Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"At Tikhon's": On the morning when the Shpigulin workers go to see the governor, Nikolay Vsevolodovich goes to see the retired bishop TIKHON, as Shatov had suggested. Nikolay tells the bishop that he has recurring dreams of being haunted by an evil being. Tikhon says demons exist, but this is probably an illness. He asks Nikolay to tell everything he came to tell, and Nikolay gives him some typed pages to read. It recounts his life of joyless dissipation in Petersburg. He insists on his full responsibility for his crimes; he has an ecstatic rush when he commits them. Most prominently, he seduces the abused 14-year-old daughter of his lower-middle-class landlord, then leaves without a word. He goes back to visit the lodging when the girl is alone there; she flees into a small closet. He peeks in through a crack and watches her hang herself. Later, he punishes himself by marrying Marya Timofeyevna, rather than by shooting himself. Then he goes abroad for a year: Germany, France, Iceland, Egypt, Mt. Athos, Switzerland. He has recurring dreams of the emaciated girl shaking her fist at him, but he can't make himself want to get rid of her memory. In Switzerland he falls in love with a girl and considers marrying her bigamously; instead he runs away on the advice of another girl. "When the time comes," Nikolay says he will publish the typescript. Tikhon says, "You have felt the depth of your sins." Nikolay wants forgiveness. Tikhon tells him to go to a certain anchorite and put himself in his service for four years. He prophesizes that Nikolay will throw himself into a new crime when the papers become public. Nikolay walks away in a fury.

Opening question: What light does this story shed on Nikolay Vsevolodovich's actions?

It's time for a body count.*

5 Murders: Shatov, Lizaveta, Marya, Lebyadkin, Fed'ka
2 Suicides: Nikolai, Kirillov
1 Natural Death: Stepan
Except for Varvara and Pyotr, that's all the major characters and some minor ones too.

To quote Yeats:
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;"

* not counting any that happened before the novel opens

The editor of the Penguin Classics translation by Robert Maguire wrote a brief Appendix introduction that included some of Dostoevsky’s thoughts on the chapter, in the form of a note from Dostoevsky to his publisher after a rewrite.

I think it’s important for understanding the novel, or at least what Dostoevsky was going for, so I’m pasting the first half here:

“At the end of the opening chapter of Part II, Shatov advises Stavrogin to go to see Tikhon, a former bishop who is living in retirement in a local monastery, and the part as it was then conceived was to end with the powerful chapter ‘At Tikhon’s� (Chapter 9). However, it was rejected by Mikhail Katkov, the editor of the Russian Herald, the journal in which the novel was being serialized.

Katkov objected to the shocking revelations that Dostoyevsky considered essential, and as he wrote in a letter to Katkov’s assistant, when sending the revised chapter: ‘Everything very obscene has been thrown out; the main thing has been shortened; and this whole half-insane escapade has been sufficiently indicated, but will be indicated even more strongly subsequently. I swear to you that I could not omit the essence of the matter; this is a whole social type� a Russian, a person� who has lost everything native and most importantly, faith; a degenerate out of ennui� Along with the nihilists this is a serious phenomenon� (March–April 1872, Complete Letters, tr. David Lowe, vol. 4 (Ann Arbor: Ardis Publishers, 1991), p. 23).

Nevertheless, Katkov remained firm in his objections...� (italics emphasis FMD, bold emphasis mine)

I think that describes at least what Dostoevsky thought of Stavrogin. I think Pyotr and the Group of Five are the nihilists he describes.

If Pyotr knew of Nikolai witnessing a suicide then perhaps that is why he wanted to witness Kirillov’s suicide.

Shatov tells Nikolai to go to Tikhon, and Tikhon sees the same thing in Nikolai that Shatov did. Nikolai is ashamed to ask for repentance, and he covers up this shame by committing even more shameful acts. (I said in the previous thread that Nikolai is basically honest, but it turns out he did lie when he told Shatov that he never abused any children.) But even in this state he isn't unredeemable. He acknowledges his evil and recognizes the demon that possesses him, but he must be willing to accept forgiveness, and he can't muster up the humility to do this.

Mike wrote: "If Pyotr knew of Nikolai witnessing a suicide then perhaps that is why he wanted to witness Kirillov’s suicide."

I don’t think Pyotr cared about witnessing suicide, he just wanted to avoid responsibility for all of his scheming and murdering. It’s implied that Kirillov was given things/money while abroad in return for agreement to allow the revolutionary organization that Pyotr is a member of to use his planned suicide in Russia in service of their cause. He was the “fall guy,� so Pyotr needed his death and a suicide note saying as much to align with his whole plan that included the deaths of Shatov, the Lebyadkins and, subsequently, of Fedka.

It’s arguable whether Pyotr was acting consistent with his organization’s revolutionary goals or for his own self-interest. Pyotr seems to indicate to Laputin that it can be both. Pyotr did spread chaos, eliminated a person (Shatov) who abandoned the cause and retrieved the illegal printing press during his brief stay in Russia. My guess would be that they would see it as a successful mission whether Pyotr benefited himself and killed some out of petty spite or not.

FMD does a good job of showing the revolutionary organizations� true character, I think. This is borne out in a way by the actual revolution and resulting Soviet Union with its many “purges� that conveniently saw perceived enemies of the leader labeled traitors and subjected to show trials.

Roger wrote: "Opening question: What light does this story shed on Nikolay Vsevolodovich's actions?"

Nikolai's child abuse and sadism is brazen here, and it makes me wonder about where this urge came from. I guess there is a spiritual or metaphysical explanation for it -- Nikolai's discussion about whether his demon is real or just an aspect of him almost sounds like Descartes' "evil demon" -- but looking at it psychologically, child abuse is almost always cyclical. It makes me wonder if Stepan's strange behavior with Nikolai as a child is behind this. There's no way Dostoevsky could have opened his novel with an open account of child abuse, but even this mild hint of it is memorable.

Gary wrote: "It's time for a body count.*

5 Murders: Shatov, Lizaveta, Marya, Lebyadkin, Fed'ka
2 Suicides: Nikolai, Kirillov..."

Actually, 3 Suicides: Nikolai, Kirillov, and the 14-year-old girl (daughter of Nikolai's landlord)...

I'd describe much of Nikolai's behavior as reckless. He behaves recklessly in society, and exposes himself to danger for the sensation of it. He is unanchored intellectually and morally, and unattached to others. He is also drawn to the dark side and to baseness. Born to wealth, gifted with intelligence, physical beauty, and charisma, he is twisted, and this is his personal tragedy.

Thomas wrote: "but looking at it psychologically, child abuse is almost always cyclical."

Your interpretation seems valid, but I’m not sure it’s something Dostoevsky could have considered. I think our understanding of the cyclical psychological nature of abuse, especially domestic abuse, is largely based on fairly recent psychological studies. Keep in mind, FMD was writing in a world of pre-Freud, pre-Jung psychological understanding.

Aiden wrote: "Keep in mind, FMD was writing in a world of pre-Freud, pre-Jung psychological understanding...."

Yet sometimes genius is saying out loud what is known, but in the interim can only be hinted or shrouded in secrecy? I still want someone to (try to?) explain to me why Berlin called Dostoevsky "the hedgehog." Did it mean he viewed the world through some particular lens that bent every reality into its image? If it did, what relationship, if any, did it have to the Gerasene Demoniac -- or the story thereof?

I watched a video on YouTube about Dostoevsky, it explains that his characters have ‘spiritual vacuum � which lets in demons in them. But we don’t know what causes this vacuum, here we don’t know characters ‘s past. Dostoevsky doesn’t give any cure to this vacuum.

The time when this book was written was a peak in socio-political revolution, may that unrest is the reason for this ‘spiritual vacuum�.

Other reasons I can think of are-

Lack of individual identity
Lack of substantial ambition ( Dostoevsky says )

Both higher and lower classes suffer from this ‘spiritual vacuum � but higher class people have luxury of acting recklessly like Nikolai, lower class people form a part of a dissatisfied mob.

Aiden wrote: "Your interpretation seems valid, but I’m not sure it’s something Dostoevsky could have considered. I think..."

I can't say that Dostoevsky formulated the cycle in a way that modern psychologists would recognize, but I think he was working with the same psychological material. It's something he thought about because he uses it in his other novels as well, most dramatically in Ivan's famous speech in BK where he relates several tales of sadistic treatment of children and then says that he wants nothing to do with a God who would allow this. And then there's Svidrigailov in C&P, an overt child molester who shoots himself after he has a dream about a child turning into a prostitute.

But what I was trying to get at is the root of Stavrogin's sadism. If it wasn't some sort of pyschological trauma, what was it? What started it?

Thomas wrote: "I can't say that Dostoevsky formulated the cycle in a way that modern p..."

Interesting points. I wonder if FMD was consciously aware of that possible causality or he just wrote about what was normal reality to him.

There are mentions of Stepan Trofimovich's unorthodox manner of raising Nikolai, compared to Falstaff's "raising" of the future Henry V early in the novel. It seems Stepan was putting the weight of the world on his young pupil's shoulder's with his quixotic utopian theories (the general character of the Man of the '40s) to remedy all the problems in society.

In FMD's letter to his editor, he describes Nikolai as "a degenerate out of ennui." Nikolai feels ennui (existential boredom/listlessness) and is unexcited by the real world because he was raised by a man with similar feelings, even if they manifested differently.

I read it as existential angst or feelings of life's lack of meaning. I don't remember any indications of physical or sexual abuse, but one could definitely say that his father dying when he was young, his mother giving him to Stepan to raise and Stepan's worthless "teachings" that warped his view of the world count as abuse.

Monica wrote: "Gary wrote: "It's time for a body count.*

5 Murders: Shatov, Lizaveta, Marya, Lebyadkin, Fed'ka
2 Suicides: Nikolai, Kirillov..."

Actually, 3 Suicides: Nikolai, Kirillov, and the 14-year-old gir..."

Don't forget the young man who squandered his family's savings and then shot himself in Part II, Chapter 5, section 2.

In fact that section also has the group visit to the "holy fool," which I think must be contrasted with Nikolay Vsevolodovich's visit to Bishop Tikhon.

Thomas wrote: "Aiden wrote: "Your interpretation seems valid, but I’m not sure it’s something Dostoevsky could have considered. I think..."

I can't say that Dostoevsky formulated the cycle in a way that modern p..."

I think he's also afflicted by the so called "Imp of the Perverse" demon - the urge to do something horrible just because it's possible to do it. We all may feel this urge sometimes (alongside with the "call of the void") but it's kept in check by our common sense, conscience and fear of punishment  - Nikolay lacks all of them, so there's nothing to stop him. He's not a pedophile, he's not sexually attracted by the landlord's daughter. He's abusing her out of boredom and curiosity. I dont know what's worse...

The root cause of his sadism should be located in his childhood, but I don't think his particular case is relevant, he probably represents a whole generation: the spoiled rich young man who lost his touch with the traditional values.

I just don't even know.

This chapter felt the most false to me. Except for anger, Stavrogin throughout the book has seemed to be a bit emotionally removed/above it all... or to take whatever happens emotionally in stride.

Here now he's blurting things out, and he's laughing nervously, and he's subject to nervous vexation. I "could" think it's because he's here to reveal his secrets. So he's there on a truth mission?

But his demeanor going in seems to belie that. He "anxiously felt for something in his side pocket [the pages]---and grinned.. It's as though he's looking forward to enjoying the disgust the old priest will direct at him. That delicious sacred anguish Stepan had taught him to savor. He can luxuriate in the self-abasement he'll feel.

NVS: "I don't see any expression of loathing or shame in you..." He did not finish and grinned.

And then NVS starts suggesting that in these pages he has "really heaped too many lies on myself," that he was "indeed heaping lies on [him]self."

I think he's lying when he says that. But this chapter cleared up little for me.


.

Aiden wrote: "In FMD's letter to his editor, he describes Nikolai as "a degenerate out of ennui." Nikolai feels ennui (existential boredom/listlessness) and is unexcited by the real world because he was raised by a man with similar feelings, even if they manifested differently.
.."

In his letter Nikolai says that he wanted to kill himself from "the disease of indifference," which sounds a lot like degeneration out of ennui. This might be related to the "imp of perversity" that Emil mentioned, though that sounds more like an excuse than an explanation, and I think if we are to diagnose Nikolai's self-hatred and love of suffering we have to look for an explanation. So I keep looking...

He probably does represent his generation, but I think his particular example must be relevant in order to properly represent something larger. Stepan is a weak man with few convictions who lives in a world of abstractions, a lukewarm half-believer of the sort that would be "spewed" according the passage quoted from Revelations. This lukewarm indifference seems to have been passed down to Nikolai, with the result that he is unable to choose either good or evil with intentionality. These are the sorts of choices that make human beings who they are. Without the ability to make these choices he loses a sense of purpose and meaning. All he's left with is brute sensuality, which leads to despair and ultimately suicide.

I have more questions than answers (though, as you can see, I have plenty of hypotheses) so a couple more:

Any thoughts about why Tikhon says that Nikolai resembles his mother spiritually?

After Tikhon finishes reading Nikolai's bloody and gut-wrenching letter, he suggests that Nikolai might touch up his style. What on earth?

I'm not sure what he meant exactly about Nikolai and his mother, but I read it as both of them having a somewhat disingenuous spirituality.

For Varvara it seems a struggle between faith and vanity. She is tempted from spirituality by her vane and love of control and pageantry (playing God, herself). Her charity seems somehow tainted by the manner in which she bestows it and the way it competes. Nikolai also faces a struggle between pride and faith, though his vanity is directed inward in the form of demanding that faith owes him explanations.

Put another way, their spirituality is common because they are both tainted by pride; Varvara uses her faith and charity to prove something to society and Nikolai uses it to prove something to himself. Both miss the point of Christian faith as I understand it.

As for the under-reaction to Nikolai's confession, I think it can be seen two ways. First, he is showing that he is more Christ-like than ordinary priests through acceptance of people with all their faults. The second way I read it is Tikhon knowing that Nikolai wants him to be outraged by the confession and making a point of not satisfying him. Tikhon's rationality does seem to infuriate Nikolai at times while they are speaking.

After a lifetime of hearing confessions, Bishop Tikhon has surely heard a lot of things. Nikolay Vsevolodovich's may not be the worst he has heard. He says Nikolay should serve some anchorite for four years of penance. That would be an extremely humbling experience for a nobleman like Nikolay. Tikhon also seems to discourage him from publicizing his confession--maybe he thinks that would be a action of perverse pride.

At 20, Thomas: After Tikhon finishes reading Nikolai's bloody and gut-wrenching letter, he suggests that Nikolai might touch up his style. What on earth?

It seemed to me that in addition to the childhood issues [his unresponsive mother], Stepan, lack of religious foundation, etc. that NSV and others suffered a lack of foundation in being “Russian.� So who were they?

Possibly the most important thing NSV has every written and how does he self-identify? “I, Nikolai Stavrogin, a retired officer…� a retired officer. A retired Russian officer. Yet we know Nikolai’s “career� was shameful and short-lived. He was no retired Russian officer. Yet that’s what he writes. That’s how he wants to publish. {Then, too, his behavior as an officer shows even more shamefully?}

Nikolai had said to Shatov that “an atheist cannot be Russian. An atheist immediately ceases to be Russian� (249).

He could have written to Darya in French, but he wrote in Russian, noticeably “in style of a young Russian squire who never fully learned Russian grammar, in spite of all his European education.� And his self-history, too, was written in Russian, with “rather numerous� errors.

There was a sentence in “Night� that had really resonated with me. “Nikolai Vsevolodovich was sitting alone in his study—his favorite room from long past, lofty, spread with carpets, filled with the somewhat heavy, old-fashioned furniture.� An extremely traditional room for a Russian nobleman. I thought that under different circumstances Nikolai would have embraced being a Russian noble and would have flourished.

I took this as showing another aspect of Nikolai that didn’t have a firm foundation.

Looking at the book as a whole, here's something that puzzles me. Early on, I thought the book was going to be about Stepan Trofimovich. But he turns out to be peripheral to the main action--Yuliya Mikhaylovna's gala and its sabotage by Pyotr Stepanovich, the murder of Shatov, and the doomed love triangle of Nikolay Vsevolodovich, Darya Pavlovna, and Lizaveta Nikolayevna. Why is Stepan given such prominence, especially in Part I?

Roger wrote: "Looking at the book as a whole, here's something that puzzles me. Early on, I thought the book was going to be about Stepan Trofimovich. But he turns out to be peripheral to the main action--Yuliya..."

I still think the book is about Stepan; he may be peripheral to the main plot but everything revolves around him. He is the biological father of Pyotr and a 'spiritual' father for Nikolay and Lizaveta, so we can say that he's indirectly responsible for what happened.

Roger wrote: "Looking at the book as a whole, here's something that puzzles me. Early on, I thought the book was going to be about Stepan Trofimovich. But he turns out to be peripheral to the main action--Yuliya..."

On the plotting level, I don't think it's correct to call Stepan peripheral when he is the narrator's primary source (as he says when he explains why he is introducing Stepan) and the first major character we meet. His downfall also parallel's the "action." The change from favored patron to poor vagabond is as stark as the change of the town from sleepy backwater to the center of national scandal.

On a thematic level, a combination of the chronicler and Stepan seems the closest to the author's character. Dostoevsky was a "man of the 40s" whose pretensions were crushed by years in a Siberian prison. He was just as disillusioned with the state of "reform" as Stepan is when he finally sees the inevitable results of his son's scheming. Scheming that seems to have been done at least in part to get back at his deadbeat father for illegally selling his birthright, which could also be seen as generationally symbolic. The reformers of the '40s squandered their children's futures with big words, but no action.

While Stepan may be "peripheral" to the main action of Pyotr and Nikolai, his fall from grace and death are central to the story as what I view as a metaphor for the collapse and death of the Russian Utopian dream of that previous generation. The same dream held by European writers like Fourier, the writer FMD was imprisoned for translating into Russian. By the 1860s, it had all deteriorated into nihilism and spiritually lost people like Nikolai.

At the same time, Varvara's immediately taking on the itinerant bible-seller as her new charity project upon Stepan's death seems symbolic of the aristocracy retaining their control over the Russian people.

Did Nikolay finally hang himself because that was how his 14-year-old victim died? And he never did publish his confession, did he?

I thought about that, too.

NVS told K he had thought about shooting himself. He wrote to Liza that he could never shoot himself.

Yes, I believe he hung himself because the girl hung herself

The text doesn't seem to show whether the manuscript was published or not---but the narrator has seen it. And had the original in his possession as he writes that he quoted from it "verbatim." And he says, "One may suppose it is now known to many" (690). So there's that.

Emil wrote: "I still think the book is about Stepan; he may be peripheral to the main plot but everything revolves around him. He is the biological father of Pyotr and a 'spiritual' father for Nikolay and Lizaveta, so we can say that he's indirectly responsible for what happened. ."

I agree with this, and to take it a step further, Varvara is said in the first chapter to have "invented" Stepan. "...for her he finally became her son, her creation, even, one might say, her invention, became flesh of her flesh..." Which helps me understand why Tikhon tells Nikolai that he resembles his mother spiritually.

I can't say I understand the mechanics of all that exactly, but I think it comes down to an inability to love and make responsible commitments, to people, God or country. Instead of that, there's a fuzzy and sentimental intellectualism which turns self-destructive. The disease of indifference is at the heart of the nihilism which destroys almost everyone in this book.

What do you suppose Pyotr Stepanovich will do after the events of the novel?

Since the interim read is scheduled to begin in a couple of days, I think this is a good time to say thank you to all who participated in the discussion. Your comments helped me to navigate what I think is an unwieldy novel that leaves me with a lot more questions than answers.

Roger, a special thank you goes out to you for moderating the discussion and for steering the ship to its harbor. I sincerely appreciated your opening summaries for each section because they helped me to get a handle on what was happening.

Not my favorite of the Dostoevskys I've read but certainly well worth reading, especially since it was augmented with such a fruitful discussion and analysis.

Thanks to all.

For me, the 'At Tikhon’s' chapter was pivotal. Had it been published in Part II as Dostoevsky intended, my experience of the novel would have been materially different � and better. In my view, the unity and flow of the narrative were badly compromised when it was cut. Placed after the fact in an appendix, the chapter fills in some missing pieces. Here are three instances:

We have been thinking of the demons as metaphoric, and in many respects that's so. But for Stavrogin (and for Dostoevsky the religious conservative) they are literal too.
“I believe in the demon, believe canonically in a personal demon, not an allegory.�

We learn that Stavrogin had been suicidal for some time, and that his suicide at the end of the novel, which surprised me, should not have. The notion that he ever loved Marya is put to bed too.
“I conceived the notion of somehow maiming my life, only in as repulsive a way as possible. For a year already I had been thinking shooting myself; something better turned up � lame Marya Timofeevna Lebyadkin � the thought of Sravrogin marrying such a last being tickled my nerves. Nothing uglier could be imagined.�

We find out what happened in Switzerland.
“In Switzerland, two months ago, I was able to fall in love with one girl, or, better to say, I felt a fit of the same passion ... I felt a terrible temptation for a new crime � that is, to commit bigamy (since I was already married); but I fled, following the advice of another girl to whom I confided everything.� Aren’t these two Liza and Darya? We now know something of what lay behind Liza’s moodiness and impulsiveness, especially around Stravrogin, which had previously seemed inexplicable. And we know what lay behind the knowing glances I imagine Stavrogin and Darya exchanged.

My own relationship with the novel was troubled. In truth, I was disappointed and tempted to hang it up. Toward the end I turned to outside reading to supplement the discussion here because I didn't share the enthusiasm of most other readers in this conversation. I wondered, what am I missing? Still, I am glad to have read the novel even though, if asked, I would recommend other Dostoevsky novels over this one.

Now that we have pretty much wrapped up Demons, should anyone be interested in a fresh overview through the eyes of a contemporary novelist, or of a Dostoevsky scholar, I can recommend these essays.

Joyce Carrol Oates� Tragic Rites in Dostovesky’s The Possessed


Joseph Frank’s The Masks of Stavrogin
This is available via JSTOR, which you should be able to access online through your local or regional library.

Thank you everyone for the fruitful conversation, it was an extraordinary experience to read "Demons" with you folks.

Roger, thanks for leading the discussions- not an easy feat, this novel proved to be a hard nut.

I too had a love-hate relationship with "Demons". I loved the philosophical dialogues but I hated the overdramatisation and the generally pessimistic tone. A great read nevertheless!

Yes. Thank you Roger, everyone. The book sat on my shelves for over a decade. The group effort here motivated me to carve out the time to read it. It was wonderful.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful contributions.

I'll leave it to anyone who pursues the review of Camus below to decipher its relevance, if any, among these perhaps closing comments on D's Demons , although I suspect the conversation(s) could go on:

/review/show..., including the comments, especially by Naresh in #6.

This is what caught my attention and led me to note the review above:
Mark André made progress on The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. On page 6 of 152: 3) “I have heard of an emulator of Peregrinos, a post-war writer who, after having finished his first book, committed suicide to attract attention to his work. Attention was in fact attracted, but the book was judged no good.�

Roger, thank you for steering our group through this one as guest moderator setting a postive precedent and a great example for future guest moderators. While I was regrettably unable to continue participating after the start I kept up enough to keep an eye on things and I like what I saw very much: an insightful, well attended, and well directed discussion. A sincere thank you to you and to everyone who participated. I will be sure to reference these comments when I get the chance to get back to finish reading Demons.

David wrote: "....finish reading Demons...."

Isn't this ... novel about as "finish able" as an epic of Homer? Or one of the sacred texts of a major religion. Unfortunately or fortunately, I'm one of those unlikely to ever give it the time it deserves. Which is why I am glad so many here, including Roger of course, have gifted us all with much from it.

Thank you for the kind words. Having read the novel twice--once in advance and once with the group--I think it has a lot to say to the present about the danger of demons.

Roger wrote: "--I think it has a lot to say to the present about the danger of demons."

This from one who once sort of led us into reading The Pilgrim's Progress ? Any "definition" of "demons" you are willing to articulate here, beyond the demons implied/named by this discussion?

Dostoyevsky doesn't seem to rule out actual malevolent influences, and neither will I, but the demons seem to be chiefly inhuman ideas that are allowed to overwhelm common sense and common decency. The nihilists seem to go right from "I can't rigorously prove that anything matters" to "I'll do something destructive and cruel just for the hell of it." And Shigalyov convinced himself that it's logically necessary to enslave 90% of humanity.

Roger wrote: "The nihilists seem to go right from "I can't rigorously prove that anything matters" to "I'll do something destructive and cruel just for the hell of it." "

I wonder what Dostoyevsky would have to say on that subject about the character of The Misfit and his demons from our recent read of A Good Man Is Hard To Find by Flannery O'Connor

A further thought. The introduction had said that Dostoevsky had said the Stavrogin was "everything." In googling about, I came across a site that said that the name Stavrogin contains both "cross" AND "horn."

So Stavrogin represents something of a materially advantaged Everyman---intelligence, wealth, looks, charm, a family with social standing. He admits he knows the difference between right and wrong. He says he knows that he CAN restrain himself... he CAN choose.

Man was created to be able to choose.

Stavrogan can choose between good and evil {cross and horn}. But without any higher values he can believe in, without goals worth working towards, he fails as a human.

Adelle wrote: "A further thought. The introduction had said that Dostoevsky had said the Stavrogin was "everything." In googling about, I came across a site that said that the name Stavrogin contains both "cross"..."

I like it.