Dale Quarrington
The Third Critique
The focus of this critique will be about Dostoevsky’s style and the time spent on each of his four major novels. This critique will counter the idea that Dostoevsky didn’t have one measured or carefully crafted sentence in all of his work and that the time pressure under which he wrote forced him to skimp on craft with numerous repetitions and a lack of concision. But not only is this belief inaccurate, at best, but it is also extremely misleading. The way in which this will be done is to focus on all four of Dostoevsky’s major novels; Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov. In each, the damning reputation of Dostoevsky’s writing as being both haphazard and rushed will be rectified.
A) Crime and Punishment
i.) Style
In Crime and Punishment, there is a multitude of ideas that prove the height of Dostoevsky’s genius as a stylist. Those ideas that support Dostoevsky’s genius as a stylist are three-fold. The first is the use of suspense in the development of the plot. The second is the interconnectedness of characters to each other. And the third and final proof is the narrative. All three of these ideas disprove the common perception that Dostoevsky was a haphazard stylist.
The way in which Dostoevsky uses suspense is by introducing dynamic characters at the start of the novel, only to reintroduce them at a later moment in the course of the narrative. This is a technique for which Dostoevsky would become a master of. However, it must be noted that unlike most detective novels, that base their suspense completely upon external effects, Dostoevsky uses them for thematic relevancy. So instead of it being a ‘who done it’, it becomes a ‘why’. An example of this can be seen in the novel at the very start of Part Four. Here, Svidrigailov extracts himself from the ambiguities of his nature as he is portrayed at the start of the novel, at this point of the novel. He was only mentioned in passing, at the start of the novel, to peak the reader’s interest into the importance of Svidrigailov’s character to see what effect he will have in the life of Raskolnikov. The reason this is done is because Svidrigailov is a representation of Raskolnikov’s pure egoism as a Napoleon type, who can transgress any human laws, in its purest form. So when Raskolnikov is coming to the realization that his all-powerful egoism is failing, it would makes sense that Svidrigailov would reappear, once again, in the novel, when he is most symbolically needed by Raskolnikov. Thus, Svidrigailov finally becomes incarnate. This idea of half introductions to characters, by Dostoevsky, will elevate him as one of the masters in the art of suspense.
The role of interconnectedness in Dostoevsky’s writing will become a device for which he will resort to continually all throughout his writing career. In fact, one could very easily argue that all of Dostoevsky’s writing from Poor Folk to The Brothers Karamazov is one long novel. But it is in Crime and Punishment that this technique of interconnectedness first comes to the forefront, mainly because of the novels popularity and chronology. The centre of the novel is about Raskolnikov’s psychology. And because of this, the idea of his ultimate transgression is interwoven all throughout the entire novel from beginning to end. Every other theme and character will then serve as a device to illuminate the agonizing dilemma that is raging in the depths of Raskolnikov’s soul. Thus, Raskolnikov is surrounded by other characters who serve as mirrors to reflect the inner conflict of his character. And even minor characters will be employed to promote the furtherance of this thematic philosophy found in Raskolnikov. Such characters as Razumikhin, Dr. Zosimov and the investigating magistrate Porfiry Petrovich, each of which acts as a sign post in the progression of the plot, which finds a home in all of Raskolnikov’s actions and ideas. In total, they act as markers in the novels plot, which helps the reader to attain a full grasp of Raskolnikov’s revelatory progression.
The role of the narrator is central to all of Dostoevsky’s writing. In particular, this can be seen in Crime and Punishment. The narrative was originally a first person narrative, but after much difficulty, with little to no progress in the development of the plot, Dostoevsky decided to switch the narrative of the novel over to a third person narrative. But instead of having a completely detached narrator, like almost all third person narratives of the 19th century, Dostoevsky attaches the narrator as close to the protagonist’s point of view, as possible. By doing this, Dostoevsky is able to retain the advantages of both a third and first person narrator, which is commonly known as an ‘I-narration’; a hybrid of the two types of narratives. Dostoevsky would describe this type of narrator as a:
Sort of invisible and omniscient being, who doesn’t leave his hero for a moment, even with the words: ‘all that was done completely by chance’.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.92
This type of narrator then generates a dual effect that one is able to acquire the emotions and ideas of the protagonist, while still being immersed in the influences of the environment and atmosphere of the protagonist. Furthermore, this narrative mode allows for the freedom of omniscience that is necessary to illuminate the self-discovery’s that Raskolnikov has, while maintaining enough of the outside quality required to leave the actions of the protagonist, to enter into the broadening in the rest of the plots actions. Thus, the narrator is able to move very intimately inside the thoughts of the protagonist, while not eliminating themselves as the pusher in the plots development. This then allows for time shifts, memory, and the remarkable manipulation of temporal sequences to take place. So successful was Dostoevsky’s manipulation of time that such author’s as Henry James, Joseph Conrad and James Joyce give credit to him for influencing their styles of writing.
ii.) Time
There are a multitude of facts and ideas that prove that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on Crime and Punishment. The facts that show Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on Crime and Punishment is two-fold; and they are the chronology of time, and character development. These two points prove just how much time Dostoevsky spent on Crime and Punishment.
Speculatively, the very first origins of Crime and Punishment came while Dostoevsky served his sentence, for treason, in a Siberian prison camp. However, it must be noted that no artistic outline or notes were ever made at this time, for obvious reasons. Instead, Dostoevsky gathered psychological character sketches from his fellow inmates over the four years he was in prison. This can be most tangibly applied to a fellow inmate, by the name of Aristov. Aristov was a convict of the noble class. Aristov had been sentenced to prison for having falsely incriminated other people as political fundamentalists. For having incriminated other people to the Russian secret police, Aristov was rewarded with money. From this money, Aristov lead a life of unsurpassed debauchery. And while in prison, Aristov’s former ways would survive, as he became both a spy and an informer for his jailers, against his fellow inmates. Dostoevsky would describe Aristov in the following way:
…the most revolting example of the depths to which a man can sink and degenerate, and the extent to which he can destroy all moral feeling in himself without difficulty or repentance.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.62
This psychological profile, as accounted for by Dostoevsky, on Aristov, would find itself into the very first notes that Dostoevsky transcribed down onto paper, as it pertained to Crime and Punishment. This can be seen when the character of Svidrigailov first makes an appearance in the notes, when he is still called Aristov.
Tangibly, the first notes to be transcribed from thought to paper came in Wiesbaden, by Dostoevsky; in September of 1865. Originally, Crime and Punishment was to be a first person confessional, to a third person narrator who was external to the very events themselves. Of the Wiesbaden version, six rough chapters still remain. It is both remarkable and noteworthy just how close these chapters are to the final version. These chapters would become the conclusion to Part One, and Chapters One to Six for Part Two. In these rough chapters, the secondary characters of the finalized plot were already established. Such characters as the simple-minded and sympathetic Nastashya; the pure hearted and boisterous best friend, Razumikin; the sophisticatedly dressed German brothel owner, Luisa Ivanova; as well as the self-indulgent and corrupt police clerk, Zametov. Also, in the first Wiesbaden drafts, Dostoevsky focused entirely on the moral/psychological reactions of the first person narrator to the murder he had committed. What haunts his conscious is his detachment from his former self. Progressively, and through the remainder of the plot, the narrator realizes that he has been severed from all this by one solitary act; the murder of the pawnbroker. Dostoevsky was to describe this revelation in the following way:
The feelings of isolation and separation from humanity which he felt immediately after committing the crime wear him down.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.82
Both in character and in the psychological approach the accuracy of these very rough drafts can be seen in those of the finalized version. So close were these rough drafts to the final version that most of them are just simply transferred over. Speculatively, one can surmise just how much thought Dostoevsky had spent on Crime and Punishment, before he had ever laid pen to paper. The thoroughness of Dostoevsky’s initial thoughts on his perspective novel get carried immediately over from rough to a finalized draft. Without too much questioning, it becomes quite obvious that all Dostoevsky had to do was write his novel, because all formal thought, and philosophical speculation had already been exercised in the creation of his first major novel; Crime and Punishment.
But by November of 1865, Dostoevsky would have a major dilemma in the development to the plot of Crime and Punishment. Already, the first person narrator had grown too complex, philosophically, with his role as the novels protagonist. The motivations and reactions he once had were slowly unravelling for Dostoevsky. No longer are the protagonists motivations entirely internalized, like Dostoevsky had first conceived them to be in Wiesbaden. And it is exactly at this point, coincidentally, that the Wiesbaden text ends. Dostoevsky finally came to the realization that the protagonist could not act in an isolated psychological manner, as a first person narrative demands as a technique. Instead, Dostoevsky also wanted to portray the environmental effects upon the protagonist. And Dostoevsky could no longer do this through the subjective approach that a first person narrative allows for. Inevitably, Dostoevsky would switch the narrative over to a third-person narrator. In so doing, Dostoevsky would include a former novel idea that he had once been working on; The Drunkards. And by including the ideas of The Drunkards, Dostoevsky would be able to expand and elucidate the environmental effects upon his protagonist. Also, by doing this, Dostoevsky was able to include the Marmeladov family. This is key, because Dostoevsky would be able to isolate the environmental effect that Sonya Marmeladov had on the protagonist’s sympathy’s. Thus, as the complexity of the protagonist continued to grow, so too did the thought that Dostoevsky gave it. Evolutionary wise, Dostoevsky allowed the plot to grow, instead of stunting it, knowing full well that the increase of hourly thought, over the course of the plots development, would become a necessity; a necessity that Dostoevsky did not shy away from. Instead, he would embrace the addition of the eventual complexity.
However, even with the addition of new complexities to the plot, Dostoevsky did not rush the elucidation of these ideas. And Dostoevsky’s notebooks for Crime and Punishment bear this out. In a note entitled, The Chief Anatomy of the Novel, it is often cited to prove just how indecisive Dostoevsky was as a writer. In this note, Dostoevsky will scribble down:
After the illness, etc. It is absolutely necessary to establish the course of things firmly and clearly and to eliminate what is vague, that is, explain the whole murder one way or another, and make its character and relations clear
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.87
It is precisely in Dostoevsky’s phrasing “one way or another”, that draws the worst suspicions about his willingness to compromise style, for that of publishing deadlines. Yet, what is often overlooked in these notes is the marginal scribblings of Dostoevsky. With a heading of “murder”, the rest reads “pride, personality, and insolence” (Miraculous Years; Frank, p. 87.) This jotting could not be any clearer; we see the very contradiction of Raskolnikov’s character. And in Raskolnikov, we find the altruistic desire to alleviate any and all social injustices, combined with an atheistic sense of nihilism; and ultimately, a Bazarovian contempt for the masses. It is exactly this contradictory mixture that Dostoevsky was dealing with. So instead of skimping on his craft, by cutting corners, Dostoevsky was just trying to finalize the enormity of his ideas, through the complexity of Raskolnikov’s character.
This leads us in to the next idea, which points towards the time that Dostoevsky spent on Crime and Punishment; namely, that of character development; and even more specifically, the development of Marmeladov and Raskolnikov.
The Marmeladov character would first find its origins, like a lot of Crime and Punishment characters, in the time Dostoevsky spent while serving out his Siberian prison sentence, from 1850-1854. Specifically, the Marmeladov prototype has been identified as the husband to Dostoevsky’s first wife; Alexander Ivanovich Isaev, who was still alive when Dostoevsky fell helplessly in love with his wife. Isaev had been a school teacher and customs official who lost both positions because of his excessive alcoholism. After losing both positions, Isaev spent almost all of his time in bars, associating with society’s less than upstanding citizens. This, in turn, left both his wife and seven year old son bordering on abject poverty, both financially and emotionally. Yet, as vile a lifestyle and creature Isaev was, Dostoevsky valued his human qualities. So much so that Dostoevsky would describe Isaev to his brother Mikhail, in the following manner:
…suffered from much undeserved persecution at the hands of local society. Unable to discipline himself, he had sunk very low. And yet he was highly cultivated and the kindliest of persons…He was, despite all the dirt, exceptionally noble.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.65
It is rather remarkable just how precise Dostoevsky is able to capture the essence of Isaev, and transcribe it on to the fictional character of Marmeladov.
The character of Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, much like Marmeladov, finds his origins in the years that Dostoevsky spent in Siberia. Raskolnikov’s character, at least in part, is based upon a bandit chief Dostoevsky served his Siberian sentence with; Orlov. Dostoevsky would describe Orlov as a man “who had murdered old people and children in cold blood” (Miraculous Years; Frank, p. 62). In this light, Dostoevsky found the type of person that would provide a character with motives. For Dostoevsky, Orlov was a chillingly real image of what it meant to be a Napoleonic personality; the type of person that could usurp the laws of man, for that of ones own. In fact, on one occasion, when Dostoevsky “was trying to get at his conscious and discover some sign of penitence in him” (Miraculous Years; Frank, p.62). Orlov became aware of Dostoevsky, his educated fellow inmate:
…with great contempt and haughtiness, as though I had suddenly in his eyes become a foolish little boy whom it was impossible to discuss things as you would with a grown up person. There was even a sort of pity for me to be seen in his face. A minute later he burst out laughing at me, a perfectly open-hearted laugh free from any irony.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.62
More to the point, Dostoevsky saw Orlov as a person who
…could not really help despising me, and must have looked upon me as a weak, pitiful, submissive creature, inferior to him in every aspect.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.62
These two quotes, on Orlov, is precisely the feeling Raskolnikov will have when he measures himself up against the citizens of St. Petersburg. And yet, no matter how exacting Raskolnikov’s conclusions may be, logically, he finds it impossible to transform himself into another Orlov. For Dostoevsky, Orlov was the absolute embodiment of Raskolnikov’s philosophic dreams; a dream that is an impossibility for Raskolnikov’s world to fulfill.
B) The Idiot
i.) Style
The ideas that will help shed some insight into the style of Dostoevsky’s; The Idiot, will be narrative techniques, plot structure, and character development. Each of which will help to subtly prove the true strength of Dostoevsky’s prose.
The narrative technique employed by Dostoevsky, in The Idiot, is a mixture. A convention which allows for the best of all possible worlds, in the form of narratives, as implemented in a first and third person narrative. The third person narrative allows for a near omniscience. This is portrayed through the knowing of the whole story, and the ability to tell the dialogue of a character(s) lines; whereas, a first person narrative allows for an involvement and intimacy in the plot, which is illustrated through the usage of the ‘I’ and ‘You’. Both techniques allow for the giving away of the plot. This narrative technique allows for a plethora of variations by Dostoevsky.
Rumours become a way of conveying ideas, and vivid social fabrics. And rumours can either be accurate or distorted, which inevitably peaks the interest of the reader to know if the narrator is being truthful, or not. Thus, rumours are a foreshadowing narrative technique, used by Dostoevsky; which usually comes true, more often than not. Hints and innuendos become a crucial preparation for all of the major scenes for Dostoevsky. It is an economical way of informing the reader of crucial ideas. The narrator simply does not seem to know all he believes he does. This is obvious through the usage of rumours, and in them not always being absolutely sure. This prepares the ground, for Dostoevsky, and his characteristic scenes of catastrophe and revelation.
Also, there is a leaking of information by the near omniscient narrator. The reader, thus, has to wait patiently for the characters to develop, because we simply cannot know if the narrator can be trusted. Progressively, the narrator becomes more and more non-omniscient. But the narrator is at least semi-conscious of just how slippery he is as one. Thus, he plays with the reader. And at times, the narrator can either be apologetic or coy; or both at the exact same time.
Another technique that Dostoevsky implements as a narrative technique, as a writer, is that of a concession of narrators. He replaces one narrator, for another, that has a better understanding of a given situation. Sometimes, these are pseudo narrators like Lebedyev and Keller. And sometimes, instead of whole dialogues, between two characters, the narrator will reduce the recital of two unclear ideas, into one clear idea by just one character usage.
A further refinement of the narrative technique is the paraphrasing of a characters ideas. This gives a character a point of view directly, which allows for it to be filtered. This process allows for immediacy from the writer to the reader.
Thus, through the usage of varying narrative techniques, one can see just how painstaking Dostoevsky is with his craft.
The plot structure of The Idiot, on the other hand, is a dense fabric of hints and foreshadowing, much like that of the narrative techniques used by Dostoevsky, which allows for the plot to remain tight and concise. The immediacy of the novel is indicated to us in the very first scenes of the book, between the encounter of two main characters of the plot; Rogozhin and Prince Myshkin. Another scene is the suspense built up to at crescendo in the birthday party. It is a scene of immense foreshadowing to the ideas of the major plot lines. Thus, the dropping of thoughts early in the plot, only adds to the suspense. Occasionally, the dropping of false thoughts is revealed, which only adds to the suspense, as well. We’re not always sure of the outcome. This can be seen when Natashya is able to predict her death. Not only this, however, but she is able to describe the details around it, by Rogozhin; her murderer. This, a skeleton of hints, leads to suspense, and a tightening of the plot. This is brought to fruition through dramatic chapter and part endings. And just as chapters are held together by suspenseful endings, so too are the parts of the novel through parallel motifs. A linking of ideas allows for a refreshment of ideas. The use of multiples helps to refresh the core idea of the novel through these very parallels. Such is the case in the painting of Christ, by Holbein. In the painting, Christ is depicted as decomposing. And the question becomes will He be able to overcome nature? Just like will faith overcome the Laws of Nature in The Idiot.
The reason why Dostoevsky’s characters come through so clearly (and the ideas they carry with them), is because they are so fully flushed out. He creates three-dimensional characters. And there are no clichés in his characters. An example of this can be found in the character Agalya. She represents one side of the love triangle, between herself, Prince Myshkin and Natashya Fillipova (who we will come back to later in the text of this critique). Agalya recognizes the Prince’s beauty and compassion. Also, she is twenty, pretty and well educated. She is special, somehow, in her family. Agalya is the highest ideal of worldly bliss, according to her family. But she is spoiled, and inevitably, because of this, she can be both abrasive and rude in her approach with others. An example of this is when she directly calls the Prince a fool. She is capable of a naiveté which is even young for her age. Thus, out of this childishness, comes the source of all her actions and emotions is her pride. In the end, she will not be taken for granted. Much like the Underground Man, she follows in his footsteps; an Underground Man Syndrome. Even if it is to be self-destructive to her own well being, she will humiliate others, before they humiliate her. This can be paralleled to the Underground Man’s final actions towards Liza, in Notes From the Underground. Also, she can’t conceive of an outward love; which is opposed to the Prince’s form of love. Agalya’s is a destructive love grounded in passion. And this passion takes its form in the actions of jealousy. In conclusion, Agalya is a wilful and head strong character, who refuses to be walked over.
Another character which helps show the creative excellency of Dostoevsky’s style is the development of Natashya Fillipova, from her very beginnings, to her very end. She permeates the entire novel with her very being. But much like Sonya Marmeladov; from Crime and Punishment, her character is held off on. Physically, she is extraordinarily beautiful; even more so than Agalya. Natashya has a strength of character, and also, a certain amount of vindictiveness about her. She has a great understanding of the human condition. She has already been humiliated by Totsky, but will exact revenge against him in the end. Thus, Natashya is capable of ruinous acts towards herself, if it means ruining others in the process. Inevitably, her love is much like Agalya; it is destructive in its passion. In the beginning, she loses her virtue, so the rest of the novel acts as a device to exact her revenge. But what differentiates her from Agalya’s passion is that of guilt and shame. She is headstrong and wilful, which is connected to pride, but also, she has shame and guilt. Yet, guilt for her is irredeemable. Even when she is given a chance to remove her guilt, through Prince Myshkin’s marriage proposal, she still goes mad. Increasingly, she has grown in love with her own shame. When her shame can be removed, she still refuses and denies it. And she renews this shame by running away from the Prince, and into the arms of Rogozhin. She revels in her baseness. . She is capable of loving another, but denies it by thwarting it; this makes her incapable of loving another. This only adds to her tragic dimension.
While both characters are similar in their development of passions, they both lead to a different end. While Natashya dies at the hands of Rogozhin, Agalya goes mad with her passions, brought forth through her pride. Thus, the complexities of each character is fully flushed out, and delved deeply into, both psychologically and socially by Dostoevsky.
In the end, the stylistic greatness of Dostoevsky’s prose, in The Idiot, are best illuminated in his narrative techniques, plot structure, and character development. Each of which, through their complexities and interweaving, lends support to the idea that Dostoevsky is in fact a better writer than what most, if not all think of him to be. Ultimately, if one wanted to, they could credit Dostoevsky with being one of the best pure writers the world has ever seen, irregardless of what other biographers and critics believe him to be.
ii.) Time
There are a considerable amount of facts that lend support to the idea that Dostoevsky did spend a considerable amount of time and effort in the development of The Idiot. These supporting ideas are three-fold. The first, and perhaps the strongest argument that supports the idea that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on The Idiot, are the eight plans that he laid out for himself in its creation. The other two supporting arguments may be less direct, but in no way less effective. The first of the two is the initial idea for the plot, by Dostoevsky. The second is that of the development of Prince Myshkin; from the characters very genesis. Thus, through the employment of the three-fold proofs, one realizes fully the effort and time Dostoevsky spent on The Idiot.
In total, Dostoevsky wrote eight plans for The Idiot, in his notebooks for The Idiot. They are nothing more than character plotting and organization, but one can see the thought and thoroughness Dostoevsky spent in developing the novel’s ideas.
The list of characters, for the first plan, are as follows:
Family of Ruined Gentry
Father
Mother
The handsome youth (the elder son)
The Idiot (the younger son)
Masha, a daughter, engaged to the officer
Mignon, a foster daughter
The Uncle’s Family
The uncle, younger brother of the father of the family of ruined gentry
His Son
The Fiancé’s Family
The fiancé, an officer
His Father
His Mother
His sister, an old maid
His cousin, the heroine, also called ‘the beauty’
The list of characters for the second plan, are as follows;
Main General’s Family
Father in retirement
His mother
His wife
His son, the handsome youth
His son, the Idiot
His daughter Masha, engaged to the engineer
Olga Umetskaia
The Second General’s Family
The general
The general’s wife
The elder son
The younger son (the murderer)
The daughter, aged twenty-five
The Fiancé’s Family
The engineer, fiancés of Masha
His father
The heroine, engaged to a count or senator
The Strong-minded Mother’s Family
The mother
Her daughter, in love with the handsome youth
The Uncle’s Family
The uncle
His son
One can instantly see the considerable amount of change in the outline of the characters organization, by Dostoevsky, in the course of a matter of days, from the first to second character plan. This can be observed in the complete new inclusion of The Second General’s Family and The Strong-minded Mother’s Family. With these two massive character inclusions, and their inevitable plot involvement, one can see the depth to which Dostoevsky was thinking. It is a near overhaul of inclusions and interactions of characters; both new and old. But there are also far more subtle changes to the second character list. Such as the Main General’s Family name; which has been changed from Family of Ruined Gentry. Also, the Father of that family, was formally without the knowledge of his retirement. Additionally, this family has rid itself of Mignon, while adding that of Olga Umetshaia. Lastly, the two final changes to the character list is that found in The Fiancé’s Family. The engineer, fiancé to Masha, is now an engineer, no longer is he an officer. Also, the heroine is now engaged to a count or senator. Thus, both those characters that remained were refined and those that are completely new, lend credence to the idea that Dostoevsky was working very hard on his prospective plot both subtlety and overtly.
The list of characters for the third plan are as follows:
The General’s Family
The general
His young wife
His son, the handsome youth
Another son
His daughter
The heroine (governess, ward, the beauty)
Olga Umetskaia
The Uncle’s Family
The uncle
His son
The Idiot (stepson, real son, or natural son)
Kostenkinych and his wife, the uncle’s shop assistant or clerk
The Aunt’s Family
Aunt Sofia Fyodorovna
Her husband, the Jumper
Her daughter
The Engineer’s Family
The engineer
His father (a major without legs)
His mother
His sister (Olga Umetskaia)
The Strong-minded Mother’s Family
The mother
The daughter
Once again, one can see the subtle refinements that Dostoevsky is dealing with in the development of The Idiot’s plot, such as in the General’s Family, where the Idiot is removed, and both Another son and his daughter are added to this family. Also, the details of the heroine are refined, with (governess, ward, the beauty). And in The Engineer’s Family, the father is a major now without legs. But with Dostoevsky, at this time, he continues to add in completely new families, and family members. The Aunt’s Family is completely new. So too is Kostenkinych and his wife, the uncles shop assistant or clerk. But besides these additions and refinements, one can see the difficulty Dostoevsky was having with the more pronounced characters, in his creative process; such as in the flip-flop of the Idiot, from the General’s Family, to that of the Uncle’s Family. Eventually, the Idiot (Prince Myshkin) will not belong to any family, but at this time, Dostoevsky is still attempting to include him in the involvement of one of the major families in the novel’s plot. Also, one can see Dostoevsky struggling with the involvement of the Olga Umetshaia character, with her potential move from The General’s Family, to that of The Engineer’s Family. For all these aforementioned changes, and the ideas behind them, one can see the depth to Dostoevsky’s creative struggles, and the exchange and development that each of them were to go through.
The list of characters for the fourth plan are as follows:
The General’s Family
The general
His wife
His son Ganechka
The Idiot
The daughter Masha
The heroine, a ward
Olga Umetskaia
Levinka
Kostenka
The Uncle’s Family
The uncle
His son
Kostenkinych, the shop assistant
The Engineer’s Family
The engineer, Masha’s fiancé
His mother, aged
The Strong-minded Mother’s Family
The mother
Her daughter
Instantly, one can see the sudden exclusion of The Aunt’s Family, also, the additions to The General’s Family, of the Idiot, Levinka and Kostenka. Thus, once again, one can see just how unsure Dostoevsky is with the placement of the Idiot. But besides these inclusions and exclusions, one can once again see the genius of Dostoevsky’s creative process, through the further refinement of his characters; such as, Kostenkinych, the shop keeper. While in the third, he has a wife, and is unsure of his position; as either that of the uncle’s shop assistant or clerk. Now, in the fourth plan, he is definitely sure of his position as the shop assistant. Also, he is now without a wife. One further refinement is the specified name given to Masha, as a daughter of The General’s Family. It was initially there in the first plan, and once again, it is back in the fourth plan. Thus, the additions, exclusions and refinements, by Dostoevsky, this lends considerable credence to the idea that he was fully involved, in the creative time spent, in the plot of The Idiot.
The list of characters for the sixth plan are as follows:
The General’s Family
The general
The general’s wife
His son, Ganechka
His son, the Idiot (from the first marriage)
The Idiot’s wife
The general’s daughter
The heroine
The Uncle’s Family
The uncle, the brother of the general’s first wife
A son (Ilia?)
The Umetskys
Vladimir Umetsky
Olga Umetsky
In the sixth plan, one can see an obvious reduction of families; such as The Engineer’s Family and The Strong minded Mother’s Family. Thus, it can be implied, with the sizeable reduction, that Dostoevsky was starting to get a focus for his plot. With less characters, but more centrality and importance of these characters, instead of sheer size and less character focus, one gets a sense of what Dostoevsky is moving towards, even if it is only implied.
There are further examples of Dostoevsky’s attempt to improve his plot. And the way that he does this is through refinement, which can only be given through time and thought; such as, the general’s daughter, which is now without the name of Masha; once again. Also, the heroine is now without the indicator of her being a ward. Furthermore, The Uncle’s Family receives almost a complete overhaul. No longer is there a third family member. And the son, Ilia, now has a name; whereas, the uncle is now the brother of the general’s first wife. These refinements should not be lost on the reader. Instead, they speak to the subtle genius of Dostoevsky, as a writer and thinker. Rather than scrap all ideas that don’t come to fruition, fruitfully, he looks at them at a different angle, and explores them in that new avenue.
On top of it all, one can see the struggle Dostoevsky is having with prominent characters to his plot; such as Olga Umetskaia and the Idiot. The Idiot now has a wife. Also, he is a son, still to The General’s Family, that has been born out of the general’s marriage. Furthermore, Olga has been given more importance, which is indicative of her new place, with her new family.
Thus, the clarity, through refinement can be found in a given characters importance. This leads to the conclusive end that Dostoevsky was struggling with the plot. This, in the end, would require more time, if it was going to be flushed out more fully.
The list of characters for the seventh plan are as follows:
The General’s Family
The general
The general’s wife
The Idiot
The daughter Varia (and her fiancé)
The son Ganechka
Yasha
Kolia
The ward
The aunt
The Umetskys
Vladimir Umetsky
His wife
Olga Umetskaia
Ustinia Alekseevna, who has a son Sasha
Nastia, perhaps the sister of Ustinia
The size of The General’s Family, fluctuates, once more, with further refinement and inclusions. The general’s daughter now has a name; Varia, as well, Yasha, Kolia, the aunt and the ward are included; some again, while others are completely new. Also, the Idiot seems to have gained some stability in this family, even though his wife is now gone.
But perhaps the greatest difference, from sixth to seventh character plan, is the entire exclusion of The Uncle Family. Further and further, Dostoevsky is narrowing the plots focus for The Idiot. Now, only the most important of characters, to the plot, are included.
Also, another great difference is the extension of The Umetemskys. Now there is a wife and Ustinia Alekseevna; who has a son Sasha. But above all else, stands the inclusion of Nastia, perhaps the sister of Ustinia. This is the very first mention and introduction to the character, who will later become Natashya Fillipova. With Agalya and Prince Myshkin, she will form a love triangle which underlies the entire movement of the plot. This inclusion cannot be overlooked for its importance to the finalization of Dostoevsky’s creative process. And yet, he still continues to struggle with the plot’s progress, and ultimate success.
The list of characters for the eighth, and final, plan for The Idiot are as follows:
The General’s Family
The general
The general’s mother
The Idiot
The daughter (Varia)
The son Ganechka
Yasha
Kolia
The ward
The aunt
The nephew
The Umetskys
Vladimir Umetsky
Olga Umetskaia
A daughter who lives with Bogdanovich
Ustinia Umetskaia
Nastia
The elder son
A son, a school boy.
There are only a few subtle changes to the eighth plan, from that of the seventh. This tends to imply that Dostoevsky had finally come to a consensus to the core of The Idiot’s plot. Also, there is an addition of three characters; the nephew, to The General’s Family, and the elder son and a son, a schoolboy to The Umetsky family. And with the exclusion of the wife, to The Umetsky family, in the eighth character plan is the same as its predecessor.
Even though the final character listing for the novel is vastly different from that of the eighth and final plan by Dostoevsky, it still does not subvert the effort he put into his plans. The obvious effort that Dostoevsky put into each plane, through refinement, inclusion and exclusion, lends support to the idea that not only did he put in a lot of effort to the smoothing out of The Idiot’s plot, but also that he spent considerable time on the plot itself.
The initial idea behind the development of the plot for The Idiot is diverse. This can be seen in the early development and inspiration for The Idiot. Dostoevsky, for this novel, drew heavily, like most of his other major novels, from the newspapers. In particular, Dostoevsky drew upon the case of the Umetsky’s, and that of their daughter; Olga, who had attempted to burn down the family house after years of torment and abuse. In the end, Olga Umetsky would be exonerated for her crime. This news worthy event caught Dostoevsky’s attention, for one simple reason; the loss of innocence. This will become the major theme of the novel, but in the form of Prince Myshkin’s childlike behaviour. This case grabbed Dostoevsky’s attention around the months of September and October of 1867.
Further development that led to the initial plans and confusion spent by Dostoevsky, on The Idiot, can be seen in a letter he sent to his friend, Maikov, at the end of December.
“I spent the entire summer and autumn working on various ideas (some were very entangled). But a certain experience always allowed me to intuit in advance either falsity or difficulty, or lack of promise. Finally, I fixed on one of these ideas, began working on it, and wrote a great deal. But then, on December 4th (New Style) I threw it all out.”
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.270
One can immediately see two things in the very words of Dostoevsky. The first is the considerable time he spent on the development of the novel’s plot. This is more than evident when he says; “I spent the entire summer and autumn working on various ideas.” The other noticeable thing that the reader can identify, is that of the confusion that still lay in Dostoevsky’s mind, over the direction of the novel’s plot. This can be seen in the words; “But then, in December 4th (New Style) I threw it all out.” And whether his words are completely accurate, in their entirety, is besides the point. All that matters is the considerable time Dostoevsky would have to spend in straightening out the direction of The Idiot’s plot.
Another example of the time Dostoevsky spent on The Idiot, is in the development of its protagonist; Prince Myshkin. The initial sketch of Prince Myshkin, who only appears as an outline of who he will become, is conveyed in Dostoevsky’s notebook between November 10, and December of 1867. The initial outline, that Dostoevsky lays out for himself is as follows:
“Understand me: a voluntary, totally conscious sacrifice of oneself in the interests of all, made under no sort of compulsion, is in my opinion a sign of the highest development of the personality. Voluntarily to sacrifice one’s life for all, to die on the cross or at the stake, is possible only with the very strongest development of the personality”
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.258
Yet, Dostoevsky still does not attribute the lead role to such a character. The genesis of Prince Myshkin and his inevitable development doesn’t come until later. This very assertion, once again, lends credence to the idea that Dostoevsky was not only struggling with the plot, but also with the characters in the plot. But as confused as Dostoevsky may have been in the development of Prince Myshkin, the basic outline of his character is there; which is a representation of his most positive moral ideal. Thus, as much as Dostoevsky was struggling with everything else in The Idiot, the embryonic outline of Prince Myshkin was there.
Through the employment of the eight character sketches, and the notebooks which lead to the development of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky shows just how much time and effort he spent in the creation of his second major novel.
C.) Demons
i.) Style
The ideas that will help to elucidate the style of the Demons, is form, structure, and plurality of the plot and characters. All three help to support the idea that Dostoevsky is in fact a better writer than most people assume him to be. All of which, are more than evident in his Demons.
For Dostoevsky, in the Demons, the form takes on a multitude of looks. For the purpose of this article, five of the most influential will be investigated. The five are narrative, letters and poems, dialogue, gossip and rumours.
The narrative form of the Demons is unusually complex; which takes form in the plot. It is equal or greater than that of The Idiot’s plot. And while, it can be argued that Dostoevsky loses a little creative control in the second part of The Idiot, Dostoevsky is always in control of the Demons. It never gets away from him. This groundedness is centred in the narrator, Anton, who is a curious and chatty townsman. Anton is writing in retrospect, and in first person form, while sorting things out in retrospect. Yet, Anton transcends the way that a narrator should act. He actually takes part in the plot. And he can’t be objective, no matter how much he says he is. Thus, the tension in the plot is created by Anton’s very narrative; between his hindsight’s subjectivity, and the actuality. Anton refuses to let us in until he found out. This will coincide with the time that he initially found out; instead of the immediacy that his hindsight allows for. Thus, Anton is not a ‘Zero Present’ narrator. He is ultimately not neutral. He is an influence on the plot. This is a progression from the narrator of The Idiot. He says that he’s only going to limit himself to things as they happened. But he undermines this continually, by shedding his impartiality. Anton is a playful and coy narrator. Through the usage of ‘Maybe’, ‘Could’, ‘Suppose’, ‘Probably’, Anton allows for the deceptiveness in the plot. Thus, the reader has to focus, because of the uncertainty the narrator conveys. An example of this, within the text, is whether Peter is acting alone, or is he conspiring with others against Shatov. Thus, Dostoevsky creates a slippery hybrid for a narrator; in sometimes being omniscient, and at other times, non-omniscient. This progressive evolution in styles from the near-omniscient narrator of The Idiot, to the duplicity of the divided (non)-omniscient narrator in The Demons helps to support the claim that Dostoevsky was refining his stylistic form.
Another form that Dostoevsky plays with, in the furthering of his plot, is that of letters and poems. The use of first person poem’s and letters are littered all throughout the text. They act as an agent for suspense. The first person confessional of Stavrogin’s writing, when he is abroad, allows for an understanding of Stavrogin’s mind. The poems act as a break from the usual narrative of Anton, the narrator. Thus, it is the passing of one first person narrator to another. This allows for a multitude of interpretive angles to the novel.
Yet, another device that Dostoevsky employs in The Demons is that of dialogue. The dialogue of an individual character allows for all the key philosophical arguments to come forth in the novel. But the dialogues are done dramatically. This polemicizes the two philosophical arguments in the novel. Thus, the dryness of a philosophy is elevated through the given technique used by Dostoevsky throughout all of his works.
The fourth form that Dostoevsky uses is that of gossip. This is enacted by the busy body Liputin. Much like Lebydev, in The Idiot, Liputin is a plot pusher. He forces the plot to progress by letting things slip. Liputin is a moron that allows for the foreshadowing of ideas and actions that will eventually come; all by accident of course. And inevitably, he holds back on information when it’s too late. Thus, all the important ‘stuff’ is already revealed to the reader about the plots eventual direction.
The last form that Dostoevsky uses in The Demons is that of rumours. The uses of constant rumours allow for allusions. Namely, will it, or won’t it happen. And the use of the word ‘apparent’ allows for this to take place. The reader is not always sure of the facts. This is more than apparent in the example found in the text between Mary Shatov and Stavrogin, and their supposed love affair. One is not quite sure until the end whether it is true or not. Thus, one can’t be certain about plot indicators. The reader is continually not allowed to know through the usage of rumours. This is indicative in the rumours that Peter spreads. One can’t be sure if it’s the truth he’s telling, or the simple stretching of the truth. Peter spreads things instantly. Like when he says Stavrogin wants to kill Shatov, over the slapping incident. However, this rumour acts as a pushing of the plot towards the novels conclusion. It sordidly implies the ending.
All five formative devices, through their employment by Dostoevsky, allows for the idea that he is in fact a good writer. And not as haphazard as others would wish or believe him to be.
Another technique used by Dostoevsky, in The Demons, is that of structure. For Dostoevsky, he specifically uses three devices to further that of structure; namely, that of foreshadowing, parallels, and explosive scenes. All three accumulatively help to lend support to the idea of this article; that Dostoevsky is a great stylistic writer.
For Dostoevsky, the use of foreshadowing is paramount to this novel. Foreshadowing allows for things that you didn’t want to happen, but do anyways. It is a realization of events, which draws attention to previous actions. This device can be seen in the novel with the cold-blooded talk of Stavrogin. Supposedly, he wants to kill Shatov. Yet, instead of killing Shatov, Stavrogin tells him that he is a target for a murderous plot by Peter. Thus, Dostoevsky twists the usage of foreshadowing. This makes it apparent that he must have known what he was doing. Because in order to foreshadow something at the start, one must know where it will tie into at the end; which Dostoevsky does.
Another structural technique that Dostoevsky uses is that of parallels. Parallels of important scenes are another device which help to keep the structure strong. An example of this can be found in the biting of the general’s ear by Stavrogin; which is brought out again at the end, when another biting takes place near the suicide of Kirillov. This allows for laughter and absurdity of both situations. Thus, Dostoevsky allows for us to forget very little in the novel; through the use of his parallels.
The third and final structural techniques that Dostoevsky employs in The Demons are those of big scenes. This is yet another device that allows Dostoevsky tie together everything. The first big scene is at the party, at the end of the first part. Everything leads up to it. And nearly all the main characters are present. Dostoevsky brings together characters that wouldn’t regularly be together; and then blows it up. Then he lets the characters fall where they may, and go their own ways, afterwards. What follows in the novel is their reaction to this big scene; namely, it’s fall out.
The plurality of the plot and characters, once again, add to the idea of Dostoevsky being a stylistic writer. The plurality of the novel, comes to fruition in two forms; both in Stavrogin, and the very plot of the novel itself.
The plurality of characters is typified in the protagonist of the plot; Stavrogin. His name literally means in Russian; when divided up; Stavr means cross, while Rog means horn (which is emblematic of the devil). Thus, the very plurality of the characters is summarily embodied in Stavrogin’s name, through his character traits.
Like the cross, of Stavrogin’s name, he is capable of being compassionate; much like Shatov. Shatov’s side of Stavrogin is vulnerable, because, ultimately, he is a human. This can be found in the example when Stavrogin attempts to warn Captain Lebyadkin about future calamities. But much like the horn side of Stavrogin’s name, he is also capable of cruelty and brutality; much like Kirillov’s character. Kirillov is wicked, base and vulgar. All throughout the novel, and the history of Stavrogin, as a character, the reader finds out that he loves and leaves all the women he ever meets. An example of this cruelty towards women can be found in his marriage to a half-wit on a bet. Stavrogin intentionally tests his will against the universe. He is attempting to see the limits of his ego-driven will. Thus, he can be seen as an atheistic philosopher, in the lines of Kirillov, Raskolnikov, and Ivan Karamazov.
Yet, the loftiness of Stavrogin’s ideals come crashing down through his humanity. Stavrogin, in his plurality, is human, and not a superhuman, as he would like others and himself to believe him to be. But through the complexities of Dostoevsky’s ideas, we are able, as a reader, to understand all he is attempting to say. Therefore, he succeeds as a writer, not only of prominence, but of literary genius for the ideas he exercises in, and is able to communicate.
Another area in which Dostoevsky deals with the idea of plurality is in the duplicity found in the plot, which can be found in the very storyline of the novel. This is between that of the political/philosophical plot that revolves around Peter and that of the metaphysical/romantic plot that revolves around Stavrogin. The political/philosophical plot is a critique upon the radical mind. And how, inevitably, it is doomed to fail. This is countered by the metaphysical/romantic plot that is about the power of the human will and ultimately, the soul. This bankrupts the Underground Man Syndrome; where one is able to transgress social regulations. And as much as Stavrogin would like to be this, he can’t escape his own actions. Thus, returning to the idea that all is not permitted, even to the Napoleon’s of the world. There is no such thing as atheistic transgression for Dostoevsky; because if this was the case, the world would be filled with unbridled wills, capable of anything.
In conclusion, through the usage of form, structure, and plurality, Dostoevsky is able to convey complex ideas, through a thoroughness of style. Thus, in The Demons, Dostoevsky once again elevates himself as a stylistic genius, second to none.
ii.) Time
There are three major sources that lends support to the idea that Dostoevsky took a considerable amount of time to think through the plot of the Demons. The first is the initial development of the ideas behind the notes. Not only the influence on the plot, but also the initial difficulties that Dostoevsky faced with it. The second influence that lends credence to the idea that Dostoevsky spent considerable time on the Demons, is that of characters. And lastly, are the difficulties Dostoevsky faced with the plot; in all its complexities. For all these reasons that were mentioned above, it will become obvious that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on the development of the Demons.
The very first mention, or motif similarity referred to by Dostoevsky in his notebooks, about the Demons, is as early as October to November, 1867. It was a jotting down for a new work, after he had come to a dead-end in the development of The Idiot. The perspective novel was to be called A Thought. The description of the ideas for the novel is as follows:
The theme mentioned, taken from Russian history, goes back to the middle of the eighteenth century (1740-1764), when a one-year-old child, named Ivan Antonovich was declared emperor on the death of Empress Anna Ivanova. A year later, he was imprisoned by the new empress, Elizabeth Petrovna, and kept in isolation for the remainder of his life. He died at the age of twenty-four, killed by a guard in an unsuccessful attempt, made by a young officer named Mirovich to liberate him from the Schlusselberg fortress and re-establish him on the throne.
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.267
The plan of this novel indicates Dostoevsky’s apparent willingness to illustrate a fictional portrait that would outline his moral-spiritual themes against a Russian backdrop. For Dostoevsky, this is a first for his fiction; the hybridization, so overtly, of a spiritual and moral themes. Thus, the notes jotted down for A Thought, obviously outline a theme, a full four years in advance, which will come to fruition in the Demons.
Yet, another early reference to the development of the Demons, is found in his notebooks, between January 18 and February of 1870. In it, Dostoevsky refers to a work called Envy:
In a variation of the plot, the Usurer is only engaged instead of married; his rival for the fiancée is a Prince, ‘a pathetic figure’ who is ‘envious, aspiring to high human dignity without cost, proud without having the right to be.’ He ‘has made a girl pregnant and turned her over to the School teacher’, who is clearly a moral exemplar (‘leaving babes on people’s doorsteps: a simple, live, and grandiose feature.’
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p.398This parallel is an obvious contrast found in the Prince and the Schoolmaster, which will later become the major plot for the Demons, with Stavrogin and Shatov.
Thus, through these two examples, found in the various notebooks of Dostoevsky, one can see the extent he goes to in the development of a novel’s plot. Not only this, but one can see just how early Dostoevsky spent in developing this novel. In both, A Thought and Envy, one can see just how early Dostoevsky came up with the idea for the Demons; both in October to November, 1867, and January to February, 1870; a full one and three years in advance, respectively. Thus, quashing the idea that Dostoevsky didn’t spend enough time on the ideas and development of a given story.
The second idea that lends support to the notion that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on the development of his novels; and in particular, the Demons, is the creation and evolution of the characters. Specifically, this can be seen in Stepan and Stavrogin.
In September of 1869, Dostoevsky would write down a vast amount of ideas, which would become the major inspirational source for the Demons. Out of these notes steps the creation of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky. Stepan was to signify, for Dostoevsky, Sergey Nechaev, in a fictionalized form. Nechaev was a murderer who led a revolutionary student group, out of the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy in Moscow, would kill one of their fellow students; Ivan Ivanov. So when Dostoevsky writes in these notes, “Nechaev, Kulishov has denounced Nechaev…The police enter and capture [presumably Nechaev – JF]” (Miraculous Years; Frank, p. 397). With this, he is making a major movement towards a solidified plot for the Demons with Nechaev. So much so, that one can see the initial struggle that Dostoevsky is working towards in the future plot of the Demons, in these few sentences found in his notes. With this, Dostoevsky would typify all the major themes of the novel; such as romantic entanglement, whose future details are rendered meaningless. This is combined in the debate about faith and the fallen through Romantic Idealism of the 1830’s, with that of the Nihilistic politics, and intelligentsia of the 1860’s. All of this is found in the first introduction to Stepan, which would become the major theme of the novel. And all of this is found in the two plain aforementioned lines.
The other character that helps to show that Dostoevsky took a considerable amount of time in developing the Demons plot is Stavrogin. In his April and May notebooks, Stavrogin was originally just a Prince. But by August of 1870, Dostoevsky would finally have to admit the developing difficulties of the Prince. Stavrogin had increased in complexity, stature and tragic significance, so much so that he no longer fit into the plots original framework. The problem was that not only was Stavrogin a tragic hero, but he was also being paralleled to that of Stepan’s (Nechaev’s) character. One that would not only see him with frailties, but it would also see him as irresistibly attractive and powerful. But instead of trying to curb the development of Stavrogin’s character, Dostoevsky would fix the plot to fit the magnitude of Stavrogin’s new found significance and stature. The way he did this was by placing Stavrogin outside the plot’s framework. He does this by making the entire plot revolve around Stavrogin. So instead of being influenced by the plot’s framing, Stavrogin is the one that pushes the entire plot forward. This was a realization that Dostoevsky resolved by mid-August of 1870, but only after struggling with Stavrogin’s character for four and a half months.
Thus, in struggling with the creation and development of both major characters, found in Stepan and Stavrogin, one can see the time it required to think the various problems through. For Stepan, and his creation, it would be the initial difficulties of a new novel idea. And in Stavrogin, one sees Dostoevsky struggling through the difficulties found in the complexities of a novel’s plot development. With time, he would figure both characters, and ideologies out. But it is exactly time Dostoevsky would require.
The third, and last idea that lends support to the notion that Dostoevsky took time in the development of the Demons, is found in the plot. In particular, this can be seen in the struggle found between the two generations in the novel, as well as in the politics that are being amplified in the plot. Both of these ideas of plot development help support the idea that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time in developing the Demons.
The first of these two ideas is that of the struggle between generations in the plot. In so doing, Dostoevsky aligns himself with Turgenev, in one of the two greatest novels about the struggle between Russian generations. It had been a struggle found in most Russian literature, of the time, but through Dostoevsky, and Turgenev, it would be exemplified. For Dostoevsky, it is in Stepan that he finds this voice. But it must be noted that Stepan is not based upon Bazarov, in Fathers and Son of 1862, but on Turgenev’s earlier work; Rudin from 1856.
“The Devils may thus be seen as a disputation between two of Turgenev’s characters, at a later stage of their lives, when Rudin had sunk into a whimsically charming, self-pampering poseur and Bazarov had stiffened into ruthless fanatic”
– Miraculous Years; Frank, p. 453.Stepan is a caricature and mirror of Rudin. Dostoevsky mirrors Rudin so he can exploit his personal agenda. Thus, Dostoevsky doesn’t mock Rudin, so much as he uses him to further his own orthodox beliefs. Stepan is a Romantic-Idealist of the 1840’s, who is genuinely noble at heart, but who is far too weak to live up to their own lofty goals of idealism; much like Raskolnikov was, and Ivan Karamazov will be. Thus, these ideas of struggle go as far back to his Siberian days, when he was serving his six year sentence. The reason for this is that here, Dostoevsky switches his own beliefs from Idealized Socialism to Religious Orthodoxy. This struggle finally finds a voice in Dostoevsky, but it is a feeling found in the intelligentsia of both generations of 1840 and 1860.
The second of these two ideas is that of the politics amplified in the plot of the Demons. Instead of remaining with the very base facts of the Nechaev Affair, which occurred on the 26th of November, 1869, Dostoevsky enlarges them according to his technique of Fantastic Realism. Also, instead of assuming the very base reasons that Nechaev murdered Ivanov, Dostoevsky gives him far more ambitious ideals, in the fictionalized Stepan, so that he can further undercut the loftiness of Nihilistic Idealism. In doing this, Dostoevsky gives an artistic life to the politics of his time, and amplifies it out of the most ordinary of circumstances.
In total, from conception to conclusion, Dostoevsky would spend a full three years to complete the Demons. And to be even more exacting, it took him from November 26 of 1869; the day of the Nechaev affair, to November and December of 1872; which found the final few pages published in The Russian Messenger, for Dostoevsky to finally be finished with the Demons. However, this isn’t the only fact that points towards the time Dostoevsky spent on the Demons. There are three other points that do this, and these are the three aforementioned ideas on initial development of ideas, plot and characters. So with these three ideas, and the chronology of time spent by Dostoevsky on the Demons, this shows that he spent an enormous amount of time on it.
D.) The Brothers Karamazov
i.) Style
The key ideas that will best help to illuminate the style of The Brothers Karamazov can be found in the narrative technique, as well as in the very tonality of the characters themselves. Through both of these ideas, the assumption that Dostoevsky was a poor writer will be shed.
Stylistically, The Brothers Karamazov stands out from Dostoevsky’s previous three major novels for its simplicity and clarity. This can be most poignantly seen in the narrative structure. Instead of having a central character that pushes the plot along, through surprise and coincidence, The Brothers Karamazov has five central characters; Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, Old Karamazov and Smerdyakov. The reason why the novel has five central characters is because it is a novel about community and belonging, unlike that of the three previous novels, where the protagonist of the plot was solitary and stood outside the other characters in the novel. By structuring the style of his novel like this, Dostoevsky is able to effortlessly transfer the narrative from one narrator to another. By doing this, Dostoevsky is able to get alternating perspectives and given ideologies to events that are factually the same. This multi-layering approach allows Dostoevsky to invite the reader into the novel, and interpret the meaning of things, as freely as the characters are in their approaches to facts found in the novel. Thus, this perspective approach to the narrative structure, by Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, allows for a freedom of interpretation that is uplifting. This freedom acts as a boundlessness. Thus, freedom becomes a world with hope, love and faith. This narrative technique will tangibly flush itself out in the plot. Specifically, this can be seen in the relationship Alyosha and Father Zossima share with each other, as well as in the evolution of Dmitri and Grushenka’s relationship, all throughout the course of the entire novel. But perhaps the greatest indicator of the narrative freedom and how it transfers itself over to the themes of the plot is the very way the novel ends. Unlike in The Idiot or the Demons, which are tragically concluded in each of these respective novels, The Brothers Karamazov is hopeful. The conversation that Alyosha shares with the children, at the rock, is the beginning to all this. And as the novel ends, he walks off with them, hand-in-hand. Symbolically speaking, the union of hands and the youth of children speak to a futurity of hope; a brotherhood of man, as Dostoevsky would put it.
Yet, as different as the narrative approach is to The Brothers Karamazov, from its previous three predecessors, the tonality of the novel is similar. And by tonality, this essay will assume that of the personal philosophies of each given character. In a way, each of the four major novels is an evolutionary progression from the last. The similarity between the tonalities of each character, in The Brothers Karamazov, can be found in how each major novel is interwoven with the other. The ideas that each character espouses is linked to their ideological counterpart in the previous three major novels. But in the process of being mirrored, they are also elevated.
Ivan, as the first example of this lineage, is paralleled to that of Ippolit (from The Idiot) and Kirillov (from the Demons), where the logic of the mind will always overcome the frailties of the heart. However, the difference between these two, and Ivan, is that Ivan has a conscious that plagues him all throughout the novel. Instead of being an absolute theorist, he is bound to his fellow man. He cannot simply remove himself from the actions of others, because of his sympathies for them.
The next major character that follows in the long line of Dostoevskian thought is Smerdyakov; to which, Smer means stink in Russian. Smerdyakov parallels that of Svidrigailov, from Crime and Punishment. Smerdyakov, like Svidrigailov, acts as a foil to the actions of another character. For Smerdyakov, this is Ivan; whereas, for Svidrigailov it is Raskolnikov. Smerdyakov acts out Ivan’s theories to their logical end. He is what Ivan has always claimed himself to be. Smerdyakov is the actualization and truth behind Ivan’s theories.
The third character, and the unofficial protagonist of the plot, is Alyosha. He is the third to follow in the tradition of Dostoevskian thought. Alyosha is in the tradition of an all-loving individual that is selfless; much like Prince Myshkin (from The Idiot) and Sonya Marmeladov (from Crime and Punishment). Like the other two, Alyosha loves people without judging them. Also, and above all else, he believes in others. But unlike the other two, Alyosha’s faith is drawn further into question. The other two, without question, are grounded by their belief, and are unswerving in their faith. But as soon as Father Zossima dies, and his body begins to rot, even though he was suspected to be a saint, Alyosha doesn’t understand why. If Father Zossima was a saint, and saint’s bodies are not suppose to rot, why is his? The logic of faith and the existence of God, for Alyosha are thrown into doubt. Thus, Alyosha has a crisis of faith that the previous two did not ever have.
The fourth character, from The Brother Karamazov, that follows in the tradition of Dostoevskian thought is that of Old Karamazov. Like Marmeladov (from Crime and Punishment), Old Karamazov is an idiot who adds comic relief. Also, and much like Marmeladov, Old Karamazov is the spawner of kids. For Old Karamazov, all four of his kids speak to all four poles of the human condition; while, Marmeladov spawns a kid in Sonya Marmeladov, who is both loving and selfless. In each of these two fathers, they spawn kids that are beyond and better than themselves. But unlike Marmeladov, Old Karamazov is an idiot that espouses wisdom. This can be seen at the very start of the novel where he anticipates Ivan’s intellectual ideology; the idea that all is permitted. For Old Karamazov, this is hell without hooks.
Perhaps the most difficult of the five, is the fifth character to the plot; Dmitri. The reason why he is so difficult to pin down is that he is the half-way point between Ivan and Alyosha’s ideals. At the start of the novel, Dmitri is a sensualist, capable of great passion and destruction. Yet, by the end of the novel, Dmitri will suffer for a crime that he never committed, all in an attempt to repent for his past transgressions. Thus, one can see almost automatically, just how difficult it is to categorize the divisiveness of Dmitri’s character. However, as difficult as it is, Dostoevsky does account for this type of character, in two of his previous three major novels. The first can be found in the form of Raskolnikov (from Crime and Punishment) and the other can be seen in the divisiveness of Stavrogin’s character (from the Demons). And the simple reason why Dmitri assumes an elevated role over his previous two ideological predecessors’ is that the middle ground he finds himself between is, in itself, elevated. The ideals of Ivan and Alyosha, and the stakes that they are living by, are themselves; elevated.
Yet, the one thing one must keep in mind is that these characters situated in The Brothers Karamazov, and paralleled to those found in Crime and Punishment, The Idiot and the Demons is that they are not mere copies. Instead, they are a steady progression and evolution in Dostoevsky’s thoughts. At each new stage, which is marked by a major novel, the sophistication of characters is raised to an unparalleled and unequalled height, both in Dostoevsky’s ideas, as well as in the rest of literary thought. No longer is the buffoon just a mere buffoon, as is the case with Marmeladov. Instead, the buffoon is equipped with an intellectual insightfulness that allows Old Karamazov to anticipate ideas that other characters will take an entire novel to realize. And yet, another example of this can be found in Ivan. Like Kirillov, he is a theoretician. But unlike Kirillov, Ivan’s madness will not consume him. He will make it through, whereas, Kirillov will kill himself, all at the expense of a theory. Instead of having a theoretician that is completely detached from the world, Dostoevsky has added a conscious to his theoretician. Ivan can’t simply turn his back on his fellow man all for an idea. No greater proof of this can be found than when he knowingly leaves the city, so that Smerdyakov can kill their father. It is this incident that will rack Ivan’s conscious for the rest of the novel, and will be the catalyst that will launch him into madness.
Thus, through the parallels found in each of the characters in The Brothers Karamazov, to Dostoevsky’s previous three major novels, one can see the sophistication of ideas that Dostoevsky is working with, and towards. A sophistication that would span 15 years; from 1866 to 1880. And because of this interwoveness, one can plainly see how it reached its pinnacle in Dostoevsky’s final great work; The Brothers Karamazov.
ii.) Time
There is a vast amount of ideas and facts that support the notion that Dostoevsky spent a considerable amount of time on The Brothers Karamazov. In total, there are two points that help to support this notion. The first can be found in Dostoevsky’s very own letters and notebooks to other novels. Tangibly, this is the most direct proof to the time spent by Dostoevsky on The Brothers Karamazov.
The greatest insight into the time Dostoevsky spent on The Brothers Karamazov can be found in a letter by Dostoevsky, on March 16, 1878:
Well here’s my request of you, dear Vladimir Vasilievich: I have conceived and will soon begin a long novel in which, among other people, children will participate a lot, and specifically young children from 7 to 15 years of age approximately. Lots of children will be portrayed. I am studying them and have studied them my whole life, and I love them very much, and I have some myself. But the observations of a person such as yourself will be valuable for me (I realize this). And so, write me what you yourself know about children.
– Complete Letters; Dostoevsky, p.8In this letter, Dostoevsky will initially convey the ideas of The Brothers Karamazov, a full four months in advance of any writing for his last major novel. And with Dostoevsky asking Vasilievich, a teacher, for all types of information and mannerisms of children, one can see him pushing forth the ideas of Alyosha Karamazov, and the connection he will have with the children in the forthcoming novel. This theme will permeate all throughout, and influence the strongest, in such characters as Father Zossima and Ivan.
In fact, if one were to take the publication date of the novel as the marker for the start of Dostoevsky’s next novel, instead of it being July of 1878, one could say that Dostoevsky spent a full ten months in advance of any published signs that The Brothers Karamazov was being put down on paper.
And yet another letter, instead of dating the time he first seriously started thinking about The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky marks just how much he was struggling with the solidification of a plot. This can be seen in the following statement:
I’m working on the novel, but the thing is going slowly, I’ve only just begun.
– Complete Letters; Dostoevsky, p.6Once again, Dostoevsky is struggling with a new novel idea. And even if one simply writes this off as Dostoevsky the dramatist, one must still believe in his words, for that is all we are left with. Thus, Dostoevsky was struggling a full five months in advance of publication, when he wrote this letter on August 27, 1878.
The most insightful notebook, to another novel, that outlines the future ideas and plans for The Brothers Karamazov, can be found in A Raw Youth. Notably, A Raw Youth was entirely published in 1875. So it can be plausibly inferred that the notebooks predates that of the novel. Thus, a full five years in advance of any notes for The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was already toying with the themes and ideas that would become central to its development.
Simply: an amoral man, a man who has failed to develop a moral principle. A purely Russian, universal type.
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.66This is followed by:
But so long as I still have my two rubles, I want to live all by myself and do nothing. Why should I do good? Why should love anybody? Why shouldn’t I live to take care of my own arse, what else is there to do? Worry about the common good, make your Contribution to the happiness of future generations? To hell with them, what the devil do I care? Let them tell me something more serious to support such notions!
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.66These passages will anticipate the creation, and ideological approach of Ivan Karamazov. Ivan does not want justice in the future, he wants meaning here and now, in the present. Yet, Ivan can love mankind, but only at a distance. Also, for Ivan, he believes that God has to be guilty for all mans woes, and not mankind itself. The source for all this anger towards God is that Ivan is incapable of excusing or forgiving the suffering of children; which he believes is caused by the allowance of evil in the world by God. Thus, this ends in Ivan’s full rebellion against God, which can be seen in the two previous quotes.
The next passage that prefigures the creation of The Brothers Karamazov, in A Raw Youth’s notebooks is:
About this: ‘Is there a Devil?’ He shoots himself and summons the Devil.
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.81This is an anticipation of Ivan’s dilemma and discussion with the Devil. But instead of being comforted by the Devil, Ivan is both repulsed and tormented by it. In fact, the Devil will call Ivan a coward for his conduct. It is out of this tumultuous relation, aided by Smerdyakov, that Ivan will break down mentally. Of course, Ivan’s break down will be progressive, but the disillusionment over the Devil will be the inevitable source of Ivan finally breaking.
Yet another passage from the Raw Youth notebooks that will eventually anticipate The Brothers Karamazov is as follows:
He about Christ: ‘It is impossible to love people the way they are. And yet one must love them, for this is what we are ordered to do (by Christianity). And therefore, do good to them, in spite of your feelings, and in particular, holding your nose and, almost always, keeping your eyes closed, and suffer the evil which they do to you, without getting angry at them. Of course, it is your duty to be stern with them. If you feel that yours is the vocation of a pastor, you must be stern. People are base, they like to love and to adore from fear. So they will adore you too. Do not give way to their adulation, do not prove to be petty, but continue to despise people even when they are good for most often they are wicked, too. Without any doubt, Christ could not have loved them; he suffered them, he forgave them; but of course he also despised them. At least, I, for my part, cannot comprehend his personality otherwise. Love for mankind must be understood as love for a perfected mankind, one that exists so far only as an ideal, and God only knows if it will ever become reality.’
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.218-219Here, Ivan Karamazov is arguing against the possibility of loving all of mankind, like Christ had commanded his flock to do. The centrality of this argument can be found in the Pro and Contra part of The Brothers Karamazov. Pro and Contra is the culminating point of the entire novel; and perhaps all of Dostoevsky’s work. Simply put, the rest of the novel will just act out the centrality of this part. Yet, even if the world is as rotten as Ivan believes it to be, he still wants to live life. This is contradictory to the previous quote. For as logical as Ivan believes himself to be, this is entirely illogical. Thus, Ivan isn’t as far away from faith, as he supposes himself to be. This point is followed by Alyosha’s argument; that love should come before logic. Ivan has a hard time with this belief. But even if Ivan accepts God, he cannot accept the world that he has created. Supposedly, Ivan loves man, but questions why man thought up God. Ivan’s answer inevitably must be that he accepts God, to blame God. Counter to this is Alyosha, who loves his neighbour, no matter what; even if one has to turn ones own cheek at the face of an insult. Thus, man perpetuates evil, because they are able to curb it, through their will; which is free.
This is the very argument that Ivan and Alyosha hold between each other in the aforementioned quote. Remarkably, the ideology of this quote will become the exact ideology found in the finalized version of The Brothers Karamazov. This is remarkable because Dostoevsky is anticipating the ideology of The Brothers Karamazov a full four years in advance of any work put to paper. And yet, the basis for its entirety is already entirely there.
The last quote to outline the forthcoming Brothers Karamazov in the Raw Youth notebooks is as follows:
I don’t understand how a person who is under the influence of some overwhelming thought, to which his mind and his heart have fully surrendered, how such a person can still live for something else, for something that is beyond this thought. If you believe in God and in the Church, why wouldn’t you immediately become a monk; if you lived in the 10th century and you are convinced that the Holy Tomb should be freed, quit everything and take up the cross.
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.296This can be comparatively contrasted to the finalized words made by Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov.
As soon as he thought seriously about it, he was struck with the conviction that God and immortality exist, and at once he said simply to himself; ‘I want to live for immortality, and I will not accept any compromise.
- Notebooks for a Raw Youth; Dostoevsky, p.5Remarkably, the finalized passage is very similar to that found in the notebooks for A Raw Youth, not only in its structure, but also in its message. And once again, this is a full four years from conception to publication, for Dostoevsky. That is why one is able to argue so easily that Dostoevsky did spend a considerable amount of time and energy on the creation of The Brothers Karamazov.
Resources
Dostoevsky, Fyodor; Complete Letters, Vol. 5 <trans/ed.> Lowe, David and Meyer, Ronald (Ann Arbor, Ardis; 1991)
Dostoevsky, Fyodor; Crime and Punishment (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.; 1993)
Dostoevsky, Fyodor; The Idiot (New York, Oxford University Press; 1992)
Dostoevsky, Fyodor; Demons (New York, Vintage Books; 1995)
Dostoevsky, Fyodor; The Brothers Karamazov (New York, Bantam Books; 1992)
Frank, Joseph; Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871 (New Jersey, Princeton University Press; 1995)
Frank, Joseph; Dostoevsky: The Mantle of a Prophet, 1871-1881 (New Jersey, Princeton University Press; 2002)
Wasiolek, Edward (ed.); The Notebooks for The Idiot (Chicago, University Press; 1967)
Wasiolek, Edward (ed.); The Notebooks for A Raw Youth (Chicago, University Press; 1968)