In
many ways the epilogue to The Brothers
Karamazov seems like an unlikely and ill-fitting end to such a broad
literary undertaking. The questions that
have been brought up in other blogs and during our class discussions over the
course of the semester have mostly remained unanswered. As I was preparing to write this final post
concerning the text, I could not help but feel that on a subtle level, this was
the most fitting ending that could have been written.
Like the armistice that ended the
First World War, the epilogue of The
Brothers Karamazov left more questions than answers. The conflict that ravaged the town of
Skotoprigonyevsk over the scandalous business of the Karamazov clan inevitably
brought to the fore the dominant concerns of the day. The epilogue seems to accentuate the feeling
that life will never be the same following the trial of Dmitry Fyodorovich. The concerns that initiated the familial and
societal conflict were opened to all, and now it is all who must bear the knowledge
of these concerns. Although the ending
and epilogue were quite upsetting to me as a reader at first, I have come to
realize that the novel almost needed to end in such an indistinct manner. Had the novel been resolved in the epilogue I
do not feel that the enduring themes of the novel would have possessed the same
weight. The divisions in Russian society
did not simply end with the end of the Karamazov tale.
Importantly, in the midst of the epilogue
Dostoyevsky stresses the importance of the town’s youth. In my reading of the latter portions of the
novel I feel the role of youth seems to demonstrate hope in the future
generation of Russians. In many ways it
seems that the epilogue forcibly breaks the path between the generational and societal
gaps. The intellectual, Ivan Fyodorovich,
lay infirm, whereas the embodiment of a lost Russia, Dmitry Fyodorovich, was
condemned to exile in Siberia.
Importantly, Aleksey, the symbol of traditional values, served the role
of the intergenerational intermediary.
He was able to express the virtues of the “popular fundamentals” to the
amassed group of Ilyusha’s schoolmates.
The group of youth huddled around Ilyusha’s rock, and dedicated
themselves to the memory of their deceased comrade, and to the hope that they
may lead more virtuous and selfless lives.
In this context it seems that Dostoyevsky leaves the novel with the
notion that it is ultimately the younger generation that will come to judge the
follies of the past. It is the younger
generation that Dostoyevsky seems to purport will understand the gravity of the
mistakes of the past, and in turn seek to dedicate themselves toward the course
of righting the path of a fractured society.
I agree that this was the most fitting ending for the novel. In my opinion, leaving some issues unresolved is one of the best ways any novel can be realistic. This is especially true in this case. Embedded in this novel there are significant implications for the town and for society that do not so easily fade away.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the children as representing the future of Russia and Alyosha's speech to remember how they are now, before they go one way or another in their life (for good or bad) it would make sense that he gave them encouragement. I think the children represent the future or Russia, but we do not know which aspect of Russia (traditional, European-esk, etc) and Alyosha's encouragement seems to say that no matter which direction Russia goes in, if it remembers its roots it will prosper.
ReplyDeleteOh blogger, how many times have I proved to you that I am not a robot? Anyway, the epilogue definitely did not tie up the loose ends and there are still so many questions left unanswered. Still it was ok, since it would be very hard to bring it all to a neat close with only 30 pages (when the defense attorney's speech itself lasted about that long). I enjoyed your comment on the youth. It definitely does seem that Dostoyevsky places a great deal of hope in the next generation If in fact Ivan does end up dying and Dimitry is unsuccessful in escaping then it would seem that by their sacrifice the future generations can prosper. This goes back to the proverb concerning the dying seed. However, it is still unclear whether or not Dimitry is saved and Ivan recovers. Why does Dostoyevsky do that? Perhaps he really was saving some energy for a part two or maybe it is his way of refraining from writing a "masterpiece" so that it may be read again.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this final blog. You did a fantastic job of summing up many of the final thoughts on the book I have seen expressed in other blogs. I agree with the "roles" you assign to each of the brothers. I have to agree with Kala that we cannot be sure what aspect of Russia the children play which would influence further how we view the brothers.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting, because I read this similarly, but there is also a hint that it may not be that easy. Krosotikn (coming up of the younger generation) is easily influenced by his surroundings. Rakitin has propagandized socialism to him, and he is firmly godless when he meets Aloyosha. Certainly, we are left with the hopeful view that Krosotkin will grow out of his naive views, but, at the same time Rakatin has been busy, no doubt, indoctrinating others.
ReplyDeleteI think Doestoevsky uses Krosotkin to show how naive atheism is in his view, but also how predatory the student radicals of the time were.
Obviously, history shows that the radicalization of young adults continued to pick up pace, until the new values clashed with the old, precisely as Russia was failing in World War I.
As for the uncertainty, we must remember that, while The Brother's Karamazov stands alone as a great masterpiece of fiction, it was intended to be the first of three novels. Dostoevsky passed away following the publication of the first, and left the following two unfinished.