so helpful. You are spoiling us right out of the gate. I've got the Gambler's Wife on hold at the library. That should be an interesting read.
Thank you for this insightful history of the novel. I wonder, will we be able to imagine the second, unwritten novel by the end of this one?
My Katz translation has the introduction and as Lisa W mentioned the discussion about the eccentric was intriguing. I love to see the subtle differences in the translations. I also know nothing about this story.
The lines I found most intriguing followed Lisa’s, “For not only is an eccentric “not always” a singular and special case, but on the contrary, I’d suspect that he sometimes carries within himself the very heart of the whole situation, while all of his contemporaries have, for some reason, been torn out of it by a sudden gust of wind.”
I think the eccentric often sees something that the majority do not see and because the majority does not like to feel threatened by that the “eccentric” is given the label which absolves the majority from having to think further. So, is the eccentricity harmful to the eccentric or to the majority? Maybe both.
Tomorrow there will be more about the actual writing history and publication. I probably should have switched the order of the articles, but it is what it is.
We can predict what the second volume might have been like. There are works that specifically try to trace the plot through hints from the first book, through what Dostoevsky wrote in letters and notes. But these are still just speculations, since D usually changed a lot in his novels while writing them, compared to his early ideas. We'll definitely discuss the second volume at the end of the year.
The paragraphs about the eccentric character are truly fascinating. It's particularly intriguing how Alyosha may—or may not—turn out to be the eccentric at the story's heart. Dostoevsky delights in such ambiguities, crafting his work so each reading offers new perspectives and interpretations.
It's interesting to see how many women are behind the screen propelling the works of some great writers. This was such a good introduction to this read-along.
yes, behind many writers. Sadly, 19th century Russian literature didn't have its own Brontë or Mary Shelley. All the women either faded into obscurity with their books remaining only in archives, or became faithful assistants to their husbands. Tolstoy's wife also selflessly labored over Leo Nikolaevich's manuscripts. She did a lot of rewriting and often made suggestions about the characters. But of course, her name isn't on the cover.
I am reading Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation (the everyman edition). It includes the narrator's introduction. I thought it was interesting because it marks the book out as being about Alyosha.
Really interesting to learn that these books were dictated. Like Homer, perhaps.
There was supposed to be a second grand volume about Alyosha. And Dostoevsky intended to write it, but, alas, he died.
Indeed, D is similar to Homer, though he still wrote notes and edited Anna's printed text. Homer exemplifies the pinnacle of oral storytelling. Yet telling a story aloud—rather than writing it—creates a distinctly different form of expression. Research suggests that written and spoken language even activate different regions of the brain.
I listened to an audio book by Robin Lane Fox (or Fox Lane?) recently which argued that Homer performed the Odyssey many times and the act of his performing it to a scribe was his final oral performance thereof. The book was called Homer and his Iliad.
I read this too! I was convinced by his arguments, although predisposed to. I liked that he pointed out that if you haven’t memorized poetry before or recited it etc. then you might not realize how possible it is for Homer to be one person.
What about the Odyssey? I always thought that both poems came down to us in the same way: that Homer performed them in parallel and they were written down after him.
Thank you for the recommendation, I'm definitely interested in learning more about this.
I just meant that this author only talks about the Iliad. He is arguing for the single authorship of the Iliad by a Homer who performed/dictated the text to a scribe. Robin Lane Fox would consign himself to the fringe if he argued for the Iliad and the Odyssey for this kind of claim. He would have to argue for one single author for both books and that’s way beyond the scope of his project. By the way, Fox says the scribe could have been a woman.
Dictating prose is a rare writing method for authors, especially in the time before the invention of voice recorders, when stenographers who could be trusted to transcribe were needed. If you know of many writers who used this method, I would be interested to learn about them, as I usually read about writers working in the traditional way - with their own drafts.
It’s very interesting that the narrator identifies himself as a biographer, and as he calls this a novel, he is a biographer of a fictional character?
And these lines stood out to me, and seem to hint at what the book is going to be about:
“…would it not be strange to demand clarity from people at a time like ours.” (Katz)
“…in the current state of widespread confusion.” (Katz)
For not only is an eccentric ‘not always’ a man apart and isolated, but, on the contrary, it may be he in “particular who sometimes represents the very essence of his epoch, while others of his generation, for whatever reason, will drift aimlessly in the wind. (Avsey)
Dostoevsky didn't introduce the narrator without reason. On one hand, this technique is used by many authors to distance themselves, as Dostoevsky does, by shifting responsibility to this "narrator." But this character will also recount events as a witness to things that Dostoevsky himself cannot witness. He's clearly not a biographer, but he's well-informed about their past. However, the narrator is first and foremost a character, and we will perceive events through his subjective point of view. Whether to trust this narrator or not is something we'll decide as we continue.
And this introduction is truly important for the novel, but it would be better to discuss it closer to the end, after we've read the novel, so we can talk about what this narrator wanted to tell us and whether he actually told it.
The adventure begins! I have the Katz translation; the author's note and it does seem to set up a mystery. Very intriguing. I'm a bit more than halfway through Book 1 and feeling like I can read it again. (The bookmarks were inspired!)
Pevear/Volokhonsky includes it, but the wording is a bit different. Where they have "fateful," Ignat has "important," which suggests to me that the P/V translation might be a little less lightweight in its language. From this I guess that it might be more appealing to a reader. Of course, I'll see if I still have this feeling of more "heavy" language as we go on. I don't have the edition I actually read anymore, because I traded it in after getting the P/V, which of course comes with a lot of high recommendations.
Thank you for this. I've just begun reading it and love it so far. I had no idea his wife was behind the scenes in this influential way. I can't wait for tonight to keep on reading!
The introduction is indeed rather perplexing. I can see why Constance Garnett translation opted to leave it out. It is sort of extraneous to the story. The figure of Alyosha, his sweet innocence and almost flawless character make him an almost impossible character to truly understand and relate to. He is just too impossibly good. He kind of reminds me of Prince Myshkin in an earlier novel, The Idiot. A Christ-like figure (though not Christ himself), he embodies a type of person that cannot thrive in this life. Almost by design. If I recall correctly, the Idiot was not received well among critics when it first came out. Perhaps such a quirky forward was Dostoevsky's way of heading off such potential criticism.
I am curious about which source edition Garnett used for her translation, as she would not have removed this introduction voluntarily. She likely never saw it, but it's unfortunate that this omission remains uncorrected in new publications of her translation. After all, translators don't arbitrarily alter a text's structure—their changes are typically more subtle.
Indeed, this introduction at the beginning raises more questions than it answers. Rather than serving as a shield from criticism, it lends authenticity to the Karamazovs' story—making us feel as though we're discovering it firsthand rather than reading a fictional account.
The character parallels with The Idiot are notable: Prince Myshkin and Alyosha Karamazov share certain traits, yet how deep do these similarities run? For readers of The Idiot, it's fascinating to consider whether Myshkin could have experienced a youth like Alyosha's, and whether Alyosha's future might mirror Myshkin's path. Both represent Dostoevsky's portrayal of the holy fool.
I think Alyosha and Myshkin are still very different characters though. The similarity struck me in regards to that one aspect. Mostly, their dispositions and temperament.
You're right, the forward does lend it some authenticity. I don't think it's a shield from criticism, but it kind of invites the reader to be open-minded to other possibilities as to its interpretation. There's a very Christian message, the logic of which is hard to convey. The Idiot also has a very Christian message.
All my versions (two in German, one from 1968 by E.K. Rahsin and another from 2003 by much acclaimed translator Swetlana Geier, as well as the newly acquired English translation from Michael Katz (2023, kindle)) include the preface.
Reading the three prefaces in comparison with the Russian version I realized that both German translations sound a bit old fashioned and sometimes choice of words together with the structure of the German sentences seem to fog the sense of the Russian original.
Although I have read a critical comment on the Katz translation all in all it appears to be fresher approach to me, and may be it is even a bit closer to the original version (?; at least that is my impression so far), so I have to decide which edition to follow.
From what I understand, Katz undertook a monumental effort in his translation, and he has written articles about how he attempts to adapt the English language to match Dostoevsky's style. His goal was to stay specifically close to Dostoevsky's form, while most translations are naturally simpler, mainly focusing on content.
These are interesting observations and comparisons with the German translations. I don't have the ability to compare them myself, as I'd need to learn German first. And what about the difference between the new and old German translations - I heard Svetlana Geier also had a special approach to the text, as people mentioned in the comments. Did she improve the translation?
Short reply: as far as I can judge at the moment Geier‘s translation is not so far away from the old Rahsin one. In the preface it is mainly nuances and the choice of specific words that make a difference. I had to look up the Russian words in order to see what words both picked for their interpretation.
Love the bookmark idea!
My translation by David McDuff (Penguin Classics) contains the author’s note. Thanks for starting us off by pointing out that this mysterious narrator is one of the characters in the novel. The sentence that peaked my curiosity:
“But strangeness and oddness are sooner a cause of harm to their possessor than any guarantee of attention, particularly in a time when all are striving to unite the details of existence and to discover at least some kind of general meaning in the universal muddle.”
I don’t know anything about this story and look forward to discover meaning in today’s universal muddle! I feel the reading of this story may help my angst at today’s rapidly shifting political situation here in the USA. In the very least it will challenge my reading comprehension. I am already hugely grateful for your work, Dana.
The introduction is fascinating in how it positions Alyosha as an eccentric character. Dostoevsky masterfully contrasts the eccentric individual against a world already filled with oddities and foolishness. Sometimes it's within this universal chaos that such an eccentric person truly stands out. Yet we'll discover whether Alyosha is truly this figure—or if perhaps someone else fills this role?
For now, we just need to immerse ourselves in the story - the first part is simply an engaging family narrative.
I've read book 1 by now, I've tried to go with the flow without worrying if I don't understand everything at first. Now I will reread more slowly using your handy guides and taking notes, I think this method will work best for me. All I can say for now is that I really liked the atmosphere and the characters, there's something deeply real and heartwarming about them. Can't wait to go on this adventure with you all!
Yeah!!! We've practically begun our journey already. Write down your questions - we really need to go with the flow and not worry about anything. And their family is truly something else, in the best traditions of Dostoevsky: each character "loses their mind" in their own unique way 😅
The bookmark was so helpful. You are spoiling us right out of the gate. I've got the Gambler's Wife on hold at the library. That should be an interesting read.
Thank you for this insightful history of the novel. I wonder, will we be able to imagine the second, unwritten novel by the end of this one?
My Katz translation has the introduction and as Lisa W mentioned the discussion about the eccentric was intriguing. I love to see the subtle differences in the translations. I also know nothing about this story.
The lines I found most intriguing followed Lisa’s, “For not only is an eccentric “not always” a singular and special case, but on the contrary, I’d suspect that he sometimes carries within himself the very heart of the whole situation, while all of his contemporaries have, for some reason, been torn out of it by a sudden gust of wind.”
I think the eccentric often sees something that the majority do not see and because the majority does not like to feel threatened by that the “eccentric” is given the label which absolves the majority from having to think further. So, is the eccentricity harmful to the eccentric or to the majority? Maybe both.
Tomorrow there will be more about the actual writing history and publication. I probably should have switched the order of the articles, but it is what it is.
We can predict what the second volume might have been like. There are works that specifically try to trace the plot through hints from the first book, through what Dostoevsky wrote in letters and notes. But these are still just speculations, since D usually changed a lot in his novels while writing them, compared to his early ideas. We'll definitely discuss the second volume at the end of the year.
The paragraphs about the eccentric character are truly fascinating. It's particularly intriguing how Alyosha may—or may not—turn out to be the eccentric at the story's heart. Dostoevsky delights in such ambiguities, crafting his work so each reading offers new perspectives and interpretations.
It's interesting to see how many women are behind the screen propelling the works of some great writers. This was such a good introduction to this read-along.
yes, behind many writers. Sadly, 19th century Russian literature didn't have its own Brontë or Mary Shelley. All the women either faded into obscurity with their books remaining only in archives, or became faithful assistants to their husbands. Tolstoy's wife also selflessly labored over Leo Nikolaevich's manuscripts. She did a lot of rewriting and often made suggestions about the characters. But of course, her name isn't on the cover.
Exactly!
I am reading Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's translation (the everyman edition). It includes the narrator's introduction. I thought it was interesting because it marks the book out as being about Alyosha.
Really interesting to learn that these books were dictated. Like Homer, perhaps.
There was supposed to be a second grand volume about Alyosha. And Dostoevsky intended to write it, but, alas, he died.
Indeed, D is similar to Homer, though he still wrote notes and edited Anna's printed text. Homer exemplifies the pinnacle of oral storytelling. Yet telling a story aloud—rather than writing it—creates a distinctly different form of expression. Research suggests that written and spoken language even activate different regions of the brain.
I listened to an audio book by Robin Lane Fox (or Fox Lane?) recently which argued that Homer performed the Odyssey many times and the act of his performing it to a scribe was his final oral performance thereof. The book was called Homer and his Iliad.
I read this too! I was convinced by his arguments, although predisposed to. I liked that he pointed out that if you haven’t memorized poetry before or recited it etc. then you might not realize how possible it is for Homer to be one person.
I found it convincing, but like you, Im predisposed.
I mean the Iliad!
What about the Odyssey? I always thought that both poems came down to us in the same way: that Homer performed them in parallel and they were written down after him.
Thank you for the recommendation, I'm definitely interested in learning more about this.
I just meant that this author only talks about the Iliad. He is arguing for the single authorship of the Iliad by a Homer who performed/dictated the text to a scribe. Robin Lane Fox would consign himself to the fringe if he argued for the Iliad and the Odyssey for this kind of claim. He would have to argue for one single author for both books and that’s way beyond the scope of his project. By the way, Fox says the scribe could have been a woman.
Ooh, fascinating, I'll definitely read about this. The comment about the woman is also interesting, giving food for thought about Dostoevsky.
That’s fascinating.
I too am reading this translation.
Many authors have written via dictation. Milton is notable in that he was basically blind when he “wrote” Paradise Lost
Dictating prose is a rare writing method for authors, especially in the time before the invention of voice recorders, when stenographers who could be trusted to transcribe were needed. If you know of many writers who used this method, I would be interested to learn about them, as I usually read about writers working in the traditional way - with their own drafts.
It’s very interesting that the narrator identifies himself as a biographer, and as he calls this a novel, he is a biographer of a fictional character?
And these lines stood out to me, and seem to hint at what the book is going to be about:
“…would it not be strange to demand clarity from people at a time like ours.” (Katz)
“…in the current state of widespread confusion.” (Katz)
For not only is an eccentric ‘not always’ a man apart and isolated, but, on the contrary, it may be he in “particular who sometimes represents the very essence of his epoch, while others of his generation, for whatever reason, will drift aimlessly in the wind. (Avsey)
Dostoevsky didn't introduce the narrator without reason. On one hand, this technique is used by many authors to distance themselves, as Dostoevsky does, by shifting responsibility to this "narrator." But this character will also recount events as a witness to things that Dostoevsky himself cannot witness. He's clearly not a biographer, but he's well-informed about their past. However, the narrator is first and foremost a character, and we will perceive events through his subjective point of view. Whether to trust this narrator or not is something we'll decide as we continue.
And this introduction is truly important for the novel, but it would be better to discuss it closer to the end, after we've read the novel, so we can talk about what this narrator wanted to tell us and whether he actually told it.
Thank you for the bookmark, especially having the dates on it really helps.
Nuray, I'm delighted that you liked the bookmark idea and will be using them
The adventure begins! I have the Katz translation; the author's note and it does seem to set up a mystery. Very intriguing. I'm a bit more than halfway through Book 1 and feeling like I can read it again. (The bookmarks were inspired!)
It's wonderful that you're already feeling so engaged with Book 1 that you want to read it again. Indeed, the adventure begins!
Pevear/Volokhonsky includes it, but the wording is a bit different. Where they have "fateful," Ignat has "important," which suggests to me that the P/V translation might be a little less lightweight in its language. From this I guess that it might be more appealing to a reader. Of course, I'll see if I still have this feeling of more "heavy" language as we go on. I don't have the edition I actually read anymore, because I traded it in after getting the P/V, which of course comes with a lot of high recommendations.
My copy did have the author’s note. There was a fun personality exposed in it. Enjoyable and a great tributary to the river of TBK!
Yes, I also like this author's introduction, it sets a certain mood.
Thank you for this. I've just begun reading it and love it so far. I had no idea his wife was behind the scenes in this influential way. I can't wait for tonight to keep on reading!
Hi Nick! I'm so glad that the novel has drawn you in right from the start 🙌🏻
The introduction is indeed rather perplexing. I can see why Constance Garnett translation opted to leave it out. It is sort of extraneous to the story. The figure of Alyosha, his sweet innocence and almost flawless character make him an almost impossible character to truly understand and relate to. He is just too impossibly good. He kind of reminds me of Prince Myshkin in an earlier novel, The Idiot. A Christ-like figure (though not Christ himself), he embodies a type of person that cannot thrive in this life. Almost by design. If I recall correctly, the Idiot was not received well among critics when it first came out. Perhaps such a quirky forward was Dostoevsky's way of heading off such potential criticism.
I am curious about which source edition Garnett used for her translation, as she would not have removed this introduction voluntarily. She likely never saw it, but it's unfortunate that this omission remains uncorrected in new publications of her translation. After all, translators don't arbitrarily alter a text's structure—their changes are typically more subtle.
Indeed, this introduction at the beginning raises more questions than it answers. Rather than serving as a shield from criticism, it lends authenticity to the Karamazovs' story—making us feel as though we're discovering it firsthand rather than reading a fictional account.
The character parallels with The Idiot are notable: Prince Myshkin and Alyosha Karamazov share certain traits, yet how deep do these similarities run? For readers of The Idiot, it's fascinating to consider whether Myshkin could have experienced a youth like Alyosha's, and whether Alyosha's future might mirror Myshkin's path. Both represent Dostoevsky's portrayal of the holy fool.
I think Alyosha and Myshkin are still very different characters though. The similarity struck me in regards to that one aspect. Mostly, their dispositions and temperament.
You're right, the forward does lend it some authenticity. I don't think it's a shield from criticism, but it kind of invites the reader to be open-minded to other possibilities as to its interpretation. There's a very Christian message, the logic of which is hard to convey. The Idiot also has a very Christian message.
All my versions (two in German, one from 1968 by E.K. Rahsin and another from 2003 by much acclaimed translator Swetlana Geier, as well as the newly acquired English translation from Michael Katz (2023, kindle)) include the preface.
Reading the three prefaces in comparison with the Russian version I realized that both German translations sound a bit old fashioned and sometimes choice of words together with the structure of the German sentences seem to fog the sense of the Russian original.
Although I have read a critical comment on the Katz translation all in all it appears to be fresher approach to me, and may be it is even a bit closer to the original version (?; at least that is my impression so far), so I have to decide which edition to follow.
From what I understand, Katz undertook a monumental effort in his translation, and he has written articles about how he attempts to adapt the English language to match Dostoevsky's style. His goal was to stay specifically close to Dostoevsky's form, while most translations are naturally simpler, mainly focusing on content.
These are interesting observations and comparisons with the German translations. I don't have the ability to compare them myself, as I'd need to learn German first. And what about the difference between the new and old German translations - I heard Svetlana Geier also had a special approach to the text, as people mentioned in the comments. Did she improve the translation?
Short reply: as far as I can judge at the moment Geier‘s translation is not so far away from the old Rahsin one. In the preface it is mainly nuances and the choice of specific words that make a difference. I had to look up the Russian words in order to see what words both picked for their interpretation.
Bookmark with the names is a great idea. Its very handy. Thank you!