Paper - Of Heroes

In any story, the hero plays an essential role—in fact, there would be no story without him. His actions, good or bad, are what fuel the plot and keep the rest of the characters alive. Sometimes the hero is obvious from the beginning of the book. Other times you find him halfway through. Occasionally you finish the book with no clear idea of who the hero actually was. Such is the case in the Brothers Karamazov, and this point was illustrated in many of our discussions in class. The actual (or intended) hero in the Brothers Karamazov is a point of great controversy, and brings about a question on the nature of the hero. Is it the author's job to tell the reader who the hero is, or is it the reader's job to discover the protagonist for themselves? Some would argue, as Dostoevsky did, that the likeable, noble-minded Aloysha is the hero of this great piece of literature, while others might argue that Dmitri, the man of action, deserves the starring role. However, in the course of this paper it will be proven that the actual hero of the Brothers Karamazov is the tragic figure of the boy Ilyusha.

A tragic hero, in one sense, is one who makes such an error in their actions, be it through maliciousness or trickery, that causes his suffering or downfall. Most tragic heroes, however, are noble people, and it is only through some mistake in judgment that his ruination is brought about. This idea is beautifully illustrated by Ilyusha's feeding the pin to the dog Zuchka. Though the act was performed out of spite, it was not for hatred of the poor creature, but rather as a form of rebellion against the boy Kolya, unofficial leader of the schoolboys. Ilyusha wanted to prove that he was capable of doing something without Kolya's permission, in effect, that he was able to act on his own. He knew that he had done wrong as soon as he heard Zuchka's pained yelping, and was afraid that he had killed the poor undeserving creature, but at that point the act had been done and there was nothing that could be changed about it. Grief consumed Ilyusha and made him ill. In fact, one may think that his sorrow over his actions may have been what ultimately caused his death in the end of the book. However, this is another point of debate, for a reconciliation was made through the boy Kolya, and the dog returned unharmed. Ilyusha saw that no damage had been done by his actions, yet his condition did not improve, and that is the real reason that he is the tragic hero of this book.

Although there are several deaths in the Brothers Karamazov, only one is a true tragedy. The death of Father Zossima, though sorrowful, and a source of great pain especially for Alyosha, was not a tragedy. Zossima had lived a long, full life and had experienced everything that he was meant to see. Neither was the death of Fydor Karamazov a tragedy, for he too was getting on in years. In fact, some might say that he had already lived too long. However, Ilyusha's death can be considered a true tragedy, and a tragedy in the deepest sense of the word, for he had not experienced enough of life to be ready to leave it behind yet. This is part of a most vital doctrine on the nature of mortality—that death is tragedy only when it comes too soon. Although Father Zossima be dearly mourned, or Old Man Karamazov damned to hell, it is Ilyusha's death that should stir up indignation, that should cause the reader to ask how this could have happened. Ilyusha was only a child. He was not supposed to die. This is not right at all. Of all the characters in the book, Ilyusha was the one who most “deserved” to live, for he had seen so little of life.

The death and suffering of children is a major topic in the Brothers Karamazov. It consumes a great deal of the conversation between Ivan and Aloysha, and leads to one of the deepest questions posed in the book. “Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?” This idea is displayed in the suffering, and eventual death, of young Ilyusha, though his death was not in any way justified by his actions. In fact, Ilyusha's role in the Brothers Karamazov was illustrative of the death of Dostoevsky's own son, Aloysha, after whom he named his beloved protagonist. Neither boy's death was directly caused by his own actions, but was tragic in that it was unjustified and came before its time. If Dmitri Karamazov can be forgiven for trying to kill his own father, it is an unstated fact that a small boy should be forgiven for injuring a dog, especially when he did not even know that the poor creature would be hurt so. The phrase “I did not mean to hurt him,” all-too-common in an overenthusiastic young boy's rhetoric, nevertheless rings true in this situation.

However, whether you believe that he was in the wrong or not, Ilyusha's suffering is unjustified merely because he is just a boy. The death of a child, Alexy Karamazov would argue, is far too much of a horror to ever be considered right, for each life is precious and full of love. Ivan might argue that the child might grow up someday to be a horrible, wicked person, but there is no way to know whether that is true or not, and therefore the child's suffering is still not justified. The cutting short of any young life is tragedy, much more so when he feels that his suffering is a punishment for his sins. This is an illustration of the tragic sense of life—sarvam dukkham, sarvam anityam—the idea that life is full of pain and suffering, justified or unjustified, and lasts only for a moment. Whether it be fair or not, children will suffer and die and there is no way to stop it. To die before one's time is what it truly means to be a tragic figure, and this is why Ilyusha Snegiryov is the true hero of the Brothers Karamazov.