In this article, you will read about how and when Dostoevsky conceived the idea for the novel, how he executed it, how he published it, how much he earned, and how it was received.
Thank you for putting all this effort into this book club. This is the level of information I would expect from a tertiary institution, just delivered in a much easier to understand package.
Thank you for your kind words, Michael. My content won't be quite like what you'd get in higher education, where they give you tons of information with extensive additional reading. But I'll try to convey the essential minimum that will illuminate the novel without being too overwhelming for busy people.
It is a pity that Friedrich Nietzsche never read TBK. He encountered Dostoevsky by chance in a French translation, which inexplicably combined two stories, The Landlady and Notes From the Underground that never should have been merged together. In the latter book, Dostoevsky dealt with the subject of revenge. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche took this up in his noteworthy treatment of “ressentment,” admired by Freud. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche famously said that Dostoevsky was “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to. learn.” He was not one to praise other writers lightly.
Indeed. It's unfortunate that they never managed to meet or get acquainted in person, even though they had every opportunity to do so. Dostoevsky lived and traveled extensively in Germany, so the possibility was certainly there. That would have been a fascinating encounter.
Thank you, Dana! All this information is wonderful to watch how FD illuminates these themes through the story. I am grateful to be in good hands to experience TBK!!
Also since I am not well versed in significant historical dates - the rubles buying power in 1880, his contemporaries' comments and later authors influenced by this book helps me wrap my head around the world of 1870's-'80s
I'm glad the information helps. The story in the book is set in 1866, and accounting for today's value and rapid inflation, one ruble would be equivalent to about $15 (US dollars). In 1880 it was roughly the same, perhaps slightly less, but inflation was very slow back then.
After publishing his book, Dostoevsky intended to read and write another 20 years, presumably completing a second novel to augment the first. Other than tying up loose ends, what key religious and philosophical topics do you think still needed to be covered? The Jewish question? The possible spread of Orthodoxy?
It's more about the confrontation between religion and socialism in society. As far as we know, Dostoevsky wanted to write specifically about Alyosha and his path after leaving the monastery in the sequel. According to one version, he was supposed to become a revolutionary. This would have been something of "a mix with Demons", apparently. And the fates of other characters 20 years later.
I knew Bakhtin would show up at some point, but not this early! And now I'm wondering whether the estate in Vitebsk was cheap or a fur coat was expensive. Not around the same time, but poor Akakiy Akakievich…
It's difficult without Bakhtin, he will appear periodically.
Many properties were indeed relatively inexpensive, but these were mainly small wooden houses with gardens or similar dwellings. Not like today, although 12,000 was still an enormous sum for most people. Akaky Akakievich had no chance of buying a fur coat - for his overcoat of not the highest quality, he needed about 150 rubles (though the tailor later reduced it to 80).
That price list is fascinating! There are so many tantalizing tidbits in this article that I can barely contain my reading. It’s a good thing I’m involved in some other slow reads or I wouldn’t be able to hold myself back on this one!
I gasped when I read D's opinion of Russia back then: "what the author sees as the plagues of his century: atheism, materialism, utilitarian socialist morality, and the breakdown of the family." How similar to our own time! The future didn't get any better for Russia, hopefully ours is better.
It was Dostoevsky who was inspired by Hugo and engaged in a polemic with him in his novel, not the other way around. Therefore, there aren't really any specific recommendations on how to read Hugo. Dostoevsky creates some parallels with "Les Misérables" in the novel, which I would like to discuss in order as we read the novel. But I'll give you a few hints about moments in Hugo's work that you can later compare with Dostoevsky: the fate of Javert, who was born "from a mother from the street," how Hugo interprets progress and the nature of European society's development, the general theme of human suffering, and especially the relationship between parents and their children. Specifically, the fate of Louis XVII. His fate had a profound impact on Dostoevsky.
Thank you for putting all this effort into this book club. This is the level of information I would expect from a tertiary institution, just delivered in a much easier to understand package.
Thank you for your kind words, Michael. My content won't be quite like what you'd get in higher education, where they give you tons of information with extensive additional reading. But I'll try to convey the essential minimum that will illuminate the novel without being too overwhelming for busy people.
It is a pity that Friedrich Nietzsche never read TBK. He encountered Dostoevsky by chance in a French translation, which inexplicably combined two stories, The Landlady and Notes From the Underground that never should have been merged together. In the latter book, Dostoevsky dealt with the subject of revenge. In The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche took this up in his noteworthy treatment of “ressentment,” admired by Freud. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche famously said that Dostoevsky was “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to. learn.” He was not one to praise other writers lightly.
Indeed. It's unfortunate that they never managed to meet or get acquainted in person, even though they had every opportunity to do so. Dostoevsky lived and traveled extensively in Germany, so the possibility was certainly there. That would have been a fascinating encounter.
Thank you, Dana! All this information is wonderful to watch how FD illuminates these themes through the story. I am grateful to be in good hands to experience TBK!!
Also since I am not well versed in significant historical dates - the rubles buying power in 1880, his contemporaries' comments and later authors influenced by this book helps me wrap my head around the world of 1870's-'80s
I'm glad the information helps. The story in the book is set in 1866, and accounting for today's value and rapid inflation, one ruble would be equivalent to about $15 (US dollars). In 1880 it was roughly the same, perhaps slightly less, but inflation was very slow back then.
After publishing his book, Dostoevsky intended to read and write another 20 years, presumably completing a second novel to augment the first. Other than tying up loose ends, what key religious and philosophical topics do you think still needed to be covered? The Jewish question? The possible spread of Orthodoxy?
It's more about the confrontation between religion and socialism in society. As far as we know, Dostoevsky wanted to write specifically about Alyosha and his path after leaving the monastery in the sequel. According to one version, he was supposed to become a revolutionary. This would have been something of "a mix with Demons", apparently. And the fates of other characters 20 years later.
I knew Bakhtin would show up at some point, but not this early! And now I'm wondering whether the estate in Vitebsk was cheap or a fur coat was expensive. Not around the same time, but poor Akakiy Akakievich…
It's difficult without Bakhtin, he will appear periodically.
Many properties were indeed relatively inexpensive, but these were mainly small wooden houses with gardens or similar dwellings. Not like today, although 12,000 was still an enormous sum for most people. Akaky Akakievich had no chance of buying a fur coat - for his overcoat of not the highest quality, he needed about 150 rubles (though the tailor later reduced it to 80).
Will be even expecting Berdyaev and Mochulskiy then!
There's a good chance they will appear at some point. But too many brilliant literary scholars and philosophers have written about Dostoevsky.
Thanks for this, it's great to know!
That price list is fascinating! There are so many tantalizing tidbits in this article that I can barely contain my reading. It’s a good thing I’m involved in some other slow reads or I wouldn’t be able to hold myself back on this one!
I gasped when I read D's opinion of Russia back then: "what the author sees as the plagues of his century: atheism, materialism, utilitarian socialist morality, and the breakdown of the family." How similar to our own time! The future didn't get any better for Russia, hopefully ours is better.
I am reading Les Misérables now. Any recommendations for a treatment on the interplay between it and BK?
It was Dostoevsky who was inspired by Hugo and engaged in a polemic with him in his novel, not the other way around. Therefore, there aren't really any specific recommendations on how to read Hugo. Dostoevsky creates some parallels with "Les Misérables" in the novel, which I would like to discuss in order as we read the novel. But I'll give you a few hints about moments in Hugo's work that you can later compare with Dostoevsky: the fate of Javert, who was born "from a mother from the street," how Hugo interprets progress and the nature of European society's development, the general theme of human suffering, and especially the relationship between parents and their children. Specifically, the fate of Louis XVII. His fate had a profound impact on Dostoevsky.
Is the entire gospel of John written on his tombstone?
The same as in the epigraph in the novel — the Gospel of John, chapter 12, verse 24.