Brothers K Quik Reax

A few years ago a friend asked me which of the Karamazov brothers, not counting the illegitimate Smerdyakov, was my favorite: Dmitri, Ivan, or Alyosha? At the time, I didn't bother to say that I wasn't so sure how useful an activity picking favorites among literary characters was, because I was embarrassed about not having read the book and felt humility was in order. I began making up for that early this morning---I should have done so early this semester, but what is the end of reading week for if not doing the work you've put off for months---and I can finally weigh in. The early exit polls definitely favor Ivan, though I've learned a hard lesson about trusting those things. Misanthropic cynic that I am, I dislike the saintly and universally beloved Alyosha pretty profoundly. I wonder how common a reaction that is.

In all seriousness, the Brothers K is very nearly the best novel I've ever read, and I really regret having waited this long to pick it up. It seems to me that in order to really "get" what's going on in Dostoevsky, it's very helpful to get well-acquainted first with biblical fables and popular interpretations of them (including both the Talmudic and the Orthodox traditions), as well as having some kind of background on Hegel and the various forms of existentialism that criticism of Hegel tends to breed. Dostoevsky can be read without all that, but it won't be as enriching an experience. The divison between morality and ethics in the Brothers K, e.g., is a classic Hegelian set-up. Alyosha is the clear moral hero of the novel, but the ethical polarities are determined by the monks Zosima and Ferapont. There is, and this is where post-Hegelian anti-rationalism comes in, an opaque relationship between the ethical and moral spheres. They are not simply orthogonal to one another; there is a conceptual connection, but it is likewise not a relationship of supervenience let alone identity. Let me de-jargon that a bit. It would be possible to replicate all the moral properties of the universe that the Karamazovs inhabit without necessarily replicating its ethical properties, and vice-versa.

This might just be an adderall-induced scheme, but reflecting on my own reflections on Dostoevsky, it seems to me that there's an academic space open for a new school of literary criticism that applies the tools of Anglo-American analytic philosophy to literature. I'd salivate at reading a credible Kripkean interpretation of Dostoevsky's metaphysics.

UPDATE: This time the exit polls worked. Definitely Ivan. A commenter actually nominates Smerdyakov, which is an interesting move. But I still have to give it to Ivan on the basis of the Grand Inquisitor alone.