Fyodor Dostoevsky has lost all meaning. His fans seem to either be Jordan Peterson types desperate to channel a iota of Dostoevsky’s understanding of humanity, or dipshit college students smirking while they stumble through the plot of Crime and Punishment. More often than not, between the complexity of Russian names compared to the simpler American forms of address, and Dostoevsky’s enthusiasm for introducing entirely new major characters two thirds into the novel, most people only read about 200 pages and then tell you how much they loved it. The Brothers Karamazov is the hefty type of book that haunts the bookcases of “smart people” with the spine perfectly intact. This is unfortunate, considering the similarities to our time. The father, like a caricature of a boomer in a Netflix special, got rich from a strategic marriage and general good fortune. Now pondering his death, he decides to waste his sons’ inheritance on a provocative woman referred to as Grushenka. Dmitri, the eldest and currently engaged, also wants to charm Grushenka, who is still bitter against men after being wooed and left by a Polish officer, much to his wife’s fiance’s humiliation.. Ivan, the second eldest, is in love with Dmitri’s fiance and, despite beginning the story as the stereotypical edgy nihilist, has one of Dosteovsky’s most compelling character arcs before gracefully losing his mind. Alexi is the youngest and a true Christian man. Readers of The Idiot could view him as a perfected Prince Myshkin. Still, his character is carefully written to avoid any pious flaws. The conflict is centered around the father being found beaten to death, Dmitri is found with blood on his hands, and one of the most compelling tales of human psychology begins.
When writing a crime novel, or any addition to a well-tread genre, authors can rely on certain tropes for characterization. Despite the simplicity of the crime, The Brothers Karmazov fundamentally is a crime novel. The simplest example of this technique would be the choice in color of hats to denote protagonists and antagonists, white and black respectively, in Western films. The style immediately establishes whom the audience should support but which villain to fear. Of course, this is blasé now, but vibrant hair colours in anime denote heroes and White men wearing aviator sunglasses and a cropped haircut are usually racist. By ascribing all the characteristics of a potential villain to a character, while making them, in the end, virtuous, the reader may regard them more favourably. Dostoevsky perfected this technique through the roguish character Dmitri Karamazov in his final novel, The Brothers Karamazov. While the book makes it certain, even arguably just, that Dmitri is responsible for the crime, it was his other disabled, bastard son who committed the act. Most of the tension and anxiety of the book stem from a desire to somehow turn the outcome into Dmitri’s favor because of the assumed nature of Dmitri’s guilt. This assumption is so crucial to appreciating the plot that the German film adaptation of the novel was called Der Mörder Dimitri Karamasoff. His presumed guilt can be used to critique Russian society at the time, by observing the characteristics that make Dmitri obviously the killer, but also the society that would declare his guilt because of their moral scruples. The narratives associated with Dmitri, and the actual killer Smerdyakov, represent not only the standards of deviance in 19th century Russia, but ultimately Dostoevsky’s rejection of modernizing society.
The subtle narratives at play in The Brothers Karamazov , depend on the historical context of Russia, and Dostoevsky’s own ideology. Karl Marx and Charles Darwin were beginning to dominate the latter part of the 19th century zeitgeist, and both ideologies directly challenged Dostoevsky’s own Orthodox faith. The Brothers Karamazov can be seen as a criticism of these new Western influences emerging in Russia at the time, similar to his previous novels, The Adolescent and The Idiot. As Dostoevsky’s faith is a significant contributing factor in his work, he saw an opportunity to juxtapose what he saw as the conclusions of Western ideology with Russian culture. So, if Darwin’s work is a repudiation of the Christian ideals of society, Dostoevsky created both an example and antithesis of that perspective to critique it. There is evidence that Dostoevsky framed the entire central conflict around a father and son competing for resources, specifically money and women, as a criticism of the ideals of Darwinism. If humanity is simply an extension of nature, like Russian critics of Dawin posit, it would only be natural for Dmitri to kill his aging father for control of his estate. By reducing humanity to a struggle among individuals, alienated from each other by the zero sum game of competition for resources, Dmitri’s murder is not only logical, it’s morally justified by natural selection. However, like Mishima’s “Isao Iinuma,'' Dmitri is a protagonist existing against the stream of time, in defiance of emerging beliefs, and the antithesis of the defining politics of the age.
This conflict between Dmitri and his Father is discussed by Alexey, the aspiring monk, and their brother Ivan, the ironic liberal. “God forbid!”, cried Alyosha.“Why should He forbid?”, Ivan went on in the same whisper, with a malignant grimace. “One reptile will devour the other. And it serves them both right, too.”.
This quote is an important characterization of the other two brothers. Alyosha appeals to religion and morality while Ivan adheres to what he considers to be logical, even scientific reasoning that defines his liberal atheism. Ivan’s role is as a purveyor of the Western ideology that comes to influence much of the plot. If Dmitri was the killer, and felt justified by his own actions, framing the conflict as a junior male hoping to subsume an elderly alpha male, he would be in line with Darwin. Yet, not only is Dmitri not the murderer, his desire for the money comes from a desperate urge to regain his own honor. Despite this, his own brother Ivan concludes Dmitri killed his father for personal gain, perhaps because he can empathize with the desire. This is a microcosm of Dostoevsky’s technique in his characterization of Dmitri. A society that is obsessed with a Darwinian worldview sees Dmitri as being guilty, even before the evidence, because of their conviction that brutal competition among people is natural. It is logical that Dmitri would take what he could, an educated juror might reason, because I would if I had the strength.
Dmitri’s primary motive for murdering his father would be the chronic debt and impatience for more money. It would be likely that his brothers, with whom he is on better terms, would share their inheritance. This could reflect how Dostoevsky saw the possibility of a violent Marxist revolution, especially with the fallout of the French revolution in mind.
While contemporary movements have more faith in peacefully overthrowing capitalism, Marx was deeply aware of the potential need for violence to form a dictatorship of the proletariat and, perhaps, Dostoevsky anticipated the grievance-based violence that would occur. Dmitri’s suspected guilt, and Smerdykov’s actual actions, because of their disenfranchised economic position, represent Dostoevsky’s view of class-based violence. Conversely, Smerdyakov is only able to kill his father when empowered by the rhetoric and what he perceives as approval of his brother Ivan, the personification of Western ideology. I encourage the reader to search, “Smerdyakov” and immediately lose themselves in the endless OP-EDs about how every politician from Stalin to Putin are Smerdyakov. How Smerdyakov politics have taken over and how the authors of these articles actually do understand the plot of The Brothers Karamazov . Yet, no one questions where the noble Dmitri has gone, or worse, thinks they would compare to him.
What I mean to say, we live in a world dominated by the politics of Ivan Karamazov, but where people still fear the convictions of a Smerdykov, who is simply taking the ideology to it’s natural conclusion. Camus’ The Rebel, written as sort of a repudiation of the French ideological elite of his time, expounds on this and even directly commends Dostoevsky over Marx as the true prophet of the 19th century.
It is clear the motivation for killing his father came from a much deeper part of Dmitri’s soul than simply fiscal need. Debt for Dmitri, especially with his desperation for honor, would represent a sort of prison. The constant anxiety about not being able to pay back the money would work as a mental constraint on Dmitri’s psyche. Part of his desperation for money relies on the fact he needs to repay Katerina Ivanovna, his fiancé and the daughter of his superior officer that he was accused of seducing. After she gave him 3,000 rubles to send to her family, he wasted the money on another woman and partying. In order to repay Katerina and redeem some of his honor, Dmitri feels compelled to get the money however possible. However the reader discovers that he only wasted half of the money.“I took it off my neck, gentlemen, off this very neck… it was here, round my neck, sewn up in a rag, and I had it round my neck a long time, it’s a month since I put it round my neck… To my shame and disgrace”! Dmitri’s bizarre, yet powerful conviction is that, by holding on to at least 1,500 rubles, he’s not entirely a thief, and can redeem himself. Having the money sewn into his collar takes on a larger significance, because, like a noose, the debt around his collar weighs on his conscience. Rather than being sewn into a sleeve or hidden in the boot, the collar produces more visceral metaphor because of the vulnerability of the neck. This situation harkens back to Dostoevsky’s previous writing, where he discusses the need for the individual to feel free. This sort of psychological desperation for freedom, born of a very real debt and poverty, further portrays Dmitri as a desperate killer. The reality of Dmitri actually being an honourbound gentleman, rather than a jealous, impulsive killer is openly decried in court as “incomprehensible”. The narrative of the jealous, impoverished gentleman taking revenge against his miserable father, in order to secure the one he loves, becomes the dominant story that people want to believe; or perhaps the only story people can believe. Virtue or honour, even just a simple self-respect is baffling to the Darwinian understanding of humanity. Instead of selfish impulsivity, or envy disguised as righteous indignation, Dmitri labours under a higher standard, unrelated to legal precedence or religious doctrine. Marxism and Darwinism are just narrative frameworks, such as “Dmitri wanted money” or “Dmitri was in love” that characters use, in lieu of evidence to support his guilt.
Unable to judge his valour by appearance,the reader relies on a personal description of Dmitri in order to draw conclusions. His characterization creates a narrative to imply he is guilty. “Even when he was excited and talking irritably his eyes somehow did not follow his mood, but betrayed a something else, sometimes quite incongruous with what was passing. ‘It’s hard to tell what he’s thinking,’ those who talked to him sometimes declared”. This description is important for a few reasons. Primarily because of the human tendency to read emotions on an unconscious level, his lack of consistency with expression and emotion make him difficult to empathise with at best, and potentially untrustworthy. By establishing this fact early, Dostoevsky establishes the lack of confidence a jury will place in him at the time of trial . Studies have established that a genuine emotional response and apprehension at the crimes committed, will sway jurors in favor of the defendant, and Dmitri is fundamentally unable to express that sincerity. Furthermore, this unwillingness to ingratiate himself with society at large, to join the masses, inspires fear that will manifest as a guilty sentence.
Dmitri’s military background should also be considered. A Russian audience, during the time of writing, may not have viewed a veteran status as a positive quality. Russian conscripted troops may be liberated from serfdom, but often found themselves facing chronic poverty and a dependence on social charity to subsist after leaving the military. Even though Dimitri was an officer, his general demeanor was still emblematic of a soldier. He’s described as: “Having only lately left the army, he still had a moustache and no beard. His dark brown hair was cropped short, and combed forward on his temples. He has the long, determined stride of a military man.” Interestingly, during his service, Dmitri also distinguishes himself further negatively by becoming embroiled in a sexual scandal with the daughter of his superior officer at the cost of a few thousand rubles. We later learn that this a complete falsehood, and the reality was that Dmitri simply gave the daughter money to save her father after he had lost a significant portion of the unit’s funds. By giving a large sum of money away freely, the reader sees a different, softer version of Dimitri who feels compelled to act nobly to save both the daughter and superior officer from social ruin. How contrary this runs of the modern social striver, who would consider the discrepancy of his superior as justification to ruin him.
The obsession and gossip around Dmitri’s actions reflect the voyeuristic nature of society and its relationship to crime and deviance . Where they may express disgust at Dmitri’s actions, his escapades still thrill the town. His brother Alexey comments “Seeing the whole town is gossiping about it …for here everyone’s gossiping of what they shouldn’t…”. The gossip, fueled by Dmitri’s dramatic actions, proves instrumental in crafting a narrative around him, portraying him as the murderer. This gossip becomes super charged by the newspapers, utilizing the established narratives of crime to add color and narrative background, similar to the use of stereotypes in other forms of media. The scope as well was much larger with the help of the paper, as his brother is described: “Alyosha was well aware that the story of the terrible case had spread all over Russia”. The role of the newspaper here, in a sense, reverberates Dostoevsky’s portrayal of Dmitri, by casting him in an even more negative light. While the inaccuracies of the newspapers demonstrate Dostoevsky’s critique of journalists, the role in the book represents a much larger idea. It also reflects a deeper point about the media’s exploitation of crime for entertainment to the public. The newspaper gleefully crafts a narrative around this act, whether they’re condemning the youth, capitalising on drama or shaking their head about the ‘capitalism’ of our era, the story is only a vehicle for the journalists’ intention.
The consequences of that divide are most pronounced when he must convince a largely skeptical audience of his innocence. Dmitri’s passionate outbursts, rambunctious partying, and association with the perceived lower element of society are equally important to the opinions of his character as motive and opportunity to commit the murder. When Dmitri is arrested the captain exclaims “Look at him: Drunk, at this time of night, in the company of disreputable women, with the blood of his father on his hands… it’s delirium” .The blood on his hands being the last quality mentioned by the captain highlights the conviction of the captain, and the larger audience, that Dmitri was guilty long established before the actual blood was on his hands. The morality of the masses, violated by Dmitri’s individual convictions, establish his guilt far more than the murder.
It is important to consider that during this time, in the middle of the 19th century, authors tended to portray the disabled with little or no agency. The condition often rendered them as characters only able to accept help from others, rather than contributors to the actual plot. This alienation of the disabled stretched further than just simply literature; in Chicago the disabled were barred from appearing in public since 1881. All of these factors contribute to a society where, if the disabled are to have any place in society, it is to be the object of charity. Even Dostoevsky minimizes this critical character in narration:“I ought to say something of this Smerdyakov, but I am ashamed of keeping my readers’ attention so long occupied with these common menials, and I will go back to my story, hoping to say more of Smerdyakov in the course of it”. The reveal depends on Smerdyakov being, at least, known to the reader, but not suspected. While Dostoevsky may not have the same courage to portray the bitterness that can develop in those who feel weak, like Kunt Hamsums Women at the Pump, the miserable nature and physical weakness make Smerdyakov attractive to “academics” wishing to mock left-leaning politicians. I’d argue Smerdyakov as a character better defines the mentality of many young revolutionaries better than Kacsynzki’s writing on the subject. However, it fails to take into consideration the relationship of Ivan and Smerdyakov. Where Ivan represents the ideological aspect of Russian Liberalism, Smerdyakov is the ideology put into practice. If he is capable of action, or really violence of any kind, it is because he feels like it is permissible.
The reality of Smerdyakov being responsible for not only the death of his father, but the imprisonment of his brother, serves as a criticism against not only himself, but his ideology as well. Instead of the romantic notions of a gentleman corrupted by unrestrained passion and desire, Smerdyakov’s motivation is more simple. When he confesses to the murder to Ivan, he explicitly states his motive, “...And when you got your inheritance you would have rewarded me when you were able, all the rest of your life”. Financially, Smerdyakov has this one opportunity to ascend from his lowly station in life. However, it should be noted, rather than use of strength, justified by passion to commit the murder, as it is assumed Dmitri did, Smerdyakov relies largely on cunning and feels justified because of Ivan. In his heart he does not have the ability to conceive of his own freedom, and instead can only benefit if Ivan chooses to reward him. This reflects the Nietzchean concept of slave morality. He can only conceive of selecting a new master, with potentially more favourable conditions, and therefore blames Ivan for the murder. In his mind, Ivan’s lack of prevention of the murder constitutes a kind of consent that it should happen. Ivan’s Darwinian view of the world, of zero sum competition and lack of overarching moral framework becomes Smerdyakhov’s, who, lacking the will of Dmitri, subscribes to what offers him more power. Nietzsche describes this as “The transition is effected by those large populations of slaves and bondsmen, who, whether through compulsion or through submission and "mimicry," have accommodated themselves to the religion of their masters...” Smerdyakov hopes to assuage his new master by killing his father, thus proving his dedication to Ivan’s ideology. Smerdyakov lacks the ability to separate himself completely from the role of a servant because though he was the one who committed the act, he feels Ivan is responsible. This is the ultimate break in self actualization, to imagine even your own actions are predestined by someone else.
Herein lies the most important contrast between Dmitri and Smerdyakov. While Dmitri has an independent ideology predicated on his own morality, Smerdyakov can justify murder based solely on another person’s beliefs. While Dmitri has all of the trappings of a passionate, romantic killer, it is the mundane, logical reasoning that ultimately leads to the death of Fyodor Karamazov. While this creates dramatic tension and surprise ending, it also explores the idea of the mild mannered being susceptible to radicalization and nihilism by the liberal elite of the day, represented by Ivan. This view is complicated by the potential of a sequel.
Dostoevsky had planned, before his death, for a sequel to The Brothers Karamazov where Alexey attempts to murder the Tsar. Alexey is painted as almost Christ-like in his sensibilities, and to imagine he is capable of murder, albeit for completely different reasons than Smerdyakov, is to wonder whether Dostoevsky means to imply all men are capable of murder. Regardless, without the completed text to bolster the critique, there is little value to be gained speculating.
In the end, without a confession from Smerdyakov to Ivan, detailing how and why he committed the murder, the reader would probably assume Dmitri was guilty. Afterall, Dmitri is a jealous lover, a dark and lonely veteran, prone to violent, passionate outbursts, who finds himself indebted to his father, the man who has seemingly dedicated himself to ruining his life. Fyodor Karamazov is vile in every way imaginable and would probably improve society by leaving it.
Yet it is the characteristics that distinguish him as guilty that are the hallmarks of his own honor. If he had a less rigid moral code then he might not be compelled to return the money to Katarina. If he was concerned with his outward appearance, and more careful with how others perceived him, he might have indulged more discreetly. Smerdyakov, by contrast, subscribes to a morality that gives him the illusion of freedom to pursue his own actions, yet still feels compelled to serve at the behest of another. The true tragedy of The Brothers Karamazov is not the death or failure of justice, but rather the failure of ideology. Rather than empowering the characters, the Western ideology in Marx and Darwin creates dogmatic followers, incapable of understanding the reverberations of their own actions.
The author wishes to remain anonymous, publishing under the pseudonym “Book”.
Very compelling, insightful reading of TBK. Please write something on Demons too--if you feel so moved. Ideology has completely consumed the West. After the collapse of Marxism in power, the virus jumped from the corpse of Leninism to the State Department et al. And not only there, on the upper slopes of government, but all over.
One of the things I like about the story of the Gadarene swine is how the townspeople come out to find Christ and tell him (I'm embellishing): "Go exorcise your own demons, sir! These are our demons! We like our demons--stay away from them!"
I was a bit saddened now as I read the author's writing, I wondered how many people in Western societies read such authors as Dostoevsky, Gogol, or Tolstoy, or other Eastern European authors ? I have a fear that is fed by the knowledge that, knowing the part of my own family that consists of US and Canadian citizens, what kind of education they received (or rather did not receive), this obviously gives a cross-section of a given society, compared to what I, for example, experienced in a former Central-Eastern Europe As I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, I received compulsory school reading. If I look back like this, I should be grateful to my former teachers who, regardless of the given political system, gave us so much knowledge and understanding following strict principles, starting from the ancient Greek philosophers, Italian arts and Russian literature, and Western writers. Now we are witnessing the destruction of these knowledges, nobody in the West is interested in the eloquent Demosthenes, the brilliant Da Vinci or Michelangelo, nor Camus, because the Dead White Dudes no longer wanted to be in the silly, glittering Hollywood entertainment industry that the power that wants to rule the planet would like to force on us ! I never thought that today's Russia would be the successor of the Soviet Union, which I hated so much and destroyed my family Our only hope would be the savior of the world of culture!