Naples is hot and tiring, but there have been some really great papers and discussions today. Probably the best presentation was by Liza Knapp, on the idea of motherhood and intercession for their sinful sons in House of the Dead – a wonderful, thought-provoking conception which opens up that text in all sorts of interesting ways. As Robert Jackson said in the discussion, taking small details as she did, and linking them together, works so well because they are like drops of water in which the sun is reflected. It also complemented the other paper on the panel, by Paul Contino, which focused on ethics and incarnation in The Brothers Karamazov, and discussed the figure of Alyosha as a ‘realist’, the slightly strange designation of him by the narrator when he is first introduced.
Part of the discussion that followed was devoted to the question, which also arose after one of the morning panels, of how Orthodox Dostoevsky really is. I’m definitely one of the people who’s sceptical about interpreting Dostoevsky narrowly as an Orthodox writer, but you often feels you’re fighting a losing battle expressing that point of view, because it is pretty much ubiquitous in Russia and that seems to drown out other possibilities. So it was interesting and heartening to hear, over the two discussions, Dostoevsky described as an Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, and Atheist writer. Quite often scholars just ignore the question, and it is perfectly possible to analyse Dostoevsky without addressing the religious angle, but I can’t help wishing more people would commit to writing their view that it isn’t compulsory to see him as a prophet of Orthodoxy.
I also gave my own paper this morning, on Dostoevsky and the Crystal Palace, in which I re-examine his references to the building in relation to the context in which they appear, and in comparison with its use in English literature. I received a lot of good feedback and various people said I’d breathed new life into a subject on which they thought there was nothing left to say, so I think I’m on the right track. The panel as a whole was spoiled somewhat by the first speaker, who shall remain nameless. He spoke for 40 minutes (it was supposed to be 20 minutes each), which was bad enough, and then left immediately without listening to the other two papers. I was not impressed. However, the final paper, by Sergei Kibal’nik, went really well with mine, as he was discussing utopian socialism – again, apparently a tired old topic, but he was looking at The Village of Stepanchikovo and its Inhabitants, which is never considered to be one of Dostoevsky’s philosophical texts – I’ve always thought of it as ‘Dostoevsky lite’ — and he showed how relevant it is to that theme. I think I shall be re-reading it as soon as I get home. Anyway, because of the selfish, egotistical behaviour of the first speaker, there was no time for questions, which was really annoying because, as discussion later over lunch and coffee showed, there was a great deal to talk about.
Now that the hard work’s over, I have to say I’ll be mixing the rest of the symposium with a bit of sight seeing. But there are some interesting papers I want to hear tomorrow.