Where to start? How to explain why I like it so very much?
I like Ayn Rand's style of writing. Her language is strong, clear and not in the least subtlWhere to start? How to explain why I like it so very much?
I like Ayn Rand's style of writing. Her language is strong, clear and not in the least subtle. I think I could recognize it in the future. The reader observes what the characters do. Very little introspection. The plot fits the language and the behavior of the characters. Strong, determined people - no not people, just one character, but she is the central character. Kira is her name. This book is autobiographical, but only in the sense that it speaks of the author's life philosophy. The characters and the plot are all fictional. How Kira thinks is how Ayn Rand thinks....and if that doesn't appeal to you, well then the whole novel may not appeal to you. Do strong, determined people appeal to you?
This is a book that describes the Bolshevik era. It is set in Petrograd / St. Petersburg / Leningrad, predominantly the 1920s. It is a book about how Bolshevism destroyed people. It is also a love story.
The ending! It ends perfectly. Ayn Rand's writing, her description of places and events is so sharp and clear. The ending dazzles. You see it and you feel it and it moves you. The events fit the language. You want to know what will happen. You say, "Get to the end! Tell me! Tell me!" But at the same time you know you have to wait because Kira's path takes time too. That is what I mean when I say the words reflect the events.
Is the book realistic? Yes, I think so.
Mary Woods narrates the audiobook. She changes the speed with which she reads the story. Dialogs are read slowly so you can listen and think about what each is saying. Past events are read in a speedy blur. I have never run into such a technique before, but it is effective. I came to recognize the different characters by the different tones used. ...more
I certainly did like this book, and yet I have an easier time pointing at things that should make me dislike it. That is not the case; I most definiteI certainly did like this book, and yet I have an easier time pointing at things that should make me dislike it. That is not the case; I most definitely liked it.
This is a book that presents an ideology. That is what makes it interesting. Individualism versus collective aspirations/altruism. Egotism versus the social good for many. Every word has side connotations; every word choice needs to be analyzed / discussed to reach a balanced and a fair evaluation of what is the ideal. Ayn Rand is here presenting her view of the ideal man. In the end there quite simply are those who are more individualists and those who work best in groups. I belong to the former group, and so this book was inspirational to me.
Did you know that Greenspan adored Ayn Rand?
Here come the negative aspects of the book that should have, but didn't, make me dislike it. The book is not realistic. The characters are too simplified; their personality traits are exaggerated. In this book you can point to the different characters and each one stands for a certain kind of person. One is only concerned with what others think of him – (Peter Keating, whom I absolutely detested). He is not the most evil, but I detested him most. Still I wanted him there in the book. Honestly, there truly are people like this; every time he spoke or did something he reminded me of a person I know! And here I could laugh at him. And then there is Howard Roark - he is the individualist and my hero. OK, maybe he is too good to be true, but I loved him anyhow. Dominique Francon, she threw me totally. I spent hours trying to figure her out. (Did I mention this book is very long; the audiobook lasts for 32 hours!) She is not realistic..... but by the end I wouldn't say there couldn't exist such a person. You simply have to see what she does at the end. All these characters, and there are more, balance each other and keep you wondering - how will this ever end?! Will it come to a slow fizzle or an explosion?
The book is set in the 1920s and 30s in NYC. It was first published in 1943, but the trends prevailing certainly existed for a decade or two longer! It reminded me of the 1950s. The role of media and journalism was as relevant then as it is today. However historical events are barely mentioned, the Depression is covered in only a line or two, and this is a book about the building industry, very much affected by depressed economic conditions of that era! Roark was an architect. Although the book perfectly depicts NYC at this time and place it does not cover international world events. Again, this just didn't bother me!
There isn't much humor, and that which is employed is satirical in tone. You laugh at the antics of people, not the kind of humor that usually appeals to me. I was just too darned interested in figuring out the whys and hows and what was going to happen to care!
Sometimes the text gets kind of preachy; the author is expounding her views. This is a book about ideology. Either it speaks to you or it doesn't. It is just that simple.
The narration by Christopher Hurt gets five stars. I LOVED the voices he used for Peter (he made me cringe with displeasure), for Peter's mother (oh my, dear little Petey), for Howard (my hero) and for Ellsworth Toohey (he is bad but sounds so suave and good....and that is just how he should sound). You most often recognized who is speaking just from the tone employed.
I need to add one more thing. There are good AND evil individualists. In real life, nothing is simple. The ideology presented is interesting, and the mix of characters makes you curious to see how the story will end, and what does that say about the ideology itself? ...more
When I express how I feel for Woolf's writing it is only in superlatives...... Yes, the writing is amazing. When I look at how I feel for the book asWhen I express how I feel for Woolf's writing it is only in superlatives...... Yes, the writing is amazing. When I look at how I feel for the book as a whole, I feel it deserves less stars. Why? Is it the British upper-crust characters she weaves her story around that is the stumbling block for me? I believe so.
Writing using her unique stream of consciousness narrative, the primary themes of this book are personal relationships, the aftermath of WW1 and British colonization of India, not the events per se but their effect on individuals. The year is 1923 and Mrs. Dalloway has planned a sumptuous party for the coming evening. She is fifty-two. What happens on this one day is the story, but every encounter is influenced by past events and personal relationships. The reader is told past events through the thoughts of all the different characters, and a little dialog. That dialog is pitch-perfect. “That is my Elizabeth” has a completely different significance than the words “That is Elizabeth.” Think in terms of your own daughter! Would your daughter react the same to the two different wordings? Elizabeth is Mrs. Dalloway’s teen-age daughter. Everyone Mrs. Dalloway meets that day and how she relates to each and every one of them is influenced by past events. There is a shell-shocked war veteran and a special boyfriend from the past that happens to drop by. The meshing of past events and history and relationships is flawless. . Although British upper- crust society of the inter-war years is superbly drawn, it is the relationships between the numerous characters that captivated me.
At that party in the evening of that summer day, you, the reader, feel the tingle of excitement. As the hours slip by the mood changes and you feel that too. The food has been served, the excitement and tensions subside, people start getting tipsy, and what is said then?
Juliet Stevenson's narration was very good, except that she should have been able to voice male thoughts a bit differently than women's. Men’s and women's thoughts sound identical, and this is confusing. She does capture the different classes of people. I do believe that it is much easier to follow stream of consciousness writing through listening rather than reading.
The book is cerebral. It presents characters’ thoughts. Honest thoughts because no one censors our thoughts! It looks at relationships. What would be going through your head if you one day ran into that boy you fell for thirty years ago? Virginia Woolf captures all of this accurately. Think carefully, and don't just think; let yourself feel how you would feel. This is what the book delivers. And yet I am giving this four stars, not five, because my emotional response to the book is that I like it very much. Perhaps it is because I am a stranger to that high-society circle of friends that the book focuses upon.
I continue to have a hard time with this. I find it extremely depressing. There is humor, but it is not the kindAfter a bit more than four chapters:
I continue to have a hard time with this. I find it extremely depressing. There is humor, but it is not the kind I like. It is sarcastic, mean humor where you are supposed to laugh at the stupidity or crude behavior of people. I protest; I like to laugh with people in happiness, not at people for our weaknesses. There is a priest that is demented and he wants to hear confessionals so he can hear what is going on and then he tells others. Now I don't think that is nice. Sure it might happen in the real world but how often? There is Miles' alcoholic father who continually throws out cruel, snide criticisms of his son and others. Miles' mother has died of cancer and her death was painful and horrible for all. I find this depressing. I am not avoiding the reality of life, but what is the purpose of sinking myself into the worst of man's behavior.
Mid-life crises kind of bore me.
None of this is a spoiler since I have not gone far into the book.
Neither have I even mentioned the prologue which was utterly disgusting. I don't find it appetizing to read about a decomposing moose, even if it leads C.B. to make a foolish decision - BTW, here I am just guessing. Let me point out that I never shy away from gruesome events in history, but what is the point here in reading about how people behave so cruelly to one another? What does that teach me?
There is absolutely nothing exceptional about the writing; the author's ability to depict an emotion, a place or an event is just plain ordinary.
This received a Pulitzer. Would somebody who loves this book explain to me why I should continue reading. I just do not understand. SHOULD I continue? I need advice.
After 14 chapters(about half of the book):
So I continued; several said that Tick is a fabulous character. She plays a larger and larger role starting in Part Two. She cannot save this book for me. I find the humor not to my taste. I find the characters black or white - cardboard characters. It is simple to make two piles, the good ones and the bad ones. I cannot accept such characterization. People are complicated; they cannot be sorted in this manner. And the dialogs sound like those perfect for a popular weekly television series. Perfect sitcom dialogs.
In desperation I went and read spoiler reviews...... No, what is coming is not up my alley either. Enough is enough. I will be reading no more books by Richard Russo. This is my third and last try.
I listened to the audiobook narrated by Ron Mclarty. That was the only thing that was exceptional. Great narration. His intonation perfectly matched the lines. So if you want to read this book don't hesitate to choose the audio format and this narrator....more
5 stars This is a really good story and I totally loved it.
I mean I LOVED it.
When you come across fiction that it this good you must stand up and cl5 stars This is a really good story and I totally loved it.
I mean I LOVED it.
When you come across fiction that it this good you must stand up and clap. I am clapping.
OK now, Chrissie, explain why you loved it.
I loved it because I was laughing from start to finish. I loved it because it has a message that is oh so true. The message being that those who succeed, those who attain power, and position and money and fame very often do it by the least of admirable methods. This dire message is nevertheless achieved in a humorous fashion. No lectures are delivered. This is the way life is, but rather than moaning and complaining we laugh. This is achieved by the author throwing together a group of characters NONE of which are admirable so they all deserve each other and whatever happens to them. You cannot feel sorry for the loosers; they all chose to take part in this fashionable game for sex and power and money and fame. If they loose it is their own fault. That is how I see it.
The sex is tantalizing, alluring, seductive. No depictions of crude behavior. Hints are given that attract rather than repulse.
OK, what about the narration by John McDonough of this Recorded Books audiobook? The voice of this narrator is that of an elderly man. In the beginning I thought why have they chosen such a voice, given that the main character, journalist Georges Duroy, is a young man? Still it was wonderful. He is telling us a story of the goings-on in Paris in the latter half of the 1800s, so in fact this elderly voice works stupendously. The French pronunciation is spot-on. Yeah, even when the women ball and shriek, it all works. Oh the shrieking, the family eruptions and pissed-off men - I was laughing and laughing and laughing.
One more thing: the translation from French to English was marvelous. THIS is a story that is easy to follow, even if it was first published in 1885. The language used made you feel you were in Paris and it made you fully aware that what happened then could just as easily happen today. It is a wonderful translation. I do not know who the translator was! I loved the lines, I forgot to tell you how wonderfully Guy de Maupassant depicts people and places and events, such as marriages and duels and charity fencing competitions! So the translation was perfect too. I am sure Guy de Maupassant would be happy to hear the story being told in this manner. The translation makes this book feel relevant even today. We are delivered a piece of art that speaks to readers more than a century after it was written. This is a book that holds year after year after year, and that is what makes it a true classic. Why is it is still relevant today? Because unfortunately people do NOT change. ...more
McDermott's writing doesn’t work for ME, at least not here, not in this book! I didn't relate, and that is strange since this is a book about women, aMcDermott's writing doesn’t work for ME, at least not here, not in this book! I didn't relate, and that is strange since this is a book about women, all women, what we share. Not the famous, not the outstanding but the ordinary, albeit ”Western" woman. I think it tries to say too much. It washes out; it becomes too general.
The jokes, the girl-talk, the first love, how we relate to our husbands, the birth of our children, religious contemplations. It is all here, but I didn't relate......and I don't think I am all that different from other ordinary women! There is a remove, a distance.
The storyline hops around in time. It isn’t hard to follow once you are into the book and know who is who, but this device doesn’t add to the book, so why is it used?
The lines have certainly NOT been destroyed by the audiobook's talented narrator, Kate Reading, who is of course Kathryn Ann Fleming. She died tragically in 2006. You simply cannot beat her narrations. For me at least, a good narrator cannot turn an empty book into a good one. ...more
Before starting this book I didn't want to delve into the details but wanted to understand why some reviewers say this is fiction and others classifyBefore starting this book I didn't want to delve into the details but wanted to understand why some reviewers say this is fiction and others classify it as non-fiction. Wiki to the rescue! I am only copying the relevant information that answers this question:
"Some critics consider Capote's work the original non-fiction novel, although other writers had already explored the genre, such as Rodolfo Walsh in Operación Masacre (1957). The book examines the complex psychological relationship between two parolees who together commit a mass murder. Capote's book also explores the lives of the victims and the effect of the crime on the community in which they lived. In Cold Blood is regarded by critics as a pioneering work of the true crime genre, though Capote was disappointed that the book failed to win the Pulitzer Prize.
Parts of the book, including important details, differ from the real events."
That last sentence explains it all. Now, to the book! And then, on completion, check out Wiki.
Crime books are generally not my cup of tea, but I am very glad I read this book. There is no general rule that cannot be broken. Even the court proceedings were clear, and such usually confuse/bore me. This book is interesting because it thoroughly studies the psychological underpinnings of the criminals, the people in the community where the crime took place and the victims. How all of these people felt and thought and interacted is the central theme of the book. This is what fascinated me.
The book is interesting in its analysis of what is insanity. All aspects of insanity are looked at. How does it arise? What forms can it take? When does/should insanity absolve one a crime?
Finally the book looks at capital punishment by describing particular crimes. Here are examples, not theories.
I have read that Capote spend six years studying the case. All the details are here, but what is exceptional is the fluidity of Capote's writing. These details are woven into a prose that is exciting and easy to follow. Every detail is essential. The reader is just begging for more and more and more details, you keep turning the pages to u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d the emotions the feelings and the thoughts of all involved. And nevertheless I never felt empathy for either Dick or Perry. No, I didn't. I do think by the end I understood what had happened and why. The answers are not all delivered on a platter; you have to think and consider where you stand and what YOU think.
Mixed in with the horrid events are sentences of exceptional beauty; when that happened it hit me with a punch.
Scott Brick narrates the audiobook. It is good except that his voice for women is well awfully masculine. This is not worth deterring you from the audio format. There are many more male characters than women.
This true crime story is well composed, lucid, exciting and will keep your head whirring.
I cannot cope with short stories, even fabulous ones. Don't do as I did and read them all in a row.
The twelve stories that are said to be in this colI cannot cope with short stories, even fabulous ones. Don't do as I did and read them all in a row.
The twelve stories that are said to be in this collection are the following: 1. A Story Without a Title 2. Art 3. The Student 4. Ivan Matveyitch 5. The June Premier 6. A Slander 7. The Beggar 8. A Malefactor 9. Minds in Ferment 10. The Looking Glass 11. Old Age 12. On Trial
Please note the fifth story is NOT included!
William Coon narrates all of the twelve eleven stories. Each story is followed with a pause and a little music. This is very good since you need time to think about the story just completed and start afresh with the next one. STILL, do NOT read one after the other!
OK, I love how Chekhov writes. With just a few descriptive words he manages to draw distinct characters. You cannot mistake what makes each one tick. You are given their attire, how they move and how they think.... or don't think. Each story has a message. Many of the stories are filled with humor. Some with irony. Some of the stories I did not know what was being said; I hadn't a clue.
I am just going to tell you just about the first story, but only in general terms. It was my absolute favorite. I wish all had been this good, but they weren't. I loved it because it has humor. I mean it is really, really funny. (view spoiler)[A hunter comes to a monastery and exclaims that the monks are just sitting on their butts doing nothing about the problems in the cities around them. He tells them to get off their butts, to go out into the world and DO something about all the problems out there! (hide spoiler)] I loved it because it allows each reader to interpret the facts as they wish. I believe a religious person, which I am not, can equally well draw completely different conclusions than those I have drawn...and yet we can both love it. It has irony. And at the end you can sit and talk about how one can interpret the "loose" ending. This is why people of different beliefs can all love it!
One more thing - Chekhov draw a picture of the Russian people, the common people, that will stick with you forever. ["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>...more
So this was a Tolstoy...... Hmph, the story doesn't say much except to reiterate how difficult and painful death can be, both physically and emotionalSo this was a Tolstoy...... Hmph, the story doesn't say much except to reiterate how difficult and painful death can be, both physically and emotionally. The story is way too short to establish empathy for Ivan Ilyich! He was a judge. A game of bridge was his favorite amusement. All his life he conformed to proper decorum, becoming with age aloof and irascible. What was the point of life - both he and the readers may ask?! Talk about a depressing book!!!!
The narration by Walter Zimmerman was certainly not bad, but it didn't add anything....more
Usually when I review a book I try to allot the stars not by the audiobook's narration but by the author's words and content. With this book I am awarUsually when I review a book I try to allot the stars not by the audiobook's narration but by the author's words and content. With this book I am awarding four stars but it is partially due to Kate Winslet's fantastic narration. She is as you must know a famous actress. I strongly believe I would never have been able to imagine the words with the terror and emotion evoked through her reading. She does a fantastic job. In addition, I would have been furious if at every mention of Camille's name it had been improperly pronounced. All the French streets and terms are spot-on; this is an important part of drawing the downtrodden life in the poorer, less affluent areas of Paris where the story unfolds in the latter 1800s.
You are told in the book description that Laurent and Thérèse kill Camille, Thérèse's husband and cousin. It is what happens afterwards that constitutes the true story. This is a psychological drama, not a murder mystery. It is suspenseful, creepy and horrifying. Are you listening? It is horrifying!! At least when it is read by Kate Winslet. She notches up the suspense, the creepiness and the horror until you are sitting on the very edge of your seat. I haven't read a horror book in years; this has given me a good dose, enough to last for at least the next ten years.
In the book description we are also told that Zola "... dispassionately dissects the motivations of his characters - mere 'human beasts', who kill in order to satisfy their lust..." I disagree; there is nothing dispassionate about this book. It is all about emotions and passions, and please note the end of that sentence I quoted. It speaks of humans behaving as beasts, filled with lust. Now that gives the proper feeling of the book.
So read this book if you want a moving study of human emotions, of fear and guilt and what propels some of to behave feverishly and crazily. Being a horror story, I at the same time find it a bit exaggerated. Not everybody behaves like this, but you get so pulled into the tension that you feel the agony of their guilt. And what about punishment? That is another question delved into. What is the worst punishment - that we allot ourselves or that forced upon us by others? Violence and abuse, which is harsher, the physical or the psychological?
I have read this is also a study of people with different temperaments. This didn't work for me. Thérèse’s aunt, Camille’s mother, is drawn as a sweet loving mother, but I see her as calculating! Laurent's temperament is clear. He is, at first at least, careful and prudent. He is calculating and egotistical, avaricious, just plain wicked. Thérèse, she is drawn as a passionate figure, and yet at the same time devious and secretive. Putting together those two characteristics does not work for me. Usually emotional, passionate people simply cannot hide what they are thinking or feeling. Perhaps under the stress of her evil deed she searches everywhere for absolution and escape. You have to read the story to see where it ends.
I do recommend it, but listen to the audiobook version narrated by Kate Winslet. ...more
I liked this book for one reason. Dostoyevsky understands people. This understanding is revealed in the book's lines, not in the plot. Neither can I sI liked this book for one reason. Dostoyevsky understands people. This understanding is revealed in the book's lines, not in the plot. Neither can I say I appreciated how he tied together the different elements of the story. The central character is an unnamed anti-hero. The book starts with chapters expressing the anti-hero's thoughts. They are ugly but true expressions of how people behave and what motivates us. The next part details the events that led up to why he now is where he is and why he has these sentiments. The thoughts are all negative. The anti-hero is psychologically unbalanced. He has an extreme inferiority complex. For me it is a weakness that these truthful observations are spoken by a person who is so very unbalanced. By presenting these thought in this manner the truths proclaimed are weakened. In addition, they are exaggerated. People are not just stupid, vengeful, dishonest creatures seeking aggrandizement. We are this way sometimes, but not always, as the story so portrays us.
But there are such wise statements made in the book's lines, about all sorts of human behavior and emotions. All readers will recognize their own ridiculous behavior in the irrational behavior of the anti-hero. Should I give just one example of a silly behavior I recognize in myself, an episode that plays out exactly as what I myself have done? There is an episode where the anti-hero decides he will NOT move out of the way of another man. He will NOT do it. Well, I once acted similarly. I was sick and tired of always getting out of the way of teenagers who totally occupied the sidewalk when they left or started school. Their number gave them strength. They never said excuse me or diverted their path in the slightest. They hogged the whole sidewalk. I walked there every day at that time. The pattern repeated itself every day. I determined I would not change my direction. I would stand there immovable; they could move out of my way for once! This is exactly what the anti-hero does. I recognized in his silly behavior my own ridiculousness.
Simon Vance does an excellent narration of the audiobook. He speaks quickly, and yet as he spoke every word melted into my head and I comprehended it.
Read this book for the lines therein. Dostoyevsky so well understands people.
I listened to this as an audiobook published by Jimcin Recording with narrator Jim Killavey. I do not recommend this recording. The volume fluctuates.I listened to this as an audiobook published by Jimcin Recording with narrator Jim Killavey. I do not recommend this recording. The volume fluctuates. The narration is choppy. It is at times hard to hear who is saying what. I do not know who the translator is but I felt the lines did not flow as they should. Expressions and dialogs are bizarre; you listen to the words and have to rethink what is being expressed. If you want to listen to this, choose another audiobook.
Now to the book, but let me stress that my rating as usual only reflects how I feel about the story, about the author's lines. What is Dostoyevsky message? You are delivered a psychological portrait of two men and their relationship. One is the lover (Alexei Ivanovich Velchaninov) of the other’s (Pavel Pavlovitch Trusotsky’s) deceased wife (Natalya Vassilyevna). To be clear - Natalya was Pavel's wife but also Alexei's lover. And there is a child (Liza). Whose?
It is tragic and it is sad and it is funny. Funny only in that you have to laugh at the characters. People don't change. One laughs at our own inability to change. ...more
Just to clear things up: this book is the same as Dostoyevsky's Demons and The Devils!
No, I am not finishing this book. I have listened to 1/3. My reaJust to clear things up: this book is the same as Dostoyevsky's Demons and The Devils!
No, I am not finishing this book. I have listened to 1/3. My reason is very simple: the discussion/theorizing about nihilism and God, with a spicy murder or two, suicides, and the “who-dunnit” question thrown in, are elements common to all four of the four books I have read by Dostoyevsky:
I have had enough, particularly since I have already read Dostoyevsky's last novel, Brothers Karamazov, which clearly summarizes his beliefs. This was the last one he wrote before his death. A fellow GR reader (Dely) described the four as rising to a crescendo, and she is absolutely right. If you wish to read all four read them in the above order.
Being who I am, it would have been better if I had not continued beyond Crime and Punishment and The Idiot, both of which I loved. They are more ambiguous, less preachy, less didactic. They let the readers decide for themselves what they want to think. On the other hand if you are out after Dostoyevsky's views you need only read Brothers Karamazov. I personally don't want to be told what to think.
In addition the narration by Constance Garnett was not good. You cannot tell who is speaking. The French is really off. No, find some other narrator if you want to listen to this book. This audiobook also lacks the chapter called either "By Tichon" or "Confessions of Stavrogin", which has important information for a better understanding of the events. Wiki does provide information about the content of the chapter though. The chapter was censored in the first publications of the book. I have not finished the audiobook, so there remains the possibility that it is added at the end as an appendix. ...more
It feels ridiculous to voice an opinion about this book. Who am I to say anything about the great Dostoyevsky? Nevertheless, here follow my thoughts oIt feels ridiculous to voice an opinion about this book. Who am I to say anything about the great Dostoyevsky? Nevertheless, here follow my thoughts on completing this book:
It shows that this is Dostoyevsky's last novel, his grand opus, and that he had important things to say to his readers. The book was to be the first of a series, but he died the year following its publication in 1880 at the age of 60. His writing is of course a reflection of his own life experiences. This shows very clearly in the multitude of themes tackled: fatherhood, the existence of God, sibling rivalry, jealousy, passion and the struggle between evil and goodness. His son had died two years earlier. In 1849 he was sentenced to death and thought he would be killed. At the very execution field he was pardoned. He writes of epilepsy, which he too had. He spent four years in Siberia. No, I have no intention of summarizing his life, but all these events are covered in this novel. He knows what he is writing about, and it shows. He is an elderly man and he wanted to say clearly what his own life had taught him. This book sometimes reads as a religious tract. There are long sections where one idea is espoused... to the point where it feels didactic. I never felt that in his other books. Can one not forgive a wise elderly man for speaking his mind?
So even if at times I thought I couldn't take the lecturing any more, I did continue. The book concludes with the trial. You must know that The Brothers Karamazov is about a father killed by one of his sons. Which one is the question. One is passionate, one is intellectual and the third is spiritual. There is an illegitimate son too. The book basically concludes with the trial. (This being a work of Dostoyevsky there are other side plots too, of course!) The trial is riveting. I listened to the prosecutor. I listened to the defense attorney's arguments. BOTH are amazingly convincing. You hang on to your seat; you have to know how it will end. The arguments are both philosophical and tied to the facts. I cannot possibly give this book less than three stars after this exposition. It is clear and logical and emotionally riveting. And the relationships are messy, as with all of his books.
Constantine Gregory's narration of the audiobook was good, although I wasn't thrilled with his women voices. The father, who is murdered, is a buffoon. With Gregory's intonation he certainly sounded annoying, but that was who he was, so I really cannot complain.
Dostoyevsky can write and became so very wise, but at 60 his religious beliefs were much stronger than mine. I think like this: these Russians needed to believe in God; otherwise they just could not go on. Is that so wrong? Take the time to read some Dostoyevsky quotes here: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...
Depressing. I thought I would love everything by D…… I have yet to give up. Could it turn around? I am trying to like this, but I feel so destroyed b/c an author I loved has fallen. Sigh. There is no way I ever thought D could write like this!
In a nutshell, D is forcing his religious beliefs down my throat and his characters represent "types" of people.
There are love entanglements. I know there will be a murder, and I bet I know who did it. Let's see if I am right. (view spoiler)[ Will it be Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov, the illegitimate son? That is my guess. Of course he is jealous of his brothers and would hate this father who made him a servant of the house! Pretty easy to guess. (hide spoiler)]["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>["br"]>...more