Found uses of the Brothers K

Last night I was falling asleep at 1:45 A.M. when I heard my roommate talking on the phone in the neighboring room. My bed is placed at the far wall from my roommate's wall, but I could still hear his voice piercing my tranquility. I groped for the nearest object at my bedside and viola!; The Brother's Karamazov! I chucked it at the far wall where it made a resounding THUD. I then commenced in verbally assaulting my roommate to shut up. After a short argument, he pounded the wall in disgust and ceased his telephone conversation.

If it wasn't for the Brother's Karamazov, I may not have been able to sleep, so I thank Mr. Dostoyevsky for publishing such a handy book.

The Hero Must Respond

Taking responsibility implies being able to respond to change and the ability to switch behavior when the opportunity arises. In the song change by Tracy Chapman, she sings about the hypothetical situations in which someone finally makes that change. In hamlet's case he makes his change only after a series of very grim sufferings take place. In the Brothers Karamazov, Ivan never makes this change, he simply becomes paralyzed by indecision and goes insane.
In Chapman's song, her central thesis is, "if you knew that you would die today and see the face of god and love would you change?" In many ways, She's asking both Hamlet and every other character based off of him (including Ivan) what they would do in the waning moments of their life? Would they change to the persons they try to portray? Would they finally fall into the archetype of the hero instead of bounce vaguely between several inferior ones? Ultimately that's the goal of both hamlet and Ivan; they want to be the hero and only one succeeds.
Hamlet actually fulfills the role of the hero because be responds, he changes his behavior in the face of God. Ivan, however, is essentially only a third of Hamlet's entire character. The closest hero in the Brothers Karamazov is Smerdyakov because he's the character that responded the most! The other brothers basically tip-toed around the situation and left it up to the "lesser known" Karamazov to act. In order for a character to fit the hero archetype, they must overcome the conflict, not assign it to their younger brother. If Hamet had assigned the killing of his father to Guildenstern then Guildenstern would be the hero.

The central plot of the Brothers Karamazov is the killing of Fyodor Karamazov. Several characters had an indirect role in the murder, but Smerdyakov had the most direct role, so technically he can only claim the title. Without his contribution, Fyodor would have lived and the central plot would have been far more disjointed. The three brothers would have been seen as more boring people because it would seem that they had done less. The same can be said if Hamlet never killed his father and the play simply stopped at Act V, scene i. Hamlet would be responsible for the deaths of a lot of other people, but not the one in which the reader truly wants dead. The plot of the play is centered around the atrocity that has taken place at the thrown and Hamlet must respond and rectify the conflict to be seen as a true hero. Would he still be a hero if the play ended where he didn't kill King Claudius? I'm not convince he would be and that is essentially Ivan's role in the Brothers Karamazov. He talks about how his father's death would make the world a better place and yet he doesn't actually murder him. Actions speak louder than words and in the case of the hero archetype, one must act and not plan on becoming the tragic hero.

A cookie without rasins

I'm not a fan of rasins. When I was a toddler, I apparently tore through boxes like there was no tomorrow, but I've changed since then. Rasins single-handedly ruin trail-mix for me. I'll eat anything BUT the rasins. I like almost every other kind of dried fruit, but it's usually more expensive. Rasins are dirt cheap. I think they're like five cents per-pound or something. In the "Stories are Cookies" presentation, the rasins, representing the old wise man, were added in the mock-mix, but not the actual cookies. It appears I am not alone in my anti-rasin sentiment. There will always be characters in stories who would rather not interact with rasins; these chacters dislike the voice of reason.

Characters don't like the old wise man because they usually have a clouded judgement and tend to march to the beat of their own drum. In many stories, the rasins are the only thing keeping the story worthwhile. Imagine if the Brothers K didn't have the character Father Zossima. There would be no counter-arguement to Ivan's "Grand Inquistor" because Alyosha certainly wouldn't have enough wisdom to muster up a response. Look at the description on the Middlebury site:

Elders occupy a pivotal role in Russian ecclesiastical society and Father Zossima becomes the ideological focal point of the novel. Based on the philosophy of asceticism, Elders such as Zossima were in charge of their community's souls. At sixty-five, Zossima is a former soldier who has now stepped into a life of helping others and has hours during which the townspeople come to him in order to get answers and predictions on the future. Zossima's greatest thematic role in the novel is that of a sage. His teachings of communal responsibility and his ideas of universally shared guild will end up being part of what Dostoyevsky considers to be the true path. Zossima's teachings become engrained in Alyosha who becomes a sort of apostle not only for his family but also for the children of the book

Without Father Zossima, the entire community within the Brothers K becomes souless. No one is there to guide Ivan and especially Alyosha. Alyosha is so dependent on Father Zossima, he ceases to exist as an influential character. The entire notion of responsibility is lost within the Karamazov family and their only role model left becomes Fydor Karamazov. The novel becomes about a tragic sense of life and offers no answers other than: life is cruel. If you thought the Brothers K was dark before, imagine how dark it would be without Father Zossima.

Maybe those cookies should've had rasins in them.

The Ability to Respond

Professor Sexson's speech concerning the word "responsibility" wasn't his first, nor was it one to overlook. If you think about the word as a found poem of sorts as "The Ability to Respond" it answers almost all of the questions the class has brought up. Think of a topic, The Ability to Respond answers it.

For example, every story ever written or told has a conflict. If it doesn't have a conflict, it's not really a story worth retelling now is it? With said conflict, there is a character or set of characters that show their Ability to Respond to move along the plot of the story. At the end of each story, the class comes in to decide whether a character has responded "correctly". Hamlet, Alyosha Karamazov, Connie, Cinderella, Creon, and every character from fiction and real life have all been faced with a conflict and responded in a certain manner. The class sporadically touches on the meaning of life and I'm guessing that Professor Sexson would say that we are on this planet simply to test our ability to respond. The right and wrong responses are up for debate, but as long as were responding (reading, gaining experiences, overcoming suffering, etc.) we are fulfilling are purpose in life. This theory is very similar to Father Zossima's idea that mankind is already living in paradise and that we simply must enjoy what life throws at us.

So the question remains: How will you respond?

Ivan woulda, coulda, shoulda...

We talked in class about how the character Hamlet was split into 3 characters in the Brothers K. Ivan was written as the intellectual side to Hamlet and if you think about it, Ivan may have killed Fydor Karamazov if he had not procrastinated. His intentions to rid the Earth of all vermin (like his father) are outlined in "Rebellion", but he over thinks it and leaves the door open to have one of his other brothers finish out his plan. Both Ivan and Hamlet detest the antagonists of each novel, but Hamlet has no brother or associate who will do his evil bidding. It is Hamlet's alienated side that kills his uncle. Ivan, whether subconscious or not, laid the ground work for Smerdyakov to kill Fydor. Ivan is labeled as the thinker; thinkers do not kill directly. But since Hamlet is a multi-dimensional character, he does it all; thinks, acts aggressively, and shows compassion, thus making him all the more timeless.

Pictures from Friday's Presentations

The bar has been set: Extraordinarily High

Thesis

For my paper, I would like to compare and contrast the Grand Inquisitor scene in the Brothers K to Act III Scene I of Hamlet (which includes the famous "to be or not to be" line). Both Ivan and Hamlet express their doubt of life's meaning. Each character teeters on the edge of suicide and have seemed to have lost all trust and faith in the world. However, I'll elaborate on how they don't fully lose it. They still have made a decision; it's just not obvious at first.