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

Fantastic review, Violet! I do like your profiles of Nabokov and Dostoevsky. I've read The Brothers Karamazov twice and can recognise some of my own reactions in what you say about the book. My memory also plays up regarding the plot, yet for many years I thought of this as my favourite Dostoevsky book. I'll have to re-read it, quite possibly I'm not going to like Alyosha as much as I did...

Vicky wrote: "Fantastic review, Violet! I do like your profiles of Nabokov and Dostoevsky. I've read The Brothers Karamazov twice and can recognise some of my own reactions in what you say about the book. My mem..."

I loved Alyosha, Vicky. Your comment inspired me to add a section of my review I initially cut out.

"Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky" -this one is strange. I thought Dostoevsky himself was clearly on Alyosha's side. And I thought from all the characters he was the main one....

What a brilliant, and inspired, connection, Violet -- marrying (in a manner of speaking) Emily Bronte with Dostoyevsky! I think you're absolutely right -- and now you've got me scrambling back to the brothers K, and Heathcliff.

Like Emily, he knows only a thin layer of cerebral paint shields us all from violence and horror.

I wanted to pull quotes out of WH, but then realized I'd be highlighting more than half the novel.

Nicely done!

nastyako wrote: ""Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky" -this one is strange. I thought Dostoevsky himself was clearly on Alyosha's side. And I thought from all the characters he was the main one...."

I know. The guy who wrote it used the review to advertise his own book.

Julie wrote: "What a brilliant, and inspired, connection, Violet -- marrying (in a manner of speaking) Emily Bronte with Dostoyevsky! I think you're absolutely right -- and now you've got me scrambling back to t..."

Thanks Julie.

Violet wrote: "I know. The guy who wrote it used the review to advertise his own book.."

ha. did he even read this book? great review btw.

Violet wrote: "I loved Alyosha, Vicky. Your comment inspired me to add a section of my review I initially cut out. "

Didn't interest Dostoevsky??!? Utter baloney... For me, the book is Alyosha! And maybe The Idiot is Alyosha, too, I hadn't thought of that!

What a enjoyable review, Violet. I always admire your effortless wit. Here, as well axis an Nabokov-D-Bronte is compelling. I am surprised that someone could say that Alesha is not important for D. I thought all that novel was written for alesha, zosima and the sick boy. But I personally liked Alesha the least of the bunch. You are right to compare him with Myshkin. But Myshkin is so much more interesting and less preachy. Alesha seems never to make mistakes. Or maybe that is how I remember it. And the women - I think his women are the most expressive. I would put him above Tolstoy (maybe with the exception of Anna though). I do not know any woman character Nabokov depicted so well. (Well, not sure where Lolita fits:)

Katia wrote: "What a enjoyable review, Violet. I always admire your effortless wit. Here, as well axis an Nabokov-D-Bronte is compelling. I am surprised that someone could say that Alesha is not important for D...."

Alyosha was definitely the least interesting character in this novel. But D just disliked Ivan, who was the most interesting to me. Dima is just a plot device. And I kinda liked Grushenka :)

Katia wrote: "What a enjoyable review, Violet. I always admire your effortless wit. Here, as well axis an Nabokov-D-Bronte is compelling. I am surprised that someone could say that Alesha is not important for D...."

Thanks Katia. Yep, it's not so much that Alyosha is likable or compelling as that his storylines provide an essential balance to the book and greatly enrich the breadth of its humanity as a novel. Without him it would it would lose an entire dimension.

nastyako wrote: "Katia wrote: "What a enjoyable review, Violet. I always admire your effortless wit. Here, as well axis an Nabokov-D-Bronte is compelling. I am surprised that someone could say that Alesha is not im..."

I'm not sure I found any of the men interesting per se. The women were all more attractive.

"Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky". I think that this sentence it is more a provocation than e real thought because Dostoesvskij itself begins the novel saying than the hero of the novel is him even if this maight not come at the reader, he felt neccessary to point out this thing. It is undeniable that the others characters are very important too, but Aliosja remains their core.

Stunning review: I like the comparative work, which I think makes reading especially rewarding when someone reminds us of somebody else, whether obvious or surprising. Perhaps also there is a line of thought worth developing apropos Emily Bronte, about the 'one novel author' - Salinger, Margaret Mitchell, Harper Lee until recently, and Di Lampedusa. I'm sure there are others. Great reviews often have a new perspective. Bravo!

Molly Bloom wrote: ""Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky". I think that this sentence it is more a provocation than e real thought because Dostoesvskij itself begins the novel saying than the hero of the novel is him e..."

Aloysha is the glue of the novel. He holds it all together. I suspect some people read this novel with only their intellect and Aloysha isn't very interesting intellectually. He's all about emotion. But this is to underrate Dostoevsky as a novelist because he wasn't just a man of ideas. There's a lot of enchantment which bypasses the intellect in this novel too.

Ian wrote: "Stunning review: I like the comparative work, which I think makes reading especially rewarding when someone reminds us of somebody else, whether obvious or surprising. Perhaps also there is a line ..."

Thanks Ian. Yep, the one book authors are fascinating. It's possible Emily said everything she had to say in Wuthering Heights and her next novel might have been no more special than one of Charlotte's lesser novels. De Lampedusa is another enigma. It's virtually impossible to imagine him topping The Leopard. Most novelists begin repeating themselves at some point in their career and there are probably only a handful who have written three or more great books.

I am agree with you, Violet! Naturally that Aloysha is less interesting but at the same time he change the other characters in a good way. Even Aloysha is changed by his brothers too, he became more mature and self conscius. He remembers me Myskin. In the end of the book, Aloysha brings hope and light.

Molly Bloom wrote: "I am agree with you, Violet! Naturally that Aloysha is less interesting but at the same time he change the other characters in a good way. Even Aloysha is changed by his brothers too, he became mor..."

Yep. For all his darkness D believed in the light of kindness and Aloysha is his disciple.

Excellent review of one of the greatest books ever written, and astute analysis of Dostoyevsky, and though Emily Bronte unfortunately never lived to write another book, her sisters contributed handsomely to some of the greatest literature ever written.

Well done "cerebral paint"

Very thought provoking comments.I always felt that Dostoyevsky’s vision of Aloysha was influenced by the trauma of Dostoyevsky’s prison experiences. Alyosha clearly is central to the core of the novel but I am not certain that Dostoyevsky fully executed his vision of this character.

Joseph wrote: "Excellent review of one of the greatest books ever written, and astute analysis of Dostoyevsky, and though Emily Bronte unfortunately never lived to write another book, her sisters contributed hand..."

Thanks Joseph.

Jim wrote: "Well done "cerebral paint""

Thanks Jim.

Daniel wrote: "Very thought provoking comments.I always felt that Dostoyevsky’s vision of Aloysha was influenced by the trauma of Dostoyevsky’s prison experiences. Alyosha clearly is central to the core of the no..."

Thanks Daniel. I think he'd already comprehensively examined pure goodness as a force in The Idiot so it's not surprising he was reluctant to repeat himself with Aloysha which is maybe why he's not richer as a character. Yep, his prison experience clearly provided the pivot of his vision of the world.

Beautiful Review Violet! of A beautiful book.

You’re right. The innocence of children is a theme of true divinity which he embodied with Alyosha and (even more so) Myshkin in the Idiot. His solutions can be difficult, ineffective or even rejectable to some readers, but to D it was of utmost importance in his ideal of true Christianity.

Praveen wrote: "Beautiful Review Violet! of A beautiful book."

Thanks Praveen.

Mimi wrote: "You’re right. The innocence of children is a theme of true divinity which he embodied with Alyosha and (even more so) Myshkin in the Idiot. His solutions can be difficult, ineffective or even rejec..."

Thanks Mimi.

Violet wrote: "Like Emily, he dramatizes in the outer world the illicit promptings of the shadow self. Like Emily, he knows only a thin layer of cerebral paint shields us all from violence and horror. Like Emily, he's not the least interested in life's civilised arrangements, the house and garden existence. And they both mirror Shakespeare in this regard. Characters nakedly put the entirety of their being into every dramatic moment..."

Nabokov, for all his elegant phrasing, might have had difficulty matching that passage, Violet!
I'm very grateful that reviews of this quality drop into my feed for free!

Fionnuala wrote: "Violet wrote: "Like Emily, he dramatizes in the outer world the illicit promptings of the shadow self. Like Emily, he knows only a thin layer of cerebral paint shields us all from violence and horr..."

Thanks Fi. What a terrifying prospect though - to be read by Nabokov! I'm pretty sure he'd be much less kind than you!

Such a delight to read your fabulous, astute write-up, Violet. Oddly timely, too, because having just watched a biopic on that other Emily, who much admired her namesake, EB’s poems have been on my mind to re-read. Nabokov’s strong opinions on other writers mostly make me laugh, I find it hard to take them seriously. Fortunately nobody can keep us from enjoying both N & D, even not N himself : )

Ilse wrote: "Such a delight to read your fabulous, astute write-up, Violet. Oddly timely, too, because having just watched a biopic on that other Emily, who much admired her namesake, EB’s poems have been on my..."

Just read your excellent Turgenev review. I didn't know Nabokov had spat at him too, though it's inevitable. Essentially, he was just making a case for himself as one of the best three Russian writers in history.

Ilse wrote: "Such a delight to read your fabulous, astute write-up, Violet. Oddly timely, too, because having just watched a biopic on that other Emily, who much admired her namesake, EB’s poems have been on my..."

You can not be agree with the opinions of Nabokov but we must remember that he wasn't "nobody"... I adore Dostoevskij and I re-read him, but I am agree with Nabokov that D. has some negative points, like the atmosfere or the descriptions of the nature or of the places, the details are important also and Dostoevskij is a bit poor in this. More he goes deep into the human nature and less into the external one, which is important too, for a masterpiece.

Also, readind Nabokov's books, I understand his points of view: the style of Nabokov marries in a perfect way the contents, and he is a damned illusionist. I never read another author that plays so much with his reader.

Molly Bloom wrote: "Also, readind Nabokov's books, I understand his points of view: the style of Nabokov marries in a perfect way the contents, and he is a damned illusionist. I never read another author that plays so..."

I couldn't agree more, Molly. I love Nabokov. If I had to take only the books of one of them to a desert island I'd probably take Vladimir's largely because of his magician's qualities and the beauty of his prose.

Fine review. I take my hat off to anyone who can read this twice. Tried and failed on a few occations.
If cast away with one novel only, then I'd take Pale Fire over pretty much everything else!

Steven wrote: "Fine review. I take my hat off to anyone who can read this twice. Tried and failed on a few occations.
If cast away with one novel only, then I'd take Pale Fire over pretty much everything else!"

Thanks Steven. Yep, Pale Fire's up there though, if the choice were any novel, I'd probably take The Waves.

Nabokov is not above being obtuse at times. Apparently also the critic who thought D had no interest in Alyosha.

Brothers K is a polyphonic novel and three of those voices are the brothers. They represent aspects of D arguing with himself: pietism with skepticism, self control with self-indulgence and so on.

Michael wrote: "Nabokov is not above being obtuse at times. Apparently also the critic who thought D had no interest in Alyosha.

Brothers K is a polyphonic novel and three of those voices are the brothers. They ..."

Yep. I enjoyed the argument because it was never slanted one way or another - a tension was thus sustained throughout.

Much better than the later Tolstoy, who was so fanatically doctrinaire.

I'm reading this fat book below now and it discusses how the budding revolutionaries were heavily influenced by Tolstoy, including wearing "Tolstoy shirts" under their jackets.

The book also quotes the writing of many of these activists and boy, can they all write, poetic prose. I admire that so much about Russian culture.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

Terrific review of a D! classic. Enjoyed your thoughts V!

you have inspired me to try the brothers again, violet. thanks for review...

Fine review of a great book, a favorite of mine. Well done.

Jaidee wrote: "Terrific review of a D! classic. Enjoyed your thoughts V!"

Thanks Jaidee.

Michael wrote: "Much better than the later Tolstoy, who was so fanatically doctrinaire.

I'm reading this fat book below now and it discusses how the budding revolutionaries were heavily influenced by Tolstoy, in..."

Thanks for the link, Michael.

Michael wrote: "you have inspired me to try the brothers again, violet. thanks for review..."

Thanks Michael.

Hans wrote: "Fine review of a great book, a favorite of mine. Well done."

Thanks Hans.

What a fantastic review, Violet! I think I prefer Nabokov and Bronte, but it depends on which novels I’m comparing. I love your insights.

Jennifer wrote: "What a fantastic review, Violet! I think I prefer Nabokov and Bronte, but it depends on which novels I’m comparing. I love your insights."

Thanks Jennifer.