The Brothers Karamazov

Dialogue in Dostoevsky means not just the coexistence of independent and distinctive voices. It means being able to absorb aspects of the voice of another and exerting influence over the other’s voice. The examples given show how Fyodor Karamazov’s voice is partly absorbed (and modified) in his sons. But we also observe Zosima’s influence on Alyosha, Ivan’s on Smerdyakov, Alyosha’s on Kolya. And we may note that the whole novel can be read as an extension of Ivan’s voice (point-of-view), or Alyosha’s or Mitya’s. In extreme cases (but not unusual ones in Dostoevsky) characters have ‘doubles’. This term is sometimes used to denote conflicting ‘personalities’ in the same character. Sometimes it is used to refer to a projection of some aspect of a character’s personality with which the character enters into dialogue. The classic case occurs in Dostoevsky’s early novel The Double where the hero meets his Doppelganger. The most striking case in this story is, of course, Ivan’s conversation with his devil representing aspects of his personality he wants to disown but cannot. The third use of the term ‘double’ indicates secondary characters who seem to embody one significant aspect of a main character’s personality. Such is Smerdyakov’s relationship to Ivan.

Dostoevsky often brings divergent and conflicting personalities together in scenes of excruciating embarrassment, variously known as his ‘conclaves’ or ‘scandal scenes’. Possibly the most memorable of these in The Brothers Karamazov occurs in the monastery in Part I, Book Two. Typically Dostoevsky sets the scene in a place and on an occasion where a high degree of social decorum is expected. Any breach of it will inevitably cause offence and embarrassment. He places there at least one character who sets great store by the preservation of this decorum but who is on edge in fear of a disaster. He also introduces a number of other characters who in a variety of ways are likely to cause some sort of scandal — perhaps because this kind of decorum goes against their normal inclinations. But they are also predisposed to do things to upset each other; their personalities and interests are bound to clash and since they are all play-acting to some degree, they may try to ‘unmask’ each other and show up the other’s lie. Interestingly, it is not the monks who are embarrassed. Equally interestingly, Zosima accurately diagnoses the source of Fyodor Karamazov’s provocative behaviour, advising him not to lie, above all to himself. The victims of the scandal are Miusov and the Karamazovs.

Another memorable scandal scene, though played out on a less public stage, is described in the chapter ‘The Two Together’, in which Grushenka has lured Katerina into pouring out her heart, only to turn on the girl and humiliate her, finally revealing in a parting taunt that she knows her awful secret. Katerina is devastated in Alyosha’s presence, just as Grushenka had planned. At a time when Katerina is emotionally vulnerable she proffers love and then cruelly withdraws it. She calls attention to areas of Katerina’s personality of which Katerina is but dimly aware and which she is unwilling to recognize. She stimulates her emotionally in a situation where it is disastrous for her to respond. She exposes her almost simultaneously to stimulation and frustration and switches from one emotional wavelength to another while on the same topic. Finally, she blames Katerina for provoking the scene which she has herself engineered. These are akin to the strategies which the psychologist R. D. Laing has identified as causing the most intense emotional confusion. They can be found at work frequently between Dostoevsky’s characters.

But the ‘multivoicedness’ of Dostoevsky’s novel is not restricted to dialogue between and within the characters and the narrator. It has other important functions. One of them involves the constant echoes of other texts. Of course if one actually knows these texts intimately the echoes are richer and more thought-provoking. Otherwise they appear as little more than unfamiliar quotations. Footnotes can do little to repair this deficiency. Still, if one is aware of the precursor voices summoned up through the shared memory of author and reader one still senses that multidimensionality which is one of the glories of The Brothers Karamazov. Such awareness may stimulate all sorts of reflections which the author was unaware of, especially if the ‘allusions’ one detects are to texts which post-date the novel. Some would call such connections misreading. Others would point to them as evidence of Dostoevsky’s extraordinary powers of anticipation.