Finally read The Brothers Karamazov

Finally read The Brothers Karamazov.
While I like it, there is something I don't fully understand. What was the purpose of the whole dying kid subplot?
I think it disrupted the narrative on a very interesting part of the novel, and it didn't any impact on the main plot either, the novel could have been done without it in my opinion.

I havent read it but it seems like meta, or not even.

Just like, yeah yeah all this stuff and drama is happening but dude... kids just are dying and stuff... how sad is that, in relation to everything else... a life with now unknown potential cut short, bummer man.... back to the action Blam! Blammo! BOOMY!
everything ever is meta bro

>disliking the very best part of the novel
I suggest suicide, famalam. Anyway, that segment was a direct response to Ivan's view on child suffering.

Sorry if I may sound dumb, but how exactly is it a direct response?
Ivan's view of child suffering was about suffering caused by others, this was a natural sickness where no one was to blame or forgive as in Ivan speech.

Spoilers newfriend

>P&V
Not for me1

I didn't read that translation, it is just the cover I liked the most.

No, Ivan's point was on the suffering of the innocent and God's inaction to it. Now, how does Dosto respond to this? See Alyosha and Zosima's brother's actions and attitude.

>Alyosha and Zosima's brother's actions and attitude.

spoil it, please, whats their actions and attitude

Honestly for me the plot in the Brothers Karamazov is just a way to work through the philosophical discourse and how that affects the characters. Not only is the subplot my favorite part of the novel, it was a breath of fresh air getting away from the dense main plot, but judging by the ending I feel that the children led by Alysosya would become the main characters in the following novels, which Dosto died before he was able to start working on

On a not so relevant note, I thought Dosto weaved the subplots, stories and poems into the main work in a much more tight-knit way than Cervantes did in Don Quixote, which Dosto praised heavily. Thoughts?

Plus, it ties in with Zosima telling Alyosha to be out there in the world, engaging with people and to plant the seeds of growth, which is why the death of a child and subsequent rallying of his followers is relevant and powerful in my opinion.

I suppose that makes sense.

This as well, I thought he planned to do far more with Alyosha. At the beginning of the book he mentioned he was going to narrate Alyosha life.

Was Alyosha gay?

He clearly loved Lise, so no.

The novel wasn't originally intended to be a novel, it was a prologue to a novel about Alyosha that takes place afterward, but the prologue just kept getting bigger and bigger Dostoevsky eventually decided to make it a novel in itself. He died before writing the novel originally intended, so a great deal of the context and point of The Brothers Karamazov is completely lost on us, there is a lot that would have been resolved and revisited.

ill read bk soon but i really would like to know too

please respond!

I think this is the best reason

>"loved" Lise

He loved her in the way a confused young gay man loves a meme girl.

Lise was a bitch, she didn't deserve the love of such a pure guy.

>Lise was a bitch, she didn't deserve the love of such a pure guy.

None of them do user, none of them do. Men are of the sky, women are of the earth.

>Implying that speech wasn't a perfect ending
How dare you, OP?

>tfw sprinkle breadcrumbs on my grave so the sparrows will keep me company

This is where reading The Idiot comes in handy

I wouldn't call it the perfect ending, but it was the best thing the subplot brought and it was nice closer.

>projection.tƅh

My two cents: With the death of they boy, Alyosha has lost three people dear to him. (Smerdyakov is something of a lost soul and is omitted from all of this as far as I see it.)
On one level the three are analogous to the brothers themselves: Fyodor to Dmitri, Zossima to Alyosha, and the boy to Ivan.
On another level, the three can be seen as analogous to the Persons of the Trinity: Fyodor to the Father, the boy to the Son, and Zossima to the Holy Spirit (for example in his role in Alyosha's growth in faith). Not to say that Dostoyevsky was going the God Is Dead route with this, but Alyosha's crisis of faith in this book was apparently going to be expanded on greatly (and presumably resolved) during the course of The Life of a Great Sinner

>ywn read The Life of a Great Sinner

>tfw i have read 80% of Veeky Forums's depressed list
>tfw thats still the only time a book ever made me cry
Thanks dosto

I thought the link between the ending and Ivan's story / Dimitri's dream made a lot of sense.

What does Dosto mean when using "jesuit"? It's obviously used despectively, but I fail to grasp the exact meaning he gives to the word.

>And I, should I be lifted above the Earth, will draw all men unto me.

Jesus still loves you user.

Popish plots

>I haven't read it but here's my two cents anyways

that's what happens when the crossboarders arrive

Jesuits were Roman Catholics, which Dostoevsky had a problem with

The whole book is investigating the problem of evil: if God exists why does he let evil happen (especially to innocent people or children).
The best response to this, and the one given through this book, is universal suffering and vicarious atonement. There are several examples of this in this book and the dying kid is one of them.
Basically, the kid suffers for his father's sins. Then, with the help of alyosha, the kid and his father are both redeemed by the kids suffering. They are raised from abject ridicule to a kind of respect and love.

She was corrupted by ivan

Veeky Forums in a nutshell

That was one of the best parts of the book, tbk