From the Bookshelf of Easley Library Bookworms…

The Brothers Karamazov

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Jan 24, 2025 Werner rated it it was amazing

Shelves: classics, general-fiction

So far, my relatively scanty reading (I'm trying to increase it!) of foreign-language authors has included only three Russian novels, all of which I liked though until now I haven't reviewed any of them. This one, of course, is an enduring world-class masterwork by an author recognized as a giant not only of Russian, but of world literature. I read it back around 1971, at a time in my life when I was consciously trying to become “educated” by reading classics, and it made a strong impression on So far, my relatively scanty reading (I'm trying to increase it!) of foreign-language authors has included only three Russian novels, all of which I liked though until now I haven't reviewed any of them. This one, of course, is an enduring world-class masterwork by an author recognized as a giant not only of Russian, but of world literature. I read it back around 1971, at a time in my life when I was consciously trying to become “educated” by reading classics, and it made a strong impression on me.

Written near the end of the author's life (but with a main plot set around 1867), this is a powerful summation expression of themes which had been central to his writing all through his career, and which are rooted in his faith as a committed Russian Orthodox Christian. These include the recognition of God as the central reality of life, the implications of faith or disbelief in God for individual and social morality, the difference between Christ's example of loving and sacrificial service to the people of the fallen world vs. efforts to use coercive power to dominate the world for “good” purposes, the issue of free will and moral responsibility vs. determinism, and more. Dostoevsky develops these messages partly through a lot of dialogues consisting of serious philosophical debates, but also through the events of a complex plot centering around the title characters, sons of wealthy provincial landowner Fyodor Karamazov: army officer Dmitri (Mitya), a hedonist and libertine like his father, intellectual Ivan (Vanya) who claims to be an atheist, and monastic novice and devout Christian Alexey (Alyosha) –and we might throw in Fyodor's epileptic house servant and probably unacknowledged out-of-wedlock son Pavel (Smerdyakov). Plot elements will include romantic triangles, industrial-strength family dysfunction, natural deaths, and murder and a murder trial. (On the strength of the latter, some would classify the book as mystery or crime fiction. I see their point; but I've personally classified it as general fiction. It doesn't adhere to the conventions of the modern “mystery genre,” and while the murder and ensuing trial are important, they happen well into the book and aren't its main theme.)

At over 820 pages, this is a behemoth of a novel, philosophically deep (and involving more serious discussion in this area than many readers will like) and characterized by very layered, complex and nuanced characterizations. At least one critic has described it as “psychological realism;” but it also makes a strong appeal to the emotions. (The usual Romantic vs. Realist dichotomy that characterizes much of 19th-century and subsequent Western literature may not be as applicable to Russian fiction, which was fertilized by European influences but sprang from its own soil, though I haven't read enough of it to say for certain.) Besides the daunting length and density, it can be initially challenging to deal with the many characters with Russian names, and the way those are used. (All Russians have a first and middle name, the latter of which is a patronymic, and the polite or formal address is both of these together. They also generally have a nickname, which is often an affectionate form of the first name, and these are not necessarily obvious to English-speaking readers. Although I figured this out eventually, it took a while.) Readers should also be warned that one passage, in the midst of a philosophical discussion, is definitely not for the squeamish, and will leave you with a grisly image branded on your brain (it's stayed with me for nearly 55 years!). A lot of modern readers will regard many of these features as defects, and this is reflected in a number of the negative reviews here on Goodreads. Though it's not “literary fiction” in the modern sense of written exclusively for a snob clerisy and deliberately intended to alienate ordinary readers (it was originally serialized in a general-circulation periodical), it does demand a commitment of time, serious and attentive reading, and some patience with discussion of ideas. It won't appeal to all readers. But I can honestly say that, for what it's worth, even as a pretty callow reader not long out of high school (I'd surely get more out of it now if I reread it!), it held my interest from beginning to end; and though not all books I rate at five stars earned them for their enjoyability, I ultimately truly did enjoy this one. (And I do want to read more of the author's work eventually, despite my overly long delay in doing so!)

Note 1: I read this in the Modern Library edition by Random House (which is also the one I have before me now), which uses the first major English translation, completed in 1912 by Constance Garnett, the premier Russian-language translator of her day, and which includes both an anonymous one-page biographical note on the author and a two-page Translator's Preface, which also summarizes Dostoevsky's biography. For me, Garnett's translation was quite readable; her prose is serious-toned and dignified (British scholar Peter France, quoted on Wikipedia, calls it “decorous”). Being monolingual, I can't speak to how faithful it is to the original; but France states that, “...the basic meaning of the Russian text is accurately rendered on the whole. It is true, as critics such as Nikoliukin have demonstrated, that she shortens and simplifies, muting Dostoevsky's jarring contrasts, sacrificing his insistent rhythms and repetitions, toning down the Russian colouring, explaining and normalizing in all kinds of ways...Garnett shortens some of Dostoevsky's idiosyncrasy in order to produce an acceptable English text, but her versions were in many cases pioneering versions ...they allowed this strange new voice to invade English literature and thus made it possible for later translators to go further in the search for more authentic voice.”

Note 2: There have been at least four English-language movie adaptations of this novel (one, a 1915 silent film,is now lost). The only one I've watched (after reading the book, but I don't recall the date) is the 1958 one starring Yul Brynner, Richard Basehart, and William Shatner. IMO, it was as well done an adaptation as this medium would allow, and I liked it and would recommend it; but it's not really possible for a movie to incorporate all, or even much, of the philosophical debates in the book. It would have been impossible to hold audience interest with that heavy a concentration of “talking heads,” so the filmmakers wisely didn't attempt it. ...more

41 likes · Like · see review

Jul 12, 2017 Lynne rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Apr 29, 2009 Crystal marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Shelves: fiction

Aug 23, 2016 Ben Swingle marked it as to-read

Group Home Bookshelf Discussions

Photos Videos

Send invite Members Polls