Talk:The Grand Inquisitor

The Actual Novel and Father Zossima
In the Hackett version of the The Grand Inquisitor, published in '93 (about 10 years after the Continuum version IIRC), not only is there a kickass picture of the G.I. on the front, but chapters 3 and 4 from Karamazov and The Russian Monk (book about Zossima) are included. There's also an introduction to back up my opinion that, in particular, Zossima's chapters are essential to the overall point of The Gran Inquisitor. I'm thinking about getting some concrete sources and adding in some stuff about it, but first I'll ask for other opinions on this.--Mr Bucket 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Bucket: I think there are two ways the issue can be understood. First, I think it's obvious that The Grand Inquisitor is meant to explain the motivations behind Ivan's character. In this sense, it can be seen as a stand-alone argument in the same way that Ivan can be seen as an individual. However, -- and this is the second point -- I'm not so sure that Dostoevsky is the kind of author who can be properly understood by mere excerpts. The Grand Inquisitor, in this sense, is like a flashpoint between two competing ideals in the greater whole (that is, The Brothers Karamazov) and therefore cannot be understood in the way Dostoevsky intended it to be understood outside the context of the novel. Thus, Alyosha's character is also crucial here (even if he doesn't actually say anything substantial in The Grand Inquisitor specifically), and so are his own character motivations -- those that are revealed in the Zossima chapters.
 * So, to summarize my own position, I agree with you. Perhaps we might add a separate section near the end under the heading of "Context"? This would be so much the better if you have something in print that can be cited in support of your position. If you can find an online copy of it, might we be able to compel you to post a link to it here? And, oh, can we not find a cover to include in the article better than the present one? --Todeswalzer 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yay for agreement! I should say I actually have not read the bros (yet, though I surely will; I was assigned the GI in a class), so I may be unable to help with a complete picture of the book, but there is information I can bring to the table.
 * I'd be glad to help getting the introduction up in some form or another. I'll look for a copy online; if not, I'm not sure whether I'm legally allowed to type up the intro and post it, but I could certainly get some extracts or something. If you/someone else is curious, the version I have is here at amazon; it is a real, extant book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bucket (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 October 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:Grand inquisitor.JPG
Image:Grand inquisitor.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily accurate to describe the Grand Inquisitor as an atheist. He clearly believes in Jesus. He just thinks Jesus chose poorly. Mhojo 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins
Dostoyevsky may have gotten his idea for the Grand Inquisitor from Schiller, but there are other and earlier literary precedents. I don't have time to track them down right now, but I seem to recall that the French feuilletonist Eugene Sue wrote a similar passage, and that this in turn was suggested by a passage from an earlier Spanish writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.Hedden (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Comment)
That comment by the literary critic about it being a fictional confrontation between Tolstoy and D is ridiculous. I just finished Joseph Franks 750 pg fifth volume biograohy of Dost dealing mostly with BK and after analyzing extensively the notes, letters, comments, conversations that refer to the Grand Inquisitor Frank makes it clear that the work is about exactly what it seems; a confrontation between the spirit of christ and the materialism of the church (and of Marxist socialism). Throughout dostoevsky's work materialism vs spiritualism is the main thread, and it is powerfully expressed here along with several other more nuanced opinions about eastern christianity vs. catholocism, nialism vs russian socialism, the nature of humanity, and the failure of european society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahakaya (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"committed atheist"
I think it's not correct to call Ivan "a committed atheist" VZakharov (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Influence on other media
I'm minded to do some pruning on this section: The X-files episode article isn't specific about the connection (just a vague reference to "The Brothers Karamazov", here), and I can't see anything on Kushner's page about that one, so some citations asserting the connections would be useful. The repetition of the song titles was looking like cruft, and Andres's play is self-evidently about this Grand Inquisitor, not Dostoyevski's, so I've deleted them altogether. Very cathartic! Swanny18 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Unclarity in the opening.
""The Grand Inquisitor" is a story within a story contained within Fyodor Dostoevsky's 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov."

Using the term "story within a story" seems to suggest an additional level of recursion: a story contained within a story contained within The Brothers Karamazov, while it's an embedded narrative within The Brothers Karamazov. Is there any alternative to that term? Would "embedded narrative" be confusing to those who don't know the term? If so, how could the article be reworded in order to not cause any confusion, or is the current formatting acceptable?--178.155.5.169 (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not very well worded. It might be slightly less confusing if "story within a story" were bluelinked, and "contained within" changed to something like "that forms an important part of". Thus: ""The Grand Inquisitor" is a story within a story that forms an important part of Fyodor Dostoevsky's 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov." "Embedded narrative" is probably ok, but I don't think either term is ideal as a description of the chapter's place within the novel. In Bakhtinian terms, it's a dialogue (The Grand Inquisitor with Christ) within a dialogue (Ivan with Alyosha) within The Great Dialogue of the novel. There's a problem with the word 'soliloquy' for the same reason: although Christ doesn't speak in the dialogue, he is palpably present and the Inquisitor is addressing Him with every word he utters. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)