The Brothers Karamazov
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
|
|
| published
| 2002
by Farrar, Straus and Giroux
|
| first published
| 2004 |
| binding
| Paperback |
| isbn
|
0374528373
(isbn13: 9780374528379)
|
| pages
| 824 |
| description
|
The award-winning translation of Dostoevsky's last and greatest novel.
[close]
The award-winning translation of Dostoevsky's last and greatest novel.
|
| date added
|
12-07-06
|
|
Sign in to Goodreads to see your friends' reviews of The Brothers Karamazov.
discuss this book
| topics |
replies |
last activity |
| Well Done |
7 |
04/01/2008 03:47PM |
groups with this book
Russian Readers Club
72 members
last activity: 26 days ago, 01:59PM
location: 117593, Russian Federation
White Nights
70 members
last activity: 14 days ago, 08:05AM
location: Pacifica, CA
Red Rock Book Club
2 members
last activity: 2 days ago, 09:40AM
location: Mountain View, CA
friend reviews (0)
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
other reviews
(showing 1-20 of 8800)
bookshelves:
fiction,
masterpieces,
russia,
to-reread
Contrary to widespread rumor, this is a far from bleak book. While every character has his or her own misery, and it all takes place in a place called something like "cattle-roundup-ville", the moments of religious ecstasy and moral clarity are heartbreaking in their frequency - it's hard not to wish that one had such bizarre events going on around one in order to prompt such lofty oratory.
The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich but notor...more
Contrary to widespread rumor, this is a far from bleak book. While every character has his or her own misery, and it all takes place in a place called something like "cattle-roundup-ville", the moments of religious ecstasy and moral clarity are heartbreaking in their frequency - it's hard not to wish that one had such bizarre events going on around one in order to prompt such lofty oratory.
The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich but notoriously lecherous father, Fyodor. All four brothers were raised by others, Fyodor having essentially ignored them until others removed them from his care. In the beginning of the book, Alyosha is in the monastery, studying under a famous elder name Father Zosima; Dmitri has just left the army and stolen a large sum of money from a government official's daughter, who he has also apparently seduced, all while pursuing a lawsuit against Fyodor for his inheritance and canoodling with his own father's intended, the local seductress Grushenka; Ivan, the intellectual in the family, has just returned from (I think) Petersburg. Dmitri is violent and impulsive, referring to himself as an "insect," and gets into fistfights with Fyodor several times. Smerdyakov works for Fyodor as a lackey, having gone to France to learn to cook at some point in the past. It's unimaginably more complicated and digressive than all this, and just trying to follow this crucial sum of three thousand rubles through the story is almost impossible. But anyway, Fyodor is killed and much of the book hinges on which brother killed him and why.
When I first read this book in high school, my teacher (who was a devout Catholic, a red-faced drunk who wore sunglasses to class, and the most enthusiastic reader of Russian literature imaginable) asked everyone who their favorite brother was. Was it Ivan, the tortured skeptic? Dmitri, the "scoundrel" who tortures himself for every wrong he commits but can't help committing more? Or Alyosha, the saintly one who always knows the right thing to say? (Certainly Smerdyakov is no one's favorite.) At the time I went with Ivan - I was in high school, after all, and his atheism and pessimism were revolutionary to me.
But now Ivan seems rather selfish and callow, and I can't help siding with Dmitri, the one Dostoevsky uses almost as a case history of conscience. Like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky gives his characters all the space to talk like gods, clearing pages upon pages for their reasoning and dialog. Dmitri fumbles with Voltaire and is clearly not overly literate, but in some ways that's apropos, because his main problem is the constant internal conflict between his desires and his ethics which is only partly resolved when he chooses to become responsible for not only what he does, but also what he wants.
The most famous passage in the book, Ivan's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, is, to me, far less interesting than Zosima's meditations on the conflict between justice and the collective good. The elder Zosima is a kind of Christian socialist who grapples with the typical mid-19th century Russian issues of how to build a equitable society without the extremes of coercion that the Tsar used to turn to, while also ensuring public morality and avoiding the kind of massacres that characterized the French Revolution (an event that seems to have been even more traumatizing for Russians than it was to the French due to the enormous cultural influence France had there at the time.) Zosima's answer is unworkable and in some ways naiive, but the discussion is well worth it, moreso than Ivan's somewhat simplistic dualism of Christ vs. the Inquisitor. Dostoevsky was a cultural conservative in the sense that he was constantly renewing his commitment to the obligations imposed on Russians by the Orthodox Church. At the same time, he was committed to the pursuit of joy through kindness and community and a kind of interpersonal fair dealing in a way that transcends his political concerns and is inspiring to see articulated in the lives of people who are as confused as the rest of us.
It's a huge, messy book, but so worth the effort. It took me about three months to read carefully, though my reading has been flagging lately, as well. I read this while listening to Hubert Dreyfus's accompanying lectures at Stanford on existentialism and this book which are available on iTunes U, and even when I felt his readings overreached, it was a good way to reread a tough and subtle work like this. ...less
bookshelves:
fiction
Read in November, 2007
recommends it for:
everyone!
This is a review both of the book and the translation. See my review of Crime and Punishment for an explanation of why I don't entirely like this translation -- the authors sacrifice clarity and readability for technical accuracy in a way that tends to obscure the meaning. That said, though, it's a very good one, and I'd give it a four out of five. My pet peeve in most translations is the choice of the word "meek" instead...more
This is a review both of the book and the translation. See my review of Crime and Punishment for an explanation of why I don't entirely like this translation -- the authors sacrifice clarity and readability for technical accuracy in a way that tends to obscure the meaning. That said, though, it's a very good one, and I'd give it a four out of five. My pet peeve in most translations is the choice of the word "meek" instead of "gentle". These have utterly different connotations in modern English, and describing a man as having "meek eyes" totally misses the point Dostoevsky was trying to make, which was that the person was serene and handled someone else gently. Argh.
Anyway, this is the best book ever written. Every time I read it, I discover new truths about life, and find myself reading passages out loud to anyone within range. Different plot lines and passages stand out to me every time I read it, in different parts of my life. It has profoundly affected my outlook on the world, and is very nearly the equivalent of a bible. (Think Moby Dick in Heathers. :) )
Nominally, it is the story of three sons of a lecherous, nasty old man. The oldest is Dmitri, a passionate, sensual man who hates his father for cheating him out of his money. The next is Ivan, an intellectual and enlightened man, who hates his father for abandoning him and for just being a reprehensible person. The third brother is Alexei (called Alyosha by most) -- a quiet, gentle (but not meek!!) mostly innocent boy who (when the book opens) is living in a monastery, and doesn't hate anyone. There is also a possible fourth brother, the illegitimate child of the father and a town fool he raped. The first half of the book culminates in the murder of the father, the second half is spent discovering who did it and why.
To be honest, the first few times I read the book I didn't even remember who actually ended up doing it -- so much more is going on in the book that it turns out to be the least important thing. Any of them could have done it, certainly. But in the course of the book, Dostoevsky uses these characters (and a bunch more) to examine the nature of humanity, religion, faith, good and evil, love, hate, and just about everything that matters in life. He's not like modern authors who gloss over everything -- his characters all do terrible things at various times. There are very few purely good or evil people in his books; he is obsessed with examining all aspects of people, and who they are within themselves and through society. There is an interlude, The Grand Inquisitor, which is a story Ivan tells to explain what he hates about organized religion, that is frequently used as a short story in itself by literature and religion classes around the world.
On a deeper level, Dostoevsky uses the book to express the conflicting parts of himself. He names the father Fyodor, his own name, and splits the sons into caricatures of himself; a passionate side, an intellectual side, and a pure side that is striving for goodness (which last, it must be noted, is named for his son Alexei, who died at three years old.) He has the parts argue with each other and themselves, and tries to work out how they complement each other and what it all means, with the help of other characters who bring out those parts of him. The fourth brother represents the nasty parts of himself that he's mostly unwilling to acknowledge (thus the unacknowledged son), but oddly enough, he gives the fourth brother epilepsy, a problem Dostoevsky himself had.
I could go on for pages, but I'll stop now. Read this book! I mean it! But go for the Constance Garnett translation if you can find it. Or check out several translations, and pick the one that appeals to you the most.
...less
Read in June, 1998
recommends it for:
patient individuals, looking for a rewarding experience
Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.
While "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining, Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky’s longest, bu...more
Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.
While "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining, Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky’s longest, but also best, most subtle, and complex work. It has a huge list of characters, and encompasses the most interesting and most thorough philosophical discussions, which address some of the most personal and important topics that we can face. Hence, "Brothers Karamazov" is Dostoevsky’s masterpiece.
On the surface, this book's plot is about the murder of a father, and the possible involvement of 3 sons (plus a potential illegitimate fourth son). Like all of Dostoevsky's works, the real issues are much deeper and more philosophical. This book is essentially about faith and doubt, often involving the theme of free will.
As is again usual of Dostoevsky's works, the book's themes are revealed through the use of caricatured characters. Few of these characters (and purposely so) would appear in real life. Rather, they are extremes. For instance, here is a list of the 3 brothers, with a very brief sketch of their character traits:
Alexei (Alyosha) Karamazov- the supposed hero of the novel. He is the religious, morally upright, almost Christ-like figure. This does not mean that he is not susceptible to some doubts.
Dmitri (Mitya) Karamazov- a bit of an egoistic hedonist.
Ivan (Vanya) Karamazov- A rationalist and an atheist.
Of course, some of the best philosophical discussions in the book occur in the long dialogues between Alyosha and Ivan. What I appreciate about these discussions, and about the book in general, is that Dostoevsky offers a nuanced and complicated set of arguments for both sides, and neither side necessarily clearly "wins" the arguments. Instead, Dostoevsky’s own views are presented through more subtle means, which involve less direct preaching. This is perhaps why I am adamantly opposed to Dostoevsky's philosophy, while at the same time I love his books because of their writing style and philosophical content.
To conclude, Dostoevsky is my favorite writer, and "Brothers Karamazov" is his longest and best work. It is not, however, his most entertaining ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment"), his most readable ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment", "the Gambler"), most psychologically insightful ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment"), his most political ("Demons"/"Possessed"), his best title ("Demons"/"Possessed"), nor my personal favorite ("the Idiot").
...less
Read in March, 2008
"Everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov"
~Kurt Vonnegut
Okay, it took me a few days to get into it, but once I did it was a page turner. I love this book, although it's at times a big, beautiful mess. There are so many themes going on, and each character has every quality under the sun, that I don't really feel equal to wirting a little capsule review. Here are some of the basic themes I took from it: everyone is both guilty and innocent; trying to so...more
"Everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov"
~Kurt Vonnegut
Okay, it took me a few days to get into it, but once I did it was a page turner. I love this book, although it's at times a big, beautiful mess. There are so many themes going on, and each character has every quality under the sun, that I don't really feel equal to wirting a little capsule review. Here are some of the basic themes I took from it: everyone is both guilty and innocent; trying to solve the question of God with logic is futile; the concept of justice is absurd; in the end love is the only real truth. I became even more smitten with the book when I read a little background on it, and found that after the author's own child (Alyosha) died during the writing of the book, Dostoyevsky took solace in the company of a monk whom Zossima is modelled after - knowing this tied some of the seemingly irrelevant chapters together. The ideas behind Brothers Karamozov are deeper than Tolstoy's, and more life-affirming than Dostoyevsky's own Crime and Punishment. I really liked the loose ending, and the closing scene with Alyosha and the little boys.
Here's my favorite passage, spoken by Ivan the cynic to Alyosha the angelic young monk.
"...I have a longing for life, and I go on living in spite of logic. Though I may not believe in the order of the universe, yet I love the sticky little leaves as they open in spring. I love the blue sky, I love some people, whom one loves you know sometimes without knowing why. I love some great deeds done by men, though I've long ceased perhaps to have faith in them, yet from old habit one's heart prizes them...
I want to travel in Europe, Alyosha, I shall set off from here. And yet I know that I am only going to a graveyard, but it's a most precious graveyard, that's what it is! Precious are the dead that lie there, every stone over them speaks of such burning life in the past, of such passionate faith in their work, their truth, their struggle and their science, that I know I shall fall on the ground and kiss those stones and weep over them; though I'm convinced in my heart that it's long been nothing but a graveyard. And I shall not weep from despair, but simply because I shall be happy in my tears, I shall steep my soul in emotion. I love the sticky leaves in spring, the blue sky -- that's all it is. It's not a matter of intellect or logic, it's loving with one's inside, with one's stomach..."...less
Read in March, 2008
I moved this up on my list when I read that Eugene Peterson re-reads it every year. It took me months.
The translation is easy to read. It has lots of cultural context endnotes, that fill in what Dostoevsky's readers would have known, and I really appreciate that. I have no idea what the Russian language is like, but somehow I had the sense of understanding a communication that really was from another culture (unlike science fiction movies where all the purported aliens not only speak English...more
I moved this up on my list when I read that Eugene Peterson re-reads it every year. It took me months.
The translation is easy to read. It has lots of cultural context endnotes, that fill in what Dostoevsky's readers would have known, and I really appreciate that. I have no idea what the Russian language is like, but somehow I had the sense of understanding a communication that really was from another culture (unlike science fiction movies where all the purported aliens not only speak English, but do so with the same accent . . .)
It's a romp of a story, but actually more of a journey; there are lots of trails that wander off then connect; some breath-taking vistas; and when we are at the end, it is clear that the characters are really beginning. I don't mean that it has an unfinished feeling. It's as though we have succeeded in getting to base camp.
I had an idea once of writing about brothers who represented the different temperaments; the problem with reading the classics is you find someone has already used all your good ideas. The joy is finding you are not alone.
In high school I was relieved to find Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose work explores what it is like to be of a cool temperament in a world where warmth is what is needed. It was obvious to me that the protagonist of The scarlet letter was Hester Prynne's husband, and that the other main "character" was the Puritan culture that reinforced his traits and in which he worked out his doom. It's interesting that Dostoevsky's work, in which even the coolest character is passionate, brings Hawthorne to mind . . . like bookends.
The Karamazov brothers represent the full range of temperaments, but they work out their lives in the very specific context of mother Russia. Maybe it's true of all things human, that we can only engage the universal in the particular. I almost feel that there would be a chance for peace in the world if people would replace the modern media with these stories of human souls, these classics. ...less
bookshelves:
classics,
favorites
Read in January, 2000
recommends it for:
Anyone looking to expand what they thought they already knew
When I first finished The Brothers Karamazov , I felt a tinge of sadness wash over me since this was Dostoevsky's last novel. Now I'm not an idiot, I can guess that by being born on 1821 that he just might be dead by now. Still, whenever I read an author's last work I feel as if a weight is placed upon my shoulders. Most author's final novels are created after a lifetime of working and refining their technique, growing into the wizened sages that we all hold our favorite authors as being...more
When I first finished The Brothers Karamazov , I felt a tinge of sadness wash over me since this was Dostoevsky's last novel. Now I'm not an idiot, I can guess that by being born on 1821 that he just might be dead by now. Still, whenever I read an author's last work I feel as if a weight is placed upon my shoulders. Most author's final novels are created after a lifetime of working and refining their technique, growing into the wizened sages that we all hold our favorite authors as being. That said, their final work's tend to be that all encompassing culmination of their lives. Sadly, this is not always the case. Luckily, and gladly, this novel shows the master working at his greatest. While I do not believe this novel is as important to the Dostoevsky name as Crime and Punishment , I do believe that this novel is by far his most important work.
The story revolves around the Karamazov family, and the murder of the father by one of his 4 sons. The father is a sullen and debauched man unloved by his sons and the other people around him. Progressing the story, more and more evidence is laid out against the eldest son as the murderer. However, like most of Dostoevsky's novels, the truth is always more than it seems. As the novel unfolds, we learn about each of the brothers and how simple actions can lead to very Dostoevsky consequences and endings.
This is the novel where Dostoevsky's belief in murder comes to the forefront, that of whether or not any one man can be held accountable for the death of another, a belief that directly contrasts with a theme that is focused on throughout most of his novels, that of everyone is guilty for every crime.
This novel was very influential for many modern writers and philosophers, such as Freud, Vonnegut, Kafka... and myself (like that matters!!). One of the most important works of literature, and after reading it, it is not hard to see why. Highly recommended. ...less
bookshelves:
classics
This novel would lead me to believe that all Russian women are virtual psychopaths and all Russian men muddled philosophers. But for all of its curious characterizations, The Brothers Karamazov is a masterfully written epic, and once I had plodded past the first 40 pages or so, I was enthralled. Fascinated by the brothers, anxious to know their destinies, and stimulated by the depth of the novel's religious speculations, I read on. As a story, Brothers Karamazov is good enough, but as a pene...more
This novel would lead me to believe that all Russian women are virtual psychopaths and all Russian men muddled philosophers. But for all of its curious characterizations, The Brothers Karamazov is a masterfully written epic, and once I had plodded past the first 40 pages or so, I was enthralled. Fascinated by the brothers, anxious to know their destinies, and stimulated by the depth of the novel's religious speculations, I read on. As a story, Brothers Karamazov is good enough, but as a penetrating catalogue of religious, political, psychological, and ethical thought, it is even better. Dostoevsky wrestles with the great questions of Christianity: the problem of evil, the burden of free will, the power of temptation, and the frailty of faith. He depicts the growing deadly influence of socialist indoctrination and considers man's inhumanity to man, his vanity, and his enduring hope. A deeply religious work, Brothers Karamazov will make the complacent believer think with greater seriousness about the questions of theodicy, collective guilt, and grace. All of this heavy thought is dispensed in beautiful language against the backdrop of an intriguing murder mystery and tension-wrought trial.
My only disappointment was that the book did not go far enough, that certain groundwork the author laid early in the novel was not fully developed later. A complaint of brevity may sound absurd given that the novel is well over 700 pages, but I wished to read more of the fates of the brothers. Is Ivan fully redeemed? Does Dimitri cling to his new-found self-discovery, or does he fall back again into spiritual sloth? How is the future Father Zossima prophesied for Alyosha finally fulfilled? Despite its incompleteness, the reader will still experience the overwhelming power of Dostoevsky's brilliant work....less
Read in August, 2007
recommends it for:
Everyone
"Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love."
"This is my last message to you: in sorrow seek happiness. Work, work unceasingly."
"He has done me no harm. But I played him a dirty trick, and ever since then I have hated him."
"It's ...more
"Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love."
"This is my last message to you: in sorrow seek happiness. Work, work unceasingly."
"He has done me no harm. But I played him a dirty trick, and ever since then I have hated him."
"It's the great mystery of human life that old grief passes gradually into quiet tender joy. The mild serenity of age takes the place of the riotous blood of youth."
"Any man of sense will always come back to reason in time, but, if love does not gain the upper hand in a youth's heart at such an exceptional moment, when will it?"
"Tragic phrases should be forgiven, they must be. Tragic phrases comfort the heart...without them, sorrow would be too heavy for men to bear."
"God preserve you, Alyosha, from ever asking forgiveness from a woman you love. From one you love especially, however greatly you may have been at fault. For a woman--devil only knows what to make of a woman; I know something about them, anyway. But try acknowledging you are at fault to a woman. Say 'I am sorry, forgive me,' and a shower of reproaches will follow! Nothing will make her forgive you simply and directly. She'll humble you to dust, bring forward things that have never happened, recall everything, forget nothing, add something of her own, and only then forgive you. And even the best, the best of them do it."...less
Read in October, 2007
When I first starting reading this book I was awfully confused. The Modern Library version's translation from Russian into English was awkwardly worded, the characters were each known by several different names, and I wasn't aware of the history of Russia during that period in time. There are also several instances of Latin and French phrases that aren't translated. A friend pointed me to a website that gave an outline of each of the main characters and all of the names associated with each. ...more
When I first starting reading this book I was awfully confused. The Modern Library version's translation from Russian into English was awkwardly worded, the characters were each known by several different names, and I wasn't aware of the history of Russia during that period in time. There are also several instances of Latin and French phrases that aren't translated. A friend pointed me to a website that gave an outline of each of the main characters and all of the names associated with each. That was a tremendous help.
I was surprised by the author's depth of knowledge of theology and how strongly religious beliefs influenced at least two of the brothers. (I thought religion was stamped out by socialism.) One of the brothers, Ivan, is an intellectual. Early on in the story, Ivan writes an article for a journal discussing opinions regarding the debate over the position of ecclesiastical courts (Church party versus secularists). Both sides of the debate thought Ivan supported their side. I suspected that this was an indicator that the author would do the same to us as readers and was always on the lookout for that trick...but it didn't happen. Ivan does not really believe in God, but in later chapters has conversations with the devil.
The brother Alexey spends time in a monastery until ordered by his elder to go out into the world. He is loving and kind to all of his dysfunctional family and works to maintain ties with his brothers after their father is murdered.
There are various over-dramatic, almost comical scenes throughout the story, but the murder trial surpasses all...very melodramatic. Nothing like a modern day trial (I hope!)
...less
Read in March, 2007
A pretty deep book that can be hard to follow at points, unless of course you have detailed knowledge of the inner workings of Eastern Orthodoxy (including the structure of monasteries and the varying roles of novices, monks, and hieromonks), as well as 19th Century Russian class structure. The first 300 pages or so were a bit of a struggle, but then it really picked up and by the end was a page-turner. After the first 300 pages, which are sort of like reading St. Augustine's "City of God...more
A pretty deep book that can be hard to follow at points, unless of course you have detailed knowledge of the inner workings of Eastern Orthodoxy (including the structure of monasteries and the varying roles of novices, monks, and hieromonks), as well as 19th Century Russian class structure. The first 300 pages or so were a bit of a struggle, but then it really picked up and by the end was a page-turner. After the first 300 pages, which are sort of like reading St. Augustine's "City of God" (you know there's something Important going on, but you're sure you're missing something) it turns into a great mystery novel, complete with crime, differing accounts of said crime, a trial regarding said crime, and the consequences of said trial. It does all this without rehashing too much of the ground covered by "Crime and Punishment" (which I think was written first...well, I read it first anyway).
The characters are wonderful and (refreshingly) are central, rather than ancillary, to the plot. Another innovative aspect of the book is that the objective truth is never know; each man has his own truth. Seeing the events unfold through the eyes of the three brothers Karmazov is one of the most enjoyable things about the books (besides, of course, having finished it and being able to refer to it merely as "The Brothers K" and have conversations about "moral transgression and the subjectivity of truth...you know, such as in Dostoevsky."
Read this edition (Pevear and Volokhonsky translation). They are well-respected and my copy also smelled really good. ...less
recommends it for:
people with some time to kill
So vast, in terms of the range of humanity and insights, that it's hard to know where to begin. Great manic talk, characters who are surprising and driven, rich depictions of Russian life, occasionally frustrating tangents. It was sometimes tough to make it through, but so what -- so were Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow.
Like those novels, this one feels like it earns its place in the canon by sheer ambition and balls -- it takes on the biggest human questions, tries to deal with them squarely...more
So vast, in terms of the range of humanity and insights, that it's hard to know where to begin. Great manic talk, characters who are surprising and driven, rich depictions of Russian life, occasionally frustrating tangents. It was sometimes tough to make it through, but so what -- so were Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow.
Like those novels, this one feels like it earns its place in the canon by sheer ambition and balls -- it takes on the biggest human questions, tries to deal with them squarely (sometimes to the detriment of the story), and feels stuffed full of humanity.
I can't think of anything quite like it, not even Crime and Punishment or other Dostoyevsky works.
I felt the trial descended into tediousness and repetition, unfortunately, which steals a lot of thunder from the last couple hundred pages. Perhaps because it was serialized, the novel needed to bring all the facts together and hash them over at great length to remind readers what had happened. But to my thinking, the extensive back-and-forth over criminal details didn't always fit neatly with the grand philosophizing the attorneys did.
ultimately, i thought it was great in a kind of spectacularly lumbering way -- an elephant of a book. I even liked the Christian proslytyzing here better than in Crime and Punishment. Alyosha's message to the kids can be taken to heart even by humanists, whereas C and P (and Anna K., for that matter) lose their way in the end in their desire to push a message. ...less
Read in March, 2005
recommends it for:
Russians, Anyone not intimidated by lengthy page counts
Dostoevsky is as hard to read as his name is to spell (and in my case pronounce).
There are so many deep thoughts that come along with any Fyodor's books that your mind will boggle, overload and possibly melt out through your ears.
The experience is likened to my first attempts to read and understand (also spell) Shakespeare. The characters are wonderfully named and deeply developed. The settings are meticulously descrbied and all Eastern European in theme. The stories tend to be incr...more
Dostoevsky is as hard to read as his name is to spell (and in my case pronounce).
There are so many deep thoughts that come along with any Fyodor's books that your mind will boggle, overload and possibly melt out through your ears.
The experience is likened to my first attempts to read and understand (also spell) Shakespeare. The characters are wonderfully named and deeply developed. The settings are meticulously descrbied and all Eastern European in theme. The stories tend to be incredibly complex but only because the entirety of the development and eventual resolution takes place over the span of 500+ pages. A slow reader will become easily bored and anyone not prepared to deal with his generously inserted messages on social, economic and political nuances of pre communist society in Russia/Europe will be overwelmed.
If you can read and most importantly understand Ayn Rand or Shakespeare you will be immersed in Dostoevsky's world and become lost amongst the serfs as they struggle with every day life while the bourgeoisie push the ivory towers ever higher. Fyodor documented in story what Karl Marx wrote in his political bible to socialism. Dry...you bet but anyone who hungers to push their literary boundries to a new place should dig in with both hands...mostly becuase you'll need them both to carry these massive books but also because Dostoevsky requires both hands and a patient mind to grasp the complexity found within the pages of everything he pens....less
bookshelves:
classics
Read in January, 2003
The ideas batted about in the narrative, spoken in many voices, and the dialogs themselves, illuminate why I never can't get enough of this book, nor Dostoyevsky. "The Grand Inquisitor" gets most attention but, for me, at least two other chapters are equally powerful pieces of writing: The one on Father Zossima, and the later chapter containing the dialog between Ivan and you-know-who in the parlor. Unsurpassed dialog, all of it.
The finest charaterization for me was that of Fat...more
The ideas batted about in the narrative, spoken in many voices, and the dialogs themselves, illuminate why I never can't get enough of this book, nor Dostoyevsky. "The Grand Inquisitor" gets most attention but, for me, at least two other chapters are equally powerful pieces of writing: The one on Father Zossima, and the later chapter containing the dialog between Ivan and you-know-who in the parlor. Unsurpassed dialog, all of it.
The finest charaterization for me was that of Father Zossima; the masterful sketch Dostoyevsky draws of a loving man who embodies all that's good and right in people is one I've never seen duplicated.
Grushenka, too, is worth noting here. I cannot get the image of her letting her foot be kissed out of my mind, and her apprenticeship with Samsonov gave her the freedom of action the novel needed. I didn't find the father to be the "meanest man in all literature," as some put it. He struck me more as a buffoon. Another powerful character was Smerdyakov, who caught my sympathy a bit more than I think the author intended.
Tech buffs will enjoy the roles the railroad and telegraph play. A discussion of the state of scientific knowledge in the late 1800's also enlivens the latter part of the book for us 21st-century readers....less
bookshelves:
fiction
Read in August, 2006
Wow. I hated this book so much. In fact, it's been almost 18 months since I read it, and only now has the bitterness at all that wasted time subsided enough for me to write a review.
Depressingly, I started this book twice before I finally finished it. I thought I just wasn't giving good ol' Dostoevsky a fair chance. He totally betrayed my trust.
First of all, if I'm going to invest the requisite time to read an 800+ page novel, I expect to at least get a mildly interesting story along with ...more
Wow. I hated this book so much. In fact, it's been almost 18 months since I read it, and only now has the bitterness at all that wasted time subsided enough for me to write a review.
Depressingly, I started this book twice before I finally finished it. I thought I just wasn't giving good ol' Dostoevsky a fair chance. He totally betrayed my trust.
First of all, if I'm going to invest the requisite time to read an 800+ page novel, I expect to at least get a mildly interesting story along with the hardly-subtle treatise on humanity. But no, even when D. had the potential for an interesting story, he kept ruining any hope of suspense by giving away plot turns chapters before they happened. Why?! Why would you do this to me, D.? I was so let down by the end of this book because I had held out hope for so long that perhaps, somehow, he could turn it around, and the train wreck that only SEEMED to be happening, would really turn out to be a brilliantly crafted story, thus justifying its so-called "Classic" status. But, no. It never happened. And I will never get those many, many hours back.
Okay, sorry if I'm being a little melodramatic, but you get my point. A 100-page novella that disappoints? No big deal. But if I'm going to pick up, or rather, heft up a tome like "The Brothers Karamazov" at least give me a chance to enjoy the story....less
Read in June, 2007
This book was a mixed bag. Most of the characters were irritating either because they were obnoxious or ridiculously naive. The Elder was the exception, but he dies in the middle of the book. The story was quite melodramatic, which I found unappealing. But it gets 3 starts because of the bits about the Elder which I loved and if just for those sections it would get 5 stars. It really helped me through this difficult period of trying to finish my dissertation. For instance:
honest by nat...more
This book was a mixed bag. Most of the characters were irritating either because they were obnoxious or ridiculously naive. The Elder was the exception, but he dies in the middle of the book. The story was quite melodramatic, which I found unappealing. But it gets 3 starts because of the bits about the Elder which I loved and if just for those sections it would get 5 stars. It really helped me through this difficult period of trying to finish my dissertation. For instance:
honest by nature, demanding the truth, seeking it and believing in it, and in that belief demanding immediate participation in it with all the strength of his soul; demanding an immediate deed, with an unfailing desire to sacrifice everything for this deed, even life. Although, unfortunately, these young men do not understand that the sacrifice of life is, perhaps, the easiest of all sacrifices in many cases, while to sacrifice, for example, five or six years of their ebulliently youthful life to hard, difficult studies, to learning, in order to increase tenfold their strength to serve the very truth and the very deed that they loved and set out toe accomplish - such sacrifice is quite often almost beyond the strength of many of them.
I referred back to this quote many times in these past weeks. Thank you Dostoevsky....less
Read in December, 2007
recommends it for:
patricidal saints
Was this the first of the "good boy gone bad" books?
Why didn't someone tell me that Dostoevsky could be funny? It's a tragic tale of avarice and nihilism, of course, and still he lets through these moments of officious buffoonery that are just completely unnecessary and wholly delightful, like the village doctor who can never seem to figure out what is the matter. Though thousands and thousands of people have written of this book, the only one who convinced me that I had to read ...more
Was this the first of the "good boy gone bad" books?
Why didn't someone tell me that Dostoevsky could be funny? It's a tragic tale of avarice and nihilism, of course, and still he lets through these moments of officious buffoonery that are just completely unnecessary and wholly delightful, like the village doctor who can never seem to figure out what is the matter. Though thousands and thousands of people have written of this book, the only one who convinced me that I had to read it was Fyodor himself, and he did that just by putting down one word after another. No tricks of tongue or technique, just human delusion and remorse and agony told like it is.
Satisfying in its sweep of scope, scale, and tone: some may criticize the long monologues and the inconsistent narration, yet the exactness of portraiture lends an insight to such a range of human experiences that these critiques don't matter. Plus, most of the chapters are really short - besides being jam-packed - so you don't actually have to devote huge chunks of time to get something out of it. Just have patience, and you'll find this to be a rock-star book, full of sexdrugsrockandroll, godly misfits, and blasphemous saints. ...less
Read in February, 2005
I really liked this book and can see why it is a classic. It was hard to get into at first and I was intimidated by the length but once I was into it I couldn’t stop. I found I enjoyed the passages where things were happening much more than when the characters were having long dialogues. This book really made an impression on me and things about it still ring true today in the legal arena. This book takes place in Russia between three brothers and their father. The relationship between th...more
I really liked this book and can see why it is a classic. It was hard to get into at first and I was intimidated by the length but once I was into it I couldn’t stop. I found I enjoyed the passages where things were happening much more than when the characters were having long dialogues. This book really made an impression on me and things about it still ring true today in the legal arena. This book takes place in Russia between three brothers and their father. The relationship between these characters is complex and twisted. One brother is accused of killing his father of whom he has a known rivalry over money and a shared love interest. He has even said repeatedly that he wants to kill his father. The brother and father are both scoundrels who are always drunk, crude, dirty and aggressive. But do these characteristics and saying aloud that you want to kill someone mean you are guilty of being a murderer? This story has you guessing to the very end. Upon completion I read the afterword by the translator I was a little disappointed to learn just how much can be lost in translation. I immediately wished I knew Russian so I could’ve read the original version. ...less
Read in September, 2007
recommends it for:
literal masochists
What. the. fuck.
No, really. This is genius?
Inverting the family romance so that the father is posing a threat to the son's relationship with his lover -- okay, I'm in. The contempt and nausea that permeates every sexual relationship any character has -- all right, maybe that seemed like a new idea in 19th century Russia, and Dostoevsky sure does communicate his message that sex is nasty and humiliating. Got it. Two of the characters had moments in which I was able to suspend the disbelief ...more
What. the. fuck.
No, really. This is genius?
Inverting the family romance so that the father is posing a threat to the son's relationship with his lover -- okay, I'm in. The contempt and nausea that permeates every sexual relationship any character has -- all right, maybe that seemed like a new idea in 19th century Russia, and Dostoevsky sure does communicate his message that sex is nasty and humiliating. Got it. Two of the characters had moments in which I was able to suspend the disbelief that permeated my encounter with the other 976 pages in the book, even. But really. No one talks in these kind of monologues. This is not a story; it's a treatise supported by an ill-structured, repetitive, only vaguely coherent "narrative," translated to sound like a chinese resturant menu: we serve delicious food for you that you love eating subsequent to when it is served to you.
The ideas that slipped in, however misformed, in isolated passages, have slipped into my consciousness like parasites, so that this unfortunate encounter is now part of my thinking life. Is this cultural relevance? Can't really say I want the ten hours I spent on this bitch back, I guess. ...less
Read in March, 2008
Beautiful depictions of the complicated human psyche. Dostoevsky's picture of a family torn by desires, matters of faith, and their place within a disruptive family structure is poignant even today. Though a bit slow in parts, this novel read pretty fluidly. Though his verbiage is not overpowering, or verbose, there are many sections where you can't help feeling connected to this author's story. Much of the actual action of this book is passed over or given only a cursory explanation, but th...more
Beautiful depictions of the complicated human psyche. Dostoevsky's picture of a family torn by desires, matters of faith, and their place within a disruptive family structure is poignant even today. Though a bit slow in parts, this novel read pretty fluidly. Though his verbiage is not overpowering, or verbose, there are many sections where you can't help feeling connected to this author's story. Much of the actual action of this book is passed over or given only a cursory explanation, but the author does a wonderful job of putting his audience there with him as their humble guide through this turbulent experience he wants to share. A lot of what I enjoyed in this book is the degree to which it felt as though the author was there with me, keeping me company, and allowing me to understand just how much he wanted me to understand what a profound event this was that he was telling me about. In that sense this novel felt very modern and close to me as a reader. I would read more of Dostoevsky's work, just not real soon, as I hear what he is saying and believe his message is interesting...just not interesting enough to justify the time he asks of a reader....less
Read in December, 2007
recommends it for:
those into existentialist reading
I almost gave it 5. It deserves 5, but my experience of the book wasn't always great. This was my second try and there were times I thought I wouldn't get through it all. The start is slow and it isn't until the end, when you really start to forgive(yes, I said forgive) and empathize with some of the characters, that you appreciate how this book begins. But it is slow.
So yes. It's a brilliant book. It's a rollercoaster of intense, enlightening moments. For those who love 'ultimate questions'...more
I almost gave it 5. It deserves 5, but my experience of the book wasn't always great. This was my second try and there were times I thought I wouldn't get through it all. The start is slow and it isn't until the end, when you really start to forgive(yes, I said forgive) and empathize with some of the characters, that you appreciate how this book begins. But it is slow.
So yes. It's a brilliant book. It's a rollercoaster of intense, enlightening moments. For those who love 'ultimate questions' of love, hate, good, evil, sanity, reality, mysticism and all things existential, this book will not disappoint. That said, it's opinionated and frustrating and leaves you on a series of arguments that aren't really, well arguable.
I feel better for having read it and look forward to having conversations about it, but wish I had read it when I was big into exploring those 'ultimate questions' - now I just find it a bit much.
Having said that... wow, the last 400 or 500 pages are really well written and full of dramatic twists and turns that really challenge your perception of right and wrong. It ended a bit anticlimactically, but how else could it end.
...less
book data (includes all editions)
avg rating
(all editions):
4.35 (7570 ratings)
avg rating
(this edition): 4.38
(5177 ratings)
number of reviews: 873
