The Fête (Праздник)

For me the fête suggests an overall architecture for the novel: the façade of normalcy, of proper society, of righteous intentions, of progressive values is undercut by its realization in such an outrageous manner, just as Russian (provincial) society and its lofty self-perception is undercut by its true realization in the gossip-ridden, chaotic, meaningless, ugly realities we encounter throughout the text. What other impressions to we get from the scandalous realization of this charitable affair?

Aesthetics and Demons

Dostoevsky states elsewhere that "beauty will save the world." In this context, I am again reminded of something that Yuri Zhivago in Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago says about Crime and Punishment: “A literary creation can appeal to us in all sorts of ways—by its theme, subject, situations, characters. But above all it appeals to us by the presence in it of art. It is the presence of art in Crime and Punishment that moves us deeply rather than the story of Raskolnikov’s crime.”  Can we say the same thing about  Demons? Where is the art of this novel? 

Views of Russia

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing the way in which Russia is depicted in the novel, and the various attitudes towards Russia and Russian culture. What does Karamazinov have to say about this in a discussion with the bustling Pyotr? If we had to divide the characters into camps in terms of their views of Russia, what would those camps be, and who would belong in them?

Power structures and hierarchies in Demons

Pyotr enjoys considerable influence around town. Let's think about his manipulation of the Von Lembkes. Let’s try to understand the position of this provincial governor and his wife (who seems rather responsible, according the narrator, for “the things these bad little people managed to do” (317)). And what about those curious and elaborate (and elaborately described) paper structures Von Lembke builds? Any thoughts on that?

Generations and generational relationships in Demons

Stepan Trofimovich bemoans the conclusions found in Chernyshevsky’s seminal novel What is to be Done?, and overtly and unambiguously points to the notion of generational responsibility:

“I agree that the author’s basic idea is correct,” he said to me feverishly, “but so much the more horrible for that! It’s our same idea, precisely ours; we, we were the first to plant it, to nurture it, to prepare it—and what new could they say on their own after us! But, God, how it’s all perverted, distorted, mutilated!” he exclaimed, thumping the book with his fingers. “Are these the conclusions we strove for? Who can recognize the initial thought here?” (304)

At the same time, there is a more complex tangle of various familial and relational structures. For example, Stavrogin is on one hand a protégé of Stepan Trofimovich, or like a son, yet at the same time, he is also likened to his sibling, given Stepan’s relationship with Varvara, who treats the elderly Verkhovensky like a child—and even tries to marry him off to Darya (who is as we find out later devoted to Stavrogin). Pyotr questions his father’s paternity, as does Stepan himself (“But tell me, finally, monster, are you my son or not?” 306). And to extend this notion further, serfs were often considered as children of the serf-owner, hence Fedka, who was sold by Stepan into the army, might also be construed as a brother to Pyotr. And the Tsar himself was often likened to (and called) a father, hence Marya Timofeevna’s accusation of Nikolai as Grishka Otrepev, the Tsar-imposter, might suggest that Stavrogin has a paternal role—which we might understand in his influence on Shatov, Kirillov and Pyotr Stepanovich. And, finally, the patriarchal structure of Russian Orthodoxy ought to be kept in mind.

Thoughts?

 

Vyacheslav Ivanov, "The Revolt Against Mother Earth"

Joseph Frank, "The World of Raskolnikov"