 |
| Painting of Tolstoy by Repin |
For Wednesday:
Dostoevsky, “Bobok” (pp.81-96) & Tolstoy, “God Sees the Truth But Waits”
(pp.98-105)
Answer 2 of the 4
questions that follow:
1. The narrator of
“Bobok” tells us early in the story that “The wisest person of all...is the one
who calls himself a fool at least once a month—an unheard-of quality in this
day and age” (82). What is he talking
about in this passage? How does this
passage, and others like it, help describe the narrator’s character and
beliefs? What kind of person is he, and
how are we supposed to feel about him as a narrator (do we trust him, etc.)?
2. In the 19th
century, Russia Russia Siberia , and many of the criminals were falsely
accused (like Aksyonov). Why might the government consider Tolstoy's story dangerous for people to read, especially those who didn't personally experience the camps? Does his story, despite its moralistic content, also have an anti-government message?
3. Why would
Dostoevsky write a story about a group of corpses from every social rank/class
arguing with one another in their graves?
What are they chiefly arguing about, and what does the author (or the
narrator) want us to see in their bickering?
How might this relate to some of the social satire we encountered in
“The Queen of Spades”?
4. When Aksyonov
forgives Makar Semyonov for setting him up, he suddenly “felt a weight off his
heart. He stopped feeling homesick, he
no longer wanted to leave the prison, and his only wish was to die” (104). In the next paragraph, he actually does die. Why is this a “happy ending”? Why would the act of forgiveness make him
want to abandon his family and chance at a pardon and simply give up on life
entirely?
1) The narrator from the beginning gives me the notion that he is sarcastically describing how people are viewed, and is doing so with a rather big chip on his own shoulder. But in weird ways he makes very valid points that he is maybe trying to keep neutral rather than lay it all out to be understood. For what I am reading that is the very problem, all are like-minded, not out of the box thinkers. But yet all think they are wise for following along and those who do, are as he says are disappearing. Does this mean literally, or just getting too scared to further speak out and be original, there are claims to not lose mind over all this but yet I am still reading some anger between in his complex round about way of explaining. He shows himself to be overly particular within the works of literacy. Telling us his frustrations of others ways in judging works but yet he is just as stern in his ways. Shows some deceitful tactics along with an unpredictable temperament. Although his bluntness for me is a relief, I'm not having to guess how he truly feels on issues.
ReplyDelete3. At first reading this was somewhat of a battle trying to picture the reality within what he is trying to portray. But the lines on page 86 shed some great light of understanding for me. Where it is said;
"Well that really is stupid. Trying to collect debts..... up until, before the judgement seat of the Lord we stand equal in our trespasses. These lines stood out to me and made me realize how sad it is to see the fight of not grasping all being equal, that things such as status, race, and so forth keep ones from connecting and expanding horizons. Being close minded and staying within our boundaries is such a mistake in my opinion. The fact that he is using the analogy of ones still performing these acts while rolling over in their graves is just the sad truth of it all. Just like in the Queen of spades, when those who read it in defense of the little man, against the oppressive bureaucracy, or humanities search for meaning.
Chaz Sanders
ReplyDelete1) What the narrator means in this is that the man who can recognize he doesn't know everything is on his way to true wisdom. "A quality unheard of in this age," just shows that at the time, people were arrogant and self important. This suggests to me that he was a philosopher, and a humble and wise one. I think this is supposed to make us trust him, but not take everything he says as absolute truth, because he has admitted that he doesn't have all the answers.
3) I think he wrote this to show that we are all equal in death, no matter our station in life. I think that's an important message. The fact that they are arguing about all the various scandals they have been involved in shows they are still trying to regain a sense of fame or infamy, just some recognition before they are consumed by death completely. He wants us to really understand that death is the great equalizer. We are all the same once we are in the ground.