263. The Confusions of Young Torless by Robert Musil

If one seeks to satisfy his desire diligently and ambitiously, and if he goes a step farther anytime it is attained, one could lose himself. This seems to be the message of Robert Musil's The Confusions of Young Torless (Penguin Classics, 2001 (FP: 1906) translation by Shaun Whiteside; 160). Musil's story is about sexual repression, oppression and its covert expression. It is the sexual expression of power and the depression that results when it is repressed. Though published in the early twentieth century, Musil discusses several of today's sexual roles and identities: gender trap, homosexuality, and sadism. The latter is talked about with regards to the power it affords the oppressor.

Torless is in a boarding house for boys. He is developing sexually and is bothered by thoughts of sex and his sexuality. As these ideas and thoughts inundate him, he is forced to seek refuge from every possible source but her parents, whose faces he could no longer conjure no matter how hard he tried. His first source, in his quest for an answer, is mathematics, which leads him to philosophy. Torless is afraid to think about his own feelings for what he will discover. For he finds himself attracted to Beineberg, his schoolmate, and indifferent to the whore they have both sneaked out to patronise. This feeling repels and scares him in equal measure. It confuses him. He is unable to explain it and does not know the implication. But he shies away from interrogating it and is therefore unable to understand what it is. 

You'll only ever be half-way there! Finding something a bit strange, shaking your head a bit, being a shit shocked - that's your way; you don't dare go beyond it. [92]

Torless seems to suggest that for one to live a normal life, one must regulate the depth to which one wants to explore one's desires or the extent to which one wants to obey them. Yet, the more he refuses to interrogate that feelings, that emotion drawing him closer to his friend, the deeper the torments. The torment increases with the clear lack of means to discuss his feelings and, in the process, learn about himself. First, he is trapped by a society that expects him to be a man and behave in a certain way; second, he is trapped by a body he feels unconnected with; and third, expressing his feelings within the broader laws of the society will mean living on the peripherals of society.

In his skin, all over his body, a feeling awoke that suddenly turned into a remembered image. When he had been very small - yes, yes that was it - when he had still worn little dresses and before he went to school, there were times when he felt a quite inexpressible longing to be a girl. And that longing wasn't in his head - oh no - and it wasn't in his heart - it tingled throughout his whole body and ran all over his skin. Yes, there were times when he felt so vividly like a girl that he thought he must really be one. [96]

This furtive feeling, which Torless has been afraid of interrogating, of confronting, bursts out from him when, in his presence, his two friends - Reiting and Beineberg - sexually molest Basini, as payment for keeping a secret they have come to posses. This is where Musil merges abuse and absolute power. The three friends have identified Basini as the person behind the numerous theft cases the students have been experiencing. He is living beyond his means and needs the money to pay off debts and free himself from harassment.

Armed with this secret, the the three friends became powerful and exercised complete control over Basini, who, afraid of being sacked, allowed them to do to him as they wished. The sadistic abuse, expressed through their secret knowledge of his affairs, became a constant event in Basini's evenings. Whereas Reiting sexually abused him, Beineberg used him for every metaphysical experiment his warped mind could conjure. It was at Torless's first appearance at this esoteric performances, especially of Reiting's sexual abuse, that his sexual craving for a male body began to manifest itself. Torless felt his manhood respond to the sounds emanating from the abuse, and it dawned on him that he had been gay all along. All he had done had been to repress that feeling; not look beyond what is allowable. Trapped in this confusion - his inability to fully express his gayness, for fear of society, and his inability to fully control it - Torless became depressed. 

Reiting's sexual abuse and Beineberg's warped experiments show the depth of human wickedness, especially by those who possess absolute power. Our quest to express what we might not be - for it was the quest to be manly that set each of the four (including Basini) on this destructive path - could have disastrous effects on us. Here the similarity between Torless's clique and the Nazis who came to power, almost a decade after the book's publication, is striking.

Musil also explored that which makes people succumb to such treatments, as Basini did. Torless having now softened towards Basini, from his newly discovered yet unfulfiled affection, was worried about Basini's inability to prevent his daily tortures. He was disturbed by Basini's ability to normalised something as grievous as what he was going through.

'But the first time with Reiting? When he demanded things of you for the first time? Do you understand...?'
'Oh, it was certainly unpleasant, because everything was an order. And then...just imagine how many people do that kind of thing for fun, and no one knows anything about it. It's not so bad in comparison.'
'But you carried out the order. You humiliated yourself. As if you would be willing to crawl in the mud because someone else wanted you to.'
'I admit it. But I had to.'
'No, you didn't have to.'
'They'd have beaten me, they'd have reported me; all kinds of scandals would have landed on my head.' [116]

However, Torless realised that had he found himself in the same situation, he would not have reasoned any differently from Basini. And this realisation and conclusion of the matter worried him the more. 

No, what matters isn't how I would act, but the fact that if I really did act like Basini, I'd feel it was every bit as normal as he does. That's the important thing: my sense of myself would be just as straightforward, just as unambiguous as his... [118]

Later, Basini independently responded to Torless's repressed affection towards him. However, this response came from a person whose mind had been rewired and who wanted to move into the realms of depravity. Basini had seen through the cloak of manliness that shrouded Beineberg and Reiting. He saw that they were not as evil as they pretended to be and all that they did to him, though abusive and grave, were mere expressions of their weaknesses. His response to Torless was therefore an attempt to elicit more grievous treatments from him - he wanted someone who would despised him more.

But Basini pleaded. 'Oh, don't be like that again! There isn't anyone like you. They [Reiting and Beineberg] don't despise me like you do; they only pretend to, so they can be different again afterwards. And you? You of all people...? ... You're even younger than I am, although you're stronger. We're both younger than the others... I love you...!' .... 'Oh... do... please... oh, it would be a pleasure to serve you.' [121]

Not only did Basini normalised his position as an abused person, he accepted it and was prepared to do more. He was prepared to add whatever Torless was ready to do to what the others were already doing. Basini was, thus, changed. However, as stated, Basini himself set on this path towards his own destruction because he wanted to prove a manliness he did not have. He perhaps also suppressing his homosexual tendencies.

'Listen, I know you've spent a lot of money at Bozna's. You opened up to her, you bragged to her, you boasted of your manliness. So you want to be a man? Not just with your mouth and your... but with the whole of your soul? Look all of a sudden someone asks you to perform a humiliating service like that, and the same moment you feel you're too cowardly to say no: didn't your whole being feel torn asunder? Wasn't there some vague terror, as though something unspeakable had happened inside you?' [116-7]

The ending to the story is fascinating and indicates how perceptions, values, and learning affects the decoding and interpretation of information and, therefore, the understanding of issues. In the end, the abused Basini was dismissed, the oppressors won, and Torless became the genius. But for him, he had looked deeper enough. He was not prepared to look farther than he had done. That is, Torless could not resolve the two sides of his feelings - the reasonableness of society and his own contra-feelings; he chose not to compare, in order to remain sane but rather learnt to live with both.

'Now that is past. I know that I was indeed mistaken. I'm not afraid of anything any more. I know: things are things and will remain so for ever; and no doubt I will see them and now one way, now another. Now with the eyes of reason, now with those other eyes... And I will no longer try to compare the two...' [157]

Musil wrote the story from the point of view of Torless; he completely captured the thought processes that converged into and determined his actions. He captures, absolutely, the helplessness that results from a young boy's inability to understand himself and see himself different from the masses. The book is filled with philosophical discourse on sex and sexuality and also on power.

261. The Parliament of Poets by Frederick Glaysher

The Parliament of Poets (2012) is a 294-page epic poem by Frederick Glaysher, which has the moon as its setting and deals with important issues such as science and religion, the current consumerist approach to our economics, profiteering and capitalism, gradual wearing away of morality and spirituality, wars, hunger, general deprivation, race, and more. It is a poem in twelve parts or Books. This review shall be restricted to Book I, which deals with the general issues covered in the individual books, and Book XI, which involves the persona's visit to Africa and involves Achebe's character in Arrow of God, the Priest Ezeulu.

As already stated the setting of this epic poem is the moon, specifically, the Apollo 11 landing site. The gathering of ancient and modern poets from both East and West was called by the Greek god Apollo and the Nine Muses. The main subject for discussion is the meaning of modernity and modern day nihilism. Several poets are gathered: Cervantes, Du Fu, Li Po, Vyasa, Tagore, Basho, Saigyo, Rumi, Attar, Shakespeare, Samuel Johnson, Keats, Wordsworth, Jane Austen, African griots and shamans, Balla Fasseke, Merlin, Job, and others. Before these gathering of awe-exuding poets stood the persona - The Poet of the Moon.

To begin with I should state that I cannot do this poem the justice it deserves and I will not pretend to even attempt to be doing so. This is a beautiful poem that falls off the tongue smoothly. As an epic poem, I expected that the versification will be rigidly structured and turn of phrases so sharp that it might distort understanding and appreciation and require only trained minds to decipher; but Glaysher did none of this. Besides, one would have thought that epic poems no longer have any role to play in the present, scientific world. That our current level for short and brief messages and the introduction of one-forty character message platforms that has drastically affected our attention span will make the appreciation of a long poem difficult. But Glaysher proved all these wrong; he has shown with this epic poem that with the right subject matter and the right language, one can create an epic poem even in today's age. In effect, today's events make epic poetry a necessity for there are so many important life-threatening, earth-destroying events that a careful observer cannot but talk about it. And so much are the problems that in the hands of a poet, it can only lead to this.

The Book I opens up what the poem is about. It talks about the clash between science and religion and how uncontrolled profiteering is tearing the world apart and destroying the very world we live in. The gathered poets bemoaned the lack of restrain as scientific quests turn into capitalist ventures, mining the earth to line capitalists' pockets, and how the profiteers are expanding into intergalactic researches. This physical destruction is in tandem with the stripping of the 'spirit' away from the world for capitalist gain - the gradual 'despiritisation' of the earth. A cursory look at rivers in Ghana will suffice. When it was found that trees could be lumbered without ripostes from 'river gods', water bodies started losing the trees that protected and they shrank or dried up completely. The gathered poets, specifically Cervantes, stated that they had owned the moon for millennia

and must not cede it to wayward scientists

and plunderers of the earth, who would

extend their selfish exploitations 

throughout the universe, debasing everything [31]

Samuel Johnson added 'but what else can be expected of scientists who lack a vision worthy of humanity?' Thus, in a way death has deified the poets and thus, like God, the Parliament of Poets are seeking ways to save mankind, who 'can't go anywhere without littering', from himself. The destruction being discussed here is both physical and spiritual. The persona - here the poet - becomes the 'Christ' who must be sent to save humans, as in the biblical quote 'whom shall I sent and who will go for us, then said I Here am I send me' [Isaiah 6:8].

When allowed to ask a question of the gathering after they have lamented about the current spate of devolution and corporatocracy, the Poet of the Moon opted to know how today's world compares with the past which has had its fair share of problems. He asked:

...what do you advise?

Tyrannies and oppressors, Marxists and fascists,

we've already had. Only madmen would

want to go back to anything like that,

and yet order erodes, deteriorates,

moral decline and decadence deepen,

a Slough of Despond draws in everything,

empire grows, looms, corporate plutocracy,

oligarchies and billionaires, with

no commitment to any nation or people [37]

The persona thus contrasted the present with the past, drawing conclusions that there are not much differences; each has its problems or decadence. Today's plutocracy is not different from the tyrannies of the kings of yesterday. To this Virgil answered 'know thyself' - an aphorism that has been attributed to several philosophers and which is believed to apply to individuals who boast more and know less - and that the greater questions lie beyond this. He further provided a ray of hope requesting that the persona should have greater confidence; that though there may not be any Augustus for our age, men are talking to men to find solutions to the upheavals of the day. It is on this hopeful note that Book I ended.

In Book XI, the parliament of poets called upon Ezeulu, the priest of Umuachala and of Ani, the Earth Goddess, and the representation of Africa's hominids, to take the persona from the moon to Africa and then to his native Igboland. Ezeulu is a character in Chinua Achebe's Arrow of God. As they flew over the continent and explored its many regions from space, the persona sought to confirm or deny the news and images of Africa as fed to western audience. Having listened to the priest, an epiphanic moment burst upon him 'And then I knew he was one of each of us.' Thus, through Ezeulu, the humanness of Africans was restored in the mind of the persona to be spread afield. But he saw much more than this, he concluded that Africa is the birth place of humanity because

All the shades and hues were in his dusky,
ochre-covered body, his genome, at root,
its base and stem, from which we've grown,
untraceable, perhaps, but all his actions
and artefacts tell us now he was like us,
not a mere ape in a tree, or climbing down
from one, but upright and thinking, trying,
at least, more than many of us today. [250]

Upon reaching the priest's compound the persona saw many great things. Ezeulu explained to him the philosophy of his people adding that the Great God - Chukwu - allows each person, at the point of birth, to choose his or her chi and he must therefore serve his and that 'if a man agrees, his chi agrees'. The author utilised Ezeulue's dilemma and the choices he had to make in Achebe's book. He says 

You choose and agreed. You must keep choosing,
or you'll end up a priest of a dead god,
disgraced by his own actions, in the eyes
of his people, pushed aside by them, not heeded.
Sacrifice yourself for their good, serve them. [256]

These were the exact things that happened to him when he had to choose between the gods and the people. Ezeulu's advice for the persona contrasts poorly to the current crop of leaders in Africa who sacrifice nothing and steal everything; who have become leaders only so they could use their positions to siphon their nations' resources to enrich themselves. Ezeulu believed that man has been offered the freedom to choose who he wants to be. Thus, what people become are their own making, devil or angel, good or bad. He says

Now I understand. We can all be angels
or savages, choose the heart of darkness,
if we lose the human heart of the people,
become cold to human suffering not our own.
The people live in the village. Leaders
who forget the village are unworthy
of the people.... [261]

Glaysher investigated the African's relationship with his environment and his god. Through the names the African attributes to his gods, one can directly learn the extent and depth of his belief in them. The fact that the religion of the African had no direct or attributable founder or reformer is one of its identified features that distinguishes it from other religions, in addition to it being a non-proselyting religion. The African only believes and that belief is his life.

The issue of race and how it is defined also came up in their discussion. The persona claimed that he is from Africa, at least that was what modern technology has shown and that this was no ordinary romanticism. He claimed that he was not a stranger and defended the continent before Conrad, indirectly, insisting that 'Africa is not the heart of darkness, no more than any other place on Earth,...' Whereas Ezeulu believed what the persona said, they were worried about the other non-initiates who see not beyond the physical colour boundary. The metaphor for peace - the breaking of the kola nut - played an important role in their meeting and discussion. It signified the persona's acceptance by Ezeulu and perhaps into Africa. The persona was then charged to speak to the parliament of poets on behalf of Africa.

Later, Sogolon - the mother of Sundiata of ancient Mali Empire - took the poet of the moon (the persona) to a higher plane and introduced herself. Sogolon saw a time when man will leave the path and seek things for his person, where the community will break on the back of an individual's greed, when the greedy ones will sell the land to foreigners, who will latter attack them, and when such a day descends, it will not be possible to save the people

Breaking her silence, she said to me, "Woe to
a time that forgets the measure of man,
for then people fall to the darkest depths,
and not even I could defend myself
against attackers with all my herbs and potions,
even porcupine quills could not drive away
such men reduced to rapacious beasts." [263]

And then Sogolon evolved and even as time moved forward rapidly, the prophecy unfolded before the persona as countries, tribes, and men destroyed each other over minerals and oils as they sought power and control. Whilst they quest for power, they did away with things of the spirit. The tectonic shift in the moral values of Africans, from spirituality to materialism, is what has led to wanton slaughter of millions of its people.

All through this epic poem, the Poet of the Moon is addressing or discussing the Buddhist concept of Itai Doshin or the unity of the mind in the midst of diversity, which is also the concept that underpins the Ubuntu philosophy, which translates into 'I am, because we are'. The poet talks about peaceful coexistence, that oneness of us as a people of the earth and with our environment. He sees rapacious quest for wealth as unhealthy, impacting negatively on us as a people. He believes that everything should be done to advance the course of humanity and not an individual. He believes that science and religion should not be antagonists but should both work to advance the course of humanity. The problem comes when the sole end of scientific research becomes profit. And here one should equally add religion, with regards to the springing up of churches whose ultimate goal is making money for the founders. In effect the poet wants to see the unity of what he calls 'false dichotomies': science and religion, reason and intuition, material and spiritual, white and black, and others.

Bringing together such a vast array of poets and feeding on their works and its implied meanings mean that the reader need to have read widely in order to appreciate this piece completely. A reader whose reading is not extensive might only benefit from the discussions that are not directly linked to the work of that poet and might miss a lot. This is what most great works do, they provide pointers to where the reader should look for further reading.

With the exception of Balla Fasseke, Sundiata Keita's griot, no African poet was mentioned by name. I would have expected at least Christopher Okigbo to have been part of the gathering. However, the period from which all the names were taken from might not have allowed this, thus settling on Fasseke and the amorphous 'griots' and 'shamans'.

This is an excellent piece of poetry. It is not too tasking once the reader has read wide, and even if one has not, the language is simple enough for one to get a fair idea of what is going on. Very much recommended.
___________________
Copies of the books could be obtained from these sources: Loot Online and Exclus1ves

259. A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams

To begin with, this is a fantastic play. The themes it covers are as relevant today as they were at the time and a simple twitter search will support this: the play is still acted on stage and the people still love it.

A Streetcar Named Desire (1947) is about the effects of society's buckram moral dictates and norms on those who stand against them - individuals who, in living their lives and expressing themselves, go against these formalised regulations. It is easy to take today's liberties, and society's indifference to certain behaviours, for granted. It is easy to think that it has always been like that. The truth, however, is that the strong-hold of society - usually through religious dicta - on the actions of the individual means most of the freedom enjoyed today has at one time being fought for. Even today, the black American society has a dictum against their kinds who go about in their natural woolly hair. Ask Gabby Douglas, when she won Olympic gold in Gymnastics. 

Tennessee's play deals with some of these issues such as marriage, rape, homosexuality, and the whole women empowerment movement. In its treatment of marriage, or society's views on marriage and the value it places on it, Tennessee is in the same category as Thomas Hardy, who treated this in his book Jude the Obscure. Even at a young age, Blanche was pesky; she acted like the elder sister; and she married young. Later in life, Blanche lost the family's property, then moved to live in a rundown hotel. Her bid for companionship and to assuage her numerous losses in life saw her dating several men; and it was this that brought her into direct confrontation with society, violating one of Laurel's (society's) cardinal law: a young woman must live as a young woman does, and if she should date, she should date only one man and not pretend. Or something of that sorts for it was this that led to her ostracism by the Mayor of the town, who together with the people saw this as morally unsound and base. However, Tennessee's provocation of society's mentality went beyond Blanche's mere multiple-dating of men and her perceived lies. As if multiple-dating in a 1947 America steeped in its moral stricture was not enough, the author added a dose pedophilia, which got Blanche the termination from her teaching job for 'getting mixed up' with a seventeen year old boy.

But there is more. Blanche herself was not free from society's moral morass. She had suffered a mental breakdown when her young husband committed suicide after she had told him that she saw what he (the husband) and his older friend did and that it 'disgust me'. It was this loss of a loved one, for she dearly loved him, coupled with her loss of the family's estate that led to her breakdown and her wanton behaviour. Yet, like all societies, the people of Laurel loved to excise the 'damaged' limb instead of stitching it up.

To escape all these, and perhaps to start over, Blanche sort solace in Stella, her sister who lived in Elysian Fields. Tennessee's deliberateness kicked in here, for Stella's marriage to Stanley was anything but heavenly. In fact, the marriage was full of abuse that had it not being people's perception of marriage and of an unmarried woman, she would have divorced him. Rather it kept both Stella and Eunice - her neighbour - married to their abusive husbands. Ironically, it was the troubled Blanche who saw the uselessness of Stella's situation and the unworthiness of Stanley. But trapped by desire and locked in 'what-society-will-say' thoughts, Stella considered not her sisters advice. Marriage at the time was worth more than freedom, and an unmarried woman was seen and considered as a floosie.

Stella, so much in love with the idea of marriage - and not the marriage itself or the man in it - would not let go of her marriage to follow Blanche or to openly believe her that her brute Stanley had sexually abused her but instead she would work with Stanley and their neighbour, Eunice, to get rid of the psycho who was bent on bursting their marriage bubble, their Elysian Field. 

And this they did. However it is not Stella's guilt or Eunice's reassurance that she had done right by having her sister incarcerated in a mental home that is profound but rather Blanche's statement to the doctor, when she was being led away. She said to the doctor and the nurse

Whoever you are - I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

This statement highlighted her helplessness and her rejection by society and family. It indicates how she is just a chaff in the wind, following wherever it chooses to blow. It shows the value that was placed on marriage to the extent that a woman could give up on her sister for a man who frequently abused her. So great was Blanche's rejection that even when she finally decided to settle down and start all over again with Mitch, it failed. Mitch was shocked by what his friend Stanley had told him and was concerned about what his mother would say. The hypocrisy of Mitch was that though he would not take Blanche as a wife, he would want to sleep with her, and this was the hypocrisy that thread through the story.

Initially, one would think of Blanche as the victim; however, all the seemingly sane individuals were victims of society's laws. For instance, tied by her strange desire to remain married, Stella would, a minute after being physically abused by her husband, not only forgive her but end up curled in his arms in bed, with promises of 'it-will-not-happen-again' and even defend his actions. In one instance, she says to Blanche who was pointing her elder sister to the grievousness of her mistreatments:

I know it must have seemed to you and I'm awful sorry it had to happen, but it wasn't anything serious as you seem to take it. In the first place, when men are drinking and playing poker anything can happen. It's always powder-keg. He didn't know what he was doing. .... He was as good as a lamb when I came back and he's really very ashamed of himself.

In fact, not only did Stella defend Stanley but she did not even consider the abuse she suffered, choosing rather to talk about the radio he smashed in his fit of anger:

What other can I be? He's taken the radio to get it fixed. It didn't land on the pavement so only one tube was smashed.

Stella's such matter-of-fact statements on Stanley's abuse is what makes it worth critical observation. And it was clear from their conversation that it started right after they married:

No, it isn’t all right for anybody to make such a terrible row, but – people do sometimes. Stanley’s always smashed things. Why, on our wedding night – soon as we came in here – he snatched off one of my slippers and rushed about the place smashing the light-bulbs with it.

Stanley himself, thinking of his family as perfect - per the marriage, did not need Blanche to destabilise their lives, or break that illusion of paradise. It is based on this that he consistently abused Blanche with the motive of getting her out of their 'perfect' lives.

This is a satirical take on society and like all plays, it distilled just a portion and expanded it for your conscience to mull over. The Elysian Fields was filled with marital problems and abuse, and it was desire through the vehicle of marriage that got them there. This is an interesting play.
_______________________
This was a selection of the Writers Project of Ghana's Book and Discussion Club for the month of September. In October we are reading Chuma Nwokolo's The Ghost of Sani Abacha. Follow us on twitter @WritersPG and our discussions at #wpghbookclub.

258. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

When I began Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Washington Square Press, 1968 (FP: 1884); 374 p) what I expected to find within the age-browned pages was the adventures of a delinquent child; the farthest being that his youthful exuberance led him to do something positive, else he would not have written the book. I expected the trickery and stubbornness that afflict children at that stage of growth and development: an insatiable and inquisitive mind; an insane attraction to danger; an unquenchable love for exploration; and a restless spirit. What I did not expect to find in this seminal work is an in-depth analysis of race. 

However, Mark Twain, in his prodigious mind, brought both the expected and unexpected in one hell of a book. To say that Huckleberry Finn is a seminal work on race is just as saying that a gold anklet is a trinket; it will be a gross understatement of this work. It is more than just seminal. Using the innocent, fun-loving, inquisitive Finn, allowed Mark Twain to deliberately analyse race relations and issues that would have been almost impossible with an older character imbued with the prejudices of the time. Twain's off-handed way of broaching topics will seem a mere happenstance to the not-too-careful reader. This reader might say that he was only stating facts and was not analysing. However, the careful reader will see otherwise. He will notice the deliberateness with which issues are raised and the unsettling responses they elicited. In this regard, this book is not different from Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, another American Classic. The use of children in both novels brought out the reality of lives lived at the time, the inter and intra-race relations, in as neutral a way as possible, because children - unlike adults - are not inhibited by prejudices and are more likely to compare events and situations innocuously. (However, it must be stated that Huck Finn even at that age and as streetwise as he was, had to struggle with a chunk of these prejudices). Their logic is stunning and unaffected, or little affected, by their environment and upbringing. However, unlike Harper's classic tale, Twain - like the magician - deceives the reader with his story of a delinquent and adventuresome child, whilst beneath he plays the real cards - the analysis of race relations. This percolates into the unconscious mind, stays there, and rises to the fore when one tries to recollect the story. Any attempt at recounting this tale will lead one to, as Twain perhaps meant it to be, question the conscience of men at the time.

The Influence of Religion: The story is about Jim - a nigger, and Huckleberry Finn, as they each escaped from their lives in St. Petersburg, Missouri, albeit for different reasons. Huck, has faked his own death to escape an abusive, alcoholic and almost homeless father who locks him up in their single-unit cabin, and Jim is escaping from his Mistress - after overhearing her discuss the possibility of selling him. The two met on the island of Jackson and there the journey and adventure on the Mississippi river began; Jim with the intention to reach Cairo, in the free state of Illinois. It is during the journey that it dawned on Huck that he might be doing the wrong thing; that as a gentleman he should not help a slave to escape its owner especially since the owner - Miss Watson - had done nothing bad to him. Thus, when they came into contact with a group that was after five runaway niggers, Huck nearly gave Jim up. The ignorant Jim, hailing his friend's journey to the shore shouted

Dah you goes, de ole true Huck; de on'y white gentleman dat ever kep' his promise to ole Jim. [115]

Huck later 'just felt sick'. And this true showmanship of friendship, at a point where he was nearly betrayed by a boy he considered a 'white gentleman', dissuaded Huck from telling on him. However, this feeling of betrayal, not of Jim but of his owner, would later come to gnaw at his conscience. He deemed it irregular to be seen consorting with a slave. 

And then think of me! It would get all around that Huck Finn helped a nigger to get his freedom; and if I was ever to see anybody from that town again I'd be ready to get down and lick his boots for shame. That's just the way: a person does a low-down thing, and then he don't want to take no consequences of it. Thinks as long as he can hide, it ain't no disgrace. That was my fix exactly. [270]

Thus, even though the two had been travelling for some time and had faced and solved problems together, they were not a pair yet, and Huck was suffering from that daunting dilemma - society's reaction. So much a burden was this on his conscience that he figured this might be a sign from God pointing out his evil ways:

The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven, whilst I was stealing a poor old woman's nigger that hadn't ever done me no harm, and now was showing me there's One that's always on the lookout, and ain't a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared. [270-1]

Huck reasoned that perhaps if there was a Sunday School at where they were, he would have been taught that people who do what he was doing 'goes to everlasting fire'. He then decided to pray and release himself from such a burden; however, he could not utter a word and thought that it was so because his 'heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double.' The double Huck meant was the dilemma - the moral conflict - of keeping Jim and at the same time being right and righteous. After fighting with his conscience, reflecting on the times they had shared, their common humanity 'And ... thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing' and still he 'couldn't seem to strike no places to harden [Huck] against him', Huck said to himself:

All right, then, I'll go to hell. [273]

This is one of profound statement in the story. It was a decision that would bind Huck to Jim; not necessarily Jim to Huck for Jim was not privy to Huck's internal conversations and conflicts. Jim was bound to Huck by the laws that made Huck's race superior to Jim's. Huck therefore won the struggle between the individual's moral aptitude and society's moral turpitude, in situations when the latter becomes the norm and the former an aberration. He did this without necessarily denouncing the former.

Our inability to say 'all right, then, I'll go to hell' and do what we think is morally right has created a certain herd mentality among us as a people with its consequent refusal, on our part, to mull over and question the status quo. Our incapability to hold unique thoughts has resulted in the ease with which we are unifiedly bamboozled and deceived consistently with the same template of lies; for it takes courage to hold and express an opinion different to what the masses have been programmed to chorus. Not that the masses are wise; in fact, they are mostly fools, but strong and cannot tolerate uniqueness and deviants.

Cuss the doctor! What do we k'yer for him? Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town? [P.226]

This incapability to question authorities is the foundation of fundamentalism - religious, cultural, racial and others. It is significant to note how much harm had been caused by the parochial interpretation or misinterpretation of texts, most especially religious text. Yet, more significant is the realisation that such perpetrators, these fundamentalists, would usually say 'it is said...', not 'I say...'. Today, with the fight against racism almost won, it is easy for one to say, he or she could have behaved Finn-ly and chosen right. But to dare to think this is to submit to our kind's ability to retrospectively predict and explain events.

Twain is a freedom fighter; the ones who through their works show that there is another way. Most often, people say and do one thing that the alternative is lost on them. When the Phelps family arrested Jim based on the fake post promising to pay anyone who arrested him a bounty, they did it not because they hated Jim or blacks. In fact, they treated him well and Jim himself said so. They provided him with food (including watermelons) and bedding. But they also shackled and 'imprisoned' him. To them, it was normal and usual for a slave to be treated this way. It had become the norm, everybody did it. If they had been challenged, if there was anyone to do so, they would have laughed over its ridiculousness.

Inter- and Intra-Race Relations: The irony is that even though blacks were slaves and shackled it was almost never thought that they cherished freedom. The fact was that their thinking was done for them. Their masters determined when they ate, who they married, when they slept, when they woke up and almost anything. It therefore became the belief that the black man could not think for himself. However, Twain - again, off-handedly - destroyed this belief, almost. When Huck was consoling Jim about some money he had invested and lost in good time past, Jim responded:

Yes; en I's rich now, come to look at it. I owns mysef, en I's wuth eight hund'd dollars. [61]

It is clear then that Jim loved freedom; however, sadly he loved it in terms of its worth in dollars. Thus, he was not completely free from the thoughts that floated around him; that discussed his worth pecuniarily. This filtered into the way blacks or the slaves related to themselves. The inter-race relation - mostly, between blacks and whites - was one of a master and a slave; superior and inferior; commander and subordinate. This became ingrained in the slaves' sub-conscious so that their thinking and even spontaneous behaviour were thus influenced and affected by that dichotomy. 

On the other hand, blacks seeing themselves as equals never tolerated each other easily. They vented their anger, consolidated from their mistreatment at the hands of their white masters, on themselves. Today, several years after the abolition of slavery and the breakdown of racism, black-on-black murder is still a problem. This behaviour, which has almost become genetic, could be traced back to such times. When Huck asked Jim what he would think should a man approach him and say 'Polly-voo-franzy' - a corruption of the French Parlez vous Francais, Jim responded

I wouldn' think nuffn; I'd take en bust him over de head - dat is, if he warn't white. I wouldn't 'low no nigger to call me dat. [Emphasis mine; 102]

This was what a harmless statement by a fellow nigger would have elicited from Jim. Though he did not understand what it meant, he would still have reacted violently towards a fellow black, if such a person had said this in his face. And he would not have thought about it. But if it had been a white, he would dare not, perhaps for fear of the consequences. This does not mean that Jim will not be hurt all the same, except that the colour of the accuser would have, in this instance, crippled him from acting. This pain would have been suppressed and vented on one of equal status.

Needless to say, the opposite was the case among whites. They respected each other and maltreated blacks and their kind who consorted with them. This was seen even in the relationship between Huck and Jim; though Huck was far younger than Jim and one would have expected that he would show respect and be under Jim's guidance, it was rather Jim who looked up to Huck, the leader. Huck, throughout the story, showed this superiority overtly. He frequently referred to Jim as his property and used words that are derogatory in its attribution, sometimes to save Jim from trouble but often times obliviously. Huck still considered helping a slave sinful and most of the time, thought of Jim only as slightly better than an imbecile, especially because of his superstitious beliefs.

The Phelps' plantation offered insightful assessment of race relations. Huck Finn thought that the 'vittles' the Phelps' slave was carrying was meant for the dogs, when he together with Tom Sawyer, who later joined Huck, were planning how to smuggle items to Jim in his hold-up 'cell'. And he only realised it was to the contrary when Tom informed him that it contained watermelon. The question therefore is what would have made Finn think the food was for the dogs? The dirty plates? The leftovers?

The mistreatment of blacks by whites did not end with mere derogatory references. The white masters and mistresses were also able to kill them at will without remorse, at the slightest provocations or none at all, usually to serve as an example to other slaves. All that would be required of these white murderers of slaves would be to pay for the cost of the slaves, in situations where the murdered slave was not their property. Hence, once one was able and willing to pay, or one owned the slave, killing him or her brought no consequence. This was what the people on the Phelps' farm would have done to Jim - hanged him - when they rearrested him after Tom and Huck had elaborately freed him from his 'cell'. In fact, the only reason they did not do it was that someone informed them that they might be asked to pay for the cost. Huck reasoned from this event that people are not prepared to pay for their fun even when it involved killing slaves for their satisfaction.

The men was very huffy, and some of them wanted to hang Jim for an example to all the other niggers around there, so they wouldn't be trying to run away like Jim done, and making such a raft of trouble, and keeping a whole family scared most to death for days and nights. But the others said, don't do it, it wouldn't answer at all; he ain't our nigger, and his owner would turn up and make us pay for him, sure. So that cooled them down a little, because the people that's always the most anxious for to hang a nigger that hain't done just right is always the very ones that ain't the most anxious to pay for him when they've got their satisfaction out of him. [362-3]

Another outcome of the white-black relationship was the burden of blame. Blacks were responsible for every crime even if it was clear that they could not have committed it. It was the easy thing to do. When Jim's escape coincided with Huck's supposed death - note that Jim's flight was illegal, whilst Huck's would have been right - Huck's father became a suspect, briefly. Later, everybody suspected Jim and this suspicion hardened into belief, even though all the people knew that Jim was calm and non-violent and could not have committed such an atrocious crime.

Thus, Twain - in the final analysis - poked fun at human conscience; at the easiness with which it allowed this antithetical and counteracting views and actions to co-exist in one society, and in one person. That the same society that believed itself civilised and morally astute, could not only accommodate but provide moral justifications for such depravities. Huck then became the embodiment of such conflicts: though he did not denounce society's norms of 'best' behaviour with regards to slaves, he also hanged on to his own moral arguments, which he thought made him a rebel or delinquent. In one of Huck's musings, he compared the conscience of men to a dog's, concluding that he would poison any dog of his whose conscience was not higher than that of man.

So we poked along back home, and I warn't feeling so harsh as I was before, but kind of ornery, and humble, and to blame, somehow - though I hadn't done nothing. But that's always the way; it don't make no difference whether you do right or wrong, a person's conscience ain't got no sense, and just goes for him anyway. If I had a yaller dog that didn't know more than a person's conscience does I would pison him. [294]

Language: The story is driven by dialogue written in the vernacular of the time. Though this is far from how English is currently spoken among average Americans, it does not detract. Rather, it reinforces the beauty and importance of this story as one of the greatest American Classics. It shows that Twain was not only embarking on an academic treatise on social relations but also was offering us a window into the real lives of real people. Besides, because it was written in the first person - by the less educated Huck - it makes more sense to use this vernacular that would likely have been spoken. In this regard Tutuola's The Palm Drinkard comes to mind.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a deeply revealing book. It is more than teenage jests; it is the distillates of society's conscience of the time, beautifully and magically delivered. This book has been consistently banned in schools across the United States because of its use of the 'N' word. Some have suggested taking it out - refining it. However, the book will lose a lot if such a thing is done for it underlines the importance and understanding of the novel.

253. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy*

"All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" are the famous opening words of the tragic love story Anna Karenina (FP: 1877; 813) by Leo Tolstoy. This is perhaps the most famous first line one would read. Anna Karenina is a novel of many dimensions with ebbs and troughs. Set in Russia around the time of the liberation of the serfs, the novel deals with society: the people, the laws and the government. The main story revolves around Anna Karenina, the eponymous character of the novel. 

Anna Karenina had returned from Moscow, where she had been to solve a problem between her brother, Oblonsky, and her wife, Dolly [Darya], after the former had cheated on the latter with his children's English governess and the marriage seemed destined for disaster. Initially, one would have thought that the story revolves around the Oblonsky family. However, it quickly settles on the Karenins. In Moscow Anna had met the playboy Vronsky, who had been considered and silently approved as the potential husband of Kitty [Katherine, Dolly's younger sister]. The two almost fell in love with each other and even though Anna took it lightly, initially, the symptoms of what would end tragically began to show.

The Pretentiousness of the Aristocrats: On Anna's part, things started looking bad and weird. It began with the ears of her husband, which she thought had grown larger or so, when she first noticed him at the train station where he had come to meet her upon her return to Petersburg. This was followed by her sudden disinterest in her husband's circle of friends; the very circle that launched Karenin's - the husband's - career and which she had previously revelled in. Anna rejected her moral society and immersed herself in the societies and circles where there was a higher probability of coming into contact with Vronsky. Thus, it was clear from the beginning that Anna knew, at least sub-consciously - even if she would deny it openly - what she was doing. That soon, a relationship would develop and something untoward would happen. And it did.

One major theme in this story is the pretentious lives the aristocrats lived. Their preference to keep up appearances to please society: the fear of living their lives in full and fully expressing their emotions; of having to do everything behind the curtains; of bottling up emotions, hurts, failures which could have been solved with just an vocal expression or their outward expressions. The hollowness of the made-up life of the aristocrats came through in this narrative. On the other hand, the Peasants lived a fulfilling life; at least they were themselves though they also had other problems. The need to please society was of such priority to them - the Aristocrats - that when Karenin suspected her wife's unnatural relationship with Vronsky, his problem was how society would take it. Thus, Karenin's problem concerning her wife's relationship with Vronsky was society's problem. So that instead of discussing the issue with her, ab initio, he was concerned more of that society's rule (the rule of the Aristocrats) that made any feeling of jealousy towards one's wife a degradation on the part of the husband. And so to avoid such degradation he refused to talk about it. The epitome of this classic pretentiousness was when Karenin completely feigned any knowledge or suspicion of Anna's adulterous behaviour and even when Anna blurted it out to him, Karenin was prepared to keep up appearances until a solution found. 

Marriage and Divorce: This pretence, that seemed to up Karenin's virtuousness because of his willingness to forgive, and actually forgiving, Anna, created an intense hatred in Anna towards her husband. Though this hatred developed only after meeting Vronsky, it was clear that the relationship was bereft of love, at least not the kind that Anna sought. It could possibly also be an excuse to justify her adulterous behaviour; however, what was clear was that Karenin, especially, was trapped into marriage with Anna by her aunt. There was no natural development of love between the two and they just found themselves married. This situation spoke to the type of societal mores that existed at the time with regards to marriage and divorce. The two were both living for society and not for themselves. However, whereas Karenin was trapped and eternally so by society and by religion, Anna sought freedom and rescue. But there would be no such thing when everybody was living such a life. Karenin exuded no emotions, as required by a man of his status, and was a hypocrite; however, his was the hypocrisy of the aristocrats which was unconscious to the people living it.

Thus, Tolstoy through the marriage of Anna and Karenin addressed the problems that pertained to that particular institution and the process leading to it. This included parents marrying their young daughters away without recourse to love but to wealth and status. This almost happened to Kitty who was encouraged by her mother to marry Vronsky and not Levin, an aristocrat who had chosen to live in the countryside. Another aspect of marriage that Tolstoy discussed was divorce and how complex it was at the time to obtain one because of the religious view of marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman.

As a punishment to herself, Anna initially did not request to be divorced, and even refused it when Karenin, in the early period, had offered it. However, this was subsequently refused by the Karenin when Anna requested, based on his renewed belief in the role he ought to play in Anna's life. And since it was the offended person who could seek divorce, Anna was trapped in her relationship with Vronsky. It also meant that, in that illegal union, whatever issue that came forth, such as the daughter she had with Vronsky, belonged to Karenin. However, Karenin was mocked, initially, for not divorcing his wife; for allowing her to have her way and for acting different from what other people always did. Thus, he who did no wrong other than attempting to forgive her wife was himself crucified.

Gender Discrimination: Though this story is about love and unlove, adultery on both sides of the gender equation (Anna cheating on Karenin with Vronsky, Anna's brother Oblonsky cheating on her wife Dolly (Darya) with his children's governess), it is also about the unequal treatment of the genders for similar offences. A cheating wife was more certain to be shunned both by her peers and society at large than a cheating husband. This was clear in the lives of Anna and Oblonsky. Though society barred Anna from coming out, from associating with people because of her status as a fallen undivorced woman living with a man she was not married to, this same society allowed Vronsky entry and participation. Sometimes even Vronsky himself prevented Anna from going out, citing society's perception and reception of her.

However, Anna's decision - leaving her husband to live with a man she loved - though repulsive to society at large, resonated with some women like Dolly whose husband had cheated on her and who sometimes doubted or questioned her love for him. Thus, in a sense Anna was a revolutionary; the leading figure in women empowerment of the time. To the extent that she took total control of herself, including decisions as touchy as childbirth, is testament to her resolve.

Consequently, the first part of the book where Anna was married to Karenin and the relationship was coming to an end could be described as the period of Anna's bondage; whereas the second part where she was travelling in Europe with Vronsky could be described as the period of her freedom or empowerment.

Vanity and Duality: But Anna was enigmatic. She was dual, embodying both evil and love in their extreme and it was in the absolute expression of this duality that led to her tragic end. She loved and hated in equal measure. Her insecurity and her decisions were extreme. She created imaginary problems of Vronsky deserting her; forgot that Vronsky had given up his career and had also nearly died for her sake. For Anna Karenina everything depended on love and if there was love enough nothing else mattered. Consumed by her love for Vronsky she considered everything peripheral to it unnecessary and not worth considering including the their daughter whose status in that murky scheme of things was itself undefined at best.

She had refused to divorce Karenin only because she saw nothing wrong in the relationship with Vronsky even though she knew it would affect her daughter, whom she expressly did not love, and Vronsky who would have no heirs. Her vanity and perhaps the extreme manifestation of her duality of love and hate was when she took that unilateral decision to undergo hysterectomy in order that she would remain young and beautiful to earn Vronsky's love alone without regards to whether he would want children or not. Could this be love in all its forms? Could self-love be absolute? These sides to Anna was unsettling. She was like the desert, nothing could satisfy her, which worried Vronsky because nothing he did was enough. She needed nothing in halves.

Belief and Unbelief: The story is also about blind faith and the effects of religion on the people - as depicted in the life of Karenin, who, because of his belief, would not divorce his wife and let her be free even though she had deserted him; and who would consult with mediums in order to make such decisions. This religious angle was pitched against the free-thinkers like Dmitri and Koznyshev and those betwixt like Levin, who unstable in his thoughts, was later Christianised. The religious beliefs of Karenin and Lydia Ivanovna were the epitome of all beliefs.

Communism and Capitalism: In addition to the story of Anna, there were discussions that dealt with the economic system of the time. This discussion is prevalent in most of the 19th Century Russian literature I have read. And it could be a precursor to the introduction of Communism in the 20th Century in Russia. It is more likely that the shift to Communism as a form of government was predicated on the extreme slavery and oppression of the Peasants - the labourers of the land - who formed the masses by the few capitalists: land owners and merchants. Most of the novels set in this period discuss the gains that could be derived from sharing and the need to fight the oppression of the masses. For instance, Nicholas' views on capitalism were scathing as he proposed Communism to solve these defects:

You know that capitalism oppresses the workers. Our workmen the peasants bear the whole burden of labour, but are so placed that, work as they may, they cannot escape from their degrading condition. All the profits on their labour, by which they might better their condition, give themselves some leisure, and consequently gain some education, all this surplus value is taken away by the capitalists. And our society has so shaped itself that the more the people work the richer the merchants and landowners will become, while the people will remain beasts of burden for ever. And this system must be changed. [86]

These landowners and merchants and those in sinecure political offices were the aristocrats. For instance, Levin to poke fun at Oblonsky and to show how useless the aristocrats had become redefined it as not only people of noble birth with educated parents but people who depended on their own labour and hard work and were not dependent on government grants or others to survive. 

Anna Karenina deals with the absurdities of rigid societal laws and principles at the time and the hollowness of life lived in pretence. It also captures the life of a people at a point in time. Tolstoy masterfully and subtly shifts the reader's allegiance from Karenin to Karenina to Vronsky to Karenina. This is a book that is worth the read even though the beauty is not the same throughout the novel. The story of Anna Karenina proved to be stronger and more interesting than the others. However, it is worth one's time to read this book.

_________________________

*Version translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude and published by Wordsworth Classics

249. The Karamazov Brothers by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Karamazov Brothers (870; 1880)* is the second book by Fyodor Dostoevsky I have read, in addition to Crime and Punishment. The book counts towards two reading challenges: the Year of Russian Literature and Top 100 Books to be Read in Five Years. In this book, which happened to be the author's last work, Dostoevsky traversed several grounds and themes and perhaps knowing (or through serendipity) completely and fully invested himself and his knowledge in this book. I am not sure of this, but The Karamazov Brothers could be a cauldron of a major part of Dostoevsky's ideas. In effect, this author-researcher, this psychologist of a novelist, this student of human nature and thoughts, produced a seminal work, worth studying in different fields of social sciences, in this novel. Thus, to describe The Karamazov Brothers as a novel is an understatement. It does the book a huge injustice and undermines its quality. This is a compendium of human thoughts, psyche, and behaviour, morality, God and Devil, good and evil, societal decadence, belief and non-belief, the hereafter, and more.

The story is narrated by an unnamed character who lives in a monastery and in the town - Skotoprigonyevsk - where the Karamazov brothers and the patriarch, Fyodor Pavlovitch, live. Though this unnamed narrator reports directly what he saw and heard, he could possibly be described as a quasi-omniscient narrator. For he knew and reported more than a mere third person could possibly have known. The Karamazovs were sensualists and were ruled by it; and they lived their lives with reckless abandon. They were neither at the top of Russian society nor at the bottom. The patriarch began with nothing, struggled to earn some income, through marriage, and through hard work built up his wealth. But the patriarch was also egoistic and thought not about anyone more than himself, including his children. The Karamazov sons - Dmitri, Ivan, and Alyosha - were therefore bereft of familial love and unity, from having lived in diverse families. As sensual as the Karamazovs were, they were also prone to act on whims and when gripped by a single idea, remained its slave until that idea was realised.

These variables collided when Fyodor and Dmitri both fell in love with a young woman, Grushenka - who was herself carrying the poison of a rejected. The struggle between the father and son in the matter of who would earn this young woman's love set the premise for the novel and the events that lie therein. It is this struggle for love, this obsession on both sides, that would define the future of the Karamazovs. For there would be murder and a man would be charged for it, and another would fall into psychosis. 

Through this the author discussed several issues germane to the Russian society of the times and of today, for issues of human psyche, thoughts, belief, and behaviour do not change with the times. The questions are relevant even when the times change. Dostoevsky creates scenarios, experimental situations, drops in a variable or two and analyses how the specimens would react to the experimental conditions and through this discusses life and its purpose, God and his existence. It is clear that to Dostoevsky the novel is a means to interrogating life and seeking answers, explanations, and reasons from life's complexities. He builds a theory in the telling of his story.

For instance, Dmitri - the eldest of the Karamazov is reckless, unrestrained in speech and behaviour, and diametric; Ivan is an intellectual and the philosopher who can argue on both sides of issues but has a dark hidden spot in his heart; Alyosha dropped from school to become a novice monk. His naivety and innocence is equal only to his kind heart. And the patriarch is a buffoon who preferred making fun of himself in public. Yet from within this diverse family emanates discussions of the presence or absence of God, immorality and immortality (life after death), and the role of the church in the state. Thus through these incongruent characters Dostoevsky discusses both the merits and demerits of having the church morphing into a state,  arguments for and against the existence of God and his importance, and more of such dipolar views.

In studying the human behaviour and psyche, Dostoevsky analyses the inner and outer being and which dominates the other. For instance, he showed that though one may be sordid, slothful and sloven in his appearance, he could have an inner being that is pure, gentle, matured, and priceless. Example is Dmitri, whose inner life became clearer during his trial for parricide and Nikolay Ilyitch Snegiryov, the disgraced captain whom Dmitri beat out of rage. On the other hand, Ivan, respected by all for his gentle manners, and Smerdyakov, trusted by all, later proved to be far from what their appearances suggested. Dostoevsky has an almost unparalleled ability to describe human anguish and the ontogenesis of evil and ponerology itself. The gradual development of Dmitri's near psychotic state arising from his singular obsession of love towards Grushenka was superb, in its treatment. Can an idea - its realisation, its execution - lead one to damnation? Dmitri's his love for Grushenka bred a deadly jealousy for anybody including his father Fyodor leading almost to a parricide. And this is where Dmitri's duality comes clear. For whereas he was not afraid of what he says, even those things that would implicate him in his fathers death, he was afraid to giving information that would make him dishonourable in the sight of his betrothed, Katerina Ivanovna. It is that which led the description 

You have to deal with a man of honour, a man of the highest honour; above all don't lose sight of it - a man who's done a lot of nasty things, but has always been, and still is, honourable at bottom, in his inner being. [518]

Thus, there is a clear disconnect between the inner and outer beings of Dmitri resulting from that single obsessive and possessive idea. Dmitri also suffered because he couldn't lie. Or couldn't hide his feelings. For if he were cunning even for a second he might have come out of his problem unscathed. But he was not! Mitya (Dmitri) spoke freely and with reckless abandon. He spoke from his heart without the restraint of those who know of their guilt; even of things that the heart conceives but the hand cannot implement. Thus, with a bit of censure, an ounce of cunning and deception and an ability to restraint his feelings he would have survived. But isn't his unrestrained behaviour a virtue? Isn't restraint, deception; censure, vice? For isn't it deceptive and therefore lies if one thinks of A and speaks B? So Mitya suffered for his frankness, his virtues, and his honesty.

Ivan and Alyosha's discussions on the existence or otherwise of God was based on both the logical and the scientific. According to Ivan it is inconceivable for a mind that perceives the world in only three dimensions of Euclidian geometry to conceptualise the existence of God. He argued that though he accept the existence of God, he does not accept his world in relation to the suffering of the innocent, children, and sometimes animals. Ivan discussed justice on earth, justice for the present evil and justice at some remote infinite time and space. People who play wickedness, who wreak havoc on the innocent (including children) must be made to face justice; however, the class system has shown that if one were an aristocrat there will be no such justice and if one were to have a good lawyer one may go free though one might have committed a grievous crime. For instance, Ivan questions why people - including children - face tribulations for some future harmony. He argues that an unfair, unjust, evil world was not a necessity for heaven and that's why he might accept God but will not accept the world he has created. He saw it as unnecessary for for an evil world to be a conduit to eternal peace or eternal suffering. That for a God to create a world where children and the innocent and the unprotected could suffer and be tortured only for them to be resurrected and be judged to heaven (harmony) or hell (suffering) is unjustifiable. That no man should create such a world; so why should God of whom it is said "Thou art just, o Lord" do that? And yet children pray to him and address him "dear, kind God", even in their suffering. He argues that man could not accept eternal happiness built on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of little children (victim).

However, the crunch of Ivan's argument, which is also a central part of The Karamazov Brothers, is his invocation and discussion of the parable of the Grand Inquisitor. This parable of the Grand Inquisitor is set during the period of the Spanish Inquisition with Christ having come back to earth and performing his miracles. He is arrested by the ninety-year old Grand Inquisitor who imprisons him pending his sentence of auto-da-fé. However, the GI visits Christ in prison and holds a conversation with him centring more on why Christ is not necessary at this point in time. Using the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan showed how God, through his demonstration of freedom, left many a man to their doom only to be rescued by the church. The parable of the GI is based on the three temptations of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels of the New Testament. For instance, on Jesus' refusal to turn stone into bread, the GI informed him that in refusing this, he left the majority of the people to their doom. For how many of them could live without food? In doing that, he set the kingdom of God for a few to the detriment of the masses. The section discusses the idea of an infallible man with divine powers to act God on earth; whose words are final. Like the entire story, this section is also ambiguous, diametric in spirit, and amenable to different interpretations. For instance, The Grand Inquisitor was at once an atheist and Satan and Alyosha (to whom this is being told) was almost Christ-like. Further, whereas the GI blames God for handing over a thing as harmful as freedom to man, knowing that freedom is man's burden, he also blamed the inhumane and power-seeking posture of the GI, who has assumed for himself a God-position on earth and who know well enough that he is leading the masses to him (possibly the Devil) but not to God. In fact, the GI would have crucified Jesus Christ again.

But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find something that all would believe in and worship; what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, 'Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!' And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. [278]

Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. [279]

The GI concluded that the three temptations Christ refused contained miracle, mystery, and authority - the forces or power required to conquer and hold the conscience of men captive. The GI says 

Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? [282]

According to Ivan and Father Zossima, the church with its ethics provide the moral compass that direct society away from crime. Thus, the non-belief in God and church erases the idea of sin and crime, making any act permissible and it is this permissibility introduced into the weaker mind of Smerdyakov by Ivan that spelt Dmitri's doom. Dostoevsky, through Father Zossima (the mentor of Alyosha), discusses the concept of modern freedom embedded in individuality and self-aggrandisement and communality in Christ. Arguing that today's kind of freedom leads to trouble and catastrophe.

They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man's being, is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world says: 'You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires.' That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, even and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. [346]

The devil as a physical manifestation (or projection) of Ivan's thoughts played a role in this beautiful work. As events unfolded and Ivan, realising the extent of his role in the crime, lapsed into psychosis, he began seeing the devil, who held conversations with him, using Dmitri's ideas to debate him. The devil explains (or argues) why his existence is required. He says that without him life will be monotonous that he was commanded to be so there would be events and things that are irrational. He says that life will be one tedious and endless church service without suffering. He defends himself that his destiny was carved out for him; such that unlike Mephistopheles, he only desired good but receives only bad; that somebody (probably God) takes all that is good whilst he is blamed for all that is bad. That though there is the secret that will make him do good they won't show him lest the 

indispensable minus disappear at once and good sense reigns supreme throughout the whole world. [728]

There were also issues of existentialism and socialism. For instance, does Mitya accepting to be sentenced for all the suffering babes he saw who had no one to care for them and saying that we must care and be responsible for all an indication of his socialist stand and his condemnation of us as a people? Issues of existentialism run subtly or overtly through the stories. They are found in the addresses of both the defence and prosecution lawyers. In Fetyukovitch's defence of Dmitri, he says, in proving that evidence, real evidence not conjectural and anecdotal evidence, is all that is required to prove guilt

That's what I call evidence, gentlemen of the jury! In that case I know, I see, I touch the money, and cannot deny its existence. [821]

Just as the book is a duality of ideas, of belief and non-belief, of the presence and absence of God, there was also the opposite of this Thomasian phenomenon of seeing expressing itself into believing. On the two occasions that they appear, they were narrated by Ivan. The first instance this appeared was in the parable of the Grand Inquisitor where Ivan told Alyosha that one need not to see to believe; that he who believes after seeing has already made up his mind to believe in the first place and that any good atheist could find several reasons to explain what he was seeing.

One who does not not believe in God's people will not believe in God's people. He who believes in God's people will see His Holiness, even though he had not believed in it till then. Only the people and their future spiritual power will convert our atheists., who have torn themselves away from their native soil. [323]

In the other instance where such anti-existentialist discussion cropped up, it was Ivan's phantasmagorical doppelganger who appeared to him in the form of the devil and held discussions with him. During these encounters the devil used Ivan's own arguments against him. Responding to an issue of belief, the Devil says

Besides, proofs are no help to believing, especially material proofs. Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe, before he saw. [715]

Prior to this meeting with the Devil, Ivan in his earlier discussions had categorically stated that one need not see to believe; that belief in itself is a decision made prior to seeing.

It is not miracles that dispose realists to belief. The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact. Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognised by him. Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith. If the realist once believes, then he is bound by his very realism to admit the miraculous also. The Apostle Thomas said that he would not believe till he saw, but when he did see he said, 'My Lord and my God!' Was it the miracle forced him to believe? Most likely not, but he believed solely because he desired to believe and possibly he fully believed in his secret heart even when he said, 'I do not not believe till I see.' [24]

 The Karamazov Brothers is a criticism of the morality of Russia of the time. It is Russia with its extremes; these extremes did exist and manifest within the same time and space. And the pendulum swung from pole to pole. Dostoevsky also brought out the discriminatory class system embedded in feudal Russia at the time - the difference between peasants and the educated elite or aristocrats. This created two somewhat distinct strands of conversations: the peasant-like conversation, which concentrated on equality and the unfairness of the Russian class system, including such discussants as Smerdyakov and Snegiryov; and the aristocratic talk which mostly concentrated on the presence or otherwise of God.

Dostoevsky's dramatic characterisation is interesting and brings out, albeit comedic, the exact situation he is describing. His descriptions of people, places and spaces is so vivid that the picture easily builds in the reader's mind. He provides the minutest detail down to 'half-eaten piece of bread, and a small bottle with a few drops of vodka' on the table. Also making the narrator remind the reader of earlier events was helpful; especially for such a long story, this helped the reader to keeping track of events that are relevant as the story progresses.

This is a beautiful novel. It has a lot more than just a story in its pages. Personally, I think this novel is under-hyped. For what it is worth, more noise should have been made about it, especially since we make useless noise about novels of inferior quality. If you have not read this novel, you are losing out.

_______________________________

Notes:

i. *Version published by Wordsworth Classics and translated by Constance Garnett

ii. Read Quotes I and II from The Karamazov Brothers

iii. Dmitri vs Rodya: Rodya was the main character in Crime and Punishment. There are some similarities, and of course differences, between these two characters. Both Rodya and Dmitri were gripped by a single idea; for Rodya, it was the idea of an ordinary and extraordinary man. And both came to grief from that. Even in TKB the idea of ordinary and extraordinary man came to the fore, somewhat:

"Didn't you know?" he said laughing, "a clever man can do what he likes,"

In C&P Rodya committed the crime; he killed the Ivanovna sisters but because of his universal kindness attested to by many, no one believed him and each wanted to keep him from jail. Thus, his outward appearance saved him. Testaments from witnesses gave him a lessened sentence though he didn't defend himself. Mitya, on the other hand, didn't commit the crime but his demeanour, his poor outward behaviour made him guilty in the eyes of the people and all believed that he was a criminal even when he put up a strong defence of an honour unknown to them.

244. Auto da Fe by Elias Canetti

Reading Elias Canetti's Auto da Fe (Penguin Modern Classics, 1935; 522)* after Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is like travelling on an underground railway connecting two cities in different countries - the transition is seamless and without notice. Not only were both books translations - one from Russian, the other from German - but they both address identical issues: introducing new elements into a hyper-functioning cognitive process leading to an imbalance that bothers on insanity. Again, both books discuss matters of knowledge or ideas, albeit in different forms; whereas Canetti discusses an intelligent bibliomania, Dostoevsky discusses a deductive theorist hoping to practicalise his theories. Finally, both books make references to ideas in other important books. It was therefore a unique privilege to have read these books in succession.*

Professor Kien is a Sinologist, the best of his time. He has an extraordinarily boundless memory and can read several Eastern Languages. He has time for nothing else apart from scholastic writings and his four-roomed library. Apart from his housekeeper, he virtually lives alone. And only for his books for which he has spent a fortune to acquire. His daily activities are routine: he writes early in the morning, goes for a walk with his briefcase, comes home to his library, et al. This was Professor Kien's life, until he misread the intentions of his housekeeper. A misreading that would go on for a long time and which would lead him to his doom. 

When Therese - a woman about sixteen years older than the Professor - made a request for a book to read, the Professor, who brooked no nonsense especially from individuals outside the intelligentsia fraternity (sometimes even including some of whom he considered inferior), was amazed. However, it was not only the request that surprised him but Therese's personal relationship with the book she was given: first, she received the book in a clean wrapper; second, she bought brand-new hand-gloves which she wore when she handled the book. And to stretch matters, when the Kien spied on her to see if she was reading or pretending to be so, he found the book resting on a sewn pillow. Seeing a book he considered to be of no or little value treated this way surprised him, for he found that he - a lover of books - did not even treat his books in such a reverential manner as Therese did. When questioned why she had not read that far, Therese made it known that she read a page several dozens of time to absorb them before opening the next page. All these endeared Therese to the professor and a man who had remained unmarried, unattached, and a virgin, for four decades decided to marry his housekeeper of fifty-seven.

Whereas Kien married her for her devotion to knowledge and books, Therese married for love, money and property. And this is the point where the pathogen was introduced into the organism. Therese sought to claim ownership of Kien's entire properties including the books, the flat, his money and all. She started with part of the flat but gradually allocated three of the four rooms to herself and finally shared the remaining room with the professor. Later, she would throw the Professor onto the street, and Kien would become psychotic, of sorts - twisting reality (believing that she had locked her wife in the flat and that it was his strategy to leave home), believing the friends he picked up (like the dwarf who conned him out of his savings through his weakness for saving books and who planted a dangerous idea in his mind - that his wife was dead, which would later lead to the Professor's death).

Therese and Kien were opposites. Therese was limited in her vocabulary, but loquacious; Kien's language skills are unrivalled but taciturn. Kien's love is for books and knowledge (intangible); Therese's love is for the material properties and she considered the books only because of their financial value; so great was Therese's love for property and wealth that she thought Kien a thief for not giving her his savings at the bank and not willing her his properties. Kien was a virgin at forty; Therese knew what love should be, even at fifty-seven. And even though she was this age, she saw herself not a shade over thirty. These differences set the marriage up for failure even before it began. Kien was unsure how to consummate his marriage and if it was even necessary. He wondered if he should call his gynaecologist-turn-psychologist brother or if he should just buy a book on sex and if the latter who should get the book. These thought processes would later lead to his fall and his inability to fulfill Therese's marital expectations left her bitter and vengeful. These events together with her own psychotic tendencies would lead her to claim proprietorial ownership from the tall, lanky, spineless Kien - a man whose understanding of the world beyond books is as infantile as it could possibly be.

Kien sought solace in his books and partnered with them to fight the enemy, Therese. This provided enough allusion to Nazi Germany and its reaction towards Jews at the time. For instance, Therese's gradual takeover of Kien's apartment and his property could be an allusion Nazi Germany's occupation of foreign lands.

The enemy believes we shall not dare to render void conquests in territory already occupied; trusting in our ignorance of these new conditions, the enemy seeks to initiate a policy of abduction, unnoticed by us, and without an open declaration of war. Have no doubts of this, the enemy will lay hands first upon the noblest among your ranks, upon those whose ransom will be highest. [104]

He continues as he addresses his books to prepare to battle Therese:

Who among you would be reft from your native land, scattered through all the world, treated as slaves, to be priced, examined, bought, but never spoken to - slaves who are but half listened to when they speak in the performance of their duties, but in whose souls no man cares to read, who are possessed but not loved, left to rot or sold for profit, used but never understood? [104]

In this warfare address, Kien made reference to the song the Israelites sang as they were being taken into captivity recorded at Psalm 137. This reference extends to the Jews and their migration from their homeland into the diaspora. He writes

We have no time now for songs of lamentation, ..., or we shall be singing them next by the waters of Babylon. [105] 

In relation to this, Canetti discussed argued that the world remained blind to the events that took place during the Inquisition leading to the loss of several souls. He argued this by stating that sometimes only a small action is required to avert a bigger problem and that though our contribution towards the alleviation of a universal misery might be small, we should not hold it out. No one should think he is too small or too weak to make an impact.

Our widow's mite for the alleviation of universal misery is small, but we must cast in. If a man should say: alone I am too weak, then nothing would be done, and misery would devour further. [245]

But one can say that Kien was the cause of his own victimisation; he's responsible for his own problems by refusing to defend himself and allowing others to direct his life, by believing everybody and misinterpreting people's actions and statements. And after people have told him the things he want to hear, those he had been wishing for, he internalised them and make them his. He retells them as facts they coming from his prodigious mind. Besides, his narrow world-view beyond books made him not a master of people or of the world. Only of books. In his pathetic and often times comedic situations filled with glaring misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which a child of five might not even make, resulting mostly from the superimposition of his thoughts and beliefs on other people's actions and statements, Canetti might be deriding such narrow-mindedness and limited search for knowledge. Also, Kien never consulted anyone and worked in isolation, he was overly opinionated and thought that if it did not come from him, it wasn't important. Clearly, Canetti expects intellectuals to be involved in the discourse of the time, to participate and speak against evil and even if all you can do is little, do it. Else, in the end you might get what you fear the most.

Some aspects of the narrative investigate mob action - its causes and its mind. Canetti shows clearly that each person in a mob has his own unique motive and understanding of what is happening and most often these run counter to those of the others in the mob. He also discussed humanity as a single mass lodged within the individual. Thus, the individual carries within him the mass-soul and it is this mass-soul that is being attacked.

We wage the so-called war of existence for the destruction of the mass-soul in ourselves, no less than for hunger and love. In certain circumstances it can become so strong as to force the individual to selfless acts or even acts contrary to their own interests. 'Mankind' has existed as a mass for long before it was conceived of and watered into an idea. [461]

These deductions percolate into Nash's Equilibrium. Thus, Canetti might be discussing what is referred to in Xhosa as Ubuntu - I am because We are. The universal philosophy of togetherness; the oneness of purpose or of mind distilled into the Buddhist concept of Itai Doshin, or many in body but one in mind. This universal principle is antithetical to the individuality and self-centredness of current political and economic principles. Canetti's discourse showed that though mankind has lost this togetherness, a time will come when humanity shall realise its singularity of purpose, which would be translated into unity.

There will come a time when it will not be scattered again, possibly in a single country at first, eating its way out from there, until no one can doubt any more, for there will be no I, you, he, but only it, the mass. [461/2]

Issues of existentialism were also touched upon. Kien could be described as an Existentialist in the mould of Descartes whose existentialist thought is summed up in the maxim 'I think therefore I am'. Through Kien, Canetti discussed what is it to be dead. For him, since one cannot see the soul, there is no need in discussing it. What one sees is the skeleton and that's the most important thing.

When they found her, on the floor before the writing desk, she was a skeleton; not a soul...' [357; author's emphasis]

Esse percipi, to be is to be perceived. [79]

Marriage as a social contract and its overrating of sex and the relationship between the genders were all discussed. Women were both vilified and praised. But the motherhood role was magnified. Also, with the exception of Therese who did the abusing, most of the women in the story were abused.

Canetti employed comedy, caricaturing and augmented reality to tell this unique story. The turn in his imagery are sometimes sharp, unpredictable, and therefore fulfilling. For instance, two jaguars attacking from the flanks of a man suddenly become sacrificial priests of ancient Mexico. Some of Canetti's descriptions are fantastic; like how Kien packs an entire library into his head and unpacks them every night before going to sleep. He also wrote most of the story from the consciousness of his characters, especially Kien, thus conflating the real and the surreal. The distinction between reality and fantasy is therefore thin. Characters easily see what they have been wishing for or dreaming about, like Kien believing that he had killed his wife or Fisherle - the hump and dwarf - seeing himself as the Chess World Champion to the extent of adopting the title Dr. There are several moments of laughter interspersed with broader intellectual discourse.

Finally, the author's love for the German language was visible in this story. He made references to accurate use of words, people's inability to speak properly and those with limited diction.

There is more in this book than could be discussed here. It would be more beneficial if one reads the book instead. This book is highly recommended.

________________________

* Translated by C. V. Wedgewood
*After this I read Ben Okri's Infinite Riches and then followed it up with The Palm-Wine Drinkard by Amos Tutuola. The progression with these four books is seamless.
* Read quotes from this book here.