Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book* *Different edition

The Brothers Karamazov

by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Richard Pevear (Translator), Larissa Volokhonsky (Translator)

4.26 of 5 stars 4.26 · rating details · 78,407 ratings · 4,159 reviews

The award-winning translation of Dostoevsky's last and greatest novel.

When brutal landowner Fyodor Karamazov is murdered, the lives of his sons are changed irrevocably: Mitya is placed under suspicion, Ivan's mental tortures drive him to breakdown, Alyosha tries to heal the family's rifts, and there is always the shadow of their bastard half-brother, Smerdyakov.

Paperback, 796 pages

Published June 14th 2002 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux (first published 1878)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling

Best Books Ever

94th out of 24,530 books — 93,638 voters

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

Books That Everyone Should Read At Least Once

100th out of 8,100 books — 38,040 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 29, 2008 Conrad rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: russia, fiction, masterpieces

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 lechero...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)

114 likes · like · see review

Jun 21, 2010 Ellen rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: novels, favorites

“I am big; it’s the pictures that got small”

In Considering the Lobster, David Foster Wallace observes that the “thing about Dostoevsky’s characters is that they are alive" (264). They are, in fact, larger than life, and Wallace goes on to bemoan the fact that so many “of the novelists of our own place and time look so thematically shallow and lightweight…in comparison to Gogol or Dostoevsky” (271). Like Norma Desmond, who feels the pictures have gotten small, Wallace sees contemporary novels lac...more

53 likes · like · see review

May 22, 2012 Jeffrey Keeten rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you like your books to move in a linear fashion this book is not for you. It hops around and attention must be paid or you will find yourself flipping back a few pages to reestablish the thread of the story. I took this on a plane flight, crazy right? Not exactly the normal "light" reading I take on flights. It was a stroke of genius. I absolutely fell under the thrall of Dostoyevky's prose. (Thank you to my fellow travelers who didn't feel the need to chat with the guy who obviously is so f...more

62 likes · like · see review

Jul 29, 2012 Riku Sayuj rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Riku by: english teacher in seventh grade!

On Romancing The Devil

Warning: This review might contain spoilers even outside the hidden 'spoiler alert' regions. I honestly am not capable of discriminating.

The book is not about the murder or about who did it, those things were very apparent before half the book was completed, the narrator taking special pains to spoil all suspense for his readers at the very beginning (harkening back to the days of greek drama and Euripides - according to whom, the effect of a story, even awhodunnit, was no...more

46 likes · like · see review

Apr 24, 2013 Fatin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Errybody

Shelves: cobwebs, russian-lit, favorites, reviewed, owned, hello-hi-please-read-this

Um, okay, so I'm going to start off by saying, if you are, like me, in love with the brothers, love them from afar. Because as wonderful as they seem, being in a relationship with them would be awful, and you would cry a lot. Yes, even Alyosha, unless you are of course as noble and as kind as him yourself, which I just don’t see happening. On the other hand, if you just want to have some fun with them, by all means, I think it would be…awesome.

I found this cute picture on deviantArt that summari...more

24 likes · like · see review

Jan 26, 2012 MJ Nicholls rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novels, borscht-and-kvass, voluminous, pre-1900s, oxford-classics

Note: This review was written on Nov 18th 2007, a week after my twenty-first birthday. Excuse the youthful clumsiness of my style.

Matters of Life and Death

Often I used stop people in the streets, shake them frantically on the shoulders and slap them on the face, shouting again and again: “Is there a God? Is there a God? For God’s sake, just tell me if there’s a God!”

You would be surprised at the results I gathered from this. One or two of them confirmed that there is indeed a God, and that his n...more

20 likes · like · see review

Feb 05, 2013 Jason Koivu rated it 5 of 5 stars

Oh brother Karamazov, where art thou?

The split up of the family Karamazov affected me more than all the philosophizing and high-minded ethical discussion. But that's me. I'm more interested in seeing human nature played out rather than hearing a bunch of people sit around talking about how humans should act. Not since college, when I took so many philosophy classes I could've majored in it, has such debate held my attention. These days few writers can make me read through hundreds of pages of t...more

18 likes · like · see review

Dec 27, 2012 Jesse rated it 5 of 5 stars

Basically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books, in large part because I read it with one of my all-time favorite philosophy professors. Although the book has a fairly compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and thematic concerns underpinning the story that keep it near the top of my list, and that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review (in hopes of sharing some of the stuff my teacher pointed out that I never would have come up with on my own). Of...more Basically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books, in large part because I read it with one of my all-time favorite philosophy professors. Although the book has a fairly compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and thematic concerns underpinning the story that keep it near the top of my list, and that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review (in hopes of sharing some of the stuff my teacher pointed out that I never would have come up with on my own). Of course, thematic interpretation is necessarily a subjective endeavor, and I don't claim to know what Dostoevsky was trying to say when he wrote this book. Even so, here's a list of what I believe to be some of the major themes running throughout the story:

1. The Contradiction of Human Nature – Human nature is broad, contradictory, and capable of containing opposite desires and ideals. In other words, Dostoevsky seems to believe that the same person, at the exact same time, can be equally drawn to the noble or lofty on the one hand, and the sensual or degrading on the other. This means that in every sinner there is a saint and in every saint there is a sinner.

2. Embracing Human Contradiction in the Right Way – Given the above, Dostoevsky seems to argue that we should accept both the lofty and the sensual in our human nature. That is, instead of trying to purge one side and exalt the other, we should seek to bring both sides of the contradiction together in the right sort of way: we should seek to sanctify and lift our sensual, passionate nature in a way that will allow us to love and connect with others; and we should seek to soften and humble our lofty, prideful nature in a way that will allow us to find peace and hope by looking outside of ourselves. We do this chiefly by building loving connections with others, by sincerely believing the best of ourselves and of others, by sensing our connection to everything, by forgiving and asking forgiveness, and by accepting our personal responsibility to make the world a better place.

3. Active Love Leads to Faith – The experience of active love toward our neighbors leads to meaningful faith, driving out doubt and despair. As Elder Zosima says, the more we succeed in actively and tirelessly loving others, the more we become convinced of God and the immortality of our souls. Dostoevsky, in my mind, is arguing that this is the best way to arrive at the existence of God.

4. The Reality of Moral Imperatives – Another argument Dostoevsky seems to make for the existence God can be summarized as follows: If there is no God, then everything is permitted. But not everything is permitted. Therefore, there is a God. Thus, much like Kant, Dostoevsky seems to believe you can infer the reality of God through the reality of moral imperatives - imperatives such as "Thou shalt not kill."

5. Building a Life Now Worth Living Forever – One of the subtle themes that I believe supports the entire book is the idea that our central task as human beings is to build a life right now that’s worth living forever. That is, the possibility of life after death is made meaningful and desirable only by building loving connections with others during our life on earth.

6. Connection Versus Disconnection – Throughout the book, Dostoevsky seems to link the idea of connection and disconnection in the characters’ lives with existentialized Christian concepts. For example, loving connection could represent heaven; confession brings personal guilt into the public sphere, thereby driving out secret shame and opening the door for reconnection; and characters like Alyosha, who help isolated people connect with others, represent angels. On the other hand, disconnection and an inability to love could represent represent hell; anything that causes people to become disconnected from others could represent sin; and characters like Rakitin, who tear people apart from each other, could represent the devil.

Okay . . . if you made it to the bottom of this review, thanks for sticking around. I'll end by saying that although the Brothers Karamazov is a long book that can be somewhat difficult at times, I thought it was surprisingly hard to put down: great story with great characters, and a ton of depth. Highly recommended.(less)

13 likes · like · see review

Nov 09, 2007 Rachel rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: everyone!

Shelves: fiction

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,...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)

47 likes · like · see review

Jul 14, 2011 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Dostoevsky's crowning achievement, although not my personal favourite amongst his impressive body of work. TBK has pretty much everything required of a five-star paper city: superb characterization, psychological depth and insight; intrigue, murder, and suspense; great daubs of humor, both madcap broadsides and satirical with a capital slice; that never-ending, cyclonical struggle between faith and reason; a sublimely Slavic melange of love, lust, deception, betrayal, violence, flight, revenge,...more Dostoevsky's crowning achievement, although not my personal favourite amongst his impressive body of work. TBK has pretty much everything required of a five-star paper city: superb characterization, psychological depth and insight; intrigue, murder, and suspense; great daubs of humor, both madcap broadsides and satirical with a capital slice; that never-ending, cyclonical struggle between faith and reason; a sublimely Slavic melange of love, lust, deception, betrayal, violence, flight, revenge, apostasy, and redemption—capped off by a court trial scene that overrules Perry Mason and, in the renowned chapter The Grand Inquisitor, a full-court press by an impassioned Hierarch against Jesus' abandonment of mankind to a terrifying freedom and overwhelming spiritual responsibility it neither wanted nor could manage that alone is worth the price of the book.

I read TBK a long time ago—I remember at the time that, of the brothers, I really liked Dmitry and Ivan (though the latter desperately needed to get his shit seriously together) but thought that Alyosha was an ineffectual, puling wimp. Indeed, for a long time I held that Alyosha was an exemplar of all that really irked me about Christianity: the contemptible weakness; the refusal to take action against evil and injustice beyond caviling admonitions and finger-wagging; the abandonment of the material world to the strong and virile in the hopes of a milquetoast happiness in a Hallmark Card afterlife. Now that I've aged and become less smug and certain in virtually the entirety of my beliefs, I feel I've managed to come around and see Alyosha in a different light: his Christianity is one that is a life of self-example, not external action or interference. Alyosha's patient, encouraging cheer and smiling innocence, a refusal to take sides against his brothers stems from his certainty that when faith seeks to overpower evil, malice, and injustice through material struggle, the outcomes inevitably become tainted, producing results that are turned away from Christ's message. Whether the Crusades, the Inquisition, pogroms, the burning of heretics, the enforced recantations of perceived truth: when the spiritual avails itself of secular tools to right a wrong, the ends will wind up resembling the means—and bloodshed beget bloodshed, justice be bent into vengeance, law twist into tyranny, belief swell into righteousness. There is an earthy, practical wisdom to Alyosha's inaction and calm steadfastness, his sorely tried faith, a path that leads, by incremental steps, to a spiritual betterment that will perhaps endure, and prove more effective, than bold efforts to right the many wrongs he has witnessed and held silent upon. This is the banal reward, the patient strength of the Christian faith lived as a model for the community—not something to work toward, but to accept—that I never could understand, grasp, or respect back when I misunderstood what Dostoevsky must have intended for Alyosha to represent: a way for Russian Orthodoxy to exist as a moral and spiritual tether for the populace within a rapidly encroaching modernity that would neither become a weak tea of ritualized, token affirmation nor an oppressive weight borne down by autocratic or democratic power that would debase and decay religion into something ugly and twisted. With modernity unfolding the way it did, this was an immensely unrealistic hope—and perhaps undesireable for Russia in any event; but as far as utopian wishes go, you could do worse than dream as Dostoevsky did. Of course, I am well aware that this reinterpretation could be completely off the mark, revealing me as one cluelessly skipping through fields of happy horseshit, regularly wafting aloft shimmery bubbles of shallow adjectival arglebargle as is my wont— but whatever the actuality behind my revised estimation, Alyosha now no longer ranks well below Mitya and Vanya.

There are many translations now available—I read the one by Andrew MacAndrew, and while I have no idea how faithful to the acerbic Russian he remained, the resulting English was more-or-less flawless. I always keep an eye open for a second-hand copy of the newer—and much lauded—translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky, but until then I remain more than happy to occasionally return to favorite passages scattered throughout in the warm and vibrant English rendered by the good Mr. MacAndrew.(less)

14 likes · like · see review

Jun 22, 2012 Seth rated it 5 of 5 stars

I think this was the most rewarding novel I have read so far. The
author demonstrates convincing insights into a thorough range of human
emotions. The novel reminds me that most of mankind is capable of
chaotic baseness and selfless dignity. Dostoyevesky's portrayal of
mankind is pessimistic and emphasizes our "underbelly", yet, he
romantically offers a redemption to our shared folly with characters
like Alexei that remind the good part of us to love and re-awaken our
dignity to live with honesty and g...more

13 likes · like · see review

Jan 05, 2008 Skylar Burris rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: 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 penetrat...more

19 likes · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 sahar salman rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

لكل كاتب نتاجه الأدبي، عن هذا العمل أستطيع أن أقول أن دوستويفسكي وصل قمة وعظمة نتاجه الأدبي، كان هذا العمل يسبر أغوار الروح الإنسانية والمصاعب التي تلحق بالبشر والسفاسف التي يطلقونها فتحكم الحياة له على العدم. هذا العمل هو حكاية عن بيئة إجتماعية فوضوية ترابطت فيها الأفكار بالأخلاق والفلسفة والدين والقتل، كيف يعيش الإنسان من منطلق هذه الأفكار داخل فكرته الخاصة إذاً ؟ .. دوستويفسكي كان يسرد الأحداث على السطح، لم يكن مهتماً بالحدث أكثر من التفاصيل والمسببات و الأفكار، هذا ما جعلها بنظري طويلة، حيث...more لكل كاتب نتاجه الأدبي، عن هذا العمل أستطيع أن أقول أن دوستويفسكي وصل قمة وعظمة نتاجه الأدبي، كان هذا العمل يسبر أغوار الروح الإنسانية والمصاعب التي تلحق بالبشر والسفاسف التي يطلقونها فتحكم الحياة له على العدم. هذا العمل هو حكاية عن بيئة إجتماعية فوضوية ترابطت فيها الأفكار بالأخلاق والفلسفة والدين والقتل، كيف يعيش الإنسان من منطلق هذه الأفكار داخل فكرته الخاصة إذاً ؟ .. دوستويفسكي كان يسرد الأحداث على السطح، لم يكن مهتماً بالحدث أكثر من التفاصيل والمسببات و الأفكار، هذا ما جعلها بنظري طويلة، حيث ترك لكل شخصية من شخصياته أن تعبر عن نفسها. أحياناً أيضاً يقال أن حياة الكاتب غير مهمه أمام أعماله، ولو أنني أجدهما شيئين مترابطين فمع دوستويفسكي أجدها أكثر ترابطاً خصوصاً في ظل الحياة التي عاشها قبل بدأه بهذا العمل. كانت فكرة وجود الله أو ماهو الله ؟ وهل تؤمن به ؟ أفكار تؤرق هذا الكاتب العظيم وتعذبه. وهذا ما جعله يكتب في ظروف روايته عن هذه الفكرة وعن عدة أفكاره تأتي معها الخير والشر، الأخلاق، الغيرة، الملذات وجدلية الإيمان والعدل. أما عن الفكرة الرئيسية التي تندرج تحتها كل تلك الأفكار هي فكرة الجريمة وهي الموضوع الأساسي التي تمشي إليه الأحداث من كل طرف من شخصيات العمل. لم يهمل دوستويفسكي أي تنوع في الشخصيات وهذا بنظري ما جعلها تتكلم عن الروح الإنسانية من مناظر مختلفة ومتعددة هذا بحد ذاته ما جعلها ثرية وضخمة. فتجد الكل يتكلم فيها الأباء والأبناء والأطفال والسكارى والعشاق والقديسين والرهبان. حتى وكأنه صور لنا هذا المجتمع المليئ بالهستيرها والجنون في شكل واضح في جزء لا يتجزء من الأرض الروسية. هناك كثير من الصور الرائعة ولكن الأهم والشيء الذي قد تلاحظه في فكر دوستويفسكي وفكر أبطاله هو الشقاء والمعاناة والتضحية والتلاشي في منتصف الطريق وهذا هو الضياء الذي أعده لون الرواية بطريقة تأسر الألباب. هذه البراعه الفنية في رسم الخطوط الشعورية واللاشعورية في أهوال النفس وحركات الجسد. هذا العمل هو رواية فنيه أدبية عظيمة من التراث الإنساني وهي كي لا ننسى خلاصة فكر الكاتب(less)

6 likes · like · see review

Aug 11, 2012 Roo78lm rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: ك-تب-للتغيير, favorites

كنت ممتلئة بالحماسة و بالكثير من الرغبة في أن أكتب بعد أن أفرغ من الرواية .. لم أتوقع حين أقلب الصفحة الأخيرة من الأحداث لأرى أن كل ما تبقى هو الهوامش و الحواش ستنتابني رعشة و رغبة حقيقة في البكاء و التحسر ! ، شعرت لحظتها كم كنت عجولة و متسرعة .. وأدركت حينها كم كانت هذه الرواية بكل كلمة من كلماتها .. بكل شخصية من شخصياتها ، بكل حدث من أحداثها دون إستثناء أو تمييز تعنيني طول الأيام المنصرمة التي قضيتها أقرأ الأجزاء الأربعة فيها . لم تكن هي تجربتي الأولى مع دوستويفيسكي .. والحمدالله أنها ليست الأ...more كنت ممتلئة بالحماسة و بالكثير من الرغبة في أن أكتب بعد أن أفرغ من الرواية .. لم أتوقع حين أقلب الصفحة الأخيرة من الأحداث لأرى أن كل ما تبقى هو الهوامش و الحواش ستنتابني رعشة و رغبة حقيقة في البكاء و التحسر ! ، شعرت لحظتها كم كنت عجولة و متسرعة .. وأدركت حينها كم كانت هذه الرواية بكل كلمة من كلماتها .. بكل شخصية من شخصياتها ، بكل حدث من أحداثها دون إستثناء أو تمييز تعنيني طول الأيام المنصرمة التي قضيتها أقرأ الأجزاء الأربعة فيها . لم تكن هي تجربتي الأولى مع دوستويفيسكي .. والحمدالله أنها ليست الأخيرة حيث بإنتظاري روايات أخرى سأتعجل الحصول عليها لقرائتها في القريب العاجل فوراً .. لكن هذه التجربة كانت أكثرها تميزاً و تألقاً .. بل إنني لأشعر بأنني لن أقرأ رواية بهذا العمق أبداً .. ولن أستطيع في يومٍ من الأيام أن أشهد لغير دوستويفيسكي بهذه العبقرية الفذة في كل تفصيل من تفاصيل الرواية و التمكن المدهش من أدواتها .

تدور أحداث بشكل مختصر و عام الرواية حول عائلة " عادية " بقضايا عادية أيضاً حول الميراث الذي خلفته أم أحد الأبناء ( دمتري ) بالإضافة لقضية أخرى تلعب دوراً مهماً في تحريك الأحداث ألا وهي ( إمرأة ) تولع بها الإبن و الأب معاً وتنافسا منافسة شرسة رهيبة تصل لحد التهديد والوعيد بالقتل .
قد يبدو للقارئ بأن جوهر الأحداث التي تبناها دوستويفيسكي في روايته الأطول قد لا تستحق كل هذا التهويل و الإعجاب ، إلا أن الأفكار التي عُبر عنها في الحوارات و التحليلات النفسية و العمق في فهم النفس البشرية هذا الفهم البارع بالإضافة للأحداث الثانوية التي تعطي للرواية وزنها الفكري و يظهر هذا جلياً في الجزء الثاني و الرابع خاصة ، قد أظهرا عبقرية لا سبيل لإنكارها البتة في خضم أحداث تبدو تافهة للوهلة الأولى !

أود أن أسهب مزيداً من الإسهاب إلا أن هذا سيبخس الرواية حقها .. بل قد لا أستطيع أن أصف أنا نفسي ما يعتلج في فكري من أفكار حول كل حدث من أحداثها . إلا أنني أود أشير إلى أهمية قراءة الرواية لمن يجد في نفسه رغبة في أن يعرف لمَ كان ل دوستويفيسكي تلك الشهرة و تلك العظمة في قرنه ، و ما الذي يدعونا في قرننا هذا نبارك له موهبته أيضاً حتى الآن ولا نجد له منافساً عصرياً كان أو قديماً

شكراً دستويفيسكي لأنكَ أحييّت فيني أفراداً لن أنساهم ما حييت .. شكراً لكل الأفكار التي عبرت عنها و التي رقص قلبي فرحاً بمعرفتها و تبنيها .. شكراً لأنني لم أشعر حتى للحظة بأن طول روايتك يبعث في نفسي مللاً .. شكراً لترجمة سامي الدروبي التي عبرت عن كل أفكار دوستويفيسكي بكل أمانة . شكراً شكراً

(less)

7 likes · like · see review

Nov 20, 2011 Alex rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: masochists

Shelves: 2011, reading-through-history, particularly-drunk-reviews

Brothers Karamazov is an exceptionally tricky and intricate book. It's also an exceptional pain in the ass. I might have to create a new shelf for it called "I'd Have To Read It Again To Get It But I'd Rather Just Not Get It." Tristram Shandy can join it there. The first problem is when a speech is so long that it reminds you of Atlas Shrugged. The second problem is that when I finished it just now, the words that unconsciously escaped my mouth were, "Well, fuck you Karamazov."

Here's a game I ma...more

17 likes · like · see review

Jun 25, 2012 Chiara Pagliochini rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: letteratura-russa

‘Vedete, noi siamo nature ampie, karamazoviane, capaci di mescolare insieme i più opposti contrari che immaginar si possa, e di ficcar lo sguardo, nello stesso istante, in entrambi gli abissi, nell’abisso al di sopra di noi, l’abisso degli ideali più alti, e nell’abisso al di sotto di noi, l’abisso della più bassa, della più fetida caduta morale. […] I due abissi, i due abissi, o signori, nello stesso identico momento: senza questo, noi siamo infelici e insoddisfatti, la nostra esistenza non è p...more ‘Vedete, noi siamo nature ampie, karamazoviane, capaci di mescolare insieme i più opposti contrari che immaginar si possa, e di ficcar lo sguardo, nello stesso istante, in entrambi gli abissi, nell’abisso al di sopra di noi, l’abisso degli ideali più alti, e nell’abisso al di sotto di noi, l’abisso della più bassa, della più fetida caduta morale. […] I due abissi, i due abissi, o signori, nello stesso identico momento: senza questo, noi siamo infelici e insoddisfatti, la nostra esistenza non è piena.’

In questa lunga fase di sedimentazione vengo sempre più rendendomi conto che Dostoevskij è uno di quegli autori che bisognerebbe leggerli ai bambini in culla, quando ancora non sono in grado di capire, perché forse, solo ascoltandolo, solo cullati da questa strana ninna nanna, crescerebbero su più intelligenti, più umani. Questo è il grande potere narrativo di Dostoevskij: rendere l’umano più umano di quanto non sia già. E il mio rammarico, solo questo, è di averlo scoperto così tardi.

‘I fratelli Karamazov’ è la storia di tre fratelli (diciamo tre e mezzo), del loro rapporto l’uno con l’altro, del rapporto con l’alto e il basso dell’esistenza e con la figura paterna, il terribile Fёdor Pavlovič. Fёdor Pavlovič è un padre come non ne vorreste mai uno, un buffone, un parassita, un libidinoso, incapace di nutrire qualsiasi affezione che non sia sessuale; non ama i suoi figli, non ha amato le due mogli. Le orge, i soldi, le puttane sono tutta la sua vita.
In uno dei tanti mondi possibili, Mitja, Ivan e Alёsa, i tre fratelli, sarebbero stati angeli di Paradiso ma, essendo nati da lui, hanno nel sangue la stessa febbre, la stessa morbosa attrazione per tutto ciò che è sensuale e vile. Questo non impedisce loro di avere anime grandi, che aspirano all’altissimo, alla salvazione, alla redenzione, a un amore puro e angelicato. Vogliono essere buoni, vogliono avere la fede, vogliono credere e vivere, vivere e credere, e continuamente si sporcano, sprofondano le suole in una densa mota spirituale e ne escono sempre scissi, scossi, malati. Hanno desideri a forma di cattedrali, ma vogliono costruir le cattedrali dentro i pozzi e per farci entrare le cupole, a testa all’ingiù, bisogna essere architetti sopraffini. Ma Alёsa-Il-Santo, Ivan-L’Inquisitore, Mitja-Il-Poeta devono ancora farsi le ossa e per questo costruiscono e decostruiscono, ovunque accumulando detriti.
Se mi venisse chiesto di scegliere se preferisco le pagine dedicate a Ivan (Il grande Inquisitore! Il diavolo con i calzoni a quadretti!), le pagine dedicate ad Alёsa (Lo starec Zosima! Il piccolo Il’juša! Kolja Krasotkin!) o le pagine dedicate a Mitja (‘Il fatto è che seppure precipitassi giù nell’abisso, anche allora, così a capofitto e con le piante in aria, sarei contento di star cadendo proprio in quell’umiliantissima posizione, e ci troverei per me della bellezza’ ! Grušen’ka! ), ecco, se mi si chiedesse di scegliere, io staccherei a morsi la mano di chi chiede. Non una sola pagina, non una sola parola che annoi o sia di troppo, un risultato eccezionale per un libro di questa mole e di questo spessore intellettuale. Anzi, la pretesa del lettore che non si finisca così presto, no, Dosto, sii gentile, ancora tre o quattrocento pagine io le avrei lette volentieri.

La cosa che colpisce della prosa di Dostoevskij è la sua vivace ecletticità, la sua capacità di sfuggire alle definizioni. In una sola opera confluiscono moltissimi stili letterari, dalla parabola alla vita di santi, dallo stile giuridico al poliziesco, dal caso clinico alla scena corale, dalla concitazione al parossismo drammatico, dall’orrore al patetismo. Rimane al lettore la sensazione di star sfogliando tutte le declinazioni del vissuto, di avere tra le mani un manufatto incantato, un fortino di orrori tutto da esplorare. Esplorando, il lettore cerca se stesso, si trova, sbalordisce, prova disagio, si conosce e si rifiuta. Un momento è giù nel gorgo di Ivan Karamazov, il momento dopo è appeso a testa in giù, un piede incagliato in un gancio alla volta celeste, e si sbraccia insieme a Mitja. Il momento dopo ancora è lì che bacia la terra e vorrebbe stringere e abbracciare e accogliere e conciliare tutto il mondo come Alёsa. È un cammino morale, spirituale, da cui, una volta imboccato, non si può deviare. C’è da fare tutto il percorso, perdere la fede e ritrovarla, essere più nichilisti e atei di quanto si è mai stati e poi voler vestire il saio monacale. Tutte le certezze vengono messe in discussione, si è chiamati a gesti e posizioni estreme. Non c’è via di mezzo. Se non siete coinvolti con ogni fibra del vostro essere, allora non state leggendo Dostoevskij. Se state leggendo Dostoevskij e non siete coinvolti con ogni fibra del vostro essere, allora non state leggendo. Perché se niente si smuove, se dentro restate freddi e monolitici, se non piangete, non ridete e non vi trovano imbambolati sul gradino davanti casa, allora mai nient’altro vi muoverà.

Ho voluto scegliere quest’angolo – l’angolo dell’umano fatto ancora più umano – perché non saprei che altro raccontare. Tante e tali sono le possibili interpretazioni e le prospettive di analisi che distillare tutto quanto sarebbe il tentativo dell’alchimista con la sua folle pietra filosofale. È un romanzo così ampio, così karamazoviano.
E per un attimo proviamo a essere così ampi e karamazoviani anche noi: allarghiamo le braccia e con la punta delle dita tese tranciamo il velo dello spazio-tempo e raggiungiamo lui, Dostoevskij, lontano, tanto lontano, e sfioriamo le sue mani belle, unghia contro unghia, un secondino solo. Oppure allineiamo i suoi romanzi su uno scaffale bene in vista, tra il ricettario che usiamo sempre, il vocabolario e l’elenco telefonico, perché Dostoevskij è una cosa così, materiale da consultazione, una di quelle robe che servono per vivere con più furia, più consapevolezza, più amore la nostra vita di tutti i giorni.
(less)

14 likes · like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 Ken Moten rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: russian-stuff, philosophy-stuff, favorites, favorite-reviews-i-wrote

"And even if only one good memory remains with us in our hearts, that alone may serve some day for our salvation."

This will no doubt be the most difficult thing have I ever reviewed. There is so much that one gets when reading a Russian novel-or any good novel to be honest. But in this massive work you get it all. Lots of characters pop up, everyone has long names and are known my different names depending on who is speaking, when a person does anything they talk or "think" about it at great le...more

6 likes · like · see review

Sep 07, 2008 Rawley rated it 5 of 5 stars

If there was still any doubt, let me confirm that this actually is the greatest book ever written. But be warned that you need to set aside a solid month to get through it. And it's not light reading--this is a dense work of philosophy disguised as a simple murder mystery. But it's well worth the effort. It tackles the fundamental question of human existence--how best to live one's life--in a truly engaging way. Dostoevsky created 3 brothers (Ivan, Alexei, and Dmitri) with opposite answers to th...more

58 likes · like · see review

Dec 21, 2007 Vanja Antonijevic rated it 5 of 5 stars 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, but also best, most subtle, and complex work. It has a huge li...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)

19 likes · like · see review

Oct 26, 2012 Simona Bartolotta rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classici, favorites

Attenzione, la seguente recensione contiene sproloqui. Ci scusiamo in anticipo ma non possiamo farci niente. Buona continuazione.

In genere mi considero una bibliofila accanita, un’amante del libro come oggetto, oltre che, ovviamente, come strumento di conoscenza.
Il fatto è che io amo stare a guardare minuti interi la copertina prima di sollevarla e, finalmente, leggere. Quando entro in una libreria, non è detto che voglia comprare qualcosa –o meglio, voglio sempre farlo, ma non sempre lo faccio...more Attenzione, la seguente recensione contiene sproloqui. Ci scusiamo in anticipo ma non possiamo farci niente. Buona continuazione.

In genere mi considero una bibliofila accanita, un’amante del libro come oggetto, oltre che, ovviamente, come strumento di conoscenza.
Il fatto è che io amo stare a guardare minuti interi la copertina prima di sollevarla e, finalmente, leggere. Quando entro in una libreria, non è detto che voglia comprare qualcosa –o meglio, voglio sempre farlo, ma non sempre lo faccio-, anzi, il più delle volte ci entro semplicemente per inspirare a fondo, calmarmi, girare per gli scaffali, scegliere un volume, aprirlo esattamente al centro e sentire l’odore della carta che penetra nelle narici. Mi piace tenere la pagina tra le mani mentre leggo, poi riabbassarla, tenere il dito sotto la riga a cui sono arrivata per toglierlo tre secondi dopo e giocherellare facendo passare i margini dei fogli tra pollice e indice producendo quel rumorino così rilassante. Le pagine dei miei libri hanno gli angoli superiori tutti anneriti per questa mia mania di accarezzarli mentre leggo. E poi mi piace sottolineare, prendere appunti, tenere mille segnalibri diversi e non essere capace di usarne neppure uno. Sono necessità, rituali a cui non potrei rinunciare.
Ad ogni mio volume, poi, sono legata da un ricordo, un’esperienza, qualcosa. Voglio far sì che ciascuno di essi sia più di un oggetto, voglio che sia il mio oggetto, e per essere mio deve avere per me un significato particolare.

I fratelli Karamàzov non fa eccezione. E’ un regalo di compleanno. Di solito quando mi devono regalare qualcosa mi dicono dammi la lista che scelgo un libro e ti regalo quello, così andiamo sul sicuro. All’epoca questo sistema era ancora da sperimentare, ragion per cui il mio compagno di banco ed il mio amico-da-una-vita si armarono di buona volontà e andarono in libreria. Così, allo sbaraglio. E nel caos videro la luce.
(mi piace romanzare, fate pazienza)
Fu così che ricevetti un Dosto per i miei quindici anni. Ragazzi, sappiate che quel giorno avete fatto una cosa meravigliosa, e che se l’ho terminato solo ora, dopo quasi un anno, non è perché non lo volessi leggere, come non avete mancato di farmi presente ogni singolo giorno fino a quando non l’ho iniziato, o perché non mi piacesse, come altrettanto alacremente avete fatto attenzione a rinfacciarmi ogni singolo giorno fino a quando, oggi, non l’ho finito. E’ semplicemente perché se accetto una sfida devo vincerla e perché non faccio mai le cose tanto così, per farle. E leggere I fratelli Karamàzov è stata per me una sfida a tratti difficile, sempre intensa, mai abbandonata e infine vinta, con mio enorme vantaggio.

Come mi era già successo per Delitto e castigo sono rimasta sbalordita per l’introspezione e la caratterizzazione dei personaggi, reali quanto basta e romanzati, ma non troppo. Se anche la trama non spicca per originalità o complessità, sono i particolari quelli che colpiscono. O meglio ancora, sono i rapporti tra i personaggi, le sfumature di significato, le “storie nella storia”, come mi piace chiamarle –in questo momento mi vengono in mente Kòlja e Iljusa. E’ un romanzo impegnativo, oltre che per la lunghezza, per le domande che suscita, per le idee che instilla. Credo che siano almeno qualche decina i passi che potrei riportare che mi hanno tenuto la mente occupata per giorni.
Specie mentre leggevo il primo tomo, quando ancora non avevo preso il ritmo, procedevo a tre capitoli a settimana, semplicemente perché già quei tre capitoli bastavano ingombrarmi il cervello in maniera incredibile. Ho impiegato qualcosa come tre mesi solo per terminare il primo volume, che è pure più breve del seguito. Se continuo così, mi dicevo, non lo finirò mai. Ma poi ho iniziato il secondo, e le cose sono cambiate. Vuoi che la vicenda si è fatta più coinvolgente, vuoi che in questo periodo pieno di impegnai mi mancano un modo veloce per impegnarmi ancora di più, eccomi irrimediabilmente risucchiata da queste nature karamàzoviane.
Tra tutti i brani che più ho amato, però, il mio preferito (che parolona, saranno almeno dieci i miei brani preferiti in questo libro) si trova nel primo volume, nel capitolo prima del celeberrimo Grande Inquisitore.
E’ qualcosa di inconcepibilmente meraviglioso e straziante, su Dio, sulla giustizia divina, sull’amore e sulla sofferenza, e su un sacco di altre cose. Ma sarebbe troppo lungo da riportare, e non vorrei rovinare il gusto di leggerlo per la prima volta nel suo contesto a chi ancora si deve cimentare nell’impresa. Ne scriverò solo un pezzetto, concedetemelo. Vi prometto addirittura che dopo questa citazione tacerò. Tacerò perché trovo che le cose belle si sciupino un po’ se ci si spendono troppe parole, e trovo anche che non trovo altro da dire.
Perciò, questa è la fine.

”Non voglio l’armonia, è per amore dell’umanità che non la voglio. Preferisco che le sofferenze rimangano invendicate. E poi l’hanno sovrastimata quell’armonia e l’ingresso non è certo per le nostre tasche. Perciò m’affretto a restituire il mio biglietto d’ingresso. E farò così. Non è che non accetti Dio, Alëša: gli rendo rispettosamente il biglietto.”

(less)

6 likes · like · see review

Aug 29, 2007 Pietrus Block rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition 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 the great mystery of human life that old grief pass...more

13 likes · like · see review

Oct 31, 2008 Hoyt rated it 5 of 5 stars

Greatest novel I ever read. Characters, plot, underlying philosophical/spiritual struggle. It's simultaneously giant and its intensely personal. It's so universal and so Russian.

"Grand Inquisitor" chapter should be read annually, no monthly. It'll keep your synapses and priorities aligned.

Fyodor puts the fun back into suffering--something the Russians are good at. Alyosha is perhaps the most memorable character in literature. I'm still trying to resolve the questions he raises. Russians--the o...more

6 likes · like · see review

Jan 16, 2009 julieta rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: siglo-xix, favorites, rusinskis

Tenía mucho tiempo con ganas de leer este libro, pero no me había animado. Supongo que me intimidaba por varias razones, su extensión, el hecho de ser un clásico de la literatura universal, y etceteras, entre ellos falta de tiempo y tranquilidad.

Qué maravilla, la verdad fué lo mejor que pude haber hecho.
Soy lectora todo terreno. Leo de todo porque quiero leerlo todo. Siempre me gana la curiosidad, y a veces esto me ha metido en más de un libro que me hace pasar bochornos.

Pero este libro tiene to...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 06, 2012 Bryn Hammond rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novelists

With Great Books, comment is an impertinence. But I like to hear of people’s encounters with them, and thought I’d attempt mine with the novel that has always been my number one.

For those new to him I’d like to say, Dostoyevsky isn’t difficult. I think there’s a rumour he is - as with other Greats who turn out to be more like ordinary novelists than we’d feared, except with the wisdom of the gods. The last hundred pages of Karamazov is a courtroom drama, and he has sensational plots, since he g...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 04, 2010 La pointe de la sauce rated it 5 of 5 stars

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This novel is regarded as Dostoevsky's masterpiece, a dramatic story of family dissension and murder followed by arrest, trial and sentence, into which Dostoevsky fuses his final thoughts on humanity and the state of the modern world. In every sense, this book is not only a novel but a Critique of Civilization and Individualism. Don't get me wrong, Dostoevsky isn't proclaiming any new philosophical ideas, on the contrary he asks the reader to dig deeper into the philosophy behind the grand ideas...more This novel is regarded as Dostoevsky's masterpiece, a dramatic story of family dissension and murder followed by arrest, trial and sentence, into which Dostoevsky fuses his final thoughts on humanity and the state of the modern world. In every sense, this book is not only a novel but a Critique of Civilization and Individualism. Don't get me wrong, Dostoevsky isn't proclaiming any new philosophical ideas, on the contrary he asks the reader to dig deeper into the philosophy behind the grand ideas of socialism and individualism that is rampantly prevalent in young minds; ideas which ultimately seek to overthrow ones moral conviction and conscience in favour of other flawed philosophy. Ultimately The Karamazov Brothers is a novel about the loss of morality that, in my opinion, exceeds Rousseau and Kant in their discussion on morality by striking at the heart of the problem, the existence of God.

It must be noted that unlike Tolstoy who fully developed real characters, Dostoevskys characters are almost always symbolic- the humble and self-effacing Christians (Sonya Marmeladova in Crime and Punishment, Alyosha Karamazov, the elder Zomissov) self-destructive nihilists (Smerdyakov and to some extent Raskolnikov) cynical debauchees (Fyodor Karamazov, Dmitri Karamazov), and rebellious intellectuals (Raskolnikov, Ivan Karamazov, Ippolit, Kolya etc.). These characters are driven by these symbols which ultimately lead either to their salvation or destruction.

In the novel, Dostoevsky begins to immediately deal with the philosophical beliefs of the intellectuals, who do not believe in the existence of God but attribute religion to the same creative mysticism and disdain as it is today. With the loss of belief in God or religion, these intellectuals are left free to create some very disturbing concepts.

Ivan Karamazov, conviction as to the consequence of the disappearance of the faith in immortality and God is that nothing would be immoral, everything would be lawful, not only lawful but even recognized as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of this position. This concept of moral individualism or subjectivism is the same concept that is adopted by Raskolnikov in C&P and Smerdyakov when they coldly and rationally decide to commit murder with the backing of corruptive philosophy. Smerdyakov's notion of the loss of faith is much simpler but slightly different from Ivan's. He makes the more practical analysis that in the scripture it states that if you 'have faith,even a mustard seed, and bid a mountain move into the sea, it will move without the least delay' however as this is not possible man will doubt immortality or God and yet 'shall be forgiven'. He uses a twisted form of reasoning to reach the same conclusion that 'all things are lawful.' This form of reasoning is exactly what has led to the rampant individualism we see today, of course, it doesn't give one the right to murder ones parents but it leads to the erosion of any moral conviction with the constant drive to satisfy ones desires in a never ending cycle.

The question of God's existence and of immortality is central to the development of Ivan Karamazov. Of this question he admits that he actually does believe in the existence of God:
'I have a Euclidian earthly mind, and how could I solve problems that are not of this world...All such questions are utterly inappropriate for a mind created with an idea of only three dimensions. And so I accept God and am glad to....Yet would you believe it, in the final result I do not accept this world of God's.'
Why does he not accept God's world, well because of suffering. He cites many examples as to the nature of suffering and why God allows it especially in cases where children are abused:
'Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer. '
Far from trying to advance individualism or free will, Ivan actually makes the conclusion that it wouldve been better if humanity was not free and had never been giving free will, never stolen 'fire from heaven' and never tasted freedom. This is what he rejects. In the end he is stuck in this conflict of believing in God and yet rejecting suffering of the innocent.

Dostoevsky in his final novel makes the claim that as soon as philosophical reasoning is disassociated from religion/God, it leads to the creation of seriously flawed concepts.

'For even those who have renounced Christianity and attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardour of their hearts has been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than given by Christ of old. '

The elder Zossimo goes on to make a speech that accurately sums up civilization as we know it today:
'The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction. For the world says: 'You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the rich and powerful....' And what follows from this multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They mantain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air. Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation....I ask you, is such a man free?'...And it's no wonder that instead of gaining freedom they've sunk into slavery'...They have succeded in accumulating a great mass of objects, but the joy of the world has grown less. ' p 346

Rousseau et al couldn't have put it better. This book is very relevant in this consumerist world in which we find ourselves where any discussion on brotherly love and God is treated with dissension, diresion and contempt whereas any new philosophy in favour of satisfying the innumerable desires we have created for ourselves is praised as freedom. Call it capitalism or individualism or modernity it leads to the same self serving subjective moralism which leads to spiritual suicide and self debasement. I ask you is such a man free? Are all things lawful as we are meant to believe? I believe in something different. This is by far Dostoevskys greatest work. (less)

7 likes · like · see review

Jul 09, 2012 Tatiana rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: classics

Rereading this one now, first time as a believer, and the whole story of the monk, Aloysha's friend and mentor, is riveting to me this time around. I've had a few times in my life when I felt the way it was described that the monk's brother felt before he died, that there's no need for any unhappiness ever, and life was meant to be a paradise, if only we saw it so. It was beautiful. Dostoyevsky's descriptions are more vivid than ever to me, and the feelings are more powerful. If other writers ar...more Rereading this one now, first time as a believer, and the whole story of the monk, Aloysha's friend and mentor, is riveting to me this time around. I've had a few times in my life when I felt the way it was described that the monk's brother felt before he died, that there's no need for any unhappiness ever, and life was meant to be a paradise, if only we saw it so. It was beautiful. Dostoyevsky's descriptions are more vivid than ever to me, and the feelings are more powerful. If other writers are 120VAC (with apologies to the Europeans) then Fyodor Mikailovich is 35kV. Everything is like waaaaay more intense. (I heard that sentence in Mitch Hedburg's voice.)

Vanya's story of the Grand Inquisitor is quite true and definitely sincere. I understand just why he doesn't believe. Yet the 19th century idea that if God doesn't exist then everything is permitted seems whacked to me. The atheists I know are all good people. Not a sensualist nor kin-murderer among them. Is Vanya thinking his dad's death would make the world a better place? He's kind of blocking out the whole thing Smerdyakov is hinting at, though it's perfectly clear to us. He may already be coming down with brain fever, encephalitis, which people in Russia ca. 1810 - 75 seem particularly prone to. His hallucinations later on (I'm not to that part yet this go round) definitely have the flavor of revelation, and I wonder how much madness has in common with prophecy.

Simultaneously, my son's reading Neitzsche and discussing his ideas with me. We're both listening to some Buddhist stuff too, and thinking through those things, beginning to practice meditation. On top of that, of course, my LDS teachings have yet another viewpoint entirely on mind-body duality (not so much), the nature of paradise (a lot like here), the relation of our Heavenly Parents (plural) to us, their children. Father Zosima is teaching me some very good stuff out of his Russian Orthodox tradition. My head's in a bit of a whirl from all this, yet together it all builds, somehow, something extremely durable and useful, (and even quite beautiful) in my spirit.

This is an amazing book. Each time I read it, I get worlds of new stuff out of it. I love Dostoyevsky. He's absolutely the best novelist I've ever read.

*****

A new thought I want to record. One thing I love about FMD is the way he shows clearly the very best feelings and thoughts that his characters have. Right now Aloysha has gone to Grushenka's and she's told him about her officer who wronged her who has come back and wants to see her. Her pure self is shining through, despite all her years of crying and raging and vowing to make him pay for wronging her, and now she's going to run back to him, because she loves him still. She's humiliated by that and also determined to do it, and she honestly shows all this to Aloysha because she perceives that he understands. For his part he's purified of his earlier desire to sin and do himself harm somehow because of his anguish over the disgrace of his beloved Elder Zosima's body rotting too fast when everyone thought his death would be attended with miracles and an extra measure of preservation because of his righteousness. Aloysha himself is so good just then, to see Grushenka's true spirit and not treat her like a nonperson, a sex object, as the other men all seem to do. Dostoyevsky by showing the best of humanity in all of us (even the characters who aren't so nice all the time) gives us permission to be our best selves. Despite his also seeing clearly the worst of people, his recognition of their true best, too, makes that seem simple and noble and most of all possible. I love that about him.

*****

Farther now, and Dmitri this time is striking me as a terribly unsympathetic character, though I remember liking him before. Maybe I was just too young to see that all that unrestrained passion and anger is simply destructive and abusive and wrong, and not really noble or pure or admirable. Sure, terrify people who are weak and vulnerable left and right, servants and women and so on. Sure, beat up a peasant who's passed out drunk just because you really need him to wake up and give you money to go see your girlfriend. Sure, jilt an honorable fiancee who loves you just because you feel a passion of lust for someone else. I think Grushenka is a fool to even consider you for a second!

Yes, he's young and had a terrible example in his father. And everyone who's human has done stupid, selfish things at times. But I think he does need to go to jail, just for all the assault and sexual harassment he goes around committing, even if he's innocent of his father's murder. Why did I ever like him? Ugh!(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Isak rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: prose

Yes, it is long and it is demanding and it is partly tiresome, but just as with so many other challenging things here in life, in the end, it is worth it a hundered times over.

This book is so full of truths that you will find yourself sitting with your jaw on the ground, wondering how someone could see so right into your soul, understand everything that is happening there and then formulate it so well and precisely.

I especially like the parts about Zosima, because never before have I read anythi...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 22, 2012 Leslie rated it 3 of 5 stars

This was a very interesting book. I was expecting something more like Crime and Punishment, but it was quite different. I found it challenging to read, mostly because of the length of it and I thought that he reached his point long before the book ended. I really found this to be a spiritual discussion focusing on faith, morals, crime and class.

I found it very interesting to learn that Dostoyevsky's 3-year old son Alyosha died of epilepsy when he started writing this book. When I learned that af...more This was a very interesting book. I was expecting something more like Crime and Punishment, but it was quite different. I found it challenging to read, mostly because of the length of it and I thought that he reached his point long before the book ended. I really found this to be a spiritual discussion focusing on faith, morals, crime and class.

I found it very interesting to learn that Dostoyevsky's 3-year old son Alyosha died of epilepsy when he started writing this book. When I learned that after reading the book, I could clearly see his grief and his struggle with belief and reason. That really adds so much light to everything.

Each character seemed to embody a specific trait. Alyosha (youngest brother) was faith and Ivan (middle brother) was doubt. Fyodor Pavlovich (father) was selfishness and greed. I thought Dmitri (oldest brother) was a combination of all of them. It is interesting that he is the one that gets put on trial since he's not really representing one side or the other but the amalgamation of all.

Suffering - one of the main points of the book is that self-knowledge is necessary for redemption and the only way you can achieve self-knowledge is through suffering. I think Dmitri is the best example of this throughout the book as he examines himself and his motives and suffers greatly as he struggles with the possibility of having killed his father.

Redemption - along with suffering, redemption is key. Ivan is a good example of this as he suffers through his fever and meets the devil and is able to acknowledge the role he played in his father's death and to redeem himself by helping Dmitri escape and unite with his true love.

Justice - I felt that a big part of this book was about getting what you deserve. We get to see Dmitri and Ivan struggle for redemption and get the justice they seek. But the best example of justice is Fyodor Pavlovich who gets bludgeoned to death. No one can feel a morsel of pity for the man given the way he treated his sons and those around him.

Fatherhood - Fyodor Pavlovich is a bad man and a terrible father. It's so interesting to see Dostoyevsky's portrayal of this man and how his sons reacted to him. I think a lot of his guilt and grieving regarding his own son played a part in creating this unsympathetic character. Apparently, he also had many problems with his own father. This was probably quite cathartic for him to write. I just thought it was interesting that Dmitri and Ivan wanted to kill their father so much and when he was killed, they accused each other and their own selves, not knowing the line between wanting something and doing it.

I did enjoy this book and found it very relevant still today. And even though the characters were mostly symbols, I still found them to be well-written and interesting people to follow.(less)

3 likes · like · see review

May 13, 2009 Meen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recommended to Meen by: Madame actually gave me this copy.

Shelves: own-it, fiction, religion-spirituality-atheism

4/13/09: Whew, done! Right up till the last night of reading (last night), I was teetering on five stars, but the damn prosecuter's speech just went on and on and on and was so freaking tedious it infuriated me. Also, the whole thing was a bit too preachy for this atheist to feel totally in love. But it was a wonderful read, and after about a third of the way in I was actually stopping doing other things to read it and looking forward to it while I was away from it, especially at the climax of t...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 28, 2008 Joshua rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Anyone looking to expand what they thought they already knew

Shelves: classics, favorites

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...more

5 likes · like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Greatest Novel Ever Written	130	749	23 hours, 16 min ago
Discovering Russi...: * The Brothers Karamazov: Books 8 to 12 + Epilogue - April 13- 05	11	34	May 16, 2013 08:11pm
Reading the Classics: The Brothers Karamazov: Book II	38	134	May 15, 2013 06:37am
The best translator?	6	56	May 04, 2013 01:47pm
Discovering Russi...: * The Brothers Karamazov: Books 6 & 7 - April 07-12	7	30	Apr 13, 2013 10:35pm
Discovering Russi...: * The Brothers Karamazov: Book 3 - March 26-31	3	20	Apr 02, 2013 11:08pm
Discovering Russi...: * The Brothers Karamazov - Book 1 - March 15-18	20	62	Apr 02, 2013 10:23am

combine
Other Editions (485)

More editions...

Videos About This Book

1 comment

Add a comment

Genres

Classics

2,467 users

Cultural > Russia

609 users

Literature

532 users

Literature > Russian Literature

319 users

Novels

201 users

Philosophy

190 users

Literature > 19th Century

104 users

Classics > Classic Literature

96 users

Religion

80 users

Literary Fiction

57 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) was a Russian novelist, journalist, and short-story writer whose psychological penetration into the human soul had a profound influence on the 20th century novel.

Dostoevsky was the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to S...more Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) was a Russian novelist, journalist, and short-story writer whose psychological penetration into the human soul had a profound influence on the 20th century novel.

Dostoevsky was the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to St. Petersburg, where he entered the Army Engineering College. Dostoevsky's father died in 1839, most likely of apoplexy, but it was rumored that he was murdered by his own serfs. Dostoevsky graduated as a military engineer, but resigned in 1844 to devote himself to writing. His first novel, Poor Folk appeared in 1846.

That year he joined a group of utopian socialists. He was arrested in 1849 and sentenced to death, commuted to imprisonment in Siberia. Dostoevsky spent four years in hard labor and four years as a soldier in Semipalatinsk, a city in what it is today Kazakhstan.

Dostoevsky returned to St. Petersburg in 1854 as a writer with a religious mission and published three works that derive in different ways from his Siberia experiences: The House of the Dead , (1860) a fictional account of prison life, The Insulted and Injured, which reflects the author's refutation of naive Utopianism in the face of evil, and Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, his account of a trip to Western Europe.

In 1857 Dostoevsky married Maria Isaev, a 29-year old widow. He resigned from the army two years later. Between the years 1861 and 1863 he served as editor of the monthly periodical Time, which was later suppressed because of an article on the Polish uprising.

In 1864-65 his wife and brother died and he was burdened with debts. His situation was made even worse by his gambling addiction. From the turmoil of the 1860s emerged Notes from the Underground, a psychological study of an outsider, which marked a major advancement in Dostoevsky's artistic development.

In 1867 Dostoevsky married Anna Snitkin, his 22-year old stenographer. They traveled abroad and returned in 1871. By the time of The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80), Dostoevsky was recognized in his own country as one of its great writers.(less)

More about Fyodor Dostoyevsky...

Books by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Brothers Kara...

24 trivia questions
1 quiz

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Brothers Karamazov

“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.” — 2,699 people liked it

“What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” — 1,907 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Brothers Karamazov
avg rating	preview: The Brothers Karamazov Goodreads rating: 4.26 (78407 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4934.The_Brothers_Karamazov?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327882764l/4934.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4934.The_Brothers_Karamazov?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/url]

The Brothers Karamazov

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website