Again, As I felt with C&P, I feel the need to print out all your essays and reread this book with them beside me. It is hard for me to see all these underlying themes as I have strong negative reactions to everyone’s absurd, to the point of unbelievable, behavior. I went back to read the very beginning and was thoroughly surprised. The “author” states that Aleksey was his hero, but not a great man, “ a vague and undefined protagonist.” Hmm?
I understand, Paula. Indeed, there's a great deal of absurdity—I'll be publishing an article on Friday about the genre, examining its exaggerations, affectations, and carnival elements.
Yes, Dostoevsky—or more precisely, this incognito narrator—immediately establishes Alexei as both the main character and a great sinner. However, in the first part, neither claim is evident. He receives little attention in the plot compared to Dmitri, and the assertion that he's a great sinner seems unfounded at this point. We'll understand more as we continue reading, though Dostoevsky left many elements merely suggested since he never wrote his intended second volume of the novel.
Thanks for this article. It stirred up a lot of thoughts about the characters thus far and I was moved to write down my thoughts/analyses on each section. I feel like I have a better foundation for what comes next.
Just prior to starting BK, I read 'House of Spirits' by Isabelle Allende. The character Esteban Garcia was born from the landowner's affair with one of his powerless, teenage farmworkers/servants. That child was never formally acknowledged by his father (Esteban Tureba; wealthy/powerful) but interestingly was given his father's first name and allowed to grow up on his property. The child grew up very cynical and resentful and eventually did cruel and other hateful things (don't want to spoil the story)... reminds me of Smerdyakovv and made me consider his possible, future role in the demise of the family. When rightful voices are not heard, deep seated resentment builds..... I think that is a universal experience for us all... not being heard or understood. 'The quiet one.'
Smerdyakov being the 4th Karamazov as presumed because of the circumstances of his birth,was never given recognition,believed to be uneducated,giving him more or less status of house servant ,received olive from adopted father faced a different situations than other brothers,but his keen observations of FP Karamazov and others made him take a different position in dialogue with family as he became much bolder in speech & his opinions which surprised everyone.He shares some characteristics with Ivan ,being quite,non believers in God ,he was not dumb,he kept his views to himself.He will certainly have bigger and significant role in family as this book goes on.
Thanks Dana for all the detailed discussion of the book, I still get confused wether I am writing at right place or not,difference between comments or replies site .
I am so thankful for this contemplative and informative walkthrough. You are just doing a really lovely job!
Thank you, Katie!
Again, As I felt with C&P, I feel the need to print out all your essays and reread this book with them beside me. It is hard for me to see all these underlying themes as I have strong negative reactions to everyone’s absurd, to the point of unbelievable, behavior. I went back to read the very beginning and was thoroughly surprised. The “author” states that Aleksey was his hero, but not a great man, “ a vague and undefined protagonist.” Hmm?
I understand, Paula. Indeed, there's a great deal of absurdity—I'll be publishing an article on Friday about the genre, examining its exaggerations, affectations, and carnival elements.
Yes, Dostoevsky—or more precisely, this incognito narrator—immediately establishes Alexei as both the main character and a great sinner. However, in the first part, neither claim is evident. He receives little attention in the plot compared to Dmitri, and the assertion that he's a great sinner seems unfounded at this point. We'll understand more as we continue reading, though Dostoevsky left many elements merely suggested since he never wrote his intended second volume of the novel.
You’ve provided so much information and context. Excited to start the next part of the book. Thank you for your insights, Dana!
Thanks for this article. It stirred up a lot of thoughts about the characters thus far and I was moved to write down my thoughts/analyses on each section. I feel like I have a better foundation for what comes next.
Wonderful reflections! When I get to far ahead, your summaries and further information really help in my re-reading of the particular book. Bravo!
Thanks for this helpful walkthrough!
Have there been any posts since this one? I haven’t seen any.
I haven’t been able to find any as well.
Just prior to starting BK, I read 'House of Spirits' by Isabelle Allende. The character Esteban Garcia was born from the landowner's affair with one of his powerless, teenage farmworkers/servants. That child was never formally acknowledged by his father (Esteban Tureba; wealthy/powerful) but interestingly was given his father's first name and allowed to grow up on his property. The child grew up very cynical and resentful and eventually did cruel and other hateful things (don't want to spoil the story)... reminds me of Smerdyakovv and made me consider his possible, future role in the demise of the family. When rightful voices are not heard, deep seated resentment builds..... I think that is a universal experience for us all... not being heard or understood. 'The quiet one.'
Sorry,there are some typos.
Smerdyakov being the 4th Karamazov as presumed because of the circumstances of his birth,was never given recognition,believed to be uneducated,giving him more or less status of house servant ,received olive from adopted father faced a different situations than other brothers,but his keen observations of FP Karamazov and others made him take a different position in dialogue with family as he became much bolder in speech & his opinions which surprised everyone.He shares some characteristics with Ivan ,being quite,non believers in God ,he was not dumb,he kept his views to himself.He will certainly have bigger and significant role in family as this book goes on.
Thanks Dana for all the detailed discussion of the book, I still get confused wether I am writing at right place or not,difference between comments or replies site .
Thoroughly enjoyable. Worthy of reading and re-reading.