You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.31 AVERAGE
4.31 AVERAGE
I actually read the first translation, not this version, by Constance Something. There were times that I thought I would never finish the book. That I would be reading it until the end of time. But then I learned that Kafka was heavily influenced by Dostoyevsky and perhaps this trial like pacing and narration was intentional. I also wish I knew more about Russia.
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Dostoyevsky has woven a story with enough unpredictability and mystery to keep the reader going, but with characters who are unfortunately flimsy stand-ins for ideas within a morality play. Dmitry represents passion and emotion, Ivan represents cold logic, and Alexei represents a self-sacrificing, peaceful love. There are a lot of involved and paradoxical treatises on God, faith, Jesus, and the devil, as well as philosophies on the nature of mankind, all of which I found challenging to follow and a slog to get through. Nonetheless, there is plenty of action, and we witness the characters struggle with anger, jealousy, guilt, selfishness, and pity in their ever-changing relationships with one another. I enjoyed the drama of the trial but tired of the long, convoluted closing arguments on both sides, and the ending, while leaving much of the future unknown, was still depressing, with the main characters either dead, sick, imprisoned, or hopeless, except for the saintly Alyosha, who seemed unaffected by just about everything. So while I'm glad I read it, it's definitely not high up on my list of enjoyable books.
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Dostoevsky is such a tease
challenging
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
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.
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.
Dear Ivan, I too love sticky leaves and blue skies. I wish I could love my own sister as you love your most wretched brother.
I’ve seen it claimed that the Grand Inquisitor is a condemnation of socialism and perhaps that was the intention, however, I was largely struck by the line (paraphrasing) “we will take the bread they made then give it back to them and they will be grateful” seems more akin to capitalism to me. Tho I guess the way capitalism is currently operating it’s more “we will take the bread they make and give them back crumbs”. I’m not grateful for crumbs.
I guess really it was most likely intended to be a critique of the Catholic Church and religious institutions and the way they enforce— force— faith, which is no true faith right? Faith cannot be true unless freely given. Alyosha in the face of Ivan’s reason still maintains total faith. I wish I could be so sure of something. Descartes would be appalled at the conclusion that there is no rational argument that can arrive at the existence of god. One must take a leap of faith regardless. Did Dostoevsky ever read Kierkegaard? Or did they arrive at the same conclusions independently? Faith can only exist in the presence of doubt, isn’t that what Conclave was about?
Maybe I’m not an atheist. I suppose I am. But still, what biological purpose does my wonder at sunlight hitting a patch of grass serve? I’m not interested in the real answer. I will maintain my wonder.
I’ve seen it claimed that the Grand Inquisitor is a condemnation of socialism and perhaps that was the intention, however, I was largely struck by the line (paraphrasing) “we will take the bread they made then give it back to them and they will be grateful” seems more akin to capitalism to me. Tho I guess the way capitalism is currently operating it’s more “we will take the bread they make and give them back crumbs”. I’m not grateful for crumbs.
I guess really it was most likely intended to be a critique of the Catholic Church and religious institutions and the way they enforce— force— faith, which is no true faith right? Faith cannot be true unless freely given. Alyosha in the face of Ivan’s reason still maintains total faith. I wish I could be so sure of something. Descartes would be appalled at the conclusion that there is no rational argument that can arrive at the existence of god. One must take a leap of faith regardless. Did Dostoevsky ever read Kierkegaard? Or did they arrive at the same conclusions independently? Faith can only exist in the presence of doubt, isn’t that what Conclave was about?
Maybe I’m not an atheist. I suppose I am. But still, what biological purpose does my wonder at sunlight hitting a patch of grass serve? I’m not interested in the real answer. I will maintain my wonder.
This is my favorite novel of all time. I've read it three times: when I was twenty, when I was thirty and when I was forty. I'll probably read it again when I'm fifty.
The three brothers can be explained as the thinker, the doer and the observer. Ivan is the thinker who with the theory that everything is permitted in the absence of a God or an afterlife. Dmitri, the doer, is an impulsive type who likes broads, booze and gambling. The youngest brother Alyosha is the observer, who visits people and listens to them. The fourth (half-)brother, Smerdyakov is fawning but sly.
There's a contrast between Katerina Ivanovna and Grushenka. They both have a soft spot for Dmitri, despite his obvious flaws. Katerina has a high rank in society, but has hysterical fits and can be treacherous. Grushenka is a “fallen woman” in the eyes of society, but has a noble nature. All characters have their own style of speech: the cackling of Mrs. Khokhlakova, the incoherent speeches of Dmitri, the intellectual musings of Ivan, the wise words of the starets…
Exoteric religion, focused on worldly display, is represented by excessively fasting, superstition, icons and the power hungry Grand Inquisitor. Esoteric religion, focused on inner faith and caritas, is represented by the starets, who's Alyosha's spiritual guide and sends him out into the world.
Most of the action takes place within three days; only the trial takes longer. Dostoevsky attended trial to prepare this book. He satirizes the false rhetoric of the lawyers. His style is verbose, but he never gets boring. It has philosophical and psychological depth, but also enough suspense and humor to remain exciting over the whole length.
The three brothers can be explained as the thinker, the doer and the observer. Ivan is the thinker who with the theory that everything is permitted in the absence of a God or an afterlife. Dmitri, the doer, is an impulsive type who likes broads, booze and gambling. The youngest brother Alyosha is the observer, who visits people and listens to them. The fourth (half-)brother, Smerdyakov is fawning but sly.
There's a contrast between Katerina Ivanovna and Grushenka. They both have a soft spot for Dmitri, despite his obvious flaws. Katerina has a high rank in society, but has hysterical fits and can be treacherous. Grushenka is a “fallen woman” in the eyes of society, but has a noble nature. All characters have their own style of speech: the cackling of Mrs. Khokhlakova, the incoherent speeches of Dmitri, the intellectual musings of Ivan, the wise words of the starets…
Exoteric religion, focused on worldly display, is represented by excessively fasting, superstition, icons and the power hungry Grand Inquisitor. Esoteric religion, focused on inner faith and caritas, is represented by the starets, who's Alyosha's spiritual guide and sends him out into the world.
Most of the action takes place within three days; only the trial takes longer. Dostoevsky attended trial to prepare this book. He satirizes the false rhetoric of the lawyers. His style is verbose, but he never gets boring. It has philosophical and psychological depth, but also enough suspense and humor to remain exciting over the whole length.
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
masterpiece
Teveel filosofie uitgelegd door lange gesprekken. Gaat teveel over christendom. Gestopt op pagina 99