Classics and the Western Canon discussion

So here we go on our exploration of one of the greatest – some call it the greatest – European novels. This is the thread for discussing Book 1, “The History of a Certain Family” in the Garnett translation.

I have many questions and comments to post, but will do them in individual posts to make responding easier and keep the discussion cleaner.

My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the narrator is. Is he or she giving us plain truth? Is he (for convenience, and because I doubt that a Russian novel of the 1870s would have a female narrator) prejudiced, and if so in favor of or against who? Is it feasible that he could know all he knows from personal knowledge, or is he relying on rumor and hearsay, and if so for which bits?

I’ve never gotten far enough into the book in my previous attempts at it to get to the answer of who he is. I suspect that if I went to commentaries I could find the answer – assuming there is an answer (maybe we never get to know), but I prefer to approach it through the many clues in the text itself.

He is, for starters, apparently a resident of the district Karamazov’s land holding is in, and has been for some time. Within the first few sentences he says “our district,” and talks about how “we used to call him” landowner. Who the “we” are is another question we may learn more about when we find out who he is.

He knows the Karamazov family well, and knows their history including the history of the next thirteen years. He’s well enough read to make references to Shakespeare.

We are told at the end of Chapter 2 that this is his “first introductory novel.” Hmmm. He calls it a novel, not a history? So is it simply that Dostoevsky is the narrator, rather than his creating a separate character to be the narrator, and I’m making a fuss over nothing? (Although this was not Dostoevsky’s first novel. In fact, it is his last.)

But he’s not an omniscient narrator, which seems to leave “simply Dostoevsky” out – he says at the start of Chapter 3 that “I do not know the details [of Sofya growing up in the widow Vorokhov’s home], but have only heard...” If D intended us to take him for the standard omniscient narrator, would he admit to not knowing something about the characters he is creating? A modern author playing with his readers might say that, but in 1870s Russian fiction??

Then later in this book there are several intriguing clues, though I don’t know what they mean. In Chapter 4 he says of Alyosha’s memory of his mother “he rarely cared to entrust this memory to anyone.” But obviously he entrusted it to the narrator. Does that tell us anything about the narrator?

And one more intriguing clue: midway in Chapter 5, talking of Alyosha coming to the monastery he says “Brooding on these things he may have come to us perhaps only to see...” and later “when and how it [elders] was introduced into our monastery I cannot say.” Come to us! Our monastery! Is the narrator a member of the monastery? I suppose he could say “our monastery” meaning only the monastery in our town, as I might talk of coming to our theater just meaning our local theater. But “come to us” is harder to explain if he isn’t of the monastery. And if he is, it would help explain why Alyosha is willing to entrust the memory of his mother to him.

Well, way too much on this question, probably, but it is something I really want to understand, and think may be of some value to know.

We get almost right away a quite thorough profile, much more psychological than physical, of Fydor (as David pointed out elsewhere, D used his own first name here, though why one would want to be associated with such a person I don't know), which is hardly flattering. But it’s not all negative, is it? He’s shrewd with his money and property, cunning (if one considers that a positive characteristic), and in some ways larger than life. He managed to persuade two women to marry him, in both cases very much against the will of their families, so perhaps his “voluptuous temper” was appealing to women. He’s a drunk, he’s the worst kind of parent, he almost throws his children away, he didn’t even put a headstone on his wife’s grave, but when Ivan comes back to live with him, they get along on “the best possible terms” even though they seem to have nothing at all in common. And he even seems to be waiting for Alyosha to come back from the monastery to live with him, and it seems that he would welcome him.

What do people think of the psychological profile we are offered? Does it make a complete person? Can you believe that someone would act in what at times seem such disparate ways?

I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all, we get almost no description or idea of the physical location or environment of the novel. Unless I missed it, there’s no description of Fydor’s house, his property, no mention of a drive, the woods or gardens, not even the most cursory look at even a single room in which any of this takes place. When I think of English novels of the same period, I can’t recall a single one in which there isn’t some fairly significant description of the physical environment; not necessarily as complete or rich as Hardy, but still something to ground us in where we are, something to place us within some set of surroundings, a mention of a village, or of driving up to or away from a house, or out riding, of a sofa or a drawing room or a nursery or school room, of a walk in the gardens or along a road, or a glimpse of the sea or a mountain, something, anything to give us a physical peg to orient ourselves. But I didn’t find any of that here. His first wife had a “little village and a rather fine town house,” but that’s all we hear of either. Fydor turns his house into a sink of debauchery, but that house could have been anything from a two bedroom cottage to a forty room two story estate home. Grigory has a “servant’s cottage,” but again, we know no more of it than that.

The second point is that, unless I missed it, in all the pages of talking about these four men, we have almost no physical descriptions of them. The most I can recall is that Fydor is described early on as a “puny fellow” and later in his life as bloated with bags under his eyes. We don’t know whether any of them were tall or short, dark or light haired, bearded or clean shaven, we don’t know the color of their eyes, how athletic their build, what they are wearing, we don’t really know anything about them physically. Can any regular reader of Victorian-era fiction think of any English novelist who would introduce four major characters without giving any physical description of or even comment on any of them?

But Dostoevsky seems only concerned with their inner characters. He isn’t interested, it appears, in the vessels in which those characters have developed, nor giving us more than the most rudimentary information on the environments in which those characters lived and moved.

It takes some getting used to!

Everyman wrote: "My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the narrator is. Is ..."

Great question, and Dostoevsky brings it to the fore immediately with "A Note from the Author." What author? Which author? My first thought was that the narrator is Dostoyevsky himself writing in free indirect style, but as the narrative progresses it seems the narrator could be a character unto himself (or herself) with a particular point of view and definite opinions about others in the story.

The narrator is quite fond of pointing out "strange types," to the point that the odd man is not an isolated particular --- most of them are strange types. Fyodor Pavlovich is a "strange type frequently met with" and Alyosha is "strange from the cradle." What does this say about the narrator, that he thinks the characters who people his novel are strange? Not to mention the Note from the Author, which almost sounds like he is setting the reader up for disappointment.

Everyman wrote: "I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all, we get almost n..."

I have got the same feeling, too, as if we were skipping the introduction and suddenly jumping into the middle of a novel. It sort of feels like I'm reading a play instead of a novel sometimes as I'm having to draw up my own image of the setting and the characters myself.

Maybe Russian houses and environment of the social classes are so fixed in a certain way that description is superfluous, or maybe it's Dostoevsky's style of writing. I haven't read much Dostoevsky or Russian literature to be sure of that.

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the..."

I'm also curious about the next novel he mentions. I think we'll have to come back to this question after we read the whole book, but I wonder what his intention was on revealing the strangeness of Fyodor and Alyosha from the very beginning, whereas the story is opening up like a good mystery novel for now with the characters gathering forth in a secluded area.... It seems like he's PURPOSEDLY dropping spoilers or hints!

Everyman wrote: "My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the narrator is. Is ..."

I've had an impression that he works in the local monastery, but I'll have to read more to find more clues. It seems like the identity of the narrator is as engaging a question as the story of the characters subjected to his narration. Postmodernism or cynicism, I don't know.. but something tells me Dostoevsky's real character might somewhat resemble Ivan Karamazov or Pyotr Miusov.

Like Everyman said, I am exploding with questions in the first book! I've got a creepy feeling it's going to get even more confounding instead of getting any clearer as I trudge on through the rest of the book.. like a labyrinth. How delightful!

I also have questions on the children's upbringing. While they are all abandoned by their fathers and lose their mother at an early age, they are so different. If these characters are allegorical, I wonder what kind of people they represent, as the Russian society was divided into an immobile, hierarchical caste.

I also wonder what the early memory of Aleksei's mother signifies? A religious fervor, a simple neurotic hysteria, an instant of infanticidal acting out, religious sacrifice or even bartering with the spirits?

Everyman wrote: "I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all, we get almost n..."

It took me several tries to get through Crime and Punishment until I realized that D's prose in that earlier work was somewhat clunky. By the end, I was caught up in the structure of the novel and the moral, psychological, and political ideas he was discussing. For me, it may be the same thing here. I find the writing, 20 years on, to be smoother, but just as direct. Religion, atheism, realism, history, and family dynamics...all have been introduced in these early pages. Not so political yet.

I suppose the Russian audience would be familiar immediately with monk's robes and icons. About ten years ago, there was an exhibition at the Getty museum in Los Angeles of art from that same Mt. Sinai monastery of St. Catherine, still operating, including the most beautiful icon I've ever seen of St. Peter. Such eyes. And that is what I saw when the mad mother held Alyosha in front of the icon. (There is a brief description of Alyosha at 19 in the opening of Ch. 5) We may get more description later. Book 1 feels like an introduction of the main characters.

Perhaps the Victorians were just more advanced at novel writing. Or maybe D is just the Hemingway of his time and place.

Everyman wrote: "My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the narrator is. Is ..."

A good question about the narrator. For the time being I consider him to be an omniscient narrator who is reflecting the consensus opinion of the district about the Karamazovs (both first hand knowledge and rumor). So I'm not willing to consider an unreliable narrator yet. Also, I believe he is telling a story whose events have already occurred and, therefore, is completely known. There are things the narrator knows that we as readers do not yet know, and this may affect the telling.

Everyman wrote: "We get almost right away a quite thorough profile, much more psychological than physical, of Fydor (as David pointed out elsewhere, D used his own first name here, though why one would want to be a..."

Well, Dostoevsky wasn't shrewd with his money, was he? That Fyodor was able to convince two women, one with a substantial dowry, to marry him does conflict with the larger profile of the man and does argue in favor of an unreliable narrator, one of those little clues unreliable narrators are wont to drop here and there.

Fyodor is a caricature of a despicable person who has no redeeming values. I don't have any evidence of this yet, other than Dostoevsky's previous writings, but I believe Fyodor's very despicableness sets the stage for what transpires and what Dostoevsky wants to explore in this novel.

Perhaps we need to view the entire family. There's the father and the three sons. Dimitri is a hothead who seems to be haunted by his father's rejection of him.

Ivan appears to have risen above what Dimitri can't rise above. If Dimitri wears his emotions on his sleeve, Ivan buries them deep within. Then there is the article he published near the end of his studies that so stirred the pot. Is he an agitator?

Alyosha is the most perplexing of the three sons. He is portrayed as an innocent who has this way about him that makes others want to assist him. In some ways he's like a puppy.

Everyman wrote: "I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all, we get almost n..."

Not characteristic of Crime and Punishment or The Idiot, if I remember correctly. Perhaps Dostoevsky want this to be anywhere and anyone the reader is reminded of.

Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "My most immediate question is, who is the narrator?

Well, for starters, why does it matter? Curiosity for one thing. But also, because it seems important to know how reliable the..."

That's weird. I don't have a "Note from the Author" (Constance Garrett translation-Signet Classics). :-((( what does the note say??

Everyman wrote: "I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all, we get almost n..."

Susan pointed out that there is a description of Alyosha, it's rather extensive comparatively. But then, it seems that Alexey gets special treatment from the start. His name is the very first word of the novel, and there are more disclaimers before his account (i.e. "of Alexey I find it most difficult to speak at this time) than before the other accounts.

Everyman wrote: "We get almost right away a quite thorough profile, much more psychological than physical, of Fyodor (as David pointed out elsewhere, D used his own first name here, though why one would want to be a..."

Yes, good point -- a narrator of uncertain identity introducing us to a nondescript physical environment does make for a challenging start to the novel. When I think of late Dickens, by comparison, there's a very distinct sense of place, such as the River Thames opening of Our Mutual Friend.

As Thomas points out, the narrator focuses a lot on "strange types", as though the characters introduced in the first book are more emblematic of Russian social types than fully-drawn personalities that are (yet) grounded in reality. The one thing that unites all the brothers is how their characters have been determined, and damaged, by their irresponsible father. Is his moral decay emblematic of something in wider society too? The elder Zosima seems to represent the other end of the spectrum to Fyodor in terms of a father figure.

Borum wrote: "I also have questions on the children's upbringing. While they are all abandoned by their fathers and lose their mother at an early age, they are so different. If these characters are allegorical, I wonder what kind of people they represent, as the Russian society was divided into an immobile, hierarchical caste."

This stuck out to me also. They are all so different, almost in a stereotypical kind of way. Knowing that FD deals with larger themes of evil, I wondered if he was stepping into the whole nature vs. nurture discussion with his characters? Maybe it is too soon to tell...

SusanK wrote: "... until I realized that D's prose in that earlier work was somewhat clunky ..."

Dostoevsky's dialog reminds me of a washing machine's agitator. It's so frenetic. It takes some getting used to, and I'm still not used to it. His characters come off as rather tightly wound.

A couple of things that stuck out to me:

1) Out of the gate, he describes Fyodor four times as "senseless". For me, it doesn't just refer to the thoughtlessness behind his actions, it seems to invoke a sort of hopelessness about his crimes, though I can't quite put my finger on why.

2)In Chapter one he says, "How it happened that an heiress...could have married such a worthless wretch, as we all called him, I won't attempt to explain". Then he immediately launches into speculation. Lol. His speculation is interesting because he seems to be ridiculing the "Romantic generation" with a ridiculous account of a woman creating obstacles for herself then committing suicide.

3) I went poking around a little bit after Teresa's post in the background thread, curious about the few political references he makes. In Chapter two, when he is talking about Peter, he calls him a "liberal" of the 40's and 50's, who had 1,000 serfs to "reckon in the old style". I know that the Romantics were a kind of revolt against industrialism and praised all the old ways, so was curious if liberalism in Russia was somehow linked to the larger Romantic movement? If so, it seems that the narrator isn't really thrilled with either one?

I am already hooked with the description of Alyosha. From chapter four:

"He was simply a lover of humanity, and that he adopted the monastic life was because at that time it struck him as the ideal escape for his soul struggling from the darkness of worldly wickedness to the light of love"

and later,

"Not long after visiting his mother's grave Alyosha suddenly announced that he wanted to enter the monastery..."

Though it seems obvious that his struggle is linked to his mom somehow, I guess the novel will reveal more about the exact nature of his struggle as we go on. FD has me all on the edge of my seat...

Everyman wrote: "We are told at the end of Chapter 2 that this is his “first introductory novel.” "

This may be an issue of translation. My version uses the word "story" instead of "novel" which leads me to think the narrator is simply declaring everything to this point is a part of his exposition.

And, indeed, this circumstance led to the catastrophe, the account of which forms the subject of my first introductory story, or rather the external side of it.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov (p. 4). BookMasters. Kindle Edition.

Edited to add: Constance Garnet Translation

This passage cracked me up!

"He completely abandoned the child of his marriage with Adelaïda Ivanovna, not from malice, nor because of his matrimonial grievances, but simply because he forgot him...But if his father had remembered him (he could not, indeed, have been altogether unaware of his existence)"

...all the while...

"While he was wearying every one with his tears and complaints, and turning his house into a sink of debauchery,"

...and to top it off, everyone forgets the child, except the servant!

D is a master of exaggerated juxtaposition. The absurdities he creates are not only funny, but also very poignant.

I read this book some years ago, I cannot remember well about it. But I have a question, I always have saw the title as "karamazov" but in a brazilian edition printed in the 70's there's an information that stated that the better transcription would be "karamazovi" (in russian tle pural is like that), so in the english translations the tile is always "karamazov" or there's some that use this transcription?

From wikipedia:

The Brothers Karamazov (Russian: Бра́тья Карама́зовы, Brat'ya Karamazovy, pronounced [ˈbratʲjə kərɐˈmazəvɨ]), also translated as The Karamazov Brothers...

Rafael wrote: "I read this book some years ago, I cannot remember well about it. But I have a question, I always have saw the title as "karamazov" but in a brazilian edition printed in the 70's there's an informa..."


The brothers are united under one name. In English we say things like "The Koch Brothers" instead of "The Koches". I don't know why, maybe because the name or title over the individuals that are so named by it. In this novel, the brothers have one thing in common and that is their name.

re Eman's questions about the narrator: interesting and thanks for raising the questions. I must say the questions about the narrator didn't occur to me although I did have a little aha! moment when the narrator spoke as if he was an insider of the monastery.

I am finding D's method of setting up his narrative quite easy to follow and rather matter-of-fact in places. There is an ominous mood that comes through in places and I feel it, but otherwise I am happy to take the narrator's word for what is happening or about to happen. I confess I do at times wonder at his implacable and unforgiving character description of the father. How is it he seems to have not a single redeemable characteristic? Makes the father seem a bit two dimensional at this point - maybe he is not a very important character in terms of his own motivations.

Dave wrote: "The one thing that unites all the brothers is how their characters have been determined, and damaged, by their irresponsible father."

I was looking for a better word than senseless to describe the father and I think "irresponsible" is it. To address the strange hopelessness about the father that Genni mentions I would add he is Irresponsible with little to no hint of his ever becoming responsible.

I am wondering how much the children were damaged by their father, or if perhaps their short experience with him as children had the reverse effect and made them better as adults despite him. They all seemed to have flourished under their respective foster parents and turned out rather well, or at least successful and/or well liked, in their own ways; much better than one would expect if they had stayed with the father. I suppose there is still a lot of story to get through though.

Genni wrote: "That's weird. I don't have a "Note from the Author" (Constance Garrett translation-Signet Classics)."

Unfortunately, it's not in the Gutenberg.org copy. But if you go to the Pevear translation on Amazon and go to the Look Inside feature, you can, or at least I could, read it there. It doesn't contain any meaningful spoilers.

By the way, the Pevear translation calls Book 1 "A Nice Little Family." Can any of our Russian readers comment on this translation as opposed to the Garnett "The HIstory of a Certain Family"? I would assume that the "nice" is meant sarcastically; if so, is the sarcasm in the original?

David wrote: "I was looking for a better word than senseless to describe the father and I think "irresponsible" is it."

Or perhaps self-centered to an extreme degree? He seems only to be concerned with his desires, and casts off or insults everybody who isn't useful to him at the moment.

One wonders a bit why Grigory keeps staying with him. Perhaps he's a serf who is prohibited by law from leaving him? Grigory seems to be a responsible person with a caring nature; if he were free to leave, why wouldn't he? Or is it the case of someone who knows he is needed and is willing to sacrifice himself (or more often, I think, herself) to be of service to someone who seldom expresses (and often seldom feels) appreciation?

At any rate, it's an interesting relationship, isn't it?

Everyman wrote: "By the way, the Pevear translation calls Book 1 "A Nice Little Family." Can any of our Russian readers comment on this translation as opposed to the Garnett "The HIstory of a Certain Family"? I wou..."

Very interesting. My Ignat Avsey translation (Oxford World Classics) omits nice or certain altogether and has a very simple, neutral tone compared with the other translation.

Book 1 is "The Story of a Family"

So far, I'm enjoying Avsey's translation but maybe I should read another version along with this to compare some subtlety I missed out on.

Borum wrote: "It seems like he's PURPOSELY dropping spoilers or hints! ."

Boy, is he ever! He does it to a degree that I can't remember seeing in any other novel.

"which I shall describe in its proper place."

"I won't enlarge upon that now, as I shall have much to tell later of Fyodor Pavlovitch's firstborn,"

"But before I pass to that story I must say a little of Fyodor Pavlovitch's other two sons"

and so on. He seems to make it clear that all this is just the groundwork for the real story he has to tell.

Everyman wrote: "David wrote: "I was looking for a better word than senseless to describe the father and I think "irresponsible" is it."

Or perhaps self-centered to an extreme degree? He seems only to be concerned..."

I don't know Russian but I compared the Korean translations that are known to be pretty literal and 3 translators have translated the title as 'A certain family's history/story' and 1 translator as 'The story of a family'.
So far I haven't found any translator who translated it as a 'nice' family.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "SusanK wrote: "... until I realized that D's prose in that earlier work was somewhat clunky ..."

Dostoevsky's dialog reminds me of a washing machine's agitator. It's so frenetic. It takes some get..."

A very adequate and realistic analogy! :-) Felt like you're on a bumpy ride that stirs you up from your seats.

SusanK wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I mentioned in another thread that I find some significant differences between Russian and English novels. Two such differences leap out at me in these opening pages.

First of all..."

You're right. We should probably have some idea of how the religious belief and customs were part of their daily lives to fully appreciate this novel. I've had to look up some background info on Easter orthodox christianity and startsy as well..

Everyman wrote: "By the way, the Pevear translation calls Book 1 "A Nice Little Family." Can any of our Russian readers comment on this translation as opposed to the Garnett "The HIstory of a Certain Family"? I wou..."

http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.2/inde...

God. I forgot we had a Russian translator working here.
Of course I'm not going to ask her everything but the origintal title of book 1 is
История одной семейки
which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'
There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title.
История : history
одной : preposition like 'of'
семейки: family (eg. Семейка Аддамс - The Addams Family)

So, perhaps it's P&V's editorial comment?

Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the text is "semeyka". The suffix "eyk" renders it sarcastic. "Nice and Little" is longer but to the point. Actually, it's a nice translation.
I am Russian.
Borum, who translated that for you?

Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the..."

Ah.. so it's not simply Family. I asked the Russian translator who works as a translator for patients at the hospital. I guess I should have explained the context. :-) She probably wasn't concerned with the subtle suffixes. Thank you for clearing that up!

Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the..."

Now that I think of it, the Addams Family DOES go better with 'semeyka'. :-D

It is also worth remembering that in the 1860s it would have been more common for children who had lost a parent (or both parents) to be raised outside the family.

Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the..."

Thank you for letting us know of the subtle nuances in Russian. Korean is also a language with subtleties but I don't think they have a suffix denoting 'little' or 'nice' for a family (at least to my poor knowledge of Korean). No wonder the translators had such a hard time. I've found the P&V translation and have decided to read them in both versions.

Theresa wrote: "It is also worth remembering that in the 1860s it would have been more common for children who had lost a parent (or both parents) to be raised outside the family."

Although it doesn't excuse him from completely forgetting about his kids, I think it might have been more abusive to have let Fyodor raise the kids in his house of depravity. So, perhaps his irresponsibility worked out for the best in his own pathetic sort of way.

Borum wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The ..."

You are welcome.
I have read a few works by FD and noticed he LOVES to play with suffixes and sometimes makes up new words throwing in an affix or two inside a regular word. (I bet translators are grateful to him for that.)

But it's not the case for 'semeyka' though, 'semeyka' is an old regular Russian word. Just don't use it when meet a Russian family. Use 'sem'ya' instead. Actually, 'semeyka' would sound even worse than 'nice little family' unless the family are your close friends. Affixes are a tricky thing. The meaning they render depends a great deal on the context.
The original title we were talking about sounds very sarcastic. And that would not be the case if you translated it just as A History of One Family.

So, Borum, Korean is not you native language then?

Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is ..." I am Korean by birth but I had to move around a lot when I was young because my dad worked at the embassy. My Korean is sufficient for daily living and working at a non-literature, non-linguistic department but when I read Korean literature, I sometimes find out how much I missed out on the formal Korean education. :-( I was reading Han Kang's Human Acts in Korean and had to ask my husband a few times about the meaning and the context of some of the words)

I met the Russian translator at the cafe and just casually asked each word's meaning. I didn't ask her whether it had a sarcastic undertone or tell her it was from BK. She usually work with chief complaints in a quick, businesslike manner, so she probably wasn't that concerned with explaining me the affixes. My fault, not hers.

It's a good lesson to learn about the difference between semeyka and sem'ya though, because in medicine we usually ask the 'family history' for diseases that run in the family. Double thanks for that. :-) I wonder if the Brothers Karamazov had any family history of their own.

David wrote: "I was looking for a better word than senseless to describe the father and I think "irresponsible" is it. To address the strange hopelessness about the father that Genni mentions I would add he is Irresponsible with little to no hint of his ever becoming responsible."

I think you're right. That is exactly what makes it so senseless. He COULD be responsible, the narrator has pointed out several times that he is not dumb, but he chooses not to be responsible. Another reason to find him unsympathetic?? :-)

Everyman wrote: "Or perhaps self-centered to an extreme degree? He seems only to be concerned with his desires, and casts off or insults everybody who isn't useful to him at the moment. ."

This seems like another good adjective. Even after he develops relationships with his sons, it seems to be on the basis of what they provide him. Sense of stability, comfort (i.e. Alyosha is the only who has never judged him), etc.

One wonders a bit why Grigory keeps staying with him. Perhaps he's a serf who is prohibited by law from leaving him? Grigory seems to be a responsible person with a caring nature; if he were free to leave, why wouldn't he?

This is what I assumed: that he was too poor to leave. What I do know of Russian history is that the poor class has always been exceedingly so. Even if he were free to leave by law doesn't mean that he felt he had the economic means to do so or that he had multiple employment opportunities. But these aspects might have been a little different under Alexander??

OTOH, he is described as "faithful". So maybe that is just one of his inherent characteristics? Another example of the whole nature vs. nurture thing?

Genni wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Or perhaps self-centered to an extreme degree? He seems only to be concerned with his desires, and casts off or insults everybody who isn't useful to him at the moment. ."

This se..."

It is puzzling whether he was 'faithful' to a person or a principle of some kind (such as a household servant's loyalty to his duties?). He certainly seemed to have his preference of the ladies and had his limits of acceptance.

Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."

No.
Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the..."

Thanks very much for that. Very interesting. So the sarcasm is intended by Dostoevsky.

Please keep keeping us educated on these subtle but important points that tend to get lost in translation (and I fear more often in Garnett).

Borum wrote: "Although it doesn't excuse him from completely forgetting about his kids, I think it might have been more abusive to have let Fyodor raise the kids in his house of depravity. So, perhaps his irresponsibility worked out for the best in his own pathetic sort of way. ."

Heaven forfend that he actually might have striven to be a responsible parent!

But that's a nice comment of yours. And as things turned out (at least as we've seen them as they've turned out so far), I think you're probably right that being given or taken away was the better thing for the children under the circumstances.

Genni wrote: "I think you're right. That is exactly what makes it so senseless. He COULD be responsible, the narrator has pointed out several times that he is not dumb, but he chooses not to be responsible..."

Or perhaps more closely, he chooses to be responsible about things which benefit him personally (his money), but is irresponsible about anything which doesn't directly benefit him personally.

(Leaving aside that many adults find that being a responsible parent does benefit them enormously, but that's probably too subtle for Fyodor to appreciate.)

Borum wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "Borum wrote: "which is translated word for word 'History of a Family'There is no 'nice' or 'little' or 'respectable' in the actual title."
No.
Russia..."

Oh, don't worry about the Russian translator you ran that question with! I totally understand the situation. I would do the same in her place. And I happy to know now that YOU understood the situation too:). Yes, when it comes to translation the translator has to be thoroughly aware of the context. I've stepped on that rakes many times.. and keep doing that.

So I assume Korean was your mother tongue and yet English has become your first language? You write without accent:)

Bigollo wrote: "Russian for Family is "sem'ya". The word used in the text is "semeyka". The suffix "eyk" renders it sarcastic. "Nice and Little" is longer but to the point. Actually, it's a nice translation"

Oh that's interesting. My German translation didn't pick up on the sarcasm either.