Reviews

This was Dostoyevsky's last work and as the author himself forewords, indeed an expression of all that he had wanted to say. On the face, it is a murder mystery of a notorious father. But on the inside, it is a extensive collection of philosophical thoughts and, something which the author excels in, psychological analyses of human behavior. This is a book about human passion and the resulting ambitions. The infamous father and his three sons all are samples from the spectrum of human behavior which also characterize the modern Russia of those times. What I always enjoy in Dostoyevsky's works are his philosophies and obsession with the darker sides of human psyche, which results in crimes like the one which is central to the story here. There are scores of pages, where through the characters in the story, the author pens down his system of thoughts and ideas related to themes like human free will, existence of God and morality. They are really interesting to read and very clear to comprehend. It ends with a really thorough court drama, which portrays the society's position relative to crime, punishment and the notions of justice. It is a lofty venture (easy but a long read) and I loved it.

elysehdez19's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Es un excelente libro que sin duda se debe leer con mucho detenimiento. La manera en como Dostoievski muestra la psicología de los personajes hace que puedas comprender su forma de actuar; las reflexiones y la filosofía del libro se ven muy presentes en los capitulos, en las situaciones de los personajes, en las historias secundarias que se narran, etc

No fue una lectura sencilla, me llevó poco más de un mes, pero sin duda se ha vuelto uno de mis libros favoritos. Todo radica en los personajes, y como ya mencioné, están muy bien trabajados en cuanto a su psicología

pnwbibliophile's review against another edition

Go to review page

reflective tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

Here are my modern, very scattered, thoughts on a book I often hated but did have moments of brilliance (Warning, spoilers ahead):

1. Fish soup is served and discussed so often. 🥴 I don’t think I would have survived the gastronomy of 1800s Russia.

2. The melodrama and especially the depictions of female characters was embarrassing. This really clashed with the profound discussions on the human condition where Dostoevsky captured emotions and moral discussions masterfully. The melodrama and feigning women had the air of a poorly written play where they felt both overdone and superficial. Whereas the discussions on the nature of the human condition felt deep, mostly timeless, and authentic. Had the two elements melded bette together, this would have been far more enjoyable. To be fair, the misogyny and melodrama was common it literature of this period. But I can acknowledge that and still be annoyed with them as a modern reader.

3. The rambling dialogue, filled with interruptive phrases, is why this book is so long. Much should have been edited out as it was neither artful linguistically nor essential to the conversation or plot. Perhaps this happened with it being a translation, and English having other conventions. Not sure as this is my first Russian novel. Perhaps it’s because this was first published as a serial and maybe he needed a word count per section.

4. The two love triangles—one between two brothers and one woman and the second with one of the same brothers, another woman, and the father—felt a bit over the top.

5. There were so many references to poems, songs, plays, and other literary works that didn’t stand the test of time and are unknown to the vast majority of modern Western readers. That came across as if FD was trying to show off how educated he was and also like a lazy way to keep using other people’s ideas instead of taking the idea you were trying to portray and writing it in your own words. To be fair, I think this is more of a convention of a lot of European literature of this time.

6. Poor people, women, and the disabled were talked about in 1800s harsh terms, which is expected, but I only bring it up for the following reason. I realized once Alexei talks to the father who Dimitri shames in public by dragging him by his beard, that I was reading all the depictions of these groups as if Dostoevsky had these negative associations for these groups himself and it was making me miss what he was trying to show us because that scene was beautiful in how it gets us to look at poverty, handouts, shame, children of poverty, etc. I had an epiphany where I had to tell myself not to assume FD had negative views of these groups (for his time!) because it would make me miss the whole point of the book—to examine every perspective (good and bad).

7. The reliance on liturgy and scripture to dive into many of the moral arguments in the book was extremely hard for me to connect to as an Agnostic who does not need to derive my morals from scripture.

8. This should have been half as long as it was. The only two times I felt truly engaged was during the trial/ending as well as the scenes surrounding the boys throwing rocks. The rest felt mediocre and often painful to slog through.

9. It’s hard to connect with modern hindsight because I know that the Russian Revolution happened and that Russia is now run by a dictator. So the novel captures a time in Russia which is now largely irrelevant in the larger, zoomed out sense of world history in comparison to the major upheavals and change that happened in the 1910s and 1980-now in Russia. Yes FD cannot write the future but it does still give this a sense of not aging well to me. On the flip side, it was interesting to see some of the precursors to the social unrest against the elites and Tsar, knowing what would happen with the Revolution.

10. Place and time was captured well. I felt immersed in this 1850s Russian town. The the social, political, and economic discussions felt authentic and I can understand how this would be foundational reading for Russians then and now.

11. The way each of the brothers represented an ideology within Russian society at the time was executed well. Dimitry was the hedonist, Ivan the thinker Atheist, and Alyosha the young, mildly impressionable religious figure. I did take mild offense at Ivan being such a shit take on how most atheists are. Atheism is not a lack of morals, but a lack of morals based on religion itself. The Atheists I know are quite good, moral people and simply use critical thinking to make morality decisions on their own instead of doing what another tells them via religion.

12. I kept hearing the Grand Inquisitor chapter was one of the best and it was just average to me. This was worse since I loved the scene with the boys throwing rocks and surrounding moral discussion that preceded it. I expected the Grand Inquisitor to be even better than what preceded it and so it was a case of feeling deflated because something was too overhyped by others. Admittedly, overhype is not the author’s fault.

13. There were times I absolutely loathed this book. That said, I can see why people love it despite not falling into that camp myself. I fall somewhere between ambivalence and mild reverence after completion. For me, this book had a few brilliant scenes and an undeniably original and well executed symbolism aspect, yet most of the meat on this novel’s bones was a bit tough to chew and tasted bland.

14. I heard this is Vladimir Putin’s favorite book and I don’t have favorable opinions on the man so my meh feeling on the book tracks there and I’m not the least bit mad about that 😂

15. I’ll be interested to see if I like The Count of Monte Cristo, which was also published as a serial. I think a lot of the bloated aspect of this novel is due to it being originally a serial. I bet reading this as it came out was much more engaging as I could imagine society discussing each chapter as it was released.

16. The narrator had a distinctive voice that I both loved and loathed at times. I did love his personality, however. The voice will forever stick with me. Reminded me a bit of the narrator of Tress of the Emerald Sea.

17. I like to think of myself as a modern feminist and someone who is not the least bit troubled by other’s sexualities, but Grushenka is a hoe. Every time her name was mentioned I pictured myself as a poor Russian peasant screaming, “Whore! Trollop!” That made me giggle.

In conclusion, my feelings on the novel somewhat parallel my view on Russia: I have a lot of sympathy for its people and reverence for its culture but good God do the leaders (and conversely the characters in the book) make some questionable decisions. And the same can be said about my own country so perhaps that hits too close to home. After reading this book for over 3 months, it’s cathartic to finally say, “I’m free.” Finishing this feels like an accomplishment.

himawarihan's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark emotional funny hopeful informative inspiring reflective sad tense 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? It's complicated

5.0

More...