THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV (Paperback; Abridged) by Fyodor Dostoevsky - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

rating	frequency	%
5		55%
4		28%
3		12%
2		2%
1		0%

topics	replies	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: OFFICIAL WINTER CHALLENGE	1115	1200	14 minutes ago
The Next Best Boo...: Books that made you cry...	239	482	1 hour, 23 min ago
The Next Best Boo...: Your Latest Splurge	3815	2409	4 hours, 21 min ago

Conrad rated it:

(review of isbn 0679729259)

04/29/08

bookshelves: fiction, masterpieces, russia

Contrary to widespread rumor, this is a far from bleak book. While every character has his or her own misery, and it all takes place in a place called something like "cattle-roundup-ville", the moments of religious ecstasy and moral clarity are heartbreaking in their frequency - it's hard not to wish that one had such bizarre events going on around one in order to prompt such lofty oratory.

The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich b...more Contrary to widespread rumor, this is a far from bleak book. While every character has his or her own misery, and it all takes place in a place called something like "cattle-roundup-ville", the moments of religious ecstasy and moral clarity are heartbreaking in their frequency - it's hard not to wish that one had such bizarre events going on around one in order to prompt such lofty oratory.

The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich but notoriously lecherous father, Fyodor. All four brothers were raised by others, Fyodor having essentially ignored them until others removed them from his care. In the beginning of the book, Alyosha is in the monastery, studying under a famous elder name Father Zosima; Dmitri has just left the army and stolen a large sum of money from a government official's daughter, who he has also apparently seduced, all while pursuing a lawsuit against Fyodor for his inheritance and canoodling with his own father's intended, the local seductress Grushenka; Ivan, the intellectual in the family, has just returned from (I think) Petersburg. Dmitri is violent and impulsive, referring to himself as an "insect," and gets into fistfights with Fyodor several times. Smerdyakov works for Fyodor as a lackey, having gone to France to learn to cook at some point in the past. It's unimaginably more complicated and digressive than all this, and just trying to follow this crucial sum of three thousand rubles through the story is almost impossible. But anyway, Fyodor is killed and much of the book hinges on which brother killed him and why.

When I first read this book in high school, my teacher (who was a devout Catholic, a red-faced drunk who wore sunglasses to class, and the most enthusiastic reader of Russian literature imaginable) asked everyone who their favorite brother was. Was it Ivan, the tortured skeptic? Dmitri, the "scoundrel" who tortures himself for every wrong he commits but can't help committing more? Or Alyosha, the saintly one who always knows the right thing to say? (Certainly Smerdyakov is no one's favorite.) At the time I went with Ivan - I was in high school, after all, and his atheism and pessimism were revolutionary to me.

But now Ivan seems rather selfish and callow, and I can't help siding with Dmitri, the one Dostoevsky uses almost as a case history of conscience. Like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky gives his characters all the space to talk like gods, clearing pages upon pages for their reasoning and dialog. Dmitri fumbles with Voltaire and is clearly not overly literate, but in some ways that's apropos, because his main problem is the constant internal conflict between his desires and his ethics which is only partly resolved when he chooses to become responsible for not only what he does, but also what he wants.

The most famous passage in the book, Ivan's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, is, to me, far less interesting than Zosima's meditations on the conflict between justice and the collective good. The elder Zosima is a kind of Christian socialist who grapples with the typical mid-19th century Russian issues of how to build a equitable society without the extremes of coercion that the Tsar used to turn to, while also ensuring public morality and avoiding the kind of massacres that characterized the French Revolution (an event that seems to have been even more traumatizing for Russians than it was to the French due to the enormous cultural influence France had there at the time.) Zosima's answer is unworkable and in some ways naiive, but the discussion is well worth it, moreso than Ivan's somewhat simplistic dualism of Christ vs. the Inquisitor. Dostoevsky was a cultural conservative in the sense that he was constantly renewing his commitment to the obligations imposed on Russians by the Orthodox Church. At the same time, he was committed to the pursuit of joy through kindness and community and a kind of interpersonal fair dealing in a way that transcends his political concerns and is inspiring to see articulated in the lives of people who are as confused as the rest of us.

It's a huge, messy book, but so worth the effort. It took me about three months to read carefully, though my reading has been flagging lately, as well. I read this while listening to Hubert Dreyfus's accompanying lectures at Stanford on existentialism and this book which are available on iTunes U, and even when I felt his readings overreached, it was a good way to reread a tough and subtle work like this. ...less

Like this review? yes (22 people liked it)

7 comments

Rachel rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

11/09/07

bookshelves: fiction

Read in November, 2007

recommends it for: everyone!

This is a review both of the book and the translation. See my review of Crime and Punishment for an explanation of why I don't entirely like this translation -- the authors sacrifice clarity and readability for technical accuracy in a way that tends to obscure the meaning. That said, though, it's a very good one, and I'd give it a four out of five. My pet peeve in most translations is the choice of the word "meek" instead of "gentle". These have utterly different connota...more This is a review both of the book and the translation. See my review of Crime and Punishment for an explanation of why I don't entirely like this translation -- the authors sacrifice clarity and readability for technical accuracy in a way that tends to obscure the meaning. That said, though, it's a very good one, and I'd give it a four out of five. My pet peeve in most translations is the choice of the word "meek" instead of "gentle". These have utterly different connotations in modern English, and describing a man as having "meek eyes" totally misses the point Dostoevsky was trying to make, which was that the person was serene and handled someone else gently. Argh.

Anyway, this is the best book ever written. Every time I read it, I discover new truths about life, and find myself reading passages out loud to anyone within range. Different plot lines and passages stand out to me every time I read it, in different parts of my life. It has profoundly affected my outlook on the world, and is very nearly the equivalent of a bible. (Think Moby Dick in Heathers. :) )

Nominally, it is the story of three sons of a lecherous, nasty old man. The oldest is Dmitri, a passionate, sensual man who hates his father for cheating him out of his money. The next is Ivan, an intellectual and enlightened man, who hates his father for abandoning him and for just being a reprehensible person. The third brother is Alexei (called Alyosha by most) -- a quiet, gentle (but not meek!!) mostly innocent boy who (when the book opens) is living in a monastery, and doesn't hate anyone. There is also a possible fourth brother, the illegitimate child of the father and a town fool he raped. The first half of the book culminates in the murder of the father, the second half is spent discovering who did it and why.

To be honest, the first few times I read the book I didn't even remember who actually ended up doing it -- so much more is going on in the book that it turns out to be the least important thing. Any of them could have done it, certainly. But in the course of the book, Dostoevsky uses these characters (and a bunch more) to examine the nature of humanity, religion, faith, good and evil, love, hate, and just about everything that matters in life. He's not like modern authors who gloss over everything -- his characters all do terrible things at various times. There are very few purely good or evil people in his books; he is obsessed with examining all aspects of people, and who they are within themselves and through society. There is an interlude, The Grand Inquisitor, which is a story Ivan tells to explain what he hates about organized religion, that is frequently used as a short story in itself by literature and religion classes around the world.

On a deeper level, Dostoevsky uses the book to express the conflicting parts of himself. He names the father Fyodor, his own name, and splits the sons into caricatures of himself; a passionate side, an intellectual side, and a pure side that is striving for goodness (which last, it must be noted, is named for his son Alexei, who died at three years old.) He has the parts argue with each other and themselves, and tries to work out how they complement each other and what it all means, with the help of other characters who bring out those parts of him. The fourth brother represents the nasty parts of himself that he's mostly unwilling to acknowledge (thus the unacknowledged son), but oddly enough, he gives the fourth brother epilepsy, a problem Dostoevsky himself had.

I could go on for pages, but I'll stop now. Read this book! I mean it! But go for the Constance Garnett translation if you can find it. Or check out several translations, and pick the one that appeals to you the most.

...less

Like this review? yes (9 people liked it)

3 comments

Vanja rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

12/21/07

Read in June, 1998

recommends it for: patient individuals, looking for a rewarding experience

Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.

While "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining, Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky’s lon...more Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.

While "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining, Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky’s longest, but also best, most subtle, and complex work. It has a huge list of characters, and encompasses the most interesting and most thorough philosophical discussions, which address some of the most personal and important topics that we can face. Hence, "Brothers Karamazov" is Dostoevsky’s masterpiece.

On the surface, this book's plot is about the murder of a father, and the possible involvement of 3 sons (plus a potential illegitimate fourth son). Like all of Dostoevsky's works, the real issues are much deeper and more philosophical. This book is essentially about faith and doubt, often involving the theme of free will.

As is again usual of Dostoevsky's works, the book's themes are revealed through the use of caricatured characters. Few of these characters (and purposely so) would appear in real life. Rather, they are extremes. For instance, here is a list of the 3 brothers, with a very brief sketch of their character traits:

Alexei (Alyosha) Karamazov- the supposed hero of the novel. He is the religious, morally upright, almost Christ-like figure. This does not mean that he is not susceptible to some doubts.

Dmitri (Mitya) Karamazov- a bit of an egoistic hedonist.

Ivan (Vanya) Karamazov- A rationalist and an atheist.

Of course, some of the best philosophical discussions in the book occur in the long dialogues between Alyosha and Ivan. What I appreciate about these discussions, and about the book in general, is that Dostoevsky offers a nuanced and complicated set of arguments for both sides, and neither side necessarily clearly "wins" the arguments. Instead, Dostoevsky’s own views are presented through more subtle means, which involve less direct preaching. This is perhaps why I am adamantly opposed to Dostoevsky's philosophy, while at the same time I love his books because of their writing style and philosophical content.

To conclude, Dostoevsky is my favorite writer, and "Brothers Karamazov" is his longest and best work. It is not, however, his most entertaining ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment"), his most readable ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment", "the Gambler"), most psychologically insightful ("Notes from Underground", "Crime and Punishment"), his most political ("Demons"/"Possessed"), his best title ("Demons"/"Possessed"), nor my personal favorite ("the Idiot").

...less

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

1 comment

Jesse rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

07/25/08

Basically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books. Although it has a compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and the philosophy underpinning the story that keeps it near the top of my list. And that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review. Of course, thematic interpretation is a necessarily subjective thing, and I don't claim to know what Dostoevsky was trying to say when he wrote this book. Even so, here's a list of what I believe to be some of th...more Basically, the Brothers Karamazov is one of my all-time favorite books. Although it has a compelling plot, to me it's ultimately the characters and the philosophy underpinning the story that keeps it near the top of my list. And that's where I'd like to put the focus of this review. Of course, thematic interpretation is a necessarily subjective thing, and I don't claim to know what Dostoevsky was trying to say when he wrote this book. Even so, here's a list of what I believe to be some of the major themes running throughout the story:

1. The Contradiction of Human Nature – Human nature is broad, contradictory, and capable of containing opposite desires and ideals. In other words, Dostoevsky seems to believe that one and the same person, at the exact same time, can be equally drawn to the noble and lofty on the one hand, and the sensual or degrading on the other. This means that in every sinner there is a saint and in every saint there is a sinner.

2. Embracing Human Contradiction in the Right Way – Given the above, Dostoevsky seems to argue that we should accept both the lofty and the sensual in our human nature. Instead of trying to purge one side of human nature and exalt the other, we should seek to bring both sides of the contradiction together in the right sort of way: we should seek to sanctify and lift our sensual, passionate nature in a way that will allow us to love and connect with others; and we should seek to soften and humble our lofty, prideful nature in a way that will allow us to find peace and hope. We do this chiefly by building loving connections with others, by sincerely believing the best of ourselves and of others, by sensing our connectedness to everything, by forgiving and asking forgiveness, and by accepting our personal responsibility to make the world a better place.

3. Active Love Leads to Faith – The experience of active love toward our neighbors leads to meaningful faith, driving out doubt and despair. The more we succeed in actively and tirelessly loving others, the more we become convinced of God and the immortality of our souls. Dostoevsky, in my mind, is arguing that this is the best way to arrive at the existence of God.

4. The Reality of Moral Imperatives – Another, different type of argument Dostoevsky seems to make for the existence God, relating particularly to the life of Ivan Fyodorovich, can be summarized as follows: If there is no God, then everything is permitted. But not everything is permitted. Therefore, there is a God. Thus, much like Kant, Dostoevsky seems to believe you can infer the reality of God through the reality of moral imperatives - imperatives such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

5. Building a Life Now Worth Living Forever – One of the subtle themes that I believe supports the entire book is the idea that our central task as human beings is to build a life right now that’s worth living forever. That is, the possibility of life after death is made meaningful and desireable only by building loving connections with others during our life on earth.

6. Connection Versus Disconnection – Throughout the book, Dostoevsky seems to link the idea of connection and disconnection in the characters’ lives with existentialized Christian concepts. For example, loving connection could represent heaven; confession brings personal guilt out of the closet and into the public sphere, thereby driving out secret shame and opening the door for reconnection; and characters like Alyosha, who help isolated people connect with others, represent angels. On the other hand, disconnection and an inability to love could represent represent hell; anything that causes people to become disconnected from one another could represent sin; and characters like Rakitin, who tear people apart from each other, could represent the devil.

Okay . . . if you made it to the bottom of this review, thanks for sticking around. I'll end by saying that although the Brothers Karamazov is a long book that can be somewhat difficult at times, I thought it was surprisingly hard to put down: great story with great characters, great writing, and a ton of depth. Highly recommended....less

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Skylar rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

01/05/08

bookshelves: classics

This novel would lead me to believe that all Russian women are virtual psychopaths and all Russian men muddled philosophers. But for all of its curious characterizations, The Brothers Karamazov is a masterfully written epic, and once I had plodded past the first 40 pages or so, I was enthralled. Fascinated by the brothers, anxious to know their destinies, and stimulated by the depth of the novel's religious speculations, I read on. As a story, Brothers Karamazov is good enough, but as a pene...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Pietrus rated it:

(review of isbn 0393092143)

08/29/07

Read in August, 2007

recommends it for: Everyone

"Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point 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."

"This is my last message to you: in sorrow seek happiness. Work, work unceasingly."

"He has done me no harm. But I played him a dirty trick, and ever since then I have hated him."...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

Kelly added it (review of isbn 0374528373)

11/18/08

bookshelves: did-not-finish

Read in January, 2008

It is probably time for me to admit that we're not going to finish this book. But then again, its also probably time for me to admit that Joey didn't end up with Dawson, that I've watched The Princess Bride enough to be able to recite it, that english muffins are actually fattening, and that I should be doing actual work rather than writing reviews on goodreads.

But I don't see any of that happening any time soon.

So let's just say that we are on 'pause'.

Loved w...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

11 comments

Rawley rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

09/07/08

Read in February, 2000

If there was still any doubt, let me confirm that this actually is the greatest book ever written. But be warned that you need to set aside a solid month to get through it. And it's not light reading--this is a dense work of philosophy disguised as a simple murder mystery. But it's well worth the effort. It tackles the fundamental question of human existence--how best to live one's life--in a truly engaging way. Dostoevsky created 3 brothers (Ivan, Alexei, and Dmitri) with opposite answers ...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

Dominic rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

06/29/08

Read in June, 2008

I picked up this book with little thought as to what I might get out of it....In fact I was not willing to start it, since I thought it would be a boring old book that I might get a hundred pages into, at most.

I just finished the book, and I'm glad to say, It has been one of the most enjoyable books I've read.

Sure, there was some slow parts, as in every book, but the way it was written, distinct in older books, was very intresting and even refreshing. The story was very ...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Seabury rated it:

(review of isbn 0679601813)

06/11/08

Read in June, 2008

recommends it for: Thinkers

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

After reading this book, I waited a day, and then I had this irristable compulsion to write about it, so I pulled out a notebook and filled out several pages with my thoughts on this book. For the readers of this review, I'll spare you. One thing that can be said for this book is that it does produce thought, regardless of how frustrating of a read it may be at times. No review I write could ever do this book justice, and I recommend it to everyone who likes being provoked into thinking about th...more After reading this book, I waited a day, and then I had this irristable compulsion to write about it, so I pulled out a notebook and filled out several pages with my thoughts on this book. For the readers of this review, I'll spare you. One thing that can be said for this book is that it does produce thought, regardless of how frustrating of a read it may be at times. No review I write could ever do this book justice, and I recommend it to everyone who likes being provoked into thinking about the great questions. This book feels incomplete, but that must be at least somewhat intentional. The book doesn't provide answers. It provides great arguments against and for god, but does not resolve, there is no winner. The closest thing to a definitive stance the book takes is on love. The protagonist, Alyosha, is essentially the embodiment of blind love, and Dostoyovsky certainly sides with him, portraying him as almost a saint. Even so, Dostoyevsky doesn't portray it without nuance. Blind love did not save Alyosha's brothers or father, nor does it resolve the love triangle at the center of the book. I have 2 gripes with this book. The first one is that Dostoyevsky has an irritating habit of partially sketching out characters and then abandoning them. What of Lise, what of Rakitan, what of Konya? It is torturous how he just leaves off these characters just when the reader is getting interested in them. My other gripe is the strange psychotic self-alalytical dialogue that the characters sometimes get into. It comes off as some sort of psychological/philosophical panic attack, and far from filling in the character, it just manages to confuse. Dostyovsky devoted many pages of Grushenka, but the majority of these were this self-analysis, and so the image the reader gets it that Grushenka might be schizophrenic, or bipolar, and certainly insane. It might be useful to get a glimpse into a character's core being, but if that is all we get, then we know nothing. It doesn't make sense to plunge the depths of something if you don't know what the surface looks like. So, in my idealized version of this book, dostoyevsky would have cut out maybe half the self-psychoanalysis, and then added a few hundred pages before the trial at the end of the book that fleshes out these half-fleshed characters. Nonetheless, this book is fantastic as it stands and earns an enthusiastic 5 stars from me. As a final note, the intro to this version isn't really worth reading. It is mostly a freudian analysis of the book. In other words, it used to be "fashionable" among lit critics, but it is mostly bogus. Modern psychology has mostly discredited freud, rendering the intro mostly nonsense....less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

Joshua rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

01/28/08

bookshelves: classics, favorites

Read in January, 2000

recommends it for: Anyone looking to expand what they thought they already knew

When I first finished The Brothers Karamazov , I felt a tinge of sadness wash over me since this was Dostoevsky's last novel. Now I'm not an idiot, I can guess that by being born on 1821 that he just might be dead by now. Still, whenever I read an author's last work I feel as if a weight is placed upon my shoulders. Most author's final novels are created after a lifetime of working and refining their technique, growing into the wizened sages that we all hold our favorite authors as being. That ...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

Erik rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

03/26/08

I know the book seems intimidating--it's Russian and it's huge--but the thing about these huge Russian novels is that once they get going (usually after 100 pages), they're like soap operas. I absolutely love this book, and I was riveted by all the characters in it. Last thing: I'm no scholar, but I think the translation is important, and you can't beat the work that Volosky and Pevear are doing. I'm sure Constance Garnett was a lovely person, and she certainly did the Western World a favor ...more

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

7 comments

Hoyt added it (review of isbn 0374528373)

10/31/08

Greatest novel I ever read. Characters, plot, underlying philosophical/spiritual struggle. It's simultaneously giant and its intensely personal. It's so universal and so Russian.

"Grand Inquisitor" chapter should be read annually, no monthly. It'll keep your synapses and priorities aligned.

Fyodor puts the fun back into suffering--something the Russians are good at. Alyosha is perhaps the most memorable character in literature. I'm still trying to resolve the questi...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Matt rated it:

(review of isbn 0374528373)

08/17/08

Read in August, 2008

I'm not so arrogant as to think I could really say anything about this book. But at the same time, I feel compelled to say something, just because it was such an undertaking to read.....

It took me a long time to really get into this, like 400pps or so, and then, there are still parts that I really wonder about-- I was never all that interested in Alyosha, and I think maybe D was being disingenuous when he said that he was the hero of the book?

Anyone who has read this wil...more I'm not so arrogant as to think I could really say anything about this book. But at the same time, I feel compelled to say something, just because it was such an undertaking to read.....

It took me a long time to really get into this, like 400pps or so, and then, there are still parts that I really wonder about-- I was never all that interested in Alyosha, and I think maybe D was being disingenuous when he said that he was the hero of the book?

Anyone who has read this will know what I mean when I say it is constructed really strangely, I guess like all D but this is the first I've read (aside from "Notes from Underground," which is a different kind of thing altogether). It sort of extends that line from Flaubert where the novel is this capacious thing that can and should include everything, including an index and notes on what it contains. In this book, that means, mostly, long tracts of what are essentially transcripts of speeches given, often very publicly, and then a lot of commentary on what we should make of those speeches. Sometimes the commentary even precedes the speeches! And the voice of the narrator, so bizarre in the way it is self-limiting, focalized around a townsperson of intentionally limited insight, and then suddenly is in Ivan's room when he talks with the devil, etc. It becomes easy, though, to see why Bakhtin felt that there needed to be a new understanding of writing, on a theoretical level, to work with D-- D's is recognizable as an example of the genre, but only in places-- there's a note of the Dickensian in the death of Ilyusha, for example, and there is a whole host of characters who you feel like you know-- Lise for me stands out as someone interesting, a sickly girl in a wheelchair or something like it, who wants so much to be bad that she dreams of arson and slams her fingers in a door. Just like a friend of mine from high school! There are moments, too, of representing "brain fever" that I think are shockingly contemporary in technique and power.

Here's my nutshell synopsis: it's interesting for the development of self-consciousness, the way it directs readers to be attentive to certain elements and to overlook others, the way it tries to manage our responses. There's something amazing about the final scenes, knowing it is D's last book, but that is only the start of what reader-critics can pull out of this. It's one of those self-consuming artifacts, which is good, because there's too much here for any single reader otherwise.

It's also really fucking long. But then you knew that. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Henry rated it:

(review of isbn 0451527348)

07/15/08

Read in February, 2007

recommends it for: Everyone

I liked this book a great deal. In fact, I enjoyed it much more than I expected. There isn't a lot of action compared to the amount of descriptive text and dialog but it's fairly compelling. There are some sections, I must admit, that were hard to get through but taken as a whole, it's a very good book.

The characters seem very real and have great depth. There are a few who Dostoevsky has captured very, very well and who stand out to me. There is a a Mrs. Khokhlakov who is quite fun...more I liked this book a great deal. In fact, I enjoyed it much more than I expected. There isn't a lot of action compared to the amount of descriptive text and dialog but it's fairly compelling. There are some sections, I must admit, that were hard to get through but taken as a whole, it's a very good book.

The characters seem very real and have great depth. There are a few who Dostoevsky has captured very, very well and who stand out to me. There is a a Mrs. Khokhlakov who is quite funny in the sense of being odd. She talks and talks, hardly listening to what others say, she has difficulty staying on any one topic for more than a few sentences, and she is easily distracted. She isn't a particularly likable person but certainly has been captured perfectly. Her daughter is also a bit odd. The Karamazov brothers exemplify passion (Dmitry, or Mitya), reason (Ivan), and spirituality or mysticism (Alyosha). Again, while you don't (or I didn't, anyway) exactly end up liking them all, they are very real. I find myself recognizing them in people I know. No one I know is quite as extreme as they are, perhaps, or at least not like Mitya. I know some Ivans and some people similar to Alyosha.

On pages 87 and 88 was the following paragraph:

"I ask your permission to drop this subject altogether," Miusov repeated. "I will tell you instead, gentlemen, another interesting and rather characteristic anecdote of Ivan Fyodorovitch himself. Only five days ago, in a gathering here, principally of ladies, he solemnly declared in argument that there was nothing in the whole world to make men love their neighbours. That there was no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth hitherto, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan Fyodorovitch added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That's not all. He ended by asserting that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position. From this paradox, gentlemen, you can judge of the rest of our eccentric and paradoxical friend Ivan Fyodorovitch's theories."

That's quite interesting, to me. It's an idea that I have never heard expressed and while it may not be perfect, it is quite insightful, I think. Considering that this was written over 125 years ago, it is very prescient. Perhaps Dostoevsky was simply very observant. Looking around today, the belief of mankind in immortality has been mostly destroyed. The results are much as Dostoevsky's Ivan said they would be. I'm not convinced that Ivan saw this as a good thing. He wasn't saying that this would be a positive development. He personally did not believe in immortality but he saw that as a terribly tragic thing.

And tragic it is.
...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Tyler rated it:

(review of isbn 0451527348)

04/23/08

bookshelves: classics

Read in August, 2003

recommends it for: Anybody

The ideas entertained in the book, and the dialogs that explain them, show why this book stands up to repeated reading. The chapter entitled The Grand Inquisitor gets the most most attention but, for me, at least two other chapters call forth exceptional disquisitions: the chapter on Father Zossima, and the later chapter enclosing the conversation between Ivan and his "friend," sitting in the parlor. The characters, too, make the narrative work.

The the most distinctively ...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Robin rated it:

(review of isbn 0679729259)

04/02/08

Read in March, 2008

I moved this up on my list when I read that Eugene Peterson re-reads it every year. It took me months.

The translation is easy to read. It has lots of cultural context endnotes, that fill in what Dostoevsky's readers would have known, and I really appreciate that. I have no idea what the Russian language is like, but somehow I had the sense of understanding a communication that really was from another culture (unlike science fiction movies where all the purported aliens not only speak...more I moved this up on my list when I read that Eugene Peterson re-reads it every year. It took me months.

The translation is easy to read. It has lots of cultural context endnotes, that fill in what Dostoevsky's readers would have known, and I really appreciate that. I have no idea what the Russian language is like, but somehow I had the sense of understanding a communication that really was from another culture (unlike science fiction movies where all the purported aliens not only speak English, but do so with the same accent . . .)

It's a romp of a story, but actually more of a journey; there are lots of trails that wander off then connect; some breath-taking vistas; and when we are at the end, it is clear that the characters are really beginning. I don't mean that it has an unfinished feeling. It's as though we have succeeded in getting to base camp.

I had an idea once of writing about brothers who represented the different temperaments; the problem with reading the classics is you find someone has already used all your good ideas. The joy is finding you are not alone.

In high school I was relieved to find Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose work explores what it is like to be of a cool temperament in a world where warmth is what is needed. It was obvious to me that the protagonist of The scarlet letter was Hester Prynne's husband, and that the other main "character" was the Puritan culture that reinforced his traits and in which he worked out his doom. It's interesting that Dostoevsky's work, in which even the coolest character is passionate, brings Hawthorne to mind . . . like bookends.

The Karamazov brothers represent the full range of temperaments, but they work out their lives in the very specific context of mother Russia. Maybe it's true of all things human, that we can only engage the universal in the particular. I almost feel that there would be a chance for peace in the world if people would replace the modern media with these stories of human souls, these classics. ...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

Núria rated it:

(review of isbn 0192835092)

10/07/07

bookshelves: 2006, 4-muy-buenos, decimononicos, literatura-rusa, prestados

Read in August, 2006

Parece que después de leer tantos libros de Dostoievski me tendría que haber acostumbrado, pero no es así. Siempre acaban desconcertándome. Y esto es bueno, porque es magnífico empezar un libro y no saber por dónde te va a llevar, ir leyendo capítulos y capítulos y aún no llegar a comprender qué te está queriendo decir el autor. También me acaban desconcertando siempre los personajes. Sé perfectamente que Dostoievski nos dará unos personajes extremos, al borde del abismo y la neuro...more Parece que después de leer tantos libros de Dostoievski me tendría que haber acostumbrado, pero no es así. Siempre acaban desconcertándome. Y esto es bueno, porque es magnífico empezar un libro y no saber por dónde te va a llevar, ir leyendo capítulos y capítulos y aún no llegar a comprender qué te está queriendo decir el autor. También me acaban desconcertando siempre los personajes. Sé perfectamente que Dostoievski nos dará unos personajes extremos, al borde del abismo y la neurosis, patológicamente orgullosos, y capaces de humillarse hasta límites insospechados, precisamente por seguir los dictados de su orgullo. Pero aún así siempre me sorprender encontrármelos, y que sean tan reales, y tan diferentes a los personajes que salen en todas las otras obras que haya podido leer. Y una vez ha terminado el libro, aún sigo desconcertada y aún no sé qué opino del libro. Y me paso días y días dándole vueltas. Y al final a la única conclusión que parece que llego es que no hay ningún autor como el bueno de Dosto.

'Los hermanos Karamazov' se centra en Fiodor Karamazov y sus tres hijos. El padre es un pendón desorejado, siempre metido en negocios nada claros, que le gustan las mujeres, el vino y las apuestas. Es incapaz de pensar en alguien más que no sea en él y en conseguir un placer inmediato. Además, es una especie de bufón sin sentido del ridículo que se dedica a hacer el payaso incluso en las situaciones más solemnes. Es por esto que es tan divertido. Juro que me reía a más no poder con sus salidas. Fiodor tiene tres hijos. El mayor es Dmitri, que es el que en principio se parece más a su padre, es una especie de mujeriego y camorrista siempre metido en problemas y cargado de deudas. El mediano es Iván, un intelectual que tiene un cacao mental que no se aclara. Es una especie de nihilista y ateo que aprovecha la mínima oportunidad para ir predicando su doctrina moral, que nunca pone en práctica por el mismo. Mientras que Dmitri actúa sin pensar, Iván piensa mucho y no actúa nunca directamente. Y luego hay el hermano menor, Aliosha, que ni piensa ni actúa, siempre está como un simple espectador. Eso sí, es una especie de monje ridículamente bueno.

Con estos personajes la obra habla de muchas cosas: de la existencia o no de Dios, la miseria de la Rusia del siglo XIX, como todas las relaciones (especialmente amorosas) no son nada más que relaciones de poder, etc. Pero para mí sobre todo habla de responsabilidad moral. Hay una muerte y tan culpable es quién ha matado físicamente a la víctima, como quién ha deseado matarle, como quién no ha hecho nada por impedirlo, como quién ha inflado la cabeza del asesino con ideas descabelladas, etc. Me encanta también la idea de que hay ideas muy peligrosas (algo que era el tema central de la que aún es mi novela favorita de Dosto, 'Demonios'), que la gente que se dedica a inflamar mentes con ciertas ideas es muy peligrosa, y que una cosa son las ideas y otra ponerlas en práctica.

Aún así a veces hay divagaciones que se alargan demasiado. Si pudiera hacer unos cortes y quitar todo lo que me sobra, sería una novela perfecta. Aún así es magnífica porque, como siempre en Dosto, es una experiencia única, es compleja y escurridiza, no te adoctrina ni te da las cosas masticadas sino que deja que seas tú quién saque tus conclusiones, y por supuesto te sorprende y te desconcierta. Y encima es capaz de hacerte reír. Te puede gustar más o menos, pero no hay nada como leer a Dostoievski. Es algo que va más allá de la literatura, de la filosofía, de la vida. Es todo esto, pero aún es mas. Es algo que no se puede explicar....less

Like this review?

THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV

book data

new topic
discuss this book

friend reviews

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 16829)

THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV

book data

new topic discuss this book

friend reviews

lists with this book

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 16829)

new topic
discuss this book