[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 274 KB, 742x933, Dostoevskij_1876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1471214 No.1471214 [Reply] [Original]

So let's get a Dostoyevsky thread going on in here. Yeh yeh, I know he gets circulated a lot on this board (and on every literature forum) but this is going to be an actual discussion thread.

My first topic is who murdered Fyodor Karamazov. The narration in The Brothers Karamazov makes use of one of Dostoyevsky's common themes, an unreliable observer of events, as opposed to an omnipotent author. He makes use of this in several of his novels.

So lets go over what the narrator believes, that Smerdyakov planned the murder of his father for various reasons and pinned it on Dmitri. He explains to Ivan how he would go about setting an alibi for himself (the fake epileptic fit), and then later after the murder is committed he is found dead by suicide, and before that he considers emigrating to France.

Not let's look at some possible alternate situations.

>Dmitri did it

I've read some fairly convincing theories for this particular murder, but instead of focusing on that I'm going to explain why I "don't" think Dmitri killed his father. This reasoning on my part, largely stems from the love Alyosha felt towards his brother, and the fact that he believed in him. I don't feel that Dostoyevsky would have built Alexei up into this character only to have him be completely hoodwinked by his murderous brother.

Now;

>Ivan did it
A distinct possibility. Ivan is said to be away for the murder, but is later revealed to have returned early and would in fact have been in cattle town on time to murder his father. Smerdyakov also led Ivan to believe that he was going to murder their father and Ivan would have been well capable of carrying out this intention and leaving Dmitri (who he dislikes intensely) to take the fall. This theory can also be given some credibility when you take in Ivans subsequent insanity and his rather crazed conversations with Smerdyakov. One line in particular strikes me as particularly damning;

>> No.1471218

>For a man who believes that everything is permitted you don't seem very calm right now

Could this be a direct reference to Raskolnikov? Surely the characters are similar in many ways. Could Ivan have been trying to prove something to himself, the same way Raskolnikov was when he murdered his pawn broker.

There are a lot of credible theories as to Ivan being the murderer, but I'd like to point out why I don't believe he would have bothered to kill his father.

I've also always found the entire "guilt by association" thing with Ivan to be a little fishy.

I'd like to hear some more ideas about Dostoyevsky/The Brothers Karamazov, and if this thread gets enough interest I'd like to discuss The Possessed, which I consider his most mystifying work.

>> No.1471230

>>1471218

Whoops. I wrote more about Ivan not doing it, but I had to cut the post up and lost some of it, it seems.

Basically I find Ivans characterization to be the typical Russian nihilist. He says to Alexei that he has no problem with God, he simply wishes to return his ticket. What he's saying here is that he doesn't believe that mankind has any sort of higher purpose. He sees the actions of those around him as base and often cruel, lust driven and pointless. He serves mainly as an observer in the events of the book and not a major participant. Though it is revealed that Ivan intensely hated his father, largely because his father represented the personification of his ideas about life. That everything was permitted because God did not exist, that vulgarity and morality were just words, that living any way other than the way that most pleases you is pointless.

Ivan detested this, but to actually murder his father seems out of character.

>> No.1471251

As for Dmitri, it's pretty clear why you could think he killed his father. He clearly had violent intentions towards him, he was seen fleeing the house, and holding a weapon which could have easily been used to murder Fyodor Karamazov.

I myself believe that Dmitri went to the house with the intention of fighting his father over the money he wanted (and needed to repay Katerina, but would likely have spent on nothing with Grushenka). I don't believe he had any intention of carrying out a murder, nor do I believe he was capable of it, though he was shown to act out in violence several times throughout the book.

>> No.1471264

And finally, it's not even impossible that a minor (or even non existent) character was the murderer. Cattle town is a poor village and Dmitri was loudly talking about the 3000 roubles he wanted from his father, and where to find them. Any random eavesdropper could have simply murdered and robbed Fyodor Karamazov who was also a very unpopular figure in town as well as being a swindler.

Three thousand roubles in the 18th century is something like 30,000 dollars in todays purchasing power. A huge sum.

>> No.1471270

What the fuck? Did you all read a poorly translated version?

Smerdyakov, or whatever his name is, killed Fyodor. It's revealed in quite explicit terms. Maybe you're all pretending to have read it.

>> No.1471278

>>1471270

I'm all one person. And perhaps you have read the poor translation? It's purposefully explained that the narrator is only receiving secondhand accounts of information and the murderer is actually meant to be somewhat ambiguous. Smerdyakov NEVER explicitly states that he committed the murder, only that it would be convenient for him to do so (he explains this to Ivan).

>> No.1471281

>>1471278
No, he pretty much says he did it, then dies himself. You are an idiot.

>> No.1471307

>>1471281

No he never says that he did it. Yes he does kill himself. Please don't call me an idiot for exploring different possibilities in an on purpose ambiguous situation.

I've never discussed this book with anyone who was 100% certain that Smerdyakov was the murderer, its impossible to be. I tend to believe that he did it, but it's still well within the realm of possibility that numerous other characters committed the murder.

>> No.1471311

I'm half way through Notes From The Underground and I'm quite literally amazed at how good this is. This is the first book of his I've read and I was wondering, are his other works on this level?

>> No.1471314

>>1471307
Because you seem to be both lazy and stupid, here's a copypasta from Wiki:
"It is in this book that Ivan meets three times with Smerdyakov, the final meeting culminating in Smerdyakov's dramatic confession that he had faked the fit, murdered Fyodor Karamazov, and stolen the money, which he presents to Ivan. Smerdyakov expresses disbelief at Ivan's professed ignorance and surprise. Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that in a world without God "everything is permitted." The book ends with Ivan having a hallucination in which he is visited by the devil, who torments Ivan by mocking his beliefs. Alyosha finds Ivan raving and informs him that Smerdyakov killed himself shortly after their final meeting."

Next time, actually read the book.

>> No.1471317

>>1471311
Yes.

>> No.1471321

I'm so fed up of all this Dostoyevsky shit on /lit/. It's like Nabokov was when the board started.

>> No.1471324

>>1471311

That was the same book that introduced me to Dostoevsky, and yes, from what I've read, they're all at that level. After Notes I moved on to Crime and Punishment. After CP, I read The Brothers Karamazov.

Every one of those books was a hammer in the brain. You'll love reading more of Dostoevsky.

>> No.1471347

>>1471314

Wikipedia is a user edited reference board. It's usually pretty accurate but in this case it's off. Smerdyakov never admits that he murdered his father. Perhaps you should read the book.

>> No.1471389

Going to bump this for Dostoyevsky related discussion. Not necessarily discussion on my initial topic.

>> No.1471393

>>1471347
However, during the meeting, Smerdyakov admitted to killing Fyodor, with the statement:
"Aren't you tired of it? Here we are face to face; what's the use of going on keeping up a farce to each other? Are you still trying to throw it all on me, to my face? You murdered him; you are the real murderer, I was only your instrument, your faithful servant, and it was following your words I did it."
Notice how even though Smerdyakov admits to killing Fyodor, he still blames Ivan for the murder. Smerdyakov claims he was only acting as Ivan's "instrument". The guilt that he had convinced Katerina against Dimitri, and the guilt that somehow he had persuaded Smerdyakov to murder Fyodor are weighing on Ivan, and it is because of this weight that he could not remember about Katerina.

>> No.1471397

>>1471393
Now, pay attention to phrases like, "you are the real murderer," and "I was only your instrument, your faithful servant," and "it was following your words I did it."

Particularly, in that last bit, pay keen attention to the words "I did it." It should help you with the novel, once you read it.

>> No.1471399

>>1471393

Yep I was aware of this, but I don't see it as a full confession. Also the wording changes from translation to translation. This interpretation is much more clear than some (which is against the authors intent).

Smerdyakov is definitely a very likely candidate for murderer, I personally believe that he did commit the murder. However it's still up in the air.

Now here's another option. Smerdyakov is admitting it to Ivan to fuck with him. Smerdyakov might not know who committed the murder, but between him talking about the perfect alibi, and Dmitri going around shouting about the 3000 hidden in his fathers drawer there are a lot of potential murderers.

Smerdyakov also had a lot of anger towards Ivan who he idolized until Ivan basically told him to fuck off and that he was an idiot.

>> No.1471409

>>1471399
Nonsense. Where'd he get the money, if Smerdyakov didn't do it?

>> No.1471416

>Possible fan fiction idea:
Alyosha did it.....

>> No.1471418

>>1471399
Oh you best be trolling.

Apart from that it is obvious Smerdyakov did it it's not really the important bit of the book or something. All hail the great inquisitor.

>> No.1471442

Let's consider the philosophical contexts of The Brothers Karamazov before we jump to conclusions. The brothers are the four sides of (bipolar) people: Alyosha is the idealistic lad that loves everyone and everything, Mitya's the well meaning, but highly emotional and extremely rash, even manic, drunk, Ivan's the haughty intellectual gone mad, and Smerdyakov's the disgusting, shameful side of humanity we all want to ignore and tell to go away. Dostoyevsky specifically constructed Smerdyakov this way: he was born to an idiot mother, was denied by his father, raised by servants, and his name means "smelly" for fuck's sake. He's a victim of society, sure, but he's still a dick.

Then there's the biographical contexts. The most important thing here is that Smerdyakov had epilepsy, just as Dostoyevsky did. Dostoyevsky's son died due to the epilepsy he inherited from his father, and Dostoyevsky felt tremendous guilt over this. He also viewed himself as lowly, seeing as he had a gambling problem and was broke most of his life.

Cont.

>> No.1471443

See, the brothers actually represent Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky viewed himself as Mitya (impulsive gambling), Alyosha (idealistic), Ivan (intellectual, possibly mad) and Smerdyakov (scum who was responsible for the death of kind). I don't personally believe the narrator is unreliable, clearly he was omnipotent, though he was "adjusted" so to speak to create a sense of realism. Smerdyakov quite clearly committed the murder, as the scene where Mitya beats his chest is almost proof of his innocence. However, they're all to blame for the mess, while simultaneously not being to blame. Mitya gave Smerdyakov the ability to get away with the crime, but he didn't actually do anything. Ivan knew of Smerdyakov's plan, or at least that he was up to something ("It's always worthwhile speaking to a clever man"), but he was mad and realistically it'd have been paranoia to think his father were to be murdered by Smerdyakov, rather than Mitya. Alyosha could've inquired further into Mitya's plans for that evening, but his idealism shrouded him. And of course Smerdyakov committed the murder, but he was treated like fucking shit from birth.

If anything, it's a question of responsibility in the face of death. Whose fault was it, truly? Are we not all responsible for the sins of our brothers, as Zossima taught? It's not about who did it (because it was Smerdyakov) but about whose fault it was. This is clear from Dostoyevsky's personal life and pretty much everything about the book. Focusing on who committed the murder is missing the point entirely, mainly because only a fucking idiot would think anyone but Smerdyakov.

>> No.1471498

>Focusing on who committed the murder is missing the point entirely, mainly because only a fucking idiot would think anyone but Smerdyakov.

No. I just reread this book, and in proper translations it's mean to be fairly ambiguous with heavy implications that smerdyakov was the killer.

Another thing in relation to the Karamazov brothers being Dostoyevsky himself is how well Ivan represents the skeptical mind. Dostoyevsky was a faithful member of the Orthodox church, but it's clear from characters like Ivan Karamazov that he was also deeply conflicted. Some argue that Dostoyevsky endows his anti heroes with arguments that over power characters like Alyosha and Myshkin.

You have to wonder where Raskolnikov's life was going. He had no money and no way to gain money, he never could have completed his degree and would have ended up a soured underground man.

>> No.1471511

http://books.google.ca/books?id=0fuE9CkE3O0C&pg=PA563&lpg=PA563&dq=did+someone+other+tha
n+smerdyakov+murder&source=bl&ots=O9BwYUnNn3&sig=EFoVoQCSQutx4mu9VPjtD0Z1O90&hl=en&a
mp;ei=Ybw2TbyIF4iusAO70q23AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AE
wBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scroll down to the second visit with Smerdyakov, and the letter to Katya.

And yet nobody thinks it was Dmitri? Surely this evidence is as damning as Smerdyakov's rather ambiguous confessions.

>> No.1471529

Also Ivan even states to Smerdyakov

>You're mad, you haven't murdered him, you're saying this to tease me, to torment me

Smerdyakov responds to this by bringing out the 3000 roubles as evidence.

If you really think it's all so simple then I suggest most of you need to re read this book.

>> No.1471544 [DELETED] 

>>1471264
>Three thousand roubles in the 18th century is something like 30,000 dollars in todays purchasing power. A huge sum.
By negro magics has he spent it all in the mokroye? did he use it mop the vodka-jizz cocktail from the maître d'hôtel?
dosto i think you suck. your characters seemingly dice their further actions (lolpsychology), money appears, money disappears and it doesn't seem you are quite aware about what is going on either. you crack a joke here and there, he write socratean dialogues between dimwitted slavophiles and sophisticated westernizers who all either go christian or crazy or hang themselves because that's what a westernizer is ought do.

>> No.1471547

>>1471264
>Three thousand roubles in the 18th century is something like 30,000 dollars in todays purchasing power. A huge sum.
By what negro magics has he spent it all in Mokroye? did he use it to mop the vodka-jizz cocktail from the face of the maître d'hôtel?

honestly dosto, i think you suck. your characters seemingly dice their further actions (lolpsychology), money appears, money disappears and it doesn't seem you are quite aware about what is going on either. you crack a joke here and there, write socratean dialogues between dimwitted slavophiles and sophisticated westernizers who all either go christian or crazy or hang themselves because that's what every oh-so-educated is ought do.

>> No.1471549

Grusha vs. Katya in the very end is my favourite scene. Which is yours?

>> No.1471558

>>1471547

Well certain things are more expensive than others, but the rouble then was worth about 12-13$ in todays currency.

Also he bought a fuckton of shit, whores, champagne, rented carriages, tons of delicacies (he was over charged), robbed and he still only spent 1500 roubles (he never had the full 3k).

>> No.1471573

>>1471558
wait it's fuckingn confusing i know but let's turn this straight
1.Mitya gives 1 shitton of pure money to Kacia and doesn't go for a blowjob which renders him noble in his eyes.
2.Kacia give 0,5 shittons of pure money to Mitya. "give this to my sister, Mitya". Of course, quite righteously, Mitya grabs dat ass (Grushenka) and goes to Mokroye for debauchery and such and spends it all.
3.Mitya does feel sorry and tries to get money for Kacia again. Y!? It's HER who owes HIM at this point. Is he, like, an imbecile and a white knight?
4.here someone else gives him AGAIN 3k (you can trust him, amirite?) while Smerdyakov kills his father and gets another 3k. Mitya spends 1,5k again y?
YYY!? wtf, dosto!?

>> No.1471585

>>1471573

Mitya couldn't control his impulses. Much like Dostoyevsky himself, who would pawn his wifes wedding dress and jewelery to lose everything at roulette (which he was convinced he could win at with skill lol).

Pretty cool guy actually.

>> No.1471628

>>1471529

In one of Dosto's later letters he actually writes that Smerdjakow is the murderer.

The whole whodunnit isn't the issue of the book.

>>1471549

The Great Inquisitor in Book 5 is awesome.

>> No.1471648

C-C-C-CRIME AND PUNISHMENT HIJACK!

Is Raskolnikov a true refutation of nihilism and atheism, or is he simply a strawman who finds faith purely because Dostoyevsky wanted him to?