Saturday, March 31, 2012

“Pyotr Ilyich listened and was silent…”


Book VIII appears to be quite the departure from the protracted flow of the previous installments of the novel thus far.  I found myself to be in a similar position to that of Pyotr Ilyich; simply caught in the whirlwind of erratic and energetic behavior that emanated from the seemingly indefatigable Dmitry.  This flurry of activity marked Dmitry’s ultimate aim to capture Agrafena Aleksandrovna at last, and to pursue a new existence marked by a rapid reformation of his behavior.
What I found particularly interesting in this reading was the linkage between deception and non-Russians (or non-Russian qualities).  If I have learned anything from my half-semester dabble with Russian literature, it has been that nothing is mentioned without reason.  I feel that the sheer specificity of the endnotes can attest to the overall importance of  small details.  In Book VIII there is the overt conflict that exists between Dmitry and the Polish guests, but also a passing reference earlier at the German-like qualities of Kuzma Samsonov and his sons.  I find it curious that both the Polish visitors and the elder Samsonov facilitate deceptions of Dmitry.  The Polish deception took place in a dispute over cards, while the elder Samsonov succeeded in sending Dmitry astray to Ilyinskoye.  With both the elder Samsonov and the Polish guests Dmitry acts excessively Russian, emphasizing on occasion that he is acting on his honor as a “Russian man”. 
I find it quite intriguing however, that Dmitry’s apparent faith in Russian qualities exhausts itself when he is presented with state authorities.  While in a volley of banter with Pyotr Ilyich, Dmitry in due course accuses him of having tapped public funds for his own use.  Not to mention that the young civil servant has the practice of buying up weapons (what can essentially be considered a tool or resource) and placing said items in the dormant position of display.  It seems that Pyotr Ilyich has the skill to accumulate, but not to employ his skills in a more constructive manner.  In much of the same way, the district chief of police, the public procurator, and the investigator are all described not by their physiognomy, as with other characters, but by their positions and habits.  In each case the state officials in Book VIII are presented as absorbed by their possessions, be it weapons, a pocket watch, or even a uniform. 
The manner in which characters are presented in Book VIII has driven me to the conclusion that there is a complex definition of the term “Russian” and what it means to be a part of a segment of Russian society.  There seem to be three dominant groups presented, that of “foreign” Russians (those that draw influences from Polish and Germanic culture and display deceitful qualities), “state” Russians (those that utilize state authority to develop personal wealth and power), and “customary” Russians (the common rank of society that falls in the midst of the other two groups). 
Despite my contemplations concerning the grouping of Russian society according to Dostoyevsky, I ultimately feel as if the book is hinging on a transition point.  Like Pyotr Ilyich, I was taken aback by the sudden energy of the situation.  As the “business” begins to unravel itself it should be interesting to see how the earlier components that have been substantially introduced in the previous Books begin to fully interact with each other.  As a reader I am at the stage where “listening” and observing is important, especially since the plot seems to have established forward progress.         

              

16 comments:

  1. Thank you for your observations about the different types of Russians portrayed in the book. I enjoy when literature helps the reader understand what it means to be a person from a certain kind of society. For instance, in my Shakespeare in Rome course I took this January, we studied what it means to be Roman, based on a few of Shakespeare's plays.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a lot of truth to this blog post. A lot of cultures has this differentiation based on outside influences or region. These differences are often remarked upon and can be used to form biases or discriminate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just as you mentioned how non-Russians seem to deceive Mitya, I think that Grushenka has also been deceived. Her former beau was one of the Polish individuals (I think). She even yells at him to stop speaking Polish and to speak in Russian. Then we come to her guardian, Samsonov, who you say is German-like. Do you think he could be deceiving Grushenka in some way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no question that in this part of the novel we see some sort of overlap between "Western-ness" and deception. There are lots of nationalistic overtones in the interaction between the two Poles and Dmitry & Grushenka.

      Delete
  4. I feel like the most "Russian" character we've seen so far is Zosima. He is at once a voluptuary, young, violent man and a sagacious monk far reserved and possessing deep truths about man and the Orthodox church. This kind of dichotomy is mirrored both in the existence of any "Christian state" you need a real world somewhat violent aspect and also a kind of supernatural understanding, and in the Elder Zosima himself. In fact, I think the vast span of years between the only two versions of Zosima does not create distance between these two versions of himself, but rather creates a juxtaposition between one half of Zosima and his other self. Of course, after his conversion maybe the "old" Zosima no longer exists....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hadn't thought about this before....but you're right, there is an amazing comprehensiveness to Zosima's character that would definitely make him a candidate for the "most completely Russian" character in the book.

      Delete
  5. I have to say that I would rather just "listen," as you put it, to this blog post than try to comment on it. I definitely find truth in your comment regarding the specificity and number of endnotes thus far in the book. I am often left wishing I was more well-read, especially in Russian literature and German poetry, when grappling with the sheer number of allusions made by many of the characters. Actually, that raises an interesting question in my mind. I think you rightfully point out the deceitful nature of the non-Russians in this reading, but I wonder if there is anything to be said about the extensive quoting of German literature, for example. Also, the "Wurm" that we have discussed as a source for the Karamazovs' voluptuariness stems from German lore if I remember correctly. I wonder if there is something to the other non-Russian elements of the novel thus far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For Dostoevsky, the blending of Russian intellectual thought with that from the West is an essential part of his writing (and one finds it in Tolstoy as well). It's part of the reason why his works are so fascinating to read after one has familiarized himself/herself with Western thought.

      Delete
  6. I like how you categorize Dostoyevsky's characters. I had not thought of them in this way, but it makes a lot of sense. There was certainly a lot of tension in this book about what it means to be Russian. It's interesting that the true Russians like the Karamazov brothers are almost ridiculous characters, or maybe it's just the effect of Dmitry's energy in this particular book. They certainly have the most depth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it is very interesting that you divide the Russian characters in this book so far into these three paradigms. The conflict between traditional Russian character and the encroachment of Westernization is not a minor issue in the Brothers. I have been trying to pay attention to which characters are given a "progressive education" (which I learned from Prof. Isham is simply a stylized way of saying 'Western education'). If I have recalled correctly, Ivan was spared this "progressive education," as well as both Alyosha and Dmitry. I think Dmitry mentions it as one of his faults or shortcomings. Anyway, we could read the debate between Ivan and Miusov in light of two different intellectual traditions struggling with issues of Russian, and ultimately global, importance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ivan most definitely had the progressive education (in fact, he may be one of the most "progressively educated" characters we've encountered--along with Miusov, Rakitin and Mrs Khokhlakova (the latter of whom has been trying to progressively educate herself). As for Alyosha, it's unclear--while he seems to have had much of the early education of Ivan, we never learn much about its impact on him...and in any case, he leaves school early for the monastery.

      Delete
  8. Dividing the characters up into three groups provides an interesting and effective way to understand them. It's clear that there are differing characters associated with each group, and honor certainly seems to be associated with the most Russian of the three groups (which I'm inclined to say is the last group you mention, the "customary" Russians). Going off this notion of pride at being truly Russian and the suspicion/deceit associated with foreign Russians, what did you think of the usage of Polish at the end of Book 8? Was Mitya's usage of Polish a sign of respect (that he was attempting to relate to the Poles) or a slight against them, that they didn't speak much Russian?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to be a little bit of both--depending on which utterance you select. At some points, he seems to be genuinely trying to reach out to the Poles, while towards the end he is definitely deriding them. Though it seems that he isn't presented with nearly the same amount of nationalist antagonism as the two Poles have toward Russia.

      Delete
  9. Ben, I love your characterization of the three types of Russian people. Foreigners being deceitful is probably what I tuned in on most and I let the other two branches completely slip away. If your characterizations are true then Fyodr Pavlovich's murderer should also be a Russian with foreign-like quatlites (I am thinking about Ivan). Perhaps he never left for Moscow, and perhaps he waited for Dimitry to make his move and since Fyodr was left unharmed Ivan made his own...

    ReplyDelete
  10. You say that nothing is mentioned without reason. It would seem this is true, I just have a hard time believing it. Dostoyevsky is obviously a great weaver of tales as we have seen, but I never know what he intends. This is my problem with analyzing texts. How do you know what you analyze is what the author intends. He may have just written a passage as part of building the story with no intention of deeper meaning. We find it of course. Do you actually find something that wasn't there to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Haha, I like how you identify with Pyotr Ilyich...and now that I think of it, I can definitely see what you mean--because his surprise over what is happening does in a certain extent seem like it must match pretty closely how the reader is feeling right at that moment.
    I also can see what you mean about how the "Russian" traits (or as you put it, the "customary" ones) Dmitry possesses in this reading evoke simplicity, even naivete, impulsiveness, but also lots of compassion and good-hearted intentions. And I agree that we also get a taste of a separate "state Russian" type of quality that implies corruption and officiousness.

    ReplyDelete