My rating:

add to my books

more photos (1)

read book

The Brothers Karamazov

by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Constance Garnett (Translator)

4.25 · rating details · 40,050 ratings · 3,063 reviews

This brilliant work by one of Russia's foremost novelists teems with greed, passion, depravity, and complex moral issues. Three brothers, involved in the brutal murder of their despicable father, find their lives irrevocably altered as they are driven by intense, uncontrollable emotions of rage and revenge.

Paperback, 736 pages

Published August 23rd 2005 by Dover Publications (first published January 1st 1880)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

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

Lists with This Book

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

The Great Classics You Have Not Read Yet

16th out of 286 books — 272 voters

The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving

The Man in the Iron Mask by Alexandre Dumas

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle

Free Young Adult E-Books

70th out of 95 books — 2 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 75,535)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 29, 2008

Conrad rated it

· 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 b...moreContrary 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)

like 76 likes

· see review

Jun 21, 2010

Ellen rated it

· review of another edition

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...more

like 36 likes

· see review

Jan 24, 2011

Bird Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: russia, literature-19th-century, desert-island-top-ten-picks

The firorst tiem I triesd to reviw… Oh, I can see that typing is going tro be a problem here, and honestly I do not have the patience to fix all my mistakes right now. I just want to get these thoughts down. I can see that is going to create a slurred word/poor speech effect, but in fact if you were sitting here right now, you’d know that I am in fact NOT slurring any words, and speaking with the utmost eloquance. So let’s just agree to overlook the misspellings and whatnot, shall we? So what ...more

like 32 likes

· see review

Nov 09, 2007

Rachel rated it

· review of another edition

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 connota...moreThis 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)

like 39 likes

· see review

Jul 14, 2011

Chris rated it

· 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, ...moreDostoevsky'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)

like 11 likes

· see review

Jan 05, 2008

Skylar Burris rated it

· review of another edition

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 pene...more

like 10 likes

· see review

Nov 20, 2011

Alex rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: masochists

Shelves: 2011, victorian, 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."...more

like 6 likes

· see review

Sep 07, 2008

Rawley rated it

· review of another edition

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 ...more

like 42 likes

· see review

Dec 21, 2007

Vanja Antonijevic rated it

· review of another edition

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, ...moreDostoevsky’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)

like 14 likes

· see review

Aug 29, 2007

Pietrus Block rated it

· 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."...more

like 10 likes

· see review

Jan 16, 2009

julieta rated it

· review of another edition

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.
...more

like 6 likes

· see review

Dec 04, 2010

La pointe de la sauce rated it

· review of another edition

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...moreThis 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)

like 7 likes

· see review

Apr 05, 2009

Seth rated it

· review of another edition

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 an...more

like 7 likes

· see review

May 13, 2009

Mindy rated it

· review of another edition

Recommended to Mindy 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

like 3 likes

· see review

Jul 25, 2008

Jesse rated it

· review of another edition

Basically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books. Although it has a compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and the philosophy underpinning the story that keeps it near the top of my list. And that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review. Of course, thematic interpretation is a necessarily subjective thing, 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 th...moreBasically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books. Although it has a compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and the philosophy underpinning the story that keeps it near the top of my list. And that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review. Of course, thematic interpretation is a necessarily subjective thing, 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 one and the same person, at the exact same time, can be equally drawn to the noble and 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. Instead of trying to purge one side of human nature 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. We do this chiefly by building loving connections with others, by sincerely believing the best of ourselves and of others, by sensing our connectedness 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. 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, different type of argument Dostoevsky seems to make for the existence God, relating particularly to the life of Ivan Fyodorovich, 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 desireable 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 out of the closet and 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 one another 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, great writing, and a ton of depth. Highly recommended.(less)

like 5 likes

· see review

Jan 28, 2008

Joshua rated it

· review of another edition

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

like 3 likes

· see review

Jul 30, 2009

Bonnie rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed-books, classics, recommended, to-reread

I remember that after reading this, Dostoevsky’s final book, and the last book I read by him, that it became my all-time favourite. If I gave 5 stars to Crime and Punishment, then I would have given 6 to The Brothers Karamazov. I must have focused on plot the first time I read it, but knew, even at the time, that there was so much more to it that I had to read it again. I did. But all I remember is that if Crime and Punishment made me think, The Brothers Karamazov made me really think.

...more

like 14 likes

· see review

Nov 18, 2008

Kelly added it · review of another edition

Shelves: did-not-finish, 19th-century, russians, great-and-terrible-men, grand-opera

It is probably time for me to admit that we're not going to finish this book. But then again, its also probably time for me to admit that Joey didn't end up with Dawson, that I've watched The Princess Bride enough to be able to recite it, that english muffins are actually fattening, and that I should be doing actual work rather than writing reviews on goodreads.

But I don't see any of that happening any time soon.

So let's just say that we are on 'pause'.

Loved w...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Oct 01, 2011

Jeremy rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, literary

It is, of course, intimidating to write a review to attach to a book such as this, a masterpiece wrought by a master. I had read it before in a different translation perhaps fifteen years or so ago, and so it was I began to rediscover many of the ideas that influenced my own ideas. Some books become mirrors looking into mirrors, an abyss on either side, to use the very Karamazovian expression.

Within this novel, there are many levels, and many depths - and I use the word depths in par...more

like 3 likes

· see review

Jul 20, 2009

Newengland rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics-newly-read, finished-in-2009

Whew! Talk about a gauntlet running! But what seemed like a huge mess of a book clearly had a structure and a design. I'm sure the religious symbolism is much greater than I noticed, but I did notice the preeminence of the number three -- three brothers, three chapters for each one in Part I, Book One,; "The Confessions of an Ardent Heart" in three parts in Part I, Book Three, "The Three Torments" in Part III, Book Nine; the three meetings with Smerdyakov (he of the devili...moreWhew! Talk about a gauntlet running! But what seemed like a huge mess of a book clearly had a structure and a design. I'm sure the religious symbolism is much greater than I noticed, but I did notice the preeminence of the number three -- three brothers, three chapters for each one in Part I, Book One,; "The Confessions of an Ardent Heart" in three parts in Part I, Book Three, "The Three Torments" in Part III, Book Nine; the three meetings with Smerdyakov (he of the devilish squinting LEFT eye) in Part IV, Book Eleven; and so forth. Dostoevsky wasn't subtle when it came to the Trinity.

The Ilyushenka funeral at the end was a bit sentimental for my tastes, but it gave Alexei a soapbox (in the form of a coffin) to stand on for his final sermon to the boys. It reminded somewhat of Tiny Tim ("God bless us, everyone!") and somewhat of Robin Williams rallying the boys in Dead Poets Society ("Carpe diem, boys, carpe diem!").

I also grew tired of the repeated retellings of the crime, especially when it came to the prosecutor's final speech. What fascinated me, however, was Ippolit's (prosecutor's) thoughts on present-day society in 19th-century Russia. People were too liberal, too God-less, he said. People lived vicariously, loved sensationalism and to feast their eyes and ears on other people's misery. People only carried about money and material goods and satisfaction of their own sensual needs. Hmn. Sounds damn near like speeches at the last Republican Convention. The times, they aren't a changin', I guess.

I'm always glad to fill a Swiss hole in my classical reading resume and summer is the time to do it. Last year it was Dead Souls, a book Dostoevsky admired, and this year it is The Brothers Karamazov. I enjoyed it. It ran the gamut, from near-Biblical raptures and serious philosophical and religious thoughts to the equivalent of a 19th-century Jerry Springer show (I'm sure Jerry would be salivating to sign the likes of Dmitri K. and his little strumpet, Grushenka).

A bit like after giving blood or having gone to church, finishing it. You know. That noble feeling. And you want to do GOOD, a la Alyoshka, after reading it. I think, then, I'll go to the freezer for a Good Humor bar. For starters, I mean!(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Nov 07, 2008

Jamie rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: all-time-faves, the-essentials

So, so worth it. Hands down one of the best books of my life.

Additional thoughts, after absorbing it a few days: It's a shockingly joyful book. The themes are dark, some of the darkest, yet it's one of the most passionately joyful books I've ever read. In spite of— or because of— the tragedy within, there's an unexpected exuberance that fairly spills over unchecked. It grips you by the gut and doesn't quite ever let go. There's a fearless complexity, too; as with the Karamazo...more

like 7 likes

· see review

Jun 29, 2008

Dominic rated it

· review of another edition

I picked up this book with little thought as to what I might get out of it....In fact I was not willing to start it, since I thought it would be a boring old book that I might get a hundred pages into, at most.

I just finished the book, and I'm glad to say, It has been one of the most enjoyable books I've read.

Sure, there was some slow parts, as in every book, but the way it was written, distinct in older books, was very intresting and even refreshing. The story was very ...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Jun 11, 2008

Seabury rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Thinkers

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. After reading this book, I waited a day, and then I had this irristable compulsion to write about it, so I pulled out a notebook and filled out several pages with my thoughts on this book. For the readers of this review, I'll spare you. One thing that can be said for this book is that it does produce thought, regardless of how frustrating of a read it may be at times. No review I write could ever do this book justice, and I recommend it to everyone who likes being provoked into thinking about th...moreAfter reading this book, I waited a day, and then I had this irristable compulsion to write about it, so I pulled out a notebook and filled out several pages with my thoughts on this book. For the readers of this review, I'll spare you. One thing that can be said for this book is that it does produce thought, regardless of how frustrating of a read it may be at times. No review I write could ever do this book justice, and I recommend it to everyone who likes being provoked into thinking about the great questions. This book feels incomplete, but that must be at least somewhat intentional. The book doesn't provide answers. It provides great arguments against and for god, but does not resolve, there is no winner. The closest thing to a definitive stance the book takes is on love. The protagonist, Alyosha, is essentially the embodiment of blind love, and Dostoyovsky certainly sides with him, portraying him as almost a saint. Even so, Dostoyevsky doesn't portray it without nuance. Blind love did not save Alyosha's brothers or father, nor does it resolve the love triangle at the center of the book. I have 2 gripes with this book. The first one is that Dostoyevsky has an irritating habit of partially sketching out characters and then abandoning them. What of Lise, what of Rakitan, what of Konya? It is torturous how he just leaves off these characters just when the reader is getting interested in them. My other gripe is the strange psychotic self-alalytical dialogue that the characters sometimes get into. It comes off as some sort of psychological/philosophical panic attack, and far from filling in the character, it just manages to confuse. Dostyovsky devoted many pages of Grushenka, but the majority of these were this self-analysis, and so the image the reader gets it that Grushenka might be schizophrenic, or bipolar, and certainly insane. It might be useful to get a glimpse into a character's core being, but if that is all we get, then we know nothing. It doesn't make sense to plunge the depths of something if you don't know what the surface looks like. So, in my idealized version of this book, dostoyevsky would have cut out maybe half the self-psychoanalysis, and then added a few hundred pages before the trial at the end of the book that fleshes out these half-fleshed characters. Nonetheless, this book is fantastic as it stands and earns an enthusiastic 5 stars from me. As a final note, the intro to this version isn't really worth reading. It is mostly a freudian analysis of the book. In other words, it used to be "fashionable" among lit critics, but it is mostly bogus. Modern psychology has mostly discredited freud, rendering the intro mostly nonsense.(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Sep 09, 2007

Amanda Sammons rated it

· review of another edition

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 di...more

like 5 likes

· see review

Jan 18, 2008

Nathanial rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: patricidal saints

Shelves: fiction

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 ...more

like 5 likes

· see review

Mar 12, 2009

Gillian marked it as to-read · review of another edition

i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. i will finish this book. ...more

like 8 likes

· see review

Mar 26, 2008

Erik Simon rated it

· review of another edition

I know the book seems intimidating--it's Russian and it's huge--but the thing about these huge Russian novels is that once they get going (usually after 100 pages), they're like soap operas. I absolutely love this book, and I was riveted by all the characters in it. Last thing: I'm no scholar, but I think the translation is important, and you can't beat the work that Volosky and Pevear are doing. I'm sure Constance Garnett was a lovely person, and she certainly did the Western World a favor ...more

like 6 likes

· see review

Aug 09, 2008

Motherhouse rated it

· review of another edition

Each of the four brothers represents a different part of human nature -- the intellect, the spirit, the bodily passions, and the base/evil side of man. I read this book at a time when I was struggling with the tension between intellect and spirit, and some passages in this book spoke directly to that. I especially loved the idea that you can't ever prove to yourself that God exists, but you can be convinced of it through the experience of active, selfless love. Allison Pond

like 3 likes

· see review

Oct 07, 2011

Tania rated it

· review of another edition

I know it makes me look ignorant and uncouth to declare a masterpiece of literature by one of the greats to be awful, but here I am. I've wanted to read The Brothers Karamazov for years and years. I was looking forward to the type of revelatory experience I had with Anna Karenina a few years back--the oh-wow-now-I-see-what-everyone-was-talking-about:-Tolstoi-is-AWESOME experience. But no. I managed to wade through the first quarter or so of the audiobook before the library demanded it back f...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jul 01, 2011

Leonard rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: literature-russian, favorite

The crime: someone murdered Fyodor Karamozov, the wanton, irritable, and sadistic patriarch.

The punishments: Smerdyakov, the illegitimate son, committed suicide after killing his father. Dmitri, the eldest son, passionate and immoderate like his father, whom the court found guilty of the murder, was condemned to Siberia. Ivan, the second son, who was “enlightened” and rational, struggled with the guilt of convincing his half-brother Smerdyakov that since God didn’t exist, everything...more

like 1 like

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 2517 2518 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Chicks On Lit: * Brothers Karamazov w/reading schedule	164	113	Feb 05, 2012 09:09am
The Greatest Novel Ever Written	73	311	Jan 29, 2012 10:50am
a little over-dramatic?	15	94	Jan 21, 2012 04:43pm
Pevear Translation e-book?	2	26	Oct 27, 2011 12:07pm
Pevear translation in ebook?	2	28	Oct 27, 2011 12:04pm
Goodreads Librarians: clarification?	5	38	Sep 10, 2011 01:05pm
Well Done	9	66	Jul 04, 2008 07:47pm

combine
Other Editions (406)

More editions...

Videos About This Book

Add a comment

Add a comment

Genres

Classics

1,343 users

Cultural > Russia

374 users

Literature

318 users

Literature > Russian Literature

164 users

Novels

135 users

Philosophy

101 users

Literature > 19th Century

65 users

Classics > Classic Literature

56 users

Religion

56 users

Literary Fiction

38 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Fyodor Dostoyevsky

CF also Федор Достоевский

Fyodor Mikhailovitch Dostoevsky was a Russian writer and essayist, notably known for his novels Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov.
Dostoyevsky's literary output explores human psychology in the troubled political, social and spiritual context of 19th-century Russian society. Considered by many as a founder or precursor of 20th-century existentialis...more

More about Fyodor Dostoyevsky...

Books by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About The Brothers Kara...

34 trivia questions
1 quiz

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Brothers Karamazov

“What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” — 1,073 people liked it

“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.” — 872 people liked it

More quotes…

Groups That Shelved The Brothers Kara...

Chicks On Lit

3653 members

last activity 5 hours, 5 min ago

shelf: currently-reading

Boxall's 1001 Books You ...

10996 members

last activity 15 minutes ago

shelf: read

1540 members

last activity 19 hours, 22 min ago

shelf: read

title link	preview: The Brothers Karamazov
avg rating	preview: The Brothers Karamazov Goodreads rating: 4.25 (40050 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4937.The_Brothers_Karamazov?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1328864569m/4937.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4937.The_Brothers_Karamazov?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/url]

The Brothers Karamazov

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website