The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted—this seemed to be the central point of argument Fyodor Dostoyevsky brought up in The Brothers Karamazov. Originally intended to be a trilogy, he wrote this amazing book to follow the life of a notorious family, the Karamazovs; from the father: Fyodor Pavlovich, to the three (legitimate) sons: Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, and (most probably) illegitimate son: Smerdyakov. They are entangled into an intricate love-suspicion-jealousy-hatred relationship throughout the story, which lead to destruction both to (most of) themselves and to people around them.

So, how did Dostoyevsky put the above argument into this nicely-woven story? From the beginning the doubt and rejection of God and immortality scattered throughout the chapters. But the most serious one is in these two famous chapters: “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor”. In “Rebellion” Ivan poured out his disappointment of God for letting injustice and suffering happened to innocent people, apparently, for nothing. While “The Grand Inquisitor” is a poem Ivan wrote to question about free will God had imposed upon man. He believed that free will is impossible burden for mankind, because we will always have to answer to our consciences; that we will never be happy whichever path of life we choose, good or evil. If that was the case, then why wasting your energy by doing good? Is that true? Dostoyevsky let us readers judge the case by following the faith of the Karamazov brothers.

Of the three (plus one—the illegitimate) sons, Alyosha was the only one who chose “good” from the beginning. However, he too had doubt—albeit small—when his beloved Father Zosima’s corpse decomposed shortly after his death, while everyone was almost sure a miracle would happen to the saintly monk. But Alyosha soon got through his doubt. Dmitri, on the other hand, started as a scoundrel and sensualist; have plunge to the lowest, but finally managed to crawl up to the light. In the crucial moment, “something inside” ripped him from the fatal act—that is conscience.

But the most interesting case is Ivan. His “conversation” with the Devils shows how strenuous the battle of his conscience was; how bad his soul has been contaminated by evil power. Ivan was not atheist; he just did not accept God’s “interference” in human life; hence his belief of if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. That way, so he believed, man could do whatever he likes without weighing his conscience, and that would make him happy. This ideology eventually provoked a murder, and Ivan did suffer from his conscience. I’m glad though that in the end his good conscience won the battle at the end.

Moral value of this book is, that man must try first to understand God’s plan for humankind; and this must not be done with mind only, but much more with reflective soul. To logical mind, conscience did make one suffer; either when he tries to be good or, even more, when he does evil. And to be good is arduous, especially when one is born from a bad family like Karamazovs. What then? Dostoyevsky answered this by writing quite lengthy passages of Father Zosima’s speeches in the early chapters—which, I confess, seemed not to be related to the story when I read it, but made sense in the end. These passages contain some aspects that were missing from Ivan’s ideology: humility, and “all responsible for one another”—the later applied not only in evil, but also in love or good deeds. Young Zosima’s turning point moment was marked by his humility to his servant whom he has beaten the night before his planned duel. The same worked for Alyosha. Remember how Alyosha, when he was disappointed at Father Zosima’s humiliation, went to Grushenka’s, and what has made him turning toward “light” again then? Is it not after Grushenka pitied him; that Alyosha was astonished that she had pity on him—he who was nobody? Is it not a remark of humility too? Lastly, the remark of all responsible for one another appeared in Ilusha and the children story. Ilusha’s sorrow was caused by Dmitri is an example of how one evil deed to one person might cause suffer to a lot of people. The same also applies to love and good deeds.

So, Ivan’s ideology might partly be right; that free will could cause suffering. But on the other hand, it is also true that from freewill too love, charity, affection, and in the end happiness, was born.

5/5 stars for this great book; I would like to reread it someday!

Notes From Underground

Although it is a very short book, Notes From Underground is far from light reading. I have started it last year, but had to stop at first chapter as I did not get what it is about. This year my friend enticed me to read it together, as it should be a good book. I took her challenge, and braced myself to read from the beginning, to get through the point where I have stuck last year, and to keep on reading—whether I understand it or not—as I believe I will get on it eventually after some chapters. Although I could not say I like it after finishing the book, I still feel grateful that I have at least tried it. It is my first encounter with Dostoyevsky anyway, and although I didn’t enjoy Notes From Underground, I like the way he writes, and would certainly read his other novels (I have Crime and Punishment in my TBR pile already).

Notes From Underground is told from first person point of view, and written as a kind of diary of the male narrator (I will call him ‘the narrator’). The narrator is a man of forties, lives in a wretched house which he calls the underground. He is a spiteful man, and from the beginning he has been bursting spiteful expressions about everything. He does not hate someone or something in particular, but he hates the world he is living. Odd as it was, I kept reading, and only after reaching the middle part, that I began to have a clearer image about this narrator.

He feels different from others because he is more intelligent and more superior to others. I think it is because he put himself above others, that others see him strange, anti social, and expel him for good. He despises the way they live, yet he yearns to be part of them; there is a paradox and self-denying here! The narrator often pictures it as tooth-ache; you hate the pain, yet you enjoy people’s attention; you want the ache stop, yet you regret it when it stops because you’ll lose people’s attention when you are recovered.

At first I thought this book is about a political criticism, but apparently it is more psychological (and philosophical?). I think it criticizes how men always want to be independent—which he calls freedom—while in reality, he also likes to be controlled; to be in orderliness. They despise law, but at certain point they demand to be regulated by it. Men are too tied to rules and are afraid to be free. They see people who don’t live by the same rule as weird. This is what the narrator feels; just because he doesn’t agree with others’ way of life, they see him as a fly. He longs to be free but couldn’t, and that makes him a despiteful man.

The narrator knows he is at an equal level with his friends but he always resentfully surrenders to their power. He does once an experiment by not yielding when passing a gentleman, shoulder to shoulder on the street; it is very difficult for him because in the end he always involuntarily yields. The narrator also talks much about consciousness. Here are several interesting quotes that makes you think more about human and society.

"To be too conscious is an illness.”

“Man has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated.”

“What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”

“Man lives to make roads and to create, but why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also?”

“He loves the process of attaining, but does not quite like to have attained.”

“Through civilization mankind becomes softer.” ~ Buckle

“You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt, and you cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart.”

Can you guess what all these are about? I have a vague idea, but still could not grab the whole idea. I might not reread this book, but I would certainly love to read more from Dostoyevsky.

Three stars for Notes From Underground.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com*

*This book is counted as:*

63^rd book for The Classics Club Project