Indian Readers discussion
This topic is about
The Brothers Karamazov
Group Book Reads
>
The Brothers Karamazov - June'12 Group Read
Mod
am going to do the same with sea of poppies.
Already read but I will follow the discussion.@Smitha, you can't read daily only 30 pages of this book. Much better you have a free afternoon and read more chapters, for 2/3/4 hours without interruptions. You will not enjoy this book with only 30 pages at one time. Dostoyevsky is very prolix and in 30 pages you find only half a thought by him (and sometimes I had to re-read a whole chapter).
It is not at all dragging, it is really pleasant to read.
Mod
I am starting the book. Will keep your words in mind Dely.
AHHH, I'm scared, too much responsability for me now!
Anbu wrote: "When we announced the group read topics for the year, most of you predicted that we are going to read Dostoyevsky in June.. All you guys are correct.. We are going to read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Ka...""Dostoyevsky's Brothers" Karamazov..? :)
Anbu wrote: "When we announced the group read topics for the year, most of you predicted that we are going to read Dostoyevsky in June.. All you guys are correct.. We are going to read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Ka..."I guess we'll need more than a month for this.
Sherin wrote: "Anbu wrote: "When we announced the group read topics for the year, most of you predicted that we are going to read Dostoyevsky in June.. All you guys are correct.. We are going to read Dostoyevsky'..."Lol, just noticed when you pointed that out :D
I have bought a fishy version of the book, by an Indian Publisher (hardbound brown colour, some cheap publishing house). Hope the story would be same as original.
:) :)I own a copy,which was donated to me by a friend( @Aravind: Rindo) :)
I have downloaded the ebook and I have finished the first part, 'The History of a Family'. I observed a difference in writing style from 'Poor Folk' and 'The Gambler'.
Parikhit wrote: "I observed a difference in writing style from 'Poor Folk' and 'The Gambler'."The Brothers Karamazov is his last work, then he died, so we have here a more mature and perfect Dostoyevsky (though for me he is always perfect :)).
Poor Folk and The Gambler are among his first works and remember that The Gambler was written in a hurry because he needed money.
dely wrote: "Parikhit wrote: "I observed a difference in writing style from 'Poor Folk' and 'The Gambler'."The Brothers Karamazov is his last work, then he died, so we have here a more mature and perfect Dost..."
Exactly Dely. And in Gambler he was assisted in the writing. Poor Folk was the first.
Of the little that I have read he doesn't 'hurry' to describe his characters and gradually builds them. That's the best part.
Parikhit wrote: "Of the little that I have read he doesn't 'hurry' to describe his characters and gradually builds them. That's the best part. "Yes! And to talk about a character he begins sometimes from his grandparents :D
dely wrote: "Parikhit wrote: "Of the little that I have read he doesn't 'hurry' to describe his characters and gradually builds them. That's the best part. "Yes! And to talk about a character he begins someti..."
True :D That gives a deeper insight into the nature of a person. Upbringing and family influence does make a huge impact. Take for instance Dmitri. I do not blame him for his rebel nature; it was the negligence in his upbringing.
Couldn't help myself from posting these lines.“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass 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, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone.”
If I was not reading War and Peace I would have re-read The Brothers Karamazov.It is a Bible! You are only at the beginning, but when you will read the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" (and also the one just before) you may stay amazed, with an open mouth (is it also an English way to say?). It is wonderful, a masterpiece! I have read both the chapter twice.
I have finished part 2, 'An Unfortunate Gathering'.Fyodor Pavlovitch is indeed a buffoon! I feel for Alyosha, the youngest Karamazov. Could he be gullible? Ivan, I judge, has a something sinister about his ways. He may be highly educated but there is something unpleasant about him! Dmitri, the eldest, is truly reckless (his doings suggest so) but then could he be naive?
The debate on state versus church was astounding. The arguments put forth on church taking over the state or vice versa were so true and convincing that I find it hard to believe they were penned by the same person, Dostoyevsky. His philosophy is unparalled.
It's a bit late announcement, sorry for that.. :) As part of improving Group Reads ,we've decided to choose someone from the readers along with the person who nominated the book ,to lead the discussion. As per that, Parikhit will also be leading the discussions of "the Brothers Karamazov".
All the best Pari.. :)
Parikhit wrote: "I have finished part 2, 'An Unfortunate Gathering'.Fyodor Pavlovitch is indeed a buffoon! I feel for Alyosha, the youngest Karamazov. Could he be gullible? Ivan, I judge, has a something sinister..."
Fyodor Pavlovitch was too much of a buffoon,if you ask me.
I can't imagine anyone behaving that irritatingly in real life.
Parikhit wrote: "Couldn't help myself from posting these lines.“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so l..."
Superb lines - felt like he was talking of myself!
Pardon me for I am going to post any many quotes I can from this book. The one I encountered just now,"The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man. But a man always talks of his own ache."
I have been reading Part 3. Smerdyakov has caught my fancy. He shifts into a state of contemplation and not deep thoughts. Wow! I find myself doing that so often and yet I will never be able to phrase them as beautifully as"There is a remarkable picture by the painter Kramskoy, called "Contemplation." There is a forest in winter, and on a roadway through the forest, in absolute solitude, stands a peasant in a torn kaftan and bark shoes. He stands, as it were, lost in thought. Yet he is not thinking; he is "contemplating." If anyone touched him he would start and look at one as though awakening and bewildered. It's true he would come to himself immediately; but if he were asked what he had been thinking about, he would remember nothing."
Again, Smerdyakov views of faith were prudent and honest. I can't help marvel as I am reading further. Even the lesser significant characters have so much to offer.
Mod
“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or aro..."
Yes, this observation is spot on.
HiJust visited the larger library in the next town to me today after going to the cinema and they had a copy on the shelf so I'm hoping to start this very soon! :0)
I finished Part 3, The Sensualists.Katerina Ivanova and Grushenka were introduced. I do like Katerina so far but I am uncertain if she is trying to shield herself from the stigma of visiting Dmitri for the money she needed to save her family earlier or is she is so smitten by Dmitri that she wishes to serve him her entire life out of gratitude?
Fyodor only irritates me! Such an idiot he is and has absolutely no sense to even speak to his sons.
Furny wrote: "HiJust visited the larger library in the next town to me today after going to the cinema and they had a copy on the shelf so I'm hoping to start this very soon! :0)"
That's great Furny. Hope you join us soon in the discussions.
I just finished Part 4, Lacerations and I feel extremely disturbed!To understand Katerina is as elusive to me as touching a rainbow. What are her intensions? And Lise, Madam Hohlakov's daughter, does she really love Alyosha or is it tomfoolery or is she playing a cruel trick on him? And Alyosha, did he really intend what he replied to her? I am intrigued.
But the disturbing part came when Alyosha met the officer whom Dmitri disgraced. The poverty was one facet. But the circumstances was what left me in a state of delirium. The walks the officer mentions of with his son Ilusha jolted me. How does Dostoyevsky do that? How is it he makes each one of us that transparent?
Parikhit wrote: "How does Dostoyevsky do that? How is it he makes each one of us that transparent?"He is a genius. For me he is God!
I think it depends also from his epilepsy. He has suffered a lot and so perhaps he was more able to see in the human soul and understand people's behaviour; he is able to do a keen inner sight. But the amazing thing is that he is able to put in words everything; and so easy words! And though we perhaps feel the same emotions or have the same thoughts of one of his characters, we would be never able to talk about them in such an easy way as he does. The first time I read a book by Dostoyevsky I alwasy said: "me too felt in this way! why was I never able to find words to talk about my feelings or my inner diseases/discomforts?". He is able to put in words things that we, common people, hardly manage to think.
I am so sorry I can't add my opinions about the characters; I already know what will happen and so I prefer to don't say anything.
The only thing I can say is that the characters I have preferred were Ivan and also Alyosha and a little bit Dimitri and Grushenka. The characters I couldn't stand since the beginning were Smerdyakov and Katerina.
If it were possible, I would have quoted the whole book. Came across yet another beautiful paragraph."And secondly, the stupider one is, the closer one is to reality. The stupider one is, the clearer one is. Stupidity is brief and artless, while intelligence wriggles and hides itself. Intelligence is a knave, but stupidity is honest and straight forward. I've led the conversation to my despair, and the more stupidly I have presented it, the better for me."
@Dely, true. It is a Bible.
Mod
I finished Book 5. @Dely, you were right about "The Grand Inquisitor". Open-mouthed, truly! I reread it to understand.
Yet I feel there is something that I am missing. It has multiple facets. In fact the whole of Book 5 is superb. Tough people who haven't read the Bible may not get the catch. There are references.
Parikhit wrote: "I finished Book 5. @Dely, you were right about "The Grand Inquisitor". Open-mouthed, truly! I reread it to understand.
Yet I feel there is something that I am missing. It has multiple facets. In..."
Yes, a lot of references. But above all it talks about the Church, the priests and the roman catholics. If Jesus would come back on earth, we would kill him again because people believe more to the Church and to a priest rather than to the real Jesus. It is a critics of Dostoyevsky against the Roman Catholic Church. People are not ready (and perhaps they will never be) for a world of love and peace; they need to be slaves and the Inquisitor knows this. It is because of this that he asks Jesus why he came back, what he wants to do and whom he wants to save with his return. But, nevertheless, he believes in Jesus and saves him sending him away because he knows that it is impossible to change the people.
Unfortunately this is true because I see a lot of people that have never read the Bible or the Gospels but blindly believe in what priests say! And a lot of times they don't say the truth or distort the words of God in their favor. This since always but people still believe to priests; they are really mentally restricted. Like during the Inquisition: if a priest screamed "witch", people began to chase her without asking theirselves if she really was a witch or if witches could exist! They killed a lot of women though the Bible preaches to love our fellows. Some years ago somewhere in Italy a priest was accused of pedophilia. Well, his parishioners believed him when he said that this was the only way to exorcise the demon-possessed bodies of this children. The worst thing is that also some parents and relatives of the abused children believed him and they began to hit the journalists who where there!
But there would be a lot of examples!
Dostoyevsky is saying and accusing this: people will always believe more to a person rather than Jesus; they are happy only if they can live like slaves following a person and not the true teaching of God.
But I am sure that I missed a lot too because it is such a deep chapter, there are so many things to understand!
True Dely. It struck me so hard when the Inquisitor mentioned about Christ denying bread and choosing freedom over it. The Inquisitor is true about the millions of people as against the tens of thousands who would prefer bread over freedom. There is such a deep metaphor about the whole affair. It is because of this that he asks Jesus why he came back, what he wants to do and whom he wants to save with his return. But, nevertheless, he believes in Jesus and saves him sending him away because he knows that it is impossible to change the people.
Indeed true, Ivan mentions fifteen centuries have passed since Christ promised His second coming. Now it twenty centuries. If He were to return would we believe Him or would we hold on to our faith in the 'Inquisitor'?
Unfortunately this is true because I see a lot of people that have never read the Bible or the Gospels but blindly believe in what priests say!
I am reminded of the Crusades.
With every passing page my respect for Dostoyevsky increases. 'There are so many things to understand' really.
Parikhit wrote: "Indeed true, Ivan mentions fifteen centuries have passed since Christ promised His second coming. Now it twenty centuries. If He were to return would we believe Him or would we hold on to our faith in the 'Inquisitor'? "Did not remember this passage and didn't know there will come another Jesus; so I have googled this second coming of Jesus and it is written in the Book of Revelation. He will come back on a white horse and with a sword in the mouth (very similar to Kalki!).
There was written that the second Jesus will not come back to preach love but he will come back as a winner, a King; he will rule in a strict way and he will punish bad people and good people will rise with him in the glory. He will restore order on the earth and after his coming there will by again a period of love and truth (like the Satya-Yuga that will begin again after the Kali-Yuga!). If it will be in this way people mustn't choose if accept him or let him die because he will be invicible. Perhaps Dostoyevsky wanted only make an example for showing that people would kill him again but in the Book of Revelation His coming is different.
I am sure that if Jesus would return as a humble person like the first time, people would continue to follow the Inquistor. It roughly seems that the Inquisitor is behaving in this way with people because he knows that with too much freedom, people would be lost; the Inquisitor is behaving in this way for the people and not because he doesn't believe or doesn't love Jesus. He loves also people and behaves in this way for them because he knows it is better, it is what they want and what they need. If I don't remember wrong he says to Jesus: "you have combined a mess and then you are gone!". I had underlined a lot of sentences and as soon as I will have time I will give them again a look.
Yes, also the Crusades! I remembered them after writing my message and didn't edit to add them.
"I am not rebelling against my God; I simply 'don't accept His world.'"I could not agree more. Dostoyevsky speaks out my mind.
Finished Book 7. The chapters "An Onion" and "Cana of Galilee" are beautiful. Such sincerity, beauty and truth they hold. I feel insignificant and humbled now!
Does anyone remember the part where Father Zossima in his youth befriends a mysterious visitor who later confessed to Father Zossima about the crime he committed years ago?Have you ever felt directly or indirectly responsible for somebody's sorrow? A guilty conscience is probably the most tormenting thing to survive with.
The worst thing is when you have a dirty conscience but you try to don't think at what you have done but some day a person leads you to think again about it.You will hate that person but you know he is right. The best thing to do with a guilty conscience is to think about what you have done and not try to forget or ignore it.
A brilliant brilliant book and author."The Grand Inquisitor" chapter which also comes as a separate book is the most interesting part of the book wherein D touches upon a satisfying depth of the subject -- relieves the brain cramps for sure :)
As you suggested, I've decided to take up this after I read couple of other books by Dostoyevski.. :)
Anbu wrote: "As you suggested, I've decided to take up this after I read couple of other books by Dostoyevski.. :)"Have you already started some other Dostoyesky?
And where are the others?
No not yet.. Lots of work nowadays.. :(.. Not much time to read.. Will read it when I am relatively free.. :)From your reviews and others, I think Dostoyevski is a kind of writer who would need the reader to be involved in the book.. I dont think I would enjoy his books if I just read a couple of pages whenever I get time..
The group is smitten with Dostoyevsky...aint it ??Somehow, in every thread I find his name popping up !!!
i have read half the comments and stopped reading them...wondering if there were spoilers!i read this because dely gave it 5 stars!
yes dely! u have a lot of responsibility on your shoudlers.
but do not worry.....
dostoyevsky is perfectly capable of handling it......
this is my first dostoyevsky.........
i find the style very different to any book i have ever read.....
seriously.......every chapter is like a story.....that too compressed to tell a lot in one chapter.....yet it does not disappoint.....
i am beginning to understand why the group is smitten with dostoyevsky as avisek puts it!
i have read part 1. and am loving it!
i simply cannot comprehend how he can put so much info in one chapter, cram it in and yet not disappoint at all.......
and i laugh to myself......it is not as if he is trying to write a short story........the book is thick enough!......
every character is so alive..........and i am there.......seeing everything......
and i react to every character.....
he must have observed the world and its people in minute detail to be able to write this.........
it took me a while to get used to his style.......i did wonder a bit when one discussion got a bit too much for me.......but that was only a few pages......
Parikhit wrote: "Couldn't help myself from posting these lines.“The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so l..."
i know! i sat stunned reading those lines! and read them again.......
beautiful......
Suchitra wrote: "i have read half the comments and stopped reading them...wondering if there were spoilers!i read this because dely gave it 5 stars!
yes dely! u have a lot of responsibility on your shoudlers.
but ..."
I am not afraid :P
He is very able to have a deep insight of the people, their behavior and their psychology. For me he is a genius, there are no others like him.
I am not sure whether we could complete it in a month.. But there is no time limit for any books we discuss.. :).. So we can carry on on the next month also.. :D
So are you going to read the book this month or already read it? Pls share your thoughts here..