The Possessed: Part II - Insane Melodrama
Quick Thoughts: The Possessed (Бесы, 1871-2)
A return to Dostoevsky's novel.
I have just finished part 2 of Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Where part 1 focused on Mr. Verkhovensky and Mrs. Stavrogin's quire relationship, part 2 focuses on their grown sons, Peter Verkhovensky and Nikolai Stavrogin. Their respective mother and father have seriously fallen apart, yet this effects not the two sons. They are not friends, but are bound to one another due to previous meetings in Petersburg. (They are now in their home town with their parents). Part 1 establishes a petty drama in the upper class of our small town that is seemingly typical and unending; it is one of the elders attempting to fit in and climb up the local social hierarchy. In part 2, forces from the younger generations that are wrapped up in progressive ideals yet contain frightening spite and nihilism begin to infect the town. There are leaflets floating about, there is trouble brewing, there are strange faces and new ideas from other provinces. Our first part simultaneously distracts us and shows how the elders have been distracted from this growing problem. In the meanwhile, whilst trouble brews and then begins to erupt in the finale of the second part, Nikolai Stavrogin faces his own troubles. He brings to town with him history as an officer in the Russian army. Whilst he was away in Petersburg, rumours suggest that he was hanging around with the wrong crowds, and is quite possibly insane. Flares of this rumoured insanity have burnt many faces in town--Stavrogin having bitten noses and engaged in other absurd, violent acts, toward himself and others. Below this insanity in Stavrogin, however, is a conflict and a secret - something to do with his having married a 'crazy' woman who now lives in town.
I cannot provide adequate detail of the plot without writing a very lengthy post. Alas, what part 2 encapsulates is a subtle and tentative formulation of a question that I, coincidentally and recently, saw raised in the film, In Cold Blood. This is a 1967 picture adapted from Truman Capote's novel of the same name--a book I have not read, and a film I have little that is nice to say about. Overlooking questions of quality, the story presented by the film felt to me to be a simple and melodramatic distillation of what The Possessed so far seems to be. (My mentioning of melodrama is not to imply that Dostoevsky's novel is not melodramatic--it very much so is at many points). In Cold Blood raises a question of insanity and nihilism - what is the difference, and does it matter, in murderous creatures? Stavrogin himself embodies this sentiment, for we can never know if he is pained by some trauma or is in full control of his senses. Through an expository chapter that originally was struck from Dostoevsky's novel, we come to know that Stavrogin witnessed and caused a terrible tragedy. Alas, we still can never decipher if he is possessed by the consequent trauma or now wiser to his own evil--which he consciously embraces. Thus, we return to the conflict between insanity and nihilism, between traumatisation and vindictiveness. If we briefly mention Peter, we have a lost soul, either stupid or evil--extremely so in either case. Little more needs to be said about this rat.
I feel incapable of speaking about this thematic contrast at greater length as there is very little that is resolute and clear in part 2. Dostoevsky's manner of revealing information is rather difficult. He keeps the reader a step or two, at least, behind the characters in each bubble of drama. It is rare that we can foresee drama unless we are told specifically that something bad will happen, and even still it is very difficult to judge what will go wrong and how. Much of this can be attributed to the rather erratic and undecided nature of all of our characters, but, it is simultaneously very clear that Dostoevsky is very careful with what he wants us to know and when. Brewing within me is then a feeling that a re-read would reveal more than the initial experience. Alas, in many chapters I have come to question Dostoevsky's ability to visualise character and drama. Not being a very avid reader of fiction, I haven't got a developed ability to see a story as I read it--even when I read a lot as a young teen I never really bothered to do this, I felt a character and that was enough. I find it next to impossible to contrive an accurate vision of our main characters, but I can get a feel for a few of them - though this shifts considerably when I remember Dostoevsky's actual description of their being. Alas, there are far too many minor characters in this novel who I can't even try to visualise and, worse, do not get a feeling from or sense of. Another issue I have been finding, especially in the latter part of part 2, is that, when conflict intensifies, Dostoevsky's melodrama becomes too absurd. It is then either his characters, who stamp their feet, scream and stare at each other in silence for minutes at a time, that are ridiculous, or it is his management of drama on the page that is. It is hard to tell either way. However, I get a very strong feeling that, if the book was transposed directly onto film, this would be one of the most ridiculous, satirical comedies ever made.
Bringing things towards a cluttered, abrupt end, I must say that I look forward to seeing this book conclude for closure and, hopefully, some clarification. Though I have heard it said, I cannot say that this is a masterpiece so far.
Previous post:
Hans In Luck - Too Stupid To Be Wise?
Next post:
End Of The Week Shorts #73
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A return to Dostoevsky's novel.
I have just finished part 2 of Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Where part 1 focused on Mr. Verkhovensky and Mrs. Stavrogin's quire relationship, part 2 focuses on their grown sons, Peter Verkhovensky and Nikolai Stavrogin. Their respective mother and father have seriously fallen apart, yet this effects not the two sons. They are not friends, but are bound to one another due to previous meetings in Petersburg. (They are now in their home town with their parents). Part 1 establishes a petty drama in the upper class of our small town that is seemingly typical and unending; it is one of the elders attempting to fit in and climb up the local social hierarchy. In part 2, forces from the younger generations that are wrapped up in progressive ideals yet contain frightening spite and nihilism begin to infect the town. There are leaflets floating about, there is trouble brewing, there are strange faces and new ideas from other provinces. Our first part simultaneously distracts us and shows how the elders have been distracted from this growing problem. In the meanwhile, whilst trouble brews and then begins to erupt in the finale of the second part, Nikolai Stavrogin faces his own troubles. He brings to town with him history as an officer in the Russian army. Whilst he was away in Petersburg, rumours suggest that he was hanging around with the wrong crowds, and is quite possibly insane. Flares of this rumoured insanity have burnt many faces in town--Stavrogin having bitten noses and engaged in other absurd, violent acts, toward himself and others. Below this insanity in Stavrogin, however, is a conflict and a secret - something to do with his having married a 'crazy' woman who now lives in town.
I cannot provide adequate detail of the plot without writing a very lengthy post. Alas, what part 2 encapsulates is a subtle and tentative formulation of a question that I, coincidentally and recently, saw raised in the film, In Cold Blood. This is a 1967 picture adapted from Truman Capote's novel of the same name--a book I have not read, and a film I have little that is nice to say about. Overlooking questions of quality, the story presented by the film felt to me to be a simple and melodramatic distillation of what The Possessed so far seems to be. (My mentioning of melodrama is not to imply that Dostoevsky's novel is not melodramatic--it very much so is at many points). In Cold Blood raises a question of insanity and nihilism - what is the difference, and does it matter, in murderous creatures? Stavrogin himself embodies this sentiment, for we can never know if he is pained by some trauma or is in full control of his senses. Through an expository chapter that originally was struck from Dostoevsky's novel, we come to know that Stavrogin witnessed and caused a terrible tragedy. Alas, we still can never decipher if he is possessed by the consequent trauma or now wiser to his own evil--which he consciously embraces. Thus, we return to the conflict between insanity and nihilism, between traumatisation and vindictiveness. If we briefly mention Peter, we have a lost soul, either stupid or evil--extremely so in either case. Little more needs to be said about this rat.
I feel incapable of speaking about this thematic contrast at greater length as there is very little that is resolute and clear in part 2. Dostoevsky's manner of revealing information is rather difficult. He keeps the reader a step or two, at least, behind the characters in each bubble of drama. It is rare that we can foresee drama unless we are told specifically that something bad will happen, and even still it is very difficult to judge what will go wrong and how. Much of this can be attributed to the rather erratic and undecided nature of all of our characters, but, it is simultaneously very clear that Dostoevsky is very careful with what he wants us to know and when. Brewing within me is then a feeling that a re-read would reveal more than the initial experience. Alas, in many chapters I have come to question Dostoevsky's ability to visualise character and drama. Not being a very avid reader of fiction, I haven't got a developed ability to see a story as I read it--even when I read a lot as a young teen I never really bothered to do this, I felt a character and that was enough. I find it next to impossible to contrive an accurate vision of our main characters, but I can get a feel for a few of them - though this shifts considerably when I remember Dostoevsky's actual description of their being. Alas, there are far too many minor characters in this novel who I can't even try to visualise and, worse, do not get a feeling from or sense of. Another issue I have been finding, especially in the latter part of part 2, is that, when conflict intensifies, Dostoevsky's melodrama becomes too absurd. It is then either his characters, who stamp their feet, scream and stare at each other in silence for minutes at a time, that are ridiculous, or it is his management of drama on the page that is. It is hard to tell either way. However, I get a very strong feeling that, if the book was transposed directly onto film, this would be one of the most ridiculous, satirical comedies ever made.
Bringing things towards a cluttered, abrupt end, I must say that I look forward to seeing this book conclude for closure and, hopefully, some clarification. Though I have heard it said, I cannot say that this is a masterpiece so far.
Previous post:
Hans In Luck - Too Stupid To Be Wise?
Next post:
End Of The Week Shorts #73
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
