Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.31 AVERAGE
4.31 AVERAGE
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.
A Heart That Shakes the Soul
This book wrecked me in the best way. The Brothers Karamazov is a masterpiece that feels alive, digging into your soul with questions about faith, love, and what it means to be human. Dostoevsky doesn’t just tell a story—he throws you into a whirlwind of emotions and ideas that stick with you. The religion debate is a knockout, balancing Ivan’s raw doubts in “The Grand Inquisitor” with Zosima’s call to love, keeping it real and gripping without any fluff. Alyosha, my favorite, grows into a Christ-like figure of compassion, his quiet strength carrying the story’s heart. The emotions—guilt, shame, love, sacrifice—hit hard, especially Ilyusha’s story and the speech at the stone, which left me floored. Every character, from Dmitri’s passion to Fyodor’s chaos, feels so vivid and flawed. This isn’t just fiction; it’s a life-changing journey I’ll reread to unpack its depth. Nothing to dislike here—just pure, unforgettable heart.
This book wrecked me in the best way. The Brothers Karamazov is a masterpiece that feels alive, digging into your soul with questions about faith, love, and what it means to be human. Dostoevsky doesn’t just tell a story—he throws you into a whirlwind of emotions and ideas that stick with you. The religion debate is a knockout, balancing Ivan’s raw doubts in “The Grand Inquisitor” with Zosima’s call to love, keeping it real and gripping without any fluff. Alyosha, my favorite, grows into a Christ-like figure of compassion, his quiet strength carrying the story’s heart. The emotions—guilt, shame, love, sacrifice—hit hard, especially Ilyusha’s story and the speech at the stone, which left me floored. Every character, from Dmitri’s passion to Fyodor’s chaos, feels so vivid and flawed. This isn’t just fiction; it’s a life-changing journey I’ll reread to unpack its depth. Nothing to dislike here—just pure, unforgettable heart.
My Philosophy professor in college was one of the smartest people I have ever met, and I respected him so much that when he said that Dostoevsky is the greatest author ever and The Brothers Karamazov is the greatest book ever written, I decided immediately that I would read it eventually. 7ish years later, I wanted to celebrate reaching book number 18 this year (matching my total from last year) with a special book – one that Einstein said was “the supreme summit of all literature” and that “can teach you everything you need to know about life”.
I didn’t understand what I signed up for. The version I read is 1,045 pages, is full of 1880s Russian cultural references, is translated from Russian and so can be clunky at times and verbose all of the time (although, amazingly, most of the poems and songs still rhyme in the English translation), has challenging vocabulary, and frequently has single paragraphs extend multiple pages (I think the longest was over 3 full pages of small print). The hardest part of reading this book for me is that Dostoevsky must be the most long-winded author ever – there are crazy run-on sentences everywhere and there is so much dialogue that one character literally forgets why she started talking to someone after her own 15-page monologue.
There are such interesting ideas in this book that it’s like Dostoevsky knows he has a captive audience and is milking the opportunity. It feels so much like in The Office when Michael is telling the story in the break room about him quitting, and he is telling every single little detail because everyone is finally actually listening to him. The scene cuts to Pam saying, “he finally has a story everyone wants to hear... and he knows it.” Dostoevsky wrote a courtroom drama just a few years after Alexander II had opened the courts to public audiences so the genre was extremely popular, and now that it has the title of “greatest novel ever” by so many, it has another captive audience who will bear the painfully slow pace and long-windedness.
To be clear, this book is not long because there are so many details and so many twists to the story. The story itself is fairly simple for a novel and there is not a ridiculous amount of scene-setting and descriptions. It’s this long because pretty much every major character monologues constantly as if they’re afraid of being interrupted and can’t even take a breath or the other person will butt in before they've made their point over and over again. In fact, I wrote down about 300 pages in that it felt like one of those boring RPG video games where you have to do a bunch of side-quests to go and talk to person A, who tells you to find person B, who explains that person C is important, who says person A would know about this particular point, who then says that person D can tell you more, and so on. The main story doesn’t start until over halfway in, and even then only has interesting things every hundred or so pages.
The story itself has some interesting wrinkles for a “murder mystery” but didn’t feel compelling. It was immediately obvious to me who the murderer was. Reading the explanation of how everything worked out was very satisfying, but it was bound to be after waiting hundreds of pages for it. The ending is incredibly unsatisfying with very little closure on any of the main characters.
When I finished the epilogue and looked out into a beautiful, open field with trees and mountains in the distance, part of me wanted to just throw the book into the field and leave my review as the barfing emoji. I even said out loud to family that I was going to rate it one star, but 48 hours later, I feel completely differently. Two nights in a row as I was about to or trying to fall asleep, I couldn’t stop thinking about this book and picked up my phone to write notes. I’ve read in-depth reviews and analyses and like the flavors of borscht coming together over the next couple days I finally understand this book.
My most important realization was that this is not a story with philosophical principles thrown in; this is a philosophical treatise with the story only provided as an analogy. That’s why Dostoevsky said, “I'd die happy if I could finish this final novel, for I would have expressed myself completely.”
Minor spoiler: in the final trial, the defense attorney says that the prosecutor has put together a compelling story for how the accused would be guilty. When looking broadly, it is convincing, but he says that individually, no single aspect of the story has been proven true and that each falls apart under further examination (any defense attorney would say that so not really a spoiler). It's the same idea as a painting looking like a field of hay but individual brush strokes being meaningless. Anyone would rate a beautiful painting 5 stars even if the individual brush strokes were each 1 star, but what if you had to watch each individual brush stroke being painted – hundreds of thousands – without getting to see the whole picture? How would you rate something you hated doing but love reminiscing on? Does it matter how hard the experience was if the outcome is good?
I wondered how Dostoevsky himself would respond and realized that the book actually has a parable for this scenario. A man was judged of God after dying and would not repent, so as punishment for his sins would have to walk one quadrillion miles before entering heaven. After 1,000 years of refusing, he decides to start walking, and after walking one quadrillion miles and finally reaching heaven, two seconds in he says that even if his heavenly experience ended right then, it would have all been worth it.
Ultimately this book really inspired me. It’s hard to explain why because the concepts and themes are so abstract, but I can’t stop thinking about it. It gives answers to questions that I’ve had in a completely different, yet complementary way to anything I thought of. It came together beautifully, but it took me a while to understand how.
My advice to anyone considering reading: understand that the author/narrator does not explain anything, so you have to take your time to connect ideas and events, and don’t expect the story to drive the book. In other words, read it for the philosophy, not the story.
I didn’t understand what I signed up for. The version I read is 1,045 pages, is full of 1880s Russian cultural references, is translated from Russian and so can be clunky at times and verbose all of the time (although, amazingly, most of the poems and songs still rhyme in the English translation), has challenging vocabulary, and frequently has single paragraphs extend multiple pages (I think the longest was over 3 full pages of small print). The hardest part of reading this book for me is that Dostoevsky must be the most long-winded author ever – there are crazy run-on sentences everywhere and there is so much dialogue that one character literally forgets why she started talking to someone after her own 15-page monologue.
There are such interesting ideas in this book that it’s like Dostoevsky knows he has a captive audience and is milking the opportunity. It feels so much like in The Office when Michael is telling the story in the break room about him quitting, and he is telling every single little detail because everyone is finally actually listening to him. The scene cuts to Pam saying, “he finally has a story everyone wants to hear... and he knows it.” Dostoevsky wrote a courtroom drama just a few years after Alexander II had opened the courts to public audiences so the genre was extremely popular, and now that it has the title of “greatest novel ever” by so many, it has another captive audience who will bear the painfully slow pace and long-windedness.
To be clear, this book is not long because there are so many details and so many twists to the story. The story itself is fairly simple for a novel and there is not a ridiculous amount of scene-setting and descriptions. It’s this long because pretty much every major character monologues constantly as if they’re afraid of being interrupted and can’t even take a breath or the other person will butt in before they've made their point over and over again. In fact, I wrote down about 300 pages in that it felt like one of those boring RPG video games where you have to do a bunch of side-quests to go and talk to person A, who tells you to find person B, who explains that person C is important, who says person A would know about this particular point, who then says that person D can tell you more, and so on. The main story doesn’t start until over halfway in, and even then only has interesting things every hundred or so pages.
The story itself has some interesting wrinkles for a “murder mystery” but didn’t feel compelling. It was immediately obvious to me who the murderer was. Reading the explanation of how everything worked out was very satisfying, but it was bound to be after waiting hundreds of pages for it. The ending is incredibly unsatisfying with very little closure on any of the main characters.
When I finished the epilogue and looked out into a beautiful, open field with trees and mountains in the distance, part of me wanted to just throw the book into the field and leave my review as the barfing emoji. I even said out loud to family that I was going to rate it one star, but 48 hours later, I feel completely differently. Two nights in a row as I was about to or trying to fall asleep, I couldn’t stop thinking about this book and picked up my phone to write notes. I’ve read in-depth reviews and analyses and like the flavors of borscht coming together over the next couple days I finally understand this book.
My most important realization was that this is not a story with philosophical principles thrown in; this is a philosophical treatise with the story only provided as an analogy. That’s why Dostoevsky said, “I'd die happy if I could finish this final novel, for I would have expressed myself completely.”
Minor spoiler: in the final trial, the defense attorney says that the prosecutor has put together a compelling story for how the accused would be guilty. When looking broadly, it is convincing, but he says that individually, no single aspect of the story has been proven true and that each falls apart under further examination (any defense attorney would say that so not really a spoiler). It's the same idea as a painting looking like a field of hay but individual brush strokes being meaningless. Anyone would rate a beautiful painting 5 stars even if the individual brush strokes were each 1 star, but what if you had to watch each individual brush stroke being painted – hundreds of thousands – without getting to see the whole picture? How would you rate something you hated doing but love reminiscing on? Does it matter how hard the experience was if the outcome is good?
I wondered how Dostoevsky himself would respond and realized that the book actually has a parable for this scenario. A man was judged of God after dying and would not repent, so as punishment for his sins would have to walk one quadrillion miles before entering heaven. After 1,000 years of refusing, he decides to start walking, and after walking one quadrillion miles and finally reaching heaven, two seconds in he says that even if his heavenly experience ended right then, it would have all been worth it.
Ultimately this book really inspired me. It’s hard to explain why because the concepts and themes are so abstract, but I can’t stop thinking about it. It gives answers to questions that I’ve had in a completely different, yet complementary way to anything I thought of. It came together beautifully, but it took me a while to understand how.
My advice to anyone considering reading: understand that the author/narrator does not explain anything, so you have to take your time to connect ideas and events, and don’t expect the story to drive the book. In other words, read it for the philosophy, not the story.
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
For I'm a Karamazov. For when I do leap into the pit, I go headlong with my heels up, and am pleased to be falling in that degrading attitude, and pride myself upon it. And in the very depths of that degradation I begin a hymn of praise.
- Themes & symbolism
This book is about the brothers Karamazov and how their different traits and actions made their family name not a shame any longer but something prideful.
The novel explores themes such as good vs evil, faith vs doubt, consequences of free will, suffering and most importantly the complexity of family relationships.
Just like any Fyodor Dostoevsky work, it's about the human condition. While being similar to other works like Crime and Punishment, the central plot follows a family full with tragedies this time. All three brothers search for meaning in life while facing challenges. Not only do the brothers question their own morality and the nature of humankind, the reader is prompted to ask themselves how guilt and sin but also faith and spirituality shapes humanity.
What I enjoyed the most was how it made me engage in the story not just mental but also emotional. It made me reflect on my own as well as other's traits, especially about the good vs evil aspect in this book.
The novel explores themes such as good vs evil, faith vs doubt, consequences of free will, suffering and most importantly the complexity of family relationships.
Just like any Fyodor Dostoevsky work, it's about the human condition. While being similar to other works like Crime and Punishment, the central plot follows a family full with tragedies this time. All three brothers search for meaning in life while facing challenges. Not only do the brothers question their own morality and the nature of humankind, the reader is prompted to ask themselves how guilt and sin but also faith and spirituality shapes humanity.
What I enjoyed the most was how it made me engage in the story not just mental but also emotional. It made me reflect on my own as well as other's traits, especially about the good vs evil aspect in this book.
- Characters & Plot
In fact, Dmitri (also known as Mitya) was my favourite character for representing both good and evil. While he was full of hatred, especially towards his father Fyodor, he was also capable of real, deep love for Grushenka. I never stopped believing that he will find his way to the right path, that he won't walk the path of the wicked. I was rooting for him until the very last moment.
Dmitri might have acted impulsive most of the time, but his actions were led by true passion. I love passionate characters. Characters who know what they want and how to get it. While it might sound at first like nothing stops him and he is a lost cause, he was capable of learning, learning how to be a good person. I loved seeing his character development and how his actions kept influencing the story.
While Dmitri was also driven by sensuality, it made room for exploring themes such as redemption and guilt for his own actions and its consequences. Many might say that a character symbolising desire, passion and even sensuality might not be the most appealing one, but I see beauty in it. We are all passionate, have own desires and even some of us are sensual. I don't think anyone should be ashamed to seek pleasure in something they love to do. Dmitri fought for his love Grushenka, he wasn't the kind to give up easily. He was eager. He was also earnest for being able to show genuine emotions.
Dmitri might have acted impulsive most of the time, but his actions were led by true passion. I love passionate characters. Characters who know what they want and how to get it. While it might sound at first like nothing stops him and he is a lost cause, he was capable of learning, learning how to be a good person. I loved seeing his character development and how his actions kept influencing the story.
While Dmitri was also driven by sensuality, it made room for exploring themes such as redemption and guilt for his own actions and its consequences. Many might say that a character symbolising desire, passion and even sensuality might not be the most appealing one, but I see beauty in it. We are all passionate, have own desires and even some of us are sensual. I don't think anyone should be ashamed to seek pleasure in something they love to do. Dmitri fought for his love Grushenka, he wasn't the kind to give up easily. He was eager. He was also earnest for being able to show genuine emotions.
Dmitri Karamazov is a scoundrel, but not a thief.
The Karamazov family was divided into four different aspects of human nature. As I mentioned above, Dmitri, the oldest, represented passion and desire. Ivan, the middle child, embodies doubt and atheism. He faces internal struggles with faith as he doubts the existence of God. Ivan searches for free will and morality. Alexey, the youngest, represents faith and spirituality. He helped and supported Dmitri with his internal and external struggles.
I don't accept this world of God's, and, although I know it exists, I don't accept it at all. It's not that I don't accept God, you must understand, it's the world created by Him I don't and cannot accept.
Ivan and Alexey both embody the faith vs doubt aspect of this novel and I think Dostoevsky did a great job at doing so. There are of course other character like Father Zosima and Smerdyakov who embodied it as well, but the two brothers were the main focus and in my opinion the most lovely pair.
I personally wasn't a fan of the religious aspect as I don't like conversations dominated by religion, if put in a good or bad light, doesn't matter. I see potential for it being thought-provoking and making one think about the faith vs doubt theme about this book more, but for me it wasn't as interesting than the good vs evil as well as the redemption themes. (That's probably also why I prefer Crime and Punishment over The Brothers Karamazov).
So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find something that all would believe in and worship; what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time.
“Listen, brother, once for all,” he said. “This is what I think about it. And you know that I would not tell you a lie. Listen: you are not ready, and such a cross is not for you. What's more, you don't need such a martyr's cross when you are not ready for it. If you had murdered our father, it would grieve me that you should reject your punishment. But you are innocent, and such a cross is too much for you.[...]”
“Alexey! You tell me. It's only you I can believe; was she here just now, or not? I saw her myself creeping this way by the fence from the lane. I shouted, she ran away.”
“I swear she's not been here, and no one expected her.”
“But I saw her.... So she must ... I'll find out at once where she is.... Good-by, Alexey! Not a word to Æsop about the money now. But go to Katerina Ivanovna at once and be sure to say, ‘He sends his compliments to you!’ Compliments, his compliments! Just compliments and farewell! Describe the scene to her.”
“Hush! What do you mean?” he faltered helplessly.
“The whole truth, the whole, don't lie!” repeated Mitya.
“I've never for one instant believed that you were the murderer!” broke in a shaking voice from Alyosha's breast, and he raised his right hand in the air, as though calling God to witness his words.
Mitya's whole face was lighted up with bliss.
“Thank you!” he articulated slowly, as though letting a sigh escape him after fainting. “Now you have given me new life. Would you believe it, till this moment I've been afraid to ask you, you, even you. Well, go! You've given me strength for to-morrow. God bless you! Come, go along! Love Ivan!” was Mitya's last word.
The suffering of each character was significant for the story too. While Ivan internally struggled with the evil in world, his other brothers like Alexey experienced moments where he doubted faith, his struggle with spiritual growth and seeing the darker side of humanity forces him to confront his idealstic views with the real world. They all struggle external and internal which leads this story to be so impactful. Where great suffer is, is also spiritual growth. This theme shows how suffering and struggle as well as tragedies can turn into something positive.
I believe that this is one of the most relatable themes in this book as everyone suffered in life at some point and we are still going, not giving up. While suffering isn't great, it makes one grow from it, learn from it. Often times, after sorrow comes happiness, making it all redeeming.
You will see great sorrow, and in that sorrow you will be happy. This is my last message to you: in sorrow seek happiness.
Fyodor was the father of the three sons, making him important as well. He embodies sensuality, corruption and egoism. He lacks any morals and is acting on his own behalf, not caring for others. He makes the family divide and put his family name into shame.
I didn't like him as there was nothing to like.
Lastly, for the characters, I want to mention Grushenka and Katerina for having a strong impact on the emotional conflicts of the male characters. Both woman were loved by the Karamazov brothers and the brothers internal struggle with whom they love added tension and drama to the story. Yes, so many themes and even romance is playing a big role for this novel too. Quite a lot of themes. After all, this book is almost 900 pages long, a perfect length to explore complex family dynamics and many themes. While both Grushenka and Katerina complicated the family relationship, it made it so excellent for diving even deeper into the human condition.
- The Ending of the Novel
The story ends with leaving the reader to ponder about justice and how one should be punished for their own sins and how the innocent should be treated. It also leaves a positive note about the family dynamic. I felt hopeful at the end for all three brothers.
Even though all three brothers follow a different path, have different beliefs and morals, they still manage to confront their external struggle: Their family dynamic. This adds to the emotional impact of this book and makes one see the importance of love and support while facing challenges in life.
Even though all three brothers follow a different path, have different beliefs and morals, they still manage to confront their external struggle: Their family dynamic. This adds to the emotional impact of this book and makes one see the importance of love and support while facing challenges in life.
‘I exist.’ In thousands of agonies—I exist. I'm tormented on the rack—but I exist! Though I sit alone on 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.
- Why it's so amazing
All characters are complex and have a certain depth, making them hard to understand at first but also so compelling for having so many layers. Dostoevsky follows as always a narrative about the human condition and while the length of the book and the year it was originally published in might make some fret away: I can assure that the themes discussed in this novel are themes we all experienced at some point in life. After all, we are all humans and Dostoevsky does a great job in depicting different human conditions in different characters. While I could identify the most with Dmitri, others might identify the most with Alexey, for instance. They aren't the same, they all have their own distinguishing personality, morals and beliefs. Yes, they are flawed, but who is perfect? No one. What I always love about Dostoevsky's characters is how awfully realistic they are. I read so many books and Dostoevsky's characters are one of few who actually made me relate to them so strong that I think of them years after I finished the novel.
For the plot: It's also amazing. It's not solely about philosophical conversations, it also includes a murder mystery, making the story feel more alive with the diversity it shows. When the murder mystery plot started I went into detective mode, making it more fun to read than having just one long plot that is dragging itself for 800+ pages.
For the plot: It's also amazing. It's not solely about philosophical conversations, it also includes a murder mystery, making the story feel more alive with the diversity it shows. When the murder mystery plot started I went into detective mode, making it more fun to read than having just one long plot that is dragging itself for 800+ pages.
- Should you read it?
Not everyone likes to read something psychological and philosophical, but for those that want to read something about the human condition that feels as realistic as if you are part of the story yourself: read The Brothers Karamazov. It can definitely be hard to read the first Dostoevsky book. For the writing style and narrative is unique and not like other books, but once one gets used to it, from my experience at least, it's worth it.
- Final thoughts
While I did like almost everything, I still struggled a lot with the religious aspects. Yes, Fyodor Dostoevsky also included them in other of his works, but this time it felt like it was just too much for me to handle. I would have loved to give this book 5 stars, but since I had such a struggle to read through the religious conversations of the characters, I will only give it 4. The book is still worth reading, especially as it's a classic and high-regarded. The religious stuff this time was just overwhelming, I liked everything else.
Rating and reviewing TBK feels kinda silly. By what standard do you judge a beloved 900 page behemoth of 19th century Russian literature? The highbrow literati hail it as one of, if not *the* greatest novels of all time, and for good reason. It's also a messy, melodramatic slog. But man, I felt the slog down to my bones.
Crime and Punishment, for me, is the more compelling read, but TBK is the master class in character development and depth. There's so much to love here if you can sit with the Russian aesthetic and drawn out, often hysterical monologues for as long as Dostoevsky asks of the reader.
I loved Alyosha's Christ-like compassion and humanism, and the way he responds to Mitya's wild impulsivity and
Ivan's tortured nihilism. Each brother is emotionally and philosophically archetypal in some way, but they still feel distinct and deeply human. The same goes for their shameless father and all his pettiness and buffoonery, and the psychotic figure of Smerdyakov, whom I'm still trying to decide if I sympathize with or not. Probably not.
The arc of this family holds the bleakest, most cynical doubts of God's existence and the loftiest expressions of hope and faith, and I thought there was some release to that tension that was morally instructive without becoming cliché or admonishing. Alyosha's speech to the school children at the end is genuinely soul stirring, and the murder trial is immensely satisfying. The dream sequences, Ivan's conversation with the Devil, and the stories within a story of Father Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor are some of the greatest chapters of literature I've ever read.
Overall, this is one unwieldy, imperfect, tedious, and exhausting doorstopper. But I loved it.
Crime and Punishment, for me, is the more compelling read, but TBK is the master class in character development and depth. There's so much to love here if you can sit with the Russian aesthetic and drawn out, often hysterical monologues for as long as Dostoevsky asks of the reader.
I loved Alyosha's Christ-like compassion and humanism, and the way he responds to Mitya's wild impulsivity and
Ivan's tortured nihilism. Each brother is emotionally and philosophically archetypal in some way, but they still feel distinct and deeply human. The same goes for their shameless father and all his pettiness and buffoonery, and the psychotic figure of Smerdyakov, whom I'm still trying to decide if I sympathize with or not. Probably not.
The arc of this family holds the bleakest, most cynical doubts of God's existence and the loftiest expressions of hope and faith, and I thought there was some release to that tension that was morally instructive without becoming cliché or admonishing. Alyosha's speech to the school children at the end is genuinely soul stirring, and the murder trial is immensely satisfying. The dream sequences, Ivan's conversation with the Devil, and the stories within a story of Father Zosima and the Grand Inquisitor are some of the greatest chapters of literature I've ever read.
Overall, this is one unwieldy, imperfect, tedious, and exhausting doorstopper. But I loved it.