frumiousb

Last book of 2008!

(Now I'm only three weeks behind with 2009. Sigh.)


*****

This was a book that moved me quite a bit and was a very timely read in terms of things that I have been considering lately in my own life. As a result, I may like it better than it actually deserves. Or I may not. I thought that it was brilliant, honestly. But I see that many find it wanting next to the more thickly plotted Anna Karenina or War and Peace.

Resurrection is a layered look at the concepts of atonement, amends, and forgiveness. The story is fairly simple in its lines. Prince Nekhlyudov is a weak but well-meaning nobleman who has lost his early ideals in the excitement and practicality of his every day life. As the book opens, he is serving his jury duty when he realizes with horror that one of the women on trial for robbery and murder was a serving girl (Maslova) who he had once seduced and abandoned. It is clear from the chance meeting that after he was done with her, she fell into a life of prostitution and poverty. In response to her situation and in his great dismay, Nekhlyudov quickly compounds his one great mistake with a second. In sorrow and regret, he decides that he will dedicate his life to making amends to Maslova.

What Prince Nekhlyudov discovers is that atonement is nothing so simple as mending the personal situation. His self-examination leads him to criticize the system that left him with the ability to so simply ruin a woman's life. Class, religion, money, land, power, gender, politics, enfranchisement, punishment, rehabilitation, security, rights-- he cannot adequately treat with her without questioning every aspect of his person and society.

I talked about this book in someone else's blog before I read had read enough of it to really comment. At that point, I thought that the book was going to be about the impossibility of amends. Maslova is quite scornful of Nekhlyudov initially. She accuses him of using her for her body in his youth and for his salvation in his middle age. She asserts that what he had done cannot be undone, and she is inevitably correct.

If I had read further, I would have realized that Tolstoy's point does not end with the impossibility of amends. Atonement may well be impossible, but it is also-- this text argues-- essential. Nekhlyodov realizes that she is right, he cannot undo his damage, but he doggedly tries and follows the path where it may go-- even as it leads him away from everything that he has ever understood. At the end of the book, he has not (of course) managed to return Maslova to any kind of pristine state. But he has found a thread of meaning that allows his own resurrection. Moreover, he submits himself to her to allow her to choose her own destiny (within the available choices).

The book never flinches from the complication of its characters. Prince Nekhlyudov is not perfect. His path is not smooth. Maslova is not a saint. They both have and retain their flaws. I also find that while the book is deeply concerned with issues of ethics and morality, it doesn't preach. Even the ending which features a meditation on the Christian commandments feels more like the natural conclusion of his personal journey than anything forced.

Very highly recommended. A great note for me on which to end the reading year.

Given everything going on in Georgia and Russia right now, it kind of felt like the completion my Dostoevsky experience was a good use of my Sunday Salon time.

The Possessed (otherwise known as The Devils) the third book that I have read by Dostoevsky. The mandatory Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov were the first two. As usual, I seem to have read the translation which is controversial, largely for being dated. My book is the 1930 Modern Library edition, translated by Constance Garnett. This was the first translation, and the translation is also the reason for the variance in titles with the book. Apparently scholars find The Devils or Demons to be closer to the author's original edition.

Issues with the translation aside, it is a timely read. I actually enjoyed it the most of the three Dostoevsky novels. Although far from intended as primarily humorous, I found it often very funny. If you think of it as a kind of political comedy of manners, then you won't be very far from the truth. (I'm sure that comparison is horrifying somebody, somewhere. Apologies.)

The political sensibilities of the different characters swirl in a palette of nearly slapstick ineffectiveness except in the ability of all to foster discussion. It's as though the writer's stint in Siberia left him with a general distaste for religion of every stripe. The uncomfortable sternness of Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin dominates the novel as the only possible choice of morality. And it doesn't seem to be the most pleasant choice, if I look at the various critical text about the book that uses words like "sociopath" to describe him. I actually felt enormous sympathy with Stavrogin. With the exception of Shatov, he seemed to me the only character in the novel whose treatment by Dostoevsky wasn't ruthlessly satirical. Positioned as he is between his sympathies, his upbringing and his influences the distorted actions seem much more understandable. Sometimes perhaps a bitten ear is the only reasonable explanation. I'm not sure what that says about my mood or personality that I found Stavrogin understandable, but there you go.

The Wikipedia-fueled Internets tell me that The Possessed was originally two novels-- the story of a real political murder combined with a religious book with Stavrogin as the main character. Given the source and the lack of citations, I am not actually sure if it is true. However, I have to say that if it is true than it was a stroke of genius on the part of the author. Stavrogin's struggles with conventional morality would have risked being self-indulgent and dull without the backdrop of the inane political wrangling. On the other hand, without him, the book would have been a dated satire on contemporary Russian politics-- of interest to scholars and academics. Married, the two aspects feed each other. It seems to me to function very well as a novel.

There is undoubtedly much to say about many of the characters. It is a mistake to see only Stavrogin, or even Stavrogin and Shatov. I'm still in the process of chewing through what I feel/think about characters like Kirilov and Maria Timofeevna Lebyadkin. I may need to re-read to say anything smart about the rest.

As I said, I like this the best of the Dostoevsky that I have read. I found Crime and Punishment terribly lugubrious and too much drama. I must say that I read The Brothers Karamazov when I was far too young to really appreciate the book and it lost me fairly effectively. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to circle around and reread it sometime soon. I kept having distant echoes of that work as I read this one. I have the feeling that I might understand it better now.



( one more semi-related thing-- large image )