Dostoevsky's Prescription Of Tragic Karamazov

Throughout the entirety of Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, the author chooses to insert lines of poetry in order to give more insight to the situations he is portraying. Out of all of the Russian poems that were referenced, this paper will be focusing on the five that, I feel, were the most crucial to the deeper understanding of the scenes in which they were placed. These poems; Lermontov’s “Do not, do not believe in yourself,” Pushkin’s “Demon,” Pushkin’s “Chill Winds Still Blow,” Tiutchev’s “Silentium,” and Nekrasov’s “Before the Rain” will be discussed. Each of these poems offers insight to the scene, which goes beyond what was explicitly written by Dostoevsky. “Do not, do not believe in yourself” gives deeper insight to the

The author describes medicalized mortality as the natural process of aging/dying that has been altered by medicine. People die in the hospital in the name of receiving treatment. Lives are prolonged using medicine & technology. By the use of medicine/technology to prolong life, we inflict more harm and suffering to people and deny them their comfort of dying naturally in their homes. The death of Ivan illustrates suffering. He described his situation as torture, only him will understands the kind of pain he goes through. The modern medicine failed him since his health professionals were unable to diagnose him, and was denied compassionate care. Ivan also described his situation as depressing; he continues to live in anguish and fear of death.

And from bringing Russia from the dark and ignorant age into the bright intellectual age, and in this book we can know how was his strategies and methods.

“I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign…He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his

The author provides avenues of escape for Yakov when he becomes acquainted with a few friends along his journey to freedom, such as Bibikov and Zhitnyak, who help Yakov to the best of their

Rubashov’s character vacillates between embracing the individualistic traits of his nature to the pull exerted on him by the indoctrination of the ideology of the greater good, even at the expense of individual liberty and freedom. Rubashov, during his time in prison though shows a propensity to acknowledge the failure of the glorious tenets of the Revolution, for he has seen the horror of the totalitarian system in the purges carried out by the party leaders under the pretext of filtering traitors. In an acknowledgement of the folly of his and the Party’s ways, Rubashov states “…we are doing the work of prophets without their gift. We replaced vision by logical discussion…” and it is this acceptance of their shortcomings that shows the transformation of Rubashov.

In Anton Chekhov’s short story, “The Lady with the Dog”, there are two present claims: the main character’s Dmitri Dmitritch Gurov, and the author’s. Gurov believes he can have adulterous affairs and go back to his regular life with no consequences. The author, on the other hand, asserts that there are consequences to his actions. This paper will first prove Gurov’s claim.

In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Rakitin responds to a central question throughout the novel, “What is permitted?” when he proudly states to Dmitry that “An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he’s clever enough to get away with it” (788). While Rakitin has found his answer to this question, multiple characters in the novel are still stuck on that question. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky seems to separate these characters into two groups: the characters like Dmitry who wonder if all actions are permitted and the characters like Ivan who wonder if all thoughts are permitted. These groups seem completely separate until Book 10 when a boy named Koyla Krasotkin comes onto the scene who seems to be in both groups at once as he tests for himself exactly what thoughts and actions are permitted. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky uses Book 10 and Kolya to introduce the idea that the “free thinkers” and the “free doers” are one in the same in that they are wondering who will punish those who go beyond “what is permitted” and by extension sets up an argument between moral and legal punishment throughout the rest of the novel.

In this text Phillip Barbour examines the life and death of the First False Tsar Dmitri in an attempt to find his true identity. Barbour uses extensive primary sources to describe the events of Tsar Dmitri’s life, both from Russian and non-Russian sources. While Barbour is not able to conclusively identify Dmitri’s true identity he does provide a comprehensive understanding of his life. While Barbour tends to rely on outdated historiography, this text will be a good source for a general understanding of how Dmitri gained and lost power and the social, political, and cultural mechanism behind his

Hadji Murat, Tolstoy's second book with the Caucasus as its setting can be considered a work of historical fiction that is a beautiful tale of resistance, and a window into not only the Caucasian War of the mid-nineteenth century, but also the culture of the Russian Empire during this period. As a work of fiction the reader must be wary of depictions of actual persons such as Tsar Nicholas I, whom Tolstoy was not enamored with, to say the least, but many insights about the period and its people can be gleaned from the story. The novel is one of great contrasts between Chechens and Russians and also of what life was like during this time.

Herzen only not failed to inspire confidence of his fervent aristocratic demeanor just in his father. When Herzen’s father was arranging a career for him, a general suggested the army because “He is quite obviously in a false position; only the military service can open a career for him and put him right. ” The general continued and said that“...all the dangerous ideas will have will have subsided.” The general was referring to him as a possible problem in need of some direction, or rather in need of instillation of fervent love for the Russian tsar, which apparently was disturbingly missing from the eight-year-old Herzen. Upon hearing this conversation Herzen’s young mind began to turn away from Russian society. No longer interested in the army or rather in class pomp of the army, Herzen felt himself drifting from his own origins.

Imperial Russian society during the time of serfdom was characterized by constantly changing social order. The society experienced a complex social change at the threshold to emancipation. It was undergoing many changes with increasing westernization and serfdom culture that gave rise to formation of new classes (raznochintsy) during the nineteenth century. Many authors have reflected and emphasized this component of change in the structure of pre-emancipation Russian society. This paper will examine how two writers: Nikolai Gogol and Ivan Turgenev, in their novels, Dead Souls and Fathers and Sons depict the society’s constantly changing nature through the relationships between their characters and the development in their beliefs and ideas. Although both the novels explore societal change during the pre-emancipation of serfs, the emphasis of change is different in both the novels. In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev oversees shifting values prevalent in the society. He explores the shift in generational values by depicting the difference in beliefs of characters like Bazarov and Nikolai. On the other hand, in Dead Souls Gogol focuses on issues of morality in society. He depicts a struggle for morality and portrays a corrupt society through the landowners and the protagonist, Chichikov, in his book.

In this paper, I plan to explain Dostoevsky’s criticism of Western Individualism. Dostoevsky’s first criticism resides in the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it, “which is presented by the character Alyosha (Dostoevsky 3). Allowing this character to discuss this topic, along with the commentary of Ivan, demonstrates their mindset to solely focus on their own lives, opposed to caring for others. This leads to them living for the now, and not focusing on how their decisions will affect their future or others. Dostoevsky disapproves of this notion because living by this mentality encourages the guidance of logic, which is dangerous because it could tell you to kill yourself. From Dostoevsky’s Eastern Orthodox background, he believes that the only way from living from this situation is to deny it. By denying this way of living, the focus toward life will not be directed toward yourself, but toward the way you can impact the environment around you. Ivan clearly does not believe in these values, due to his intentions to commit suicide at the age of thirty. As said before, living by the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it” leads to death, and Ivan indulges in this to the fullest (Dostoevsky 3).

“Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” –The Grand Inquisitor” “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” - Father Zosima. These two quotes voice the polarized philosophies that impregnate the book, The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan, the second of the three sons, and Zosima, the old monk, are huge commentators on the question, “Is the burden of free will to much for a human to bear?”

The author showed his opinion on the structure of the society, social norms and beliefs. He expressed his disagreement with “The Extraordinary Man Theory”. He told the audience that all people have feelings and emotions and cannot rely only on logic and calculations. People cannot hurt others and go unpunished. The ending of the novel helped to strengthen his ideas and convictions. In the end, everyone in the novel received the deserved punishment assigned either by the law or by fate. Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov realized that their actions were wrong and contradicted to the all social norms. They recognized that they were not extraordinary men. Dostoevsky made this novel very educative and filled with morality. It is great for people of all times and generations. It reveals what is good and wrong; it teaches how to be a