Chapter V.IV | Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment #31

[@snake13222]

Hi Hippias, I was looking at the audible versions of this book to continue listening and I have to say they are not even close of the quality of your work. Keep it up my friend. I will just keep reading and revisiting this playlist once you release a new one :).

[@hippiasminor6264]

Thank you very kindly! I wish I could go faster on this project, but there is light at the end of the tunnel!

[@samchoi4502]

Just an astounding effort - very much appreciated - the greatest of all compliments - Fyodor would be proud.

[@JanBamm]

Been looking forward to the next part. Thanks again! :)

[@zomorozna5960]

Good writer, good book, good channel

[@detectiveassassin7937]

Hello, I've been looking forward to your reading of this chapter and it was very good, I also like your method of analyzing literature, can you tell me how you analyze lit or if it's too long a process, can you recommend me some books on the subject? Thanks.

[@hippiasminor6264]

Ah yes--I needed to get back to you on this! Honestly, though, I don't have any special sauce here. I'd say that I have three basic tips: 1. Read what others are up to. I have access to JSTOR through my employer, which opens up avenues of literary criticism, and thus will key you in to details that might have otherwise escaped your notice. It also helps to have biographical details on hand--or, for that matter, to read broadly enough to have other literary works of the period under your belt. 2. Read slowly and carefully, making observations as you go. For me, I found myself having to take notes on figures who pop up in House of the Dead, for instance. With Gambler, I had to take careful note of the chronology for when the narrator was scribbling in his diary...and so on. 3. Background knowledge helps. In my case, I have a bit of a leg up with some material due to my profession. (It helped with NfUG, for instance.) But with certain details, sometimes a bit of dogged persistence with the research will turn up good things. But in the end, naturally each of us engages the text in our own way. Hope this helps!

[@detectiveassassin7937]

@@hippiasminor6264 Thank you so much, if you put the same amount of energy you put into this project into your profession your students are very lucky. I study English Literature and I have yet to see anyone either inside or outside academia analyze literature as cleanly as you did,I would happily sit in a literature class with you as the professor.

[@detectiveassassin7937]

@@hippiasminor6264 There are 2 things regarding Dostoevsky I want to hear your opinions on : 1- In the Constance Garnett translation of The Possessed, I believe the chapter "At Tikhon's" is missing, I've heard from other places that this chapter is key in understanding Stavrogin as a character I wonder what you think about this and if you've read a version of the book that includes it. I think it is included in the Peevear and Voloshonsky translation but I've heard that their translations damage the text by being overtly literal and have seen what I consider to be good evidence for that claim, and I also think Garnett's translations while not perfect are very good and her method of translation fits with what I've learned about translation thanks to my field, so is that chapter really necessary in your opinion? 2- Do you know why The Brothers Karamazov was conceived by Dostoevsky? I now know about the conception of the rest of his great works(Notes From Underground and Crime and Punishment I discovered thanks to you and I could find the ones for The Idiot and The Possessed on the internet). I did get Joseph Frank's biography and I did come across what Soloyev said about a central idea of the novel being the portrayal of the Orthodox Church as a positive social ideal which I did find a bit strange, partly since I've also heard Ivan's articulation of The Problem of Evil being frequently used while discussing the problem and I can't really buy the idea of it being a sort of call to the Orthodox church, it isn't impossible though as I first found Notes From Underground and Crime and Punishment being responses to others a bit strange initially but found myself utterly amazed by both of those works.

[@hippiasminor6264]

@@detectiveassassin7937 1. I don't think Garnett ever translated "At Tikhon's." However, the volume on by shelf (Barnes and Noble Classics), most of which is Garnett, does include that chapter as an appendix. (Their version is translated by Virginia Woolf and someone else.) That was a publisher-level decision, and I'd say it was the right one. The reason is that (if memory serves), once the censors killed "At Tikhon's," Dostoevsky had to revise the rest of the text to accommodate its exclusion. The published work of The Possessed is thus designed for the exclusion of "At Tikhon's," and so to include it in the middle of the text would upset the organic unity that FMD designed as his final product. But it *shouldn't* be excluded altogether, since it does have a great deal of thematic significance. So, B&N made the right call and included it as an appendix. 2. I wouldn't say that there was one predominant stimulus for BK. (In fact, I'd hesitate to say that about C&P as well, although there were clearly literary elements in the water that contributed to his work.) I think Dostoevsky always thought of BK as his opus (although he really thought that it would become just the first in a *series* of works under the heading Life of a Great Sinner). BK was everything he believed in (including, yes, his deference for the Orthodox religion). Naturally, different parts would have different origins--e.g., "The Grand Inquisitor" was I think conceived of independently and then worked in. But I think that those who use Ivan K's contribution in the first half of the novel to articulate the problem of evil and then just leave the issue there (and, like you, I've seen this done often) don't really understand what they're looking at. Ivan's arc does go through that electric stuff in "Rebellion" and Grand Inquisitor," but it proceeds all the way through his interviews with Smerdyakov, his interview with "the devil," and critically, his words at the trial. (Take a *good* look at what he says at the trial. His arc isn't an atheistic one.) For that matter, even if you just looked at those two famous chapters in the first half of the novel, you'd be missing out if you thought it was a *straightforward* vindication of atheism. For the "atheism" of IK involves a rejection of the world ("Rebellion") and of freedom ("GI"). Rebellion, after all, comes at a price. But I digress...

[@detectiveassassin7937]

@@hippiasminor6264 Thank you for your insightful answers. I come to you again with more questions 1- I just finished The Idiot last night and I'm not quite sure what to make of the ending. As far as I can tell Myshkin was Dostoevsky's conception of a perfect person and while he is morally pure, he can also tell when people are using him, but his fate at the end of the novel seems to show that his way of being isn't viable. I remember you said in your your video about the "Let's Read" project that FMD would challenge even his most cherished ideas and to me that is what has happened here. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the ending. 2-This might sound strange coming from me but can you recommend starting points for Shakespeare and Dickens, and which of the works do you think are must-reads? We will be reading A Tale of Two Cities next semester in our 19th-century novels class and considering that my next stop in Dostoevsky's great works is The Possessed drawing parallels between the 2 novels would be interesting but I still would like to know your Dickens recommendations. As for Shakespeare, I've always wanted to experience his work but I didn't really have much of an idea where to start and which of his works are truly great(I've heard some people say one should read all of his work but a work like The Taming of The Shrew doesn't seem great to be honest).