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 generally dislike Dostoyevsky, as he has extrapolated his own personal experience of a dictatorship, which broke him, personally, into all areas of his life and philosophy, as a universal truth. A bit like Tolstoy, in this respect.
He, as Boris Cyrulnik would say, was a man "broken by the camp". Barely surviving, hoping and yearning for nothing, and thus, having ceased to be human, and having returned to a purely animal state.
He, as Boris Cyrulnik would say, was a man "broken by the camp". Barely surviving, hoping and yearning for nothing, and thus, having ceased to be human, and having returned to a purely animal state.
For such a big book, I can't rate this any less than a 5 star! But also, it was so profound in the story telling and character development.
I've been wanting to read this for several years per the recommendation from my younger brother and several others. I still don't really know what I think about it all. It was so long and detailed. I wasn't able to follow the thread as well as I wanted to as I learned about all the different characters - and the fact that the same characters had so many name variations.
There were some beautiful and compelling scenes (The Grand Inquisitor, The Devil, The speech at the stone, the trial) and Alyosha is such a beautiful soul. I love his effect on others. All of the characters had their redeeming qualities, but also...so extreme in their actions! And none of the female characters were that great. I was disappointed in that and annoyed by all of them. I still can't believe the trial. The speech by the defense was so good! Dismantling all of the evidence piece by piece. It was so engaging.
I've been wanting to read this for several years per the recommendation from my younger brother and several others. I still don't really know what I think about it all. It was so long and detailed. I wasn't able to follow the thread as well as I wanted to as I learned about all the different characters - and the fact that the same characters had so many name variations.
There were some beautiful and compelling scenes (The Grand Inquisitor, The Devil, The speech at the stone, the trial) and Alyosha is such a beautiful soul. I love his effect on others. All of the characters had their redeeming qualities, but also...so extreme in their actions! And none of the female characters were that great. I was disappointed in that and annoyed by all of them. I still can't believe the trial. The speech by the defense was so good! Dismantling all of the evidence piece by piece. It was so engaging.
challenging
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
mysterious
slow-paced
After reading Notes From Underground a few months ago I’ve really been itching for more Dostoevsky so I decided it was finally time to jump into this mammoth of a book. It really only took about 200 pages for this to become one of my favourite books. It’s amazing how consistent great literature has been with response to the human condition over time. It’s such a blessing that a book from over 100 years ago can grant us the words to express such rich and complex feelings towards ourselves, others and society as a whole.
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
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:
No
For only fifteen dollars you can get a book this captivating. Talk about value for money.
The central plot of The Brothers Karamazov is only sometimes relevant to the book. In searching for broader themes and connected messages many readers will come up short. This is because Dostoevsky uses his characters to establish a moral backdrop from which to talk about all sorts of themes.
Yes, this is a book about religion, the legal system, love, and human nature. But it attempts to personify all of these and treat all of its subjects on an equal playing field.
The many invalids, married 'wailers' and inscrutable muzhiks of Russia are treated with reverence, as a powerful and mysterious collective in their own right. On the other end of the spectrum you have the devil, who is just another Dostoevsky character here, spouting off about metaphysics as if he was a regular drunk. And there are regular drunks here, there are seductresses, Poles that cheat at cards, children who violently attack one another, priests and legal experts who endlessly war with one another, and all the rest.
What makes this such a great read is that Dostoevsky plunges headlong into the lives of every last one of them. He isn't bound by literary convention (insofar as it existed in his time) and doesn't mind spending time on some obscure side-road. What emerges for the patient reader is a very thorough and even loving tableau of mankind, even if so much of mankind consists of deceivers and murderers.
The central conflict, which I finally return to Dostoevsky-style after a long tangent, is also wonderfully set up. By the end every possible scenario of Fyodor Pavlovich's death is outlined, and by the end you have no idea who to believe. I found myself almost willing to side with the jury of muzhiks (and four civil servants), whatever they judged, such was my confusion. Although I think I believe what Smerdyakov (possibly my favorite character here) told Ivan about his involvement at face value, the book shows us that it doesn't matter what the facts are.
In the central triad of the brothers I believe Dostoevsky split himself into three parts, and indeed they might have even served as inspiration for the Freudian trio, since old Sigmund was himself a fan of the novel. If that's true, in the end we can judge that he believed his base passions (Mitya) were subdued by society, his intellect (Ivan) was paralyzed by its own rumination, and that only his better angels (Alyosha, named for his own son) would pass through life unharmed. In its ambition to show a broad range of human passion and pain, The Brothers Karamazov seems almost like an attempt to create a sequel (or at least a companion piece) to the Bible itself, and to be fair the two works do share a few characters.
Dostoevsky isn't some kind of nihilist. I think this book ultimately does have an optimistic view of humanity - all of humanity. Whoever is saved is only saved by positivity and love, and whoever isn't saved might still make it in the end.
The central plot of The Brothers Karamazov is only sometimes relevant to the book. In searching for broader themes and connected messages many readers will come up short. This is because Dostoevsky uses his characters to establish a moral backdrop from which to talk about all sorts of themes.
Yes, this is a book about religion, the legal system, love, and human nature. But it attempts to personify all of these and treat all of its subjects on an equal playing field.
The many invalids, married 'wailers' and inscrutable muzhiks of Russia are treated with reverence, as a powerful and mysterious collective in their own right. On the other end of the spectrum you have the devil, who is just another Dostoevsky character here, spouting off about metaphysics as if he was a regular drunk. And there are regular drunks here, there are seductresses, Poles that cheat at cards, children who violently attack one another, priests and legal experts who endlessly war with one another, and all the rest.
What makes this such a great read is that Dostoevsky plunges headlong into the lives of every last one of them. He isn't bound by literary convention (insofar as it existed in his time) and doesn't mind spending time on some obscure side-road. What emerges for the patient reader is a very thorough and even loving tableau of mankind, even if so much of mankind consists of deceivers and murderers.
The central conflict, which I finally return to Dostoevsky-style after a long tangent, is also wonderfully set up. By the end every possible scenario of Fyodor Pavlovich's death is outlined, and by the end you have no idea who to believe. I found myself almost willing to side with the jury of muzhiks (and four civil servants), whatever they judged, such was my confusion. Although I think I believe what Smerdyakov (possibly my favorite character here) told Ivan about his involvement at face value, the book shows us that it doesn't matter what the facts are.
In the central triad of the brothers I believe Dostoevsky split himself into three parts, and indeed they might have even served as inspiration for the Freudian trio, since old Sigmund was himself a fan of the novel. If that's true, in the end we can judge that he believed his base passions (Mitya) were subdued by society, his intellect (Ivan) was paralyzed by its own rumination, and that only his better angels (Alyosha, named for his own son) would pass through life unharmed. In its ambition to show a broad range of human passion and pain, The Brothers Karamazov seems almost like an attempt to create a sequel (or at least a companion piece) to the Bible itself, and to be fair the two works do share a few characters.
Dostoevsky isn't some kind of nihilist. I think this book ultimately does have an optimistic view of humanity - all of humanity. Whoever is saved is only saved by positivity and love, and whoever isn't saved might still make it in the end.