Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.31 AVERAGE
4.31 AVERAGE
challenging
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:
Yes
I'm glad that now I'll have something to talk about with Timothée Chalamet (just in case).
I just cannot for the life of me be interested in the plot itself
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
An excellent book dealing with emotion, philosophy, psychology, and meaning in life. My English teacher gave this book to me, and it was recommended to me by a college friend before he passed away, but I am glad I waited until was older and more well read to read it. I can see the existentialist themes throughout the book - definitely recommended to anyone interested in the classics and philosophy.
emotional
tense
slow-paced
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
mysterious
reflective
relaxing
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Bicentennial edition provided so much context with notes and great resources for readability like the character list, and the dialogue was so uniquely phrased. A fantastic translation.
Characters are all so complex. Even the Main Character, who does not have both good and evil within him like the other Karamazov brothers, feels so dynamic and interesting.
I feel that Dostoevsky wanted each Karamazov to represent an aspect of Russia and his view of society.
The father represents the barbarism Russia had exhibited before the Peasant Revolution that was discussed in text and notes.
The sons would each represent a path forward for Russia that would decide the country’s fate.
To continue the selfish, self-destructive bipolar cycle of high highs and low lows, which would end in violence/bloodshed (Dmitri).
To intellectualize the world and deny the existence of God, justifying and perpetuating baseness and debauchery (Ivan).
Or, to live in the teachings of God, with or without major life commitment to religion, so that one’s Russian brothers, sisters and siblings may join and create a peaceful and healthy Russia. To reject gluttonous indulgence and live life “feeling guilty for everyone’s sins” (Alexei).
A minor character that also represents an important flaw in Russian culture is Father Ferapont, who is meant to be misapplied religious teachings and those people who are fiercely committed to religion but still susceptible to vanity, dogma, and petty drama.
So many twists and turns, and the fact that it originally came out as a serialized release gives it a lot of good cliffhangers and tension.
Also the romace and relationship between Dmitri and Grushenka is beautiful and demented and exhausting and I loved it.
Stunning, very long read, but Dostoevsky built a massive world and showed us all that we really are no better than the worse person we can think of, because we all share responsibility for each other.
We have control over each other and we ask things of each other, and we have to use this power we hold with respect, and give each other dignity.
The best and worst traits of every character live within all of us, which makes this book supremely relatable. This book calls for a long look in the mirror.
Characters are all so complex. Even the Main Character, who does not have both good and evil within him like the other Karamazov brothers, feels so dynamic and interesting.
I feel that Dostoevsky wanted each Karamazov to represent an aspect of Russia and his view of society.
The father represents the barbarism Russia had exhibited before the Peasant Revolution that was discussed in text and notes.
The sons would each represent a path forward for Russia that would decide the country’s fate.
To continue the selfish, self-destructive bipolar cycle of high highs and low lows, which would end in violence/bloodshed (Dmitri).
To intellectualize the world and deny the existence of God, justifying and perpetuating baseness and debauchery (Ivan).
Or, to live in the teachings of God, with or without major life commitment to religion, so that one’s Russian brothers, sisters and siblings may join and create a peaceful and healthy Russia. To reject gluttonous indulgence and live life “feeling guilty for everyone’s sins” (Alexei).
A minor character that also represents an important flaw in Russian culture is Father Ferapont, who is meant to be misapplied religious teachings and those people who are fiercely committed to religion but still susceptible to vanity, dogma, and petty drama.
So many twists and turns, and the fact that it originally came out as a serialized release gives it a lot of good cliffhangers and tension.
Also the romace and relationship between Dmitri and Grushenka is beautiful and demented and exhausting and I loved it.
Stunning, very long read, but Dostoevsky built a massive world and showed us all that we really are no better than the worse person we can think of, because we all share responsibility for each other.
We have control over each other and we ask things of each other, and we have to use this power we hold with respect, and give each other dignity.
The best and worst traits of every character live within all of us, which makes this book supremely relatable. This book calls for a long look in the mirror.
challenging
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I knew, of course, the reputation that preceded this book. It was an all-time great, a “supreme achievement in world literature” (as Wikipedia puts it). I began and it was good, very good, even, but I did not quite understand the extent of the praise heaped upon this book; then again, I did not ever understand or have the slightest idea what would happen on the next page. And so this story unfolded, telling of the young image of Christ, Alyosha, emerging out into the world from his monastery, confronting the chaos brought about by his insufferable father. And that is the story we are given — a well written Russian family drama with religious undertones — that is, until a certain conversation, which appears rather out of nowhere. As I progressed through the monumental 40 pages of this conversation, I felt the significant weight of the book begin to slowly revolve around the sentences in front of me. These pages were completely unlike anything I had read in the book thus far, seeming in their parabolic depth to belong instead in a biblical third testament. After this strange and lengthy aside, the book takes on an entirely different character, taking the perspectives of new characters and transforming almost into a new genre. This ending to Book Five was unbelievably compelling.
To my disappointment, the book quickly descends from this peak, that is, until it rises to a new peak, a portion of the book that brought me to tears. An onion, as it were, brought me to tears. The confrontation between Alyosha and Grushenka struck me with an odd power, as though I was Grushenka herself hearing a genuine word for the first time in her life. The book is, in this way, a miracle to me, that it could capture so completely the internal existence of its characters and present a human so pure and vulnerable. I choose to overlook the lengthy valleys before the peaks; this book deserves its masterpiece status. I did not care what followed this calm before the storm, so to speak; it had earned five stars. It is no wonder this inspired The Tree of Life, at least in part: it is completely unabashed, vulnerable.
There is something deeply relatable in each of the brothers. The genuine and simplistic love, which we all aspire to and relish, effused by Alyosha. The aloof intellectualism and elitism characterized in Ivan. And the base guilt — the neurotic yet somehow proud burden of lies building upon lies — personified by Dimitri. I immediately understood the appeal of Alyosha; I quickly found a deep empathy for Ivan, but for the longest time, I found no personal relation to Dmitri. That’s the thing, the magic trick: only at his interrogation, when his deepest guilt becomes revealed, does this reprehensible character become uncomfortably relatable. The words of Father Zosima that all "are guilty before all," that are "exactly as criminals" — words that seemed hyperbolic and practically useless — come around to be proven true. Dmitri is the lowest of the brothers, and yet I cannot help but think that I am at least as low as he, in all my history of secret little lies and carried shame. This is the magic trick, the slight of hand, the experience that proves the substance. It suddenly makes sense that Dostoevsky would give his own name to the most despicable of all his characters.
At the end of the novel, when the attorneys provides a well-rounded summary of the major events and include detailed descriptions of the major characters, I felt an odd annoyance, as though the legal rivals were missing all that was meaningful in this story. Though detailed and accurate, this final summation of the plot comes across as painfully shallow to the reader who has experienced the characters in all their neurotic and contradictory humanity. At times throughout reading, Julia would ask me what the book was about. At almost no point in the novel could I provide a satisfying or coherent answer to that question. What is this book? It is a Russian family drama, a religious dialectic, a murder mystery, a courtroom drama, the story of a dying boy and a shaggy dog, or, perhaps most importantly, the story of an onion. In my opinion, the message and greatness of this novel does not at all arise out of the plot within the pages, but rather out of the experience within the reader. The point of the trial, as I see it, revolves around the insight that one cannot neatly summarize the complexity of our internal worlds. Stepping back, we see even that the trial is unnecessary and almost insignificant, not half as important as Father Zosima’s brother, or Ilyusha. There is a beauty in simple joy, in mere existence, and, I repeat, the experience of the revelation of this fact within the reader is what makes this book’s genius.
As for the epilogue, what can I say? It is simply beautiful. This book is many things, but in the end it is simply beautiful. I have not read enough fiction to know whether this is a “supreme achievement of world literature,” but it is certainly a great achievement of beauty, in all its messy contradiction.
To my disappointment, the book quickly descends from this peak, that is, until it rises to a new peak, a portion of the book that brought me to tears. An onion, as it were, brought me to tears. The confrontation between Alyosha and Grushenka struck me with an odd power, as though I was Grushenka herself hearing a genuine word for the first time in her life. The book is, in this way, a miracle to me, that it could capture so completely the internal existence of its characters and present a human so pure and vulnerable. I choose to overlook the lengthy valleys before the peaks; this book deserves its masterpiece status. I did not care what followed this calm before the storm, so to speak; it had earned five stars. It is no wonder this inspired The Tree of Life, at least in part: it is completely unabashed, vulnerable.
There is something deeply relatable in each of the brothers. The genuine and simplistic love, which we all aspire to and relish, effused by Alyosha. The aloof intellectualism and elitism characterized in Ivan. And the base guilt — the neurotic yet somehow proud burden of lies building upon lies — personified by Dimitri. I immediately understood the appeal of Alyosha; I quickly found a deep empathy for Ivan, but for the longest time, I found no personal relation to Dmitri. That’s the thing, the magic trick: only at his interrogation, when his deepest guilt becomes revealed, does this reprehensible character become uncomfortably relatable. The words of Father Zosima that all "are guilty before all," that are "exactly as criminals" — words that seemed hyperbolic and practically useless — come around to be proven true. Dmitri is the lowest of the brothers, and yet I cannot help but think that I am at least as low as he, in all my history of secret little lies and carried shame. This is the magic trick, the slight of hand, the experience that proves the substance. It suddenly makes sense that Dostoevsky would give his own name to the most despicable of all his characters.
At the end of the novel, when the attorneys provides a well-rounded summary of the major events and include detailed descriptions of the major characters, I felt an odd annoyance, as though the legal rivals were missing all that was meaningful in this story. Though detailed and accurate, this final summation of the plot comes across as painfully shallow to the reader who has experienced the characters in all their neurotic and contradictory humanity. At times throughout reading, Julia would ask me what the book was about. At almost no point in the novel could I provide a satisfying or coherent answer to that question. What is this book? It is a Russian family drama, a religious dialectic, a murder mystery, a courtroom drama, the story of a dying boy and a shaggy dog, or, perhaps most importantly, the story of an onion. In my opinion, the message and greatness of this novel does not at all arise out of the plot within the pages, but rather out of the experience within the reader. The point of the trial, as I see it, revolves around the insight that one cannot neatly summarize the complexity of our internal worlds. Stepping back, we see even that the trial is unnecessary and almost insignificant, not half as important as Father Zosima’s brother, or Ilyusha. There is a beauty in simple joy, in mere existence, and, I repeat, the experience of the revelation of this fact within the reader is what makes this book’s genius.
As for the epilogue, what can I say? It is simply beautiful. This book is many things, but in the end it is simply beautiful. I have not read enough fiction to know whether this is a “supreme achievement of world literature,” but it is certainly a great achievement of beauty, in all its messy contradiction.
It is hard to say if I will ever read another book as brilliant or outstanding as The Brothers Karamazov. This book has made quite the impression on me and has easily made its way into my top 5 favorite books.
Hurrah for Karamazov!
Hurrah for Karamazov!
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Well, this book took me about 4 months to get through, but I really liked it! Very interesting characters and a story that made me think about the arguments for religion. Although I may not agree with Dostoevsky's overall "moral," I enjoyed reading and getting a taste of 19th century Russian law and philosophy.