Reading a book by Dostoyevsky gives us no insight into the mind of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Dostoevsky almost never makes a general statement in his books, and in general very few of the opinions expressed by the characters in his novels can be attributed to the author himself. Thus, we still do not know what Dostoyevsky thinks about family life, the father/son relationship and all its nuances, or even the merits of Ivan's worldview compared to Alyosha's when we reads The Brothers Karamazov. He never tells us what to believe, but Dostoyevsky's massive work puts us in a very uncomfortable position because it pushes us to consider the messy, mundane side of a son's relationship with his father, and of all the things left unsaid. heartaches and problems that, in this case at least, resulted in murder. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The relationship has biblical connotations and connections. For example, to what extent is a son obligated to love his father? Does a father have to somehow “earn” his title to earn the love of his children? Although the drunkenness and feminization of Fyodor Pavlovich makes it easy to see in this book, what makes the father/son relationship naturally tense in any case (i.e. what are the inherent factors to all father/son relationships)? These are all questions that we must face when we read this book, although we should not expect a definitive and clear answer to all our questions from Dostoyevsky himself. Instead, Dostoyevsky has an obligation to artistically present the narrative in the most provocative way possible, appealing to our instinctive feelings of sympathy, justice, and intrigue, and strategically raising those questions that cut the most deeply and cause maximum discomfort to the reader. The father/son relationship is perhaps the most mysterious of all family bonds. The son knows that he was born of the father and that he must share at least some of his father's traits, but often these traits are never fully known to the son (even if they are, they reveal themselves often in our ugliest forms). or the most beautiful moments). This fact is recognized in the Scriptures; Adam was created by God in his image and likeness, and Jesus Christ himself fully identified himself with God and man, whom he called his Father and his brothers. When your father is virtuous and generally good-natured, this isn't much of a problem, but if your father is Fyodor Pavlovich, who has virtually no good character and has done almost nothing to raise children better than him , you don't. You necessarily want to have many traits inherent to your father. Dostoyevsky recognizes this fact and uses it masterfully to add depth and mystery to his novel. “Karamazovism” is a term that is never even fully defined (which was frustrating for the reader), but, as it is a quality, it is a term recognized as possessed by Fyodor and all of the Karamazov brothers. From the beginning of the book, Alyosha's “Karamazovism” is established in the reader's mind through Rakitin: “I have been observing you for a long time. You yourself are a Karamazov, a full-fledged Karamazov – so race and selection mean something. You are a sensualist after your father, and after your mother, a hell of an imbecile. Alyosha does not deny this, although we are given very little evidence of his sensualism throughout the book; he is chaste, and although he often notices the beauty of Gruchenka and Katerina Ivanovna, she cannot be perceived as morethan what the ordinary man would feel at the sight of a beautiful woman. Not only is Alyosha's inherent "Karamazovism" never questioned, but it is further confirmed by Kolya and his friends in the last words of the book: "Karamazov, we love you... Hooray for Karamazov!" (776) Beginning the novel with descriptions of the family and closing the entire novel with these words from Kolya, Dostoyevsky tells the reader to see Alyosha is above all a Karamazov, which leads us to recognize in him "Karamazovism" inherent, despite the spectacle already offered by a full-fledged Karamazovism. In the reader's mind, this has the effect of confusing the novel. This clouds our judgment because it makes any action possible for Alyosha, Ivan, Smerdyakov and Mitya, essentially because all of these characters have the same Karamazov tendencies passed down from their father. This makes it impossible to eliminate suspicion from any of these characters, instead leaving a certain level of guilt and suspicion on all characters. Ivan may not have murdered Fyodor, but he is not entirely innocent, nor Mitya, Smerdyakov or Alyosha. One of them must of course be the murderer, but this sensuality shared by Karamazov gives everyone a certain degree of guilt, clouding the reader's judgment and complicating the novel. This ties in with another key idea in the book, one that Zosima first expresses, that “everyone is guilty for everyone,” an idea that is difficult to ignore throughout the novel. In this family context, Ivan believes himself guilty of having incited Smerdyakov to murder his father, and Mitya can only accept his fate because he believes himself guilty (to a certain extent) of having committed murder while wishing for death. of his father. This corresponds to what we think about families; they exist as units, not laying blame from one member to another but rather accepting responsibility as a whole. There should be no factions in the ideal family or harboring resentment, but all grievances should be expressed openly. The family is a microcosm of what we see in the history of human existence; that everyone is guilty for everyone, and that only by accepting this fact can we, as Father Zosima says, “win the whole world with love and wash away the sins of the world with [our] tears” (164). The transmission of certain traits from father to son is mysterious and impossible to quantify, but Dostoyevsky still does not shy away from the most uncomfortable questions about fathers and sons, the ones we see unfolding before our eyes. . Yet it is these issues that are blamed for the murder, not the intangible genetics discussed above. In particular, Mitia's lawyer, M. Fetyukovich, openly raises several questions in his speech, including those from book 12, chapter 13: “But, gentlemen of the jury, it is necessary to treat the words honestly, and I will allow myself to name one thing by the right word, the right appellation: a father like the murdered old Karamazov cannot and does not deserve to be called father. Love for a father that is not justified by the father is an absurdity and an impossibility. Love cannot be created out of nothing; only God creates from nothing. (744). I consider this to be the most shocking statement in the entire book. In this statement, the instinctive revulsion we feel at the idea of ​​a son murdering his father is naturalized. The very brotherhood the book is named after is called into question. After all, if Fyodor Pavlovich was not the father of her three sons, is the entire family delegitimized? In a book centered on the relationship between a father and his three sons and the communication between them, the idea that the murder of this father is notmore damnable than the murder of an ordinary peasant is frightening. Reading this statement, the reader gets the impression that the entire universe of The Brothers Karamazov has been deconstructed, that one of the central pieces of information we believed in, namely that this book is as much about family matters as it is about business family. murder – is called into question. If Fyodor Pavlovich was never the father of his sons and does not need to be treated any differently, what makes this book different from any other murder mystery? Here again, Dostoyevsky uses this question strategically – reserving it for the latter part of the book when Fyodor's authorship had not been in question for the preceding 700 pages – to captivate our attention, to show us the importance of the question . This is important precisely because, if we strip Fyodor Pavlovich of his fatherhood, it changes the entire lens through which we view all fathers; namely, that fathers no longer enjoy an inherently higher status than their children, but rather must earn their respect and love. Based on this first hypothesis, the chain reaction that will ensue will certainly be catastrophic; the children will no longer see themselves as servants of their father but as judges over them, capable of determining their fate and, if Fetykovich is to be believed, somewhat justified in punishing them if the assessment turns out to be negative. Fetyokovich himself states: "'Fathers, do not provoke your children!' Let us first fulfill Christ's commandment ourselves, and only then expect the same from our children. Otherwise, we are not fathers but enemies of our children, and they are not our children but our enemies, and we ourselves have made them our enemies! (744). The relationship between father and son will be defined by hostility and not simple ambivalence. As Ivan said: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Once the first hypothesis is verified, an entire belief system collapses. Here is a very real example of the same logic used by Ivan; that if there is no father, everything is permitted. It should also be noted that this hostility between father and son is actually a biblical concept, but only in the context of the heavenly kingdom and eternal punishment. Speaking of the coming judgment, Jesus said: “For henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:52-53). According to the Bible, only in a world with God will there be true division between father and son, not the other way around. There is another issue raised by defense counsel that we need to address. This problem is best illustrated by the life of Smerdyakov; as we know, Smerdyakov has long been considered the illegitimate son of Fyodor Pavlovich and "stinking Lizaveta", a city beggar. The very details of Smerdyakov's birth disgust the reader: Fyodor Pavlovich was seen around Lizaveta one night, Lizaveta is pregnant soon afterward, and a child is born in the garden outside Karamazov's house. In such a situation, where the father cannot be found at the birth of the child, what is defined as the moment of paternity? Where is the love for the child at the moment of conception? Defense lawyer Fetyokovich puts it most poignantly: “The young man involuntarily begins to think: 'But did he love me when he fathered me,' he asks, wondering more and more. “Did he beget me for myself? He didn't know me, not even my penis at that moment, the moment of passion, probably warmed by the wine, and probably all thatwhat he did for me was to give me a taste for drinking” (745). Here is another moment where we are “unintentionally” forced to stare at the reality of fatherhood; that it was born from passion. We are forced to face the possibility that we, "innocent" children, were born of impurity, of sensuality, simply of an unexpected causality of such sensuality, all from two people we cannot even choose. This begs the question: how can a child be born innocent if born of such passion, or even intoxication? Christ incarnate, born of the virgin, is the only man who is free from this natural inclination to debauchery in each of us. Knowing the innate guilt of all men, even newborns, it was essential to Christ's mission that he be born free of passion and sensuality, requiring instead that he be born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin. From the biblical account, then, it would seem likely that the children are not as innocent as Ivan claims. Dostoevsky has now completely baffled the reader at this point; he has presented compelling evidence of the inherent innocence of children through the words of the story of Ivan and Illyusha, but now he presents a seemingly irrefutable argument against the innocence of children. This is, once again, consistent with an overall pattern of this novel; that the dichotomy between father and son has profound implications for any belief system, and that we cannot be allowed to read through this novel without recognizing and examining these implications. Finally, to conclude his speech, Fetyukovich generalizes the entire defense, developing a simple method by which one can determine the legitimacy of a father. He says this: “How then can we decide? Here's how to do it: let the son stand before his father and ask him reasonably: "Father, tell me, why should I love you?" Father, prove to me that I should love you" - and if the father can, if he is able to answer him and provide him with proofs, then we have a real, normal family, established not only on prejudices mystical, but on reasonable principles. responsible and strictly human foundations. Otherwise, if the father cannot provide any proof, the family is then finished: he is not the father of his son, and the son is free and now has the right to consider his father as a stranger and even as a stranger. his enemy. (745). As we mentioned previously, this novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is mainly concerned with the communication of the characters; communication between brothers, between father and son, between man and woman, and between man and God. Communication, as we see in the novel, is inherently messy and broken, leading to excessive anger, conflict, and, in this case, murder. However, Dostoevsky still does not set out to give his readers life lessons. We don't understand how to interact with our fathers while reading this novel. Fetyukovich's conclusions are an oversimplification, and to regard them as the central message of the book is to reject the familial connection that underlies the entire book and which binds it (literally) to the front and to the book. Yet the book has practical value; but through a sort of screen; we can see that there is right and wrong in the family's behavior, good and bad, but this is never openly stated and is mainly seen through the messiness of family affairs. The ideals are set out from the beginning of the book and all play out coherently; Alyosha's belief system is not separate from his communication, and Ivan and Mitya are also consistent with theirs. Some of the key questions that arise in the novel – about the fact.