Riku’s review of The Brothers Karamazov > Likes and Comments

145 likes · 
Comments (showing 1-30 of 30) (30 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Tanuj (new)

Tanuj Solanki Guys, really, I've this feeling of getting left out. What's happening, is it as good as they say!?


message 2: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Tanuj wrote: "Guys, really, I've this feeling of getting left out. What's happening, is it as good as they say!?"

You bet it is :)


message 3: by Riku (last edited Jul 24, 2012 11:04PM) (new)

Riku Sayuj Moonbutterfly wrote: "LOL. I know right. I think I'm around the same section as you.

I'm not receiving your status updates either."


I was too hasty... turns out the section was vital...


message 4: by Stephen M (new)

Stephen M Epic review man. You really blew through this one.

Of course my penky panic rises as I know I have to get around to this one. A quick look across friend's review has an almost unanimous 5 star approval. I'll just make up a story about why I can't read this right away ;)


message 5: by Jeffrey (new)

Jeffrey Keeten Wow! Great review Riku! Welcome to the five star BK club. I'm so glad you liked this book.


message 6: by Riku (last edited Jul 28, 2012 12:30PM) (new)

Riku Sayuj Stephen M wrote: "Epic review man. You really blew through this one.

Of course my penky panic rises as I know I have to get around to this one. A quick look across friend's review has an almost unanimous 5 star ap..."


But why? Dostoevsky tries his best to make it easy for you. Or maybe that is only in the first reading. Maybe the sly devil has hidden things that I didn't even think to look for. Maybe? Ha, that was a joke. On me.


message 7: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Jeffrey wrote: "Wow! Great review Riku! Welcome to the five star BK club. I'm so glad you liked this book."

Yay. There is a club? Where do we hang out?


message 8: by Stephen M (new)

Stephen M Only because so much else is on deck right now. But I want to get around to this one soon. It sounds fairly readable from your one week takedown and other's comments.


message 9: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Stephen M wrote: "Only because so much else is on deck right now. But I want to get around to this one soon. It sounds fairly readable from your one week takedown and other's comments."

Oh yes, it is. The trick is probably figuring out where to take a step back and reflect.


message 10: by ·Karen· (new)

·Karen· Magnificent review, Riku. You almost make me want to go back again. Almost.


message 11: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Karen wrote: "Magnificent review, Riku. You almost make me want to go back again. Almost."

Thanks Karen. I plan to read this again in december. Will invite you then :)


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian "Marvin" Grayejoy The role of the jury is also relevant to the mechanism at the heart of "Lolita".


message 13: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Ian wrote: "The role of the jury is also relevant to the mechanism at the heart of "Lolita"."

Reji wrote: "Masterful review!"

I missed this comment somehow... Indeed it might be, now that I come to think of it! Let me chew on that.

Thanks Reji!


message 14: by Stephen M (new)

Stephen M Hello friend. You write beautiful reviews that I absolutely love reading. I bet hearing them would make them even more amazing.

Come join us: http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/2...

We would all delight from hearing you read.


message 15: by Jason (new)

Jason Stephen M wrote: "Hello friend. You write beautiful reviews that I absolutely love reading. I bet hearing them would make them even more amazing..."

You pushed weed on kids in high school, didn't you Stephen?


message 16: by Stephen M (new)

Stephen M All the time. You can't smoke weed by yourself, then you'd be like a pothead or something....


message 17: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj You asked too nicely. Now I will torture you. Maybe.


message 18: by Stephen M (new)

Stephen M Do it!


message 19: by Marnie (new)

Marnie Sandiego this is such a complex masterpiece. great review!


message 20: by Aubrey (new)

Aubrey Fantastic review. I really do need to reread this.


message 21: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Marnie wrote: "this is such a complex masterpiece. great review!"

Aubrey wrote: "Fantastic review. I really do need to reread this."

Thanks!


message 22: by Riku (last edited Jan 25, 2014 10:08PM) (new)

Riku Sayuj Aubrey wrote: "Fantastic review. I really do need to reread this."

Aubrey, TWO STARS? Goodness! What happened there?


message 23: by Amrit (new)

Amrit Chima Such a complete and sweeping analysis!


message 24: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Amrit wrote: "Such a complete and sweeping analysis!"

Thank you so much, Amrit!


message 25: by Dolors (new)

Dolors What a well crafted review, magnificent for reference, I am bookmarking it.
Loved that postscript btw. I see you are in Ivan's team. That's good, we need to aim for the Aristotle's golden mean! :)
Fantastic job, Riku.


message 26: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Dolors wrote: "What a well crafted review, magnificent for reference, I am bookmarking it.
Loved that postscript btw. I see you are in Ivan's team. That's good, we need to aim for the Aristotle's golden mean! :)
..."


Thank you so much, Dolors! I really am not in Ivan's team at all - in my reading there are no teams. Let me quote from my review (the main review, not the themes set forth later) to illustrate:

Many theories abound about how the Karamazov family represents Russia/humanity/all characters but the reality is that they represent individualities; while it is that terrible faceless jury, always addressed to and never addressed by, that represents humanity. The job of the country, the society, of the whole human race is to judge, to determine the fate of individuals based on the stories that they construct, literally out of thin air, out of the small pieces of a life that they can only ever observe.

I know this runs a bit counter to your views of assigning roles to the characters on trial, but hey, Aristotle! :)


message 27: by Himanshu (new)

Himanshu What a thought provoking review, Riku. Specially the part where the difference between reality and fiction is lost in the stories that we make in our heads. Brilliant!


message 28: by Garima (new)

Garima Now that I have finally read the book, I'm going through all the reviews by my friends and seriously! yours is one of favorites. The story is about the reaction - it was all about the jury. Bingo! Thanks for this excellent review.


message 29: by Riku (new)

Riku Sayuj Garima wrote: "Now that I have finally read the book, I'm going through all the reviews by my friends and seriously! yours is one of favorites. The story is about the reaction - it was all about the jury. Bingo! ..."

Himanshu wrote: "What a thought provoking review, Riku. Specially the part where the difference between reality and fiction is lost in the stories that we make in our heads. Brilliant!"

Thanks guys! It is a pleasure when someone digs up a review and enjoys it!


message 30: by Elena (new)

Elena Undoubtedly the best review on here of this great work.

I am still not sure, though, if such a quasi-postmodern, deconstructive reading is not anachronistic when applied to Dostoyevsky, though I can heartily agree with you that one can see the seeds planted here for that meta-critique of our acts of storying whereby we construct ourselves, our worlds. Indeed, they were planted long before, in Notes From Underground. Dostoyevsky always was keen to deconstruct the semi-mythical tenets (the laws of nature, the implicit but covert providentialism without which none of it gels, etc), that buttress the faith in reason a la Enlightenment rationalism. This is his final masterpiece of demolition. So yes, it is a trial of reason, of the whole system of supportive fictive-mythic shams that is symbolized by the Crystal Palace of Notes from Underground.

But I think the positive element motivating his demolition act isn't sufficiently touched on in your review. He was not so postmodern as to demolish for the sake of demolition, and to see lucidity in such demolition itself. Rather, I think he would've scoffed much at how self-indulgent such “meta” demolition-for-its-own-sake as we inordinately value today can be.

I rather read his entire oeuvre as an effort to clear the ground of the dross of anthropomorphic, self-serving illusions, to reveal us to ourselves stripped of those comforting, distortive, self-inflating constructs – the Crystal Palace of a Rational World Order (his favourite fiction, precisely because it pretends not to be a fiction). He'll reveal us to ourselves in our true, exposed, vulnerability and helplessness. He anticipates Ernst Becker here. Homo Sapiens just can't live outside his bubble of meaning.. but it might just understand something about itself if it were to venture out, at least for a little while.

Only this exposure can leave us free to any genuine affirmation of life, one that can sustain us through the most arid suffering and loneliness. All else to him was a shimmering mirage that will inebriate and beguile our boredom but leave us dashed on the rocks.


back to top