The Brothers Karamazov
Ratings335
Average rating4.4
I've been meaning to read BK for a very long time. It was one of the few Russian classics that I hadn't read. Overall, I liked it—I guess for the big ideas. The prosecutor's speech and “après moi, le déluge” in particular really resonated with me. However, BK is not very good fiction: bad pacing, turgid dialogue, horribly unrealistic women characters, and not much plot given the absurd length. There is also a lot of religious dribble, especially in the first half, which I really struggled through. In the end, I'm glad I read BK, and I would generally recommend that people read it at some point, but I doubt I'll ever pick it up again.
Re the translation: I read the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation. I appreciate that they're going for a more literal translation of the Russian. However, I found it annoying that this often resulted in English sentences that are simply ungrammatical (in the formal linguistic sense; e.g. illicit argument structure for the given predicate, violations of the anti-that-trace constraint). Why?
“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.”
“And what's strange, what would be marvelous, is not that God should really exist; the marvel is that such an idea, the idea of the necessity of God, could enter the head of such a savage, vicious beast as man.”
My wife wanted to name our son Aliocha and “made me” read this. By the end of the first hundred pages I was convinced. Absolutely loved it (particularly the devil scene, oh how I love Ivan!).
What struck me most in re-reading this fabulous novel (having first read it as an undergraduate English major in the mid 1980's) – or more accurately, what I'm more capable of putting into words – is that it is a veritable handbook for psychiatrists and psychotherapists on the subject of inappropriate emotional response. Literary conventions vary by era and culture, of course, but I have to think that even a contemporaneous Russian reader would have felt as exhausted by the wildly erratic mood swings of these characters as I was. I wonder, in reading some of the other reviews here, if this is why it is so difficult to get through for so many readers.
The novel falls squarely into the realm of melodrama, and you can hear the machinery creaking as you read along. The plot is deceptively simple: a father and his son compete for the love of a manipulative, deceptive prostitute, and drag everyone around them into the fight causing various degrees of collateral damage. When the father gets his head cracked, we are plunged into an episode of Law and Order and see both the (surprisingly modern) police investigation and the (surprisingly contemporary) trial. The brothers K, all types, represent various philosophical perspectives on what to do about the decaying and decadent Old Russia as represented by Fyodor Pavlovich, their father. So as a work of fiction it's not overly complicated or difficult. Money and wealth (Katerina), sexual mores (Grushenka), morality (Fr. Zosima) and social hierarchy (Snegirov) are the problems that New Russia must tackle. What is the way forward? Traditional Orthodox Christian monarchy? Socialist, atheist revolution?
What makes this novel so compelling (and so long) is the psychological portrait Dostoevsky paints of each character. Types though they are, he takes great pains to show us the history and motivations of each character in a way few modern novelists do anymore. Whether or not we like them is one thing; whether we understand them is another, and I think that is what was most important to Dostoevsky, and what makes this novel more than the sum of its parts.
The omniscient first-person narrator with the front-row seats to all the action, very subtly influences our perceptions. Fyodor Pavlovich, depicted as a drunken and depraved old man (well, in his 50's which, in 19th century Russia was old) gains a backstory at the hands of the prosecutor that, while not rehabilitative, depicts him as a rather pathetic figure. We can almost feel sorry for him, and whatever his sins, we can say he certainly didn't deserve to be murdered in cold blood for the sake of a man's twisted beliefs about morality. And then we can't fully condemn the murderer either because we know the deprived and horrific upbringing he endured. Every character receives this kind of detailed portrait. As a result, no one, with the possible exception of Alexei (Alyosha), emerges from this novel looking good, but they don't emerge looking fully bad either. What they are is human - broken, flawed, contradictory, confused, and even at times lost, but they are human. Dostoevsky's achievement, again, is not in the structure and style of the novel, but in his deep and moving insights into people. No matter how many times you read this book, read it again.
just terrible the way the culture seems determined to impose upon the brothers karamazov (and the “Russian life novel” more broadly) a framework of sterile intellectualism when they are so transcendently emotional. perfect read for whenever you are lowkey on a ledge. wish I didn't have the P&v translation but life is nawt perfect...
some quotes that came out of the YASS MACHINE:
“With one reservation: I have a childlike conviction that the sufferings will be healed and smoothed over, that the whole offensive comedy of human contradictions will disappear like a pitiful mirage, a vile concoction of man's Euclidean mind, feeble and puny as an atom, and that ultimately, at the world's finale, in the moment of eternal harmony, there will occur and be revealed something so precious that it will suffice for all hearts, to allay all indignation, to redeem all human villainy, all bloodshed; it will suffice not only to make forgiveness possible, but also to justify everything that has happened with men—let this, let all of this come true and be revealed, but I do not accept it and do not want to accept it!”
“I think I could stand anything, any suffering, only to be able to say and to repeat to myself every moment, ‘I exist.' In thousands of agonies—I exist. I'm tormented on the rack—but I exist! Though I sit alone in a pillar—I exist! I see the sun, and if I don't see the sun, I know it's there. And there's a whole life in that, in knowing that the sun is there.” (stole this from the Avsey translation I fear)
“There is still an awful lot of centripetal force on our planet, Alyosha. I want to live, and I do live, even if it be against logic. Though I do not believe in the order of things, still the sticky little leaves that come out in the spring are dear to me, the blue sky is dear to me, some people are dear to me, whom one loves sometimes, would you believe it, without even knowing why; some human deeds are dear to me, which one has perhaps long ceased believing in, but still honors with one's heart, out of old habit.”
“Gentlemen,” I cried suddenly from the bottom of my heart, “look at the divine gifts around us: the clear sky, the fresh air, the tender grass, the birds, nature is beautiful and sinless, and we, we alone, are godless and foolish, and do not understand that life is paradise, for we need only wish to understand, and it will come at once in all its beauty, and we shall embrace each other and weep...”
“Fathers and teachers, I ask myself: ‘What is hell?' And I answer thus: ‘The suffering of being no longer able to love.' Once in infinite existence, measured neither by time nor by space, a certain spiritual being, through his appearance on earth, was granted the ability to say to himself: ‘I am and I love.'”
“And man has, indeed, invented God. And the strange thing, the wonder would not be that God really exists, the wonder is that such a notion—the notion of the necessity of God—could creep into the head of such a wild and wicked animal as man—so holy, so moving, so wise a notion, which does man such great honor.”
Contains spoilers
After a long time and much gnashing of teeth, I come to the end of The Brothers Karamazov. My thoughts on it are complicated.
Do I find this one worthy of its "classic" status? No, not really. Yet, I recognize that I am not well versed on the Russian history I imagine Dostoevsky integrates through conversations between characters, references to other parts of the country, or even satirically. Maybe there really is more going on with it.
I find long passages and tangents unnecessary. The centrality of Father Zossima, followed, after the monk's death, Ilusha, are examples. They are interesting, but they drag the pace of the novel down to excruciatingly slow. This book is at its best in the scenes where the investigators question Mitya and even Book 12 as the trial unfolds.
The narrator's voice also confounds me. It is an external voice, and I am comfortable with that. As the novel progresses, though, the narrator becomes more and more capable of interpreting the thoughts of the characters. For me, it is jarring, and it pulls me away from thinking of the narrator as someone else that resides in their town.
Still, though, I find myself glad to have read it. It came to me as a title on a "100 books to read" list, and I'll readily admit that I would not have otherwise picked it up. My goal by working through said list was exactly that: to pick up books I otherwise would have no reason to want to read. It brings to mind how limited our (i.e., the western mindset of the U.S.) understanding of pre-Soviet Russian history is. I also find myself reflecting on the image of Dostoevsky portrayed by friends and family. The writing is not miserable. The story itself (and the accompanying storytelling) were not terrible. I can see where he could have a tendency to dive into period-specific Russian context, that is, commentary on those events that were current and widely-known at the time the novel was published. Familiarizing oneself with that history could be helpful, but a heavy lift for the casual reader.
this was really long but i also really enjoyed it ! i’m a big fan of dostoevsky’s writing and loved how it turned into a murder mystery. i think i probably would have enjoyed it more if i didn’t already know who did it beforehand but it was a really interesting read.
A total book. About life, the universe, and everything. Amazing analysis of human behavior from parenting, through religion and passions to existentialism. The only issue I have is that most of the characters seem to be philosophers with teenagers' emotionality and naïvety.
“But now, for one brief moment, let's pretend what might've been.”
Dostoevsky's best, easily. There are so many wonderful moments that I don't think I'll ever experience anywhere else. Some of my favorites:
- Zosima, bowing suddenly before Dmitri,
- Ivan's speech to Alyosha, and obviously the Grand Inquisitor,
- Alyosha kissing Ivan right after,
- “But to us, sir, you are like a small child...”
- The dehumanizing interrogation sequence—“I'm the wolf, and you're the hunters, let the chase commence.”
- A lovely scene with a puppy (it was so magical that I don't want to share more),
- Ivan's nightmares,
- Dr. Herzenstrube's testimony,
- Dmitri in the epilogue.
It is unfortunate that this book is weighed down by so much anti-semitism, christofascist sympathies, Russian nationalism, all with a little bit of thinly veiled misogyny... if it wasn't for these themes (which comes up during part 4 more than any other part IMO), I would have it in me to agree that this is one of the best novels ever written.
I'd also say your enjoyment of this novel hinges on whether or not you consider Dmitri to be a sympathetic character. If you're 200 pages in and you hate him, consider shelving it... I definitely sympathized with and even liked him, but he can be a lot. I can easily see why people might hate him, but I don't know how enjoyable the book would be if you can't stand the guy.
Was going into this book expecting it to be the greatest book of all time. Having just read crime and punishment prior to this, I was let down. Great themes are explored, the stand out scene was the Grand Inquisitor, which is mind blowing to unpack. Found the book dragged on towards the end and turned into a bit of a slog to finish.
Still an amazing book that has profound depth and deserves its spot as one of the greatest books of all time.
Final Rating: 4.5
Simply perfection in every use of the word. Dostoevsky is a genius and a master of literature.
Favourite characters:
1. Ivan - one of the most complex and interesting characters oat.
2. Alyosha- a Christlike, beautiful figure to love and look up to.
3. Mitya- a relatable, lustful character who wants to change but doesn’t have the strength to do so.
4. Father Zossima- a wise monk who serves as a mentor to Alyosha and to us as well.
5.a. Smerdyakov- a hateful bastard of Fyodor Pavlovitch (don’t want to say anymore without spoiling)
5.b. Kolya- an impressionable young boy who seeks to be respected, and needs a figure such as Alyosha in his life.
Top 5 books:
1. Pro and contra
2. Ivan
3. Epilogue
4. Alyosha
5. Mitya
Top 5 chapters:
1. Grand inquisitor
2. The Devil. Ivan’s nightmare
3. Rebellion
4. Ilyusha’s funeral
5. Cana of Galilee
Overall: this book is a 10/10 and is for sure my favourite novel of all time, and is currently my third favourite piece of fiction as well.
Ivan- #1 deuteragonist #2 character
Alyosha- #7 protagonist #11 character
The Brothers Karamazov is a blend of contrasting worldviews, embodied by its characters - the cold rationality of Ivan, the altruism of Alexei, and the passion of Dmitri; this array of perspectives prompts readers to think about their own approach to life. As I navigated the exceptionally well-woven web of relationships and ideas in this novel, I couldn't help but reflect on parallels with my own life and those of my friends. Some of my friends resemble Alyosha, embodying gentle stoicism, innate goodness, or warm empathy. Meanwhile, like Dmitri, other friends find ourselves wrestling with our demons, troubled by imperfection and impulses. Some of my friends also resemble Ivan, rationalizing all behaviors as “everything is permitted” (and who dares to counteract like Father Zosima, with a “everyone is responsible for everyone and for everything”?) However, all of us contain multitudes inside us, and Dostoevsky's refusal to offer a definitive answer reinforces the complexity of human nature, where morality is not a fixed point but a shifting landscape shaped by individual choices and circumstances. So the novel probes the question of life's best path, mirroring the Karamazovian brothers' dual nature, each harboring conflicting abysses within. In [b:Crime and Punishment 7144 Crime and Punishment Fyodor Dostoevsky https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1382846449l/7144.SY75.jpg 3393917], Raskolnikov's turmoil stems from a relatable clash between his ideologies and conscience, echoing Dostoevsky's own inner struggle amid surroundings of moral ambiguity. Dostoevsky's personal battles, including a gambling addiction, epilepsy, torments endured such as the famous mock-execution ceremony which involved being led to believe he would be executed by firing squad before being spared at the last moment, serving as a form of psychological torture intended to break his spirits, jail time, and complex relationship with an avaricious, tyrannical father as reflected in Pavlovich's character (which the friend who cheekily recommended this to me was aware would resonate) shines through in this novel as a lifelong contemplation on the nature of good, evil, free will, and duty. Perhaps Dostoevsky believed that through such contemplation one could find redemption by embracing the truth of life's suffering.
I believe in many way it's overwritten, but I am also a fan of overwritten emotions, they feel very specific and precise that way. The characters are very rounded and feel alive. There are a ton of ramblings from side-characters that I do not appreaciate even if they pull you more into the age this was written.
There are a ton of perspectives that are given weight that directly contradict themselves and that is the beauty of this book. Something you can't quite pin down, something haunting.
I wrote a long, heartfelt review. I didn't mean to because I'm doing this on my phone, but I got too excited. I was just about to write a tl/dr, when the app crashed. I'm too sleepy to try and repeat all of it from memory, so here's the tl/dr:
This book has changed my life. As a book, it's well-written, interesting, crazy, and surprisingly funny. But my main thing is that I have never felt more seen by an author in my whole life except for Rilke. I have never felt more understood. I feel myself getting carried away again so I'll stop.
Book is really good. If you don't like, that's perfectly fine, but I am a different person after reading it and it's really good.
I feel jealous about all the people who managed to really have a profound experience reading this. After forcing myself to read all this - I just feel like I understood half of it, intimidated by the absolute density of the work and the ambition the book reaches.
It is a philosophy book first, a novel second, and it truly takes its time to discuss these massive philosophical topics. The plot takes a backseat and it makes no qualms to devote pages upon pages to whatever the topic of the chapter is. Most of it is way beyond my understanding and in typical Dickensian fashion, is way more verbose than needed (though that can be due to the translation).
This is definitely a great book - but a book I do not feel as I was prepared for. This is not a beginner's introduction into classics for sure. Maybe one day I will build up myself to take a proper chance at this once again, but for now I am relieved that I got to accomplish at least finishing this book.
Absolutely magnificent. Dostoivisly has a way of making you not only people you know in his novels (which in itself is quite an acomplisment) but also yourself (which at times can be rather unpleasant).
Is there a God? Does man need a God to be good? What does it mean to be a good man, what's the meaning of good?
The book stays with you long after you have finished it.
Unlike anything I have ever read. This book had some of the best characters I have ever read in fiction. It was uneven in a good way, it would surprise me with the most interesting, heart-rending, worth-considering, and absurd occurrences in the most unsuspecting parts of the story. I will say it was a challenge because of the writers style, some passages are very long but it was a great exercise for the brain to grapple with a very different writing style. I expect much ink has been spilled over the GI in this book and other parts too (I'm excited to research this).
Overall an unforgettable, and totally unique read.
Мне кажется, писать ревью на такие книги довольно бессмысленным занятием. Все умное уже давно сказано. Так что единственный смысл таких ревью в наши дни — просто поделиться эмоциями с друзьями (в гудридзе, да).
Книга отличная. Куча умных, интересных мыслей, классных персонажей, “души”, да и всего того, чего вы ожидаете от Достоевского.
Единственное — четко ощущается, что книга не завершена.
Достоевский говорит о глубоком двумя путями: через персонажей и через сюжет.
В первом случае, он иногда посвящает отдельные главы мыслям и чувствам персонажей, в которых он методично и последовательно раскрывает их внутренние переживания, говорит об их жизненном опыте и дает мысли на подумать.
Во втором случае сам сюжет произведения создает какую-то цельную картину с итоговой моралью, которую читатель выводит для себя сам (как в “Идиоте”).
Так вот беда в том, что у “Братьев Карамазовых” должна была быть вторая часть (у нее даже черновики сохранились), но Достоевский не успел ее написать. И из-за этого первый метод в книге есть, а второго нет.
Может создаться впечатление, что книга мне не понравилась — но это не так, просто о хороших сторонах писать бессмысленно, их бесконечно много, и о них уже все сказано до меня.
В общем, ай лайк ит.
Desengane-se quem pensa que “Os irmãos Karamázov” é uma narrativa linear e de fácil leitura e interpretação. Trata-se de uma obra longa e pesada, mas que em nada diminui a grandeza e genialidade deste romance.
O livro desenrola-se ao longo de doze livros, em que o enredo se torna cada vez mais cativante e onde se disserta sobre importantes temas filosóficos, sobre religião, livre-arbítrio, moralidade mas também sobre a Rússia czarista e as fragilidades das suas gentes e dos seus sistemas.
Foi dos livros que mais me cativou à medida que ia avançando na sua narrativa, e que se tornou nas leituras mais importantes (e até educativas) que fiz recentemente.
I enjoy a good philosophical novel, but in this one Dostoyevsky is too prescriptive. The last half is taken over by a Law & Order procedural, interrupted by long speeches and derangement. Still enjoyable, this novel is no Crime and Punishment (still one of my favorites).
Peerless. The Brothers Karamazov is simply the book.
“Without God, all things are permitted.” I believe this is the primary theme of the novel. Each of us has a devil within, just like Ivan. Whereas Alyosha and even Dmitri may find themselves defended by God, Ivan has forsworn such protection, and Dostoevsky had him suffer the consequences. A man of enlightened education and unmatched intellect, Ivan nonetheless succumbed to the moral bankruptcy that is inevitable in a refutation of God.
I think Ivan is the character with whom modern readers empathize most. Especially among readers of Dostoevsky, we've all faced the same questions that Ivan did: What is true? Who is true? How can anything be true? So, how come we ourselves are not driven to the same madness?
Delusion. Unlike us, Ivan refused to delude himself. His doubt fed on itself, and the devil within him bloomed. Ironically, Ivan is perhaps the monk Zosima's most ardent adherent, for Ivan did as Zosima preached: “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.”
We, meanwhile, are content to lie to ourselves. We accept some things as true and others as right. Not because they are, but because we want them to be–we wish they were. It is quite literally a projection of our desires on a void reality, only to maintain our sanity.
The doubt and anguish faced by the brothers shake the foundations of the reader's worldview. But if the edifice remains, one might become somewhat certain.
P.S. The idea that delusion is the bedrock of sanity is well-established in existentialist writings. But what is incredible about The Brothers Karamazov is that Dostoevsky wrote before all of them. One can derive so many existentialist concepts solely from an analysis of this book. Yet another reason why it is so groundbreaking.
Long, slow moving novel about three brothers and their unworthy father in 19th century Russia. Full of philosophical and theological arguments about guilt, atonement, and forgiveness, as well as whether people are better off being happy or understanding truths about God. The last third of the book is a bit of a murder mystery. The characters represent all levels of Russian society and they are operatic in their feelings and their behavior. I feel I would understand this novel better if I started over from the beginning and read it through again–but I need to rest from it first!