Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.31 AVERAGE
4.31 AVERAGE
“Hurrah for Karamazov!”
Started all the way back in 2016 during a yearlong Russian Literature course… pivoted to software and dropped it, then lost the paperback in the move… but I can finally say I’ve finished it! Hurrah! 4.5
Started all the way back in 2016 during a yearlong Russian Literature course… pivoted to software and dropped it, then lost the paperback in the move… but I can finally say I’ve finished it! Hurrah! 4.5
I was debating whether I want to write a review for the entire book after I have finished all of it but then realised it would be far too long given that this book is more than a 1000 pages long, so I find it best to divide my reviews. Therefore, the last review of 2024 honourably belongs to “The Brothers Karamazov, Part 1”. It is very possibly the most difficult Dostoevsky book I've read so far, mostly because of its deep religious significance and my lack of general religious knowledge. But with research and 11 flashcards so far, we shall get into it.
The Brothers Karamazov follow a family: Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his three sons―the impulsive and reckless Dmitri, the cold and rational Ivan and the sincere and compassionate Alyosha. Through these characters Dostoevsky conveys both, a compelling murder mystery with love triangles and courtroom drama as well as delving deeply into profound philosophical and theological questions about morality, faith, atheism, and human nature.
The family dynamics of "The Brothers Karamazov" are full of complex and contradictory relationships, through which Dostoevsky reflects both individual characters as well as the complicated Russian society and culture at the end of the 19th century. During this period, Russian society was undergoing rapid transformation. The forces of industrialization, modernization, and the waning power of Tsar Nicholas I disrupted the nation's traditional structures, leading to significant economic inequality and social unrest. Due to these changes, Russians had divided into two main groups: first a traditionalist and conservative social stratum associated with the values of the Russian Orthodox Church and second, a new and revolutionary group with ideas such as nihilism, liberalism, and socialism that criticized the old system and emphasized individual freedom, science etc. It created a sort of identity crisis as the second group was believed to be influenced by the west and a threat to the true russian identity. Dostoevsky was one of the first authors to notice such disunity and express it in his novel through Ivan and Alyosha. Alyosha, as a spiritual character, represents the Orthodox way of thinking, while Ivan, a skeptic and nihilist, represents the progressive Western way that questions the values of faith and morality.
I would dare to say this is one of his most philosophical works, at least based on what I have read so far. At times I found it really difficult to understand and without the help of video essays, articles and Sparknotes I would most likely be left with more questions than answers. There are two of his more significant theological debates and both take place in the first part of the novel. The first one is famously named “The Grand Inquisitor” – a story Ivan tells his brother Alyosha. It has many possible takeaways but I will choose to see it as criticism towards religious institutions. The Grand Inquisitor, a high-ranking official of the Spanish Inquisition, represents a religious institution that prioritizes power and control over freedom and love that Christ actually embodies, defending itself by claiming that people enjoy being controlled and free will would drive them mad. The story has a very Lutheran approach, which is pretty contradictory since Dostoevsky himself was deeply orthodox - most likely Ivan symbolizes not only western values but also a more western (lutheran) approach to faith. The second, a less radical yet highly contrasting approach, is articulated by a monk named Zossima who is introduced as Alyosha's spiritual mentor. After his death, Alyosha proceeds to write his autobiography which offers a counterpoint to the Grand Inquisitor’s cynicism. These chapters were so far also my favourite ones in the novel, I think it has a perfect balance between great fictional storytelling and complex philosophical ideas. It honestly kept me up at night. "Each of us is guilty before everyone for everyone and everything,” is one of Zosimas more significant quotes and he believes those who understand it will reach paradise. It sounds confusing but his point is pretty simple: as we are all so connected and each of us is influenced by someone, we all carry at least a little bit of responsibility for each other's actions and sins, not only our own. Paradise will be reached once everyone understands this because it encourages collective empathy, forgiveness and responsibility. In opposition to the grand inquisitor, Zosimas teachings claim that religion can not be forced upon anyone as its true faith needs freedom not control. Only from that, love and compassion – the true embodiment of Christ– can grow.
One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer you a “moral of the story” but rather a debate in which it's hard to tell, which side is he on? I did a little bit of research and found out a couple of relevant facts. One of them being that this book would most likely not exist, if Dostoevsky's beloved son hadn't died at a young age. Many of the central themes of this story– such as father-son relationships, moral responsibility and the age-old question “is god real and if so, why does he allow such suffering?” – would likely not exist if his son had lived. The kind hearted and compassionate Alyosha is also said to be based on his son. Dostoevsky himself had orthodox roots but in his youth he rejected faith and joined atheist circles. His mock execution in 1849 was a spiritual turning point for him and doing forced labour in Siberia, he found his way back to God and began to explore redemption through suffering and personal responsibility. Later on he developed a more mature understanding of his beliefs and shared them through his philosophical texts. Interestingly, even though he considered himself deeply religious, he never argued against doubting the existence of God. He famously declared: "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth... I would prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” In a way he is much like Ivan, doubtful, speculating and arguing against his own beliefs in his novels. Yet the beliefs he seems to stand by and consciously choose are mostly represented by Zossima who believes in free will, and sees religion as the ultimate form of love, compassion and forgiveness. I think Dostoevsky was trying to encourage people to reevaluate their true relationship with religion and encourage doubting the existence of God, as this doubt can lead to more mature and secure forms of faith.
I am not a religious person, but the concept of a higher power has always fascinated me—not the existence of the higher being itself, but the psychology behind humanity’s creation of such ideas and how these beliefs evolve as people encounter different life experiences. “The Brothers Karamazov” explores this in a unique way, weaving almost mythical, fairytale-like stories influenced by the Orthodox Christian tradition into the characters’ experiences. But it's also slightly difficult to grasp sometimes as these stories are often highly symbolic and involve references to the bible which I have not read. However I am happy with my reading experience so far and feel most intrigued by Ivan as I'm hoping for a slightly Raskolnikov-esque character arc for him. In any case, I look forward to the rest of the 600ish pages of part 2 but do not expect another book review for another month or maybe two…
The Brothers Karamazov follow a family: Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his three sons―the impulsive and reckless Dmitri, the cold and rational Ivan and the sincere and compassionate Alyosha. Through these characters Dostoevsky conveys both, a compelling murder mystery with love triangles and courtroom drama as well as delving deeply into profound philosophical and theological questions about morality, faith, atheism, and human nature.
The family dynamics of "The Brothers Karamazov" are full of complex and contradictory relationships, through which Dostoevsky reflects both individual characters as well as the complicated Russian society and culture at the end of the 19th century. During this period, Russian society was undergoing rapid transformation. The forces of industrialization, modernization, and the waning power of Tsar Nicholas I disrupted the nation's traditional structures, leading to significant economic inequality and social unrest. Due to these changes, Russians had divided into two main groups: first a traditionalist and conservative social stratum associated with the values of the Russian Orthodox Church and second, a new and revolutionary group with ideas such as nihilism, liberalism, and socialism that criticized the old system and emphasized individual freedom, science etc. It created a sort of identity crisis as the second group was believed to be influenced by the west and a threat to the true russian identity. Dostoevsky was one of the first authors to notice such disunity and express it in his novel through Ivan and Alyosha. Alyosha, as a spiritual character, represents the Orthodox way of thinking, while Ivan, a skeptic and nihilist, represents the progressive Western way that questions the values of faith and morality.
I would dare to say this is one of his most philosophical works, at least based on what I have read so far. At times I found it really difficult to understand and without the help of video essays, articles and Sparknotes I would most likely be left with more questions than answers. There are two of his more significant theological debates and both take place in the first part of the novel. The first one is famously named “The Grand Inquisitor” – a story Ivan tells his brother Alyosha. It has many possible takeaways but I will choose to see it as criticism towards religious institutions. The Grand Inquisitor, a high-ranking official of the Spanish Inquisition, represents a religious institution that prioritizes power and control over freedom and love that Christ actually embodies, defending itself by claiming that people enjoy being controlled and free will would drive them mad. The story has a very Lutheran approach, which is pretty contradictory since Dostoevsky himself was deeply orthodox - most likely Ivan symbolizes not only western values but also a more western (lutheran) approach to faith. The second, a less radical yet highly contrasting approach, is articulated by a monk named Zossima who is introduced as Alyosha's spiritual mentor. After his death, Alyosha proceeds to write his autobiography which offers a counterpoint to the Grand Inquisitor’s cynicism. These chapters were so far also my favourite ones in the novel, I think it has a perfect balance between great fictional storytelling and complex philosophical ideas. It honestly kept me up at night. "Each of us is guilty before everyone for everyone and everything,” is one of Zosimas more significant quotes and he believes those who understand it will reach paradise. It sounds confusing but his point is pretty simple: as we are all so connected and each of us is influenced by someone, we all carry at least a little bit of responsibility for each other's actions and sins, not only our own. Paradise will be reached once everyone understands this because it encourages collective empathy, forgiveness and responsibility. In opposition to the grand inquisitor, Zosimas teachings claim that religion can not be forced upon anyone as its true faith needs freedom not control. Only from that, love and compassion – the true embodiment of Christ– can grow.
One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer you a “moral of the story” but rather a debate in which it's hard to tell, which side is he on? I did a little bit of research and found out a couple of relevant facts. One of them being that this book would most likely not exist, if Dostoevsky's beloved son hadn't died at a young age. Many of the central themes of this story– such as father-son relationships, moral responsibility and the age-old question “is god real and if so, why does he allow such suffering?” – would likely not exist if his son had lived. The kind hearted and compassionate Alyosha is also said to be based on his son. Dostoevsky himself had orthodox roots but in his youth he rejected faith and joined atheist circles. His mock execution in 1849 was a spiritual turning point for him and doing forced labour in Siberia, he found his way back to God and began to explore redemption through suffering and personal responsibility. Later on he developed a more mature understanding of his beliefs and shared them through his philosophical texts. Interestingly, even though he considered himself deeply religious, he never argued against doubting the existence of God. He famously declared: "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth... I would prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” In a way he is much like Ivan, doubtful, speculating and arguing against his own beliefs in his novels. Yet the beliefs he seems to stand by and consciously choose are mostly represented by Zossima who believes in free will, and sees religion as the ultimate form of love, compassion and forgiveness. I think Dostoevsky was trying to encourage people to reevaluate their true relationship with religion and encourage doubting the existence of God, as this doubt can lead to more mature and secure forms of faith.
I am not a religious person, but the concept of a higher power has always fascinated me—not the existence of the higher being itself, but the psychology behind humanity’s creation of such ideas and how these beliefs evolve as people encounter different life experiences. “The Brothers Karamazov” explores this in a unique way, weaving almost mythical, fairytale-like stories influenced by the Orthodox Christian tradition into the characters’ experiences. But it's also slightly difficult to grasp sometimes as these stories are often highly symbolic and involve references to the bible which I have not read. However I am happy with my reading experience so far and feel most intrigued by Ivan as I'm hoping for a slightly Raskolnikov-esque character arc for him. In any case, I look forward to the rest of the 600ish pages of part 2 but do not expect another book review for another month or maybe two…
I was debating whether I want to write a review for the entire book after I have finished all of it but then realised it would be far too long given that this book is more than a 1000 pages long, so I find it best to divide my reviews. Therefore, the last review of 2024 honourably belongs to “The Brothers Karamazov, Part 1”. It is very possibly the most difficult Dostoevsky book I've read so far, mostly because of its deep religious significance and my lack of general religious knowledge. But with research and 11 flashcards so far, we shall get into it.
PART I
The Brothers Karamazov follow a family: Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his three sons―the impulsive and reckless Dmitri, the cold and rational Ivan and the sincere and compassionate Alyosha. Through these characters Dostoevsky conveys both, a compelling murder mystery with love triangles and courtroom drama as well as delving deeply into profound philosophical and theological questions about morality, faith, atheism, and human nature.
The family dynamics of "The Brothers Karamazov" are full of complex and contradictory relationships, through which Dostoevsky reflects both individual characters as well as the complicated Russian society and culture at the end of the 19th century. During this period, Russian society was undergoing rapid transformation. The forces of industrialization, modernization, and the waning power of Tsar Nicholas I disrupted the nation's traditional structures, leading to significant economic inequality and social unrest. Due to these changes, Russians had divided into two main groups: first a traditionalist and conservative social stratum associated with the values of the Russian Orthodox Church and second, a new and revolutionary group with ideas such as nihilism, liberalism, and socialism that criticized the old system and emphasized individual freedom, science etc. It created a sort of identity crisis as the second group was believed to be influenced by the west and a threat to the true russian identity. Dostoevsky was one of the first authors to notice such disunity and express it in his novel through Ivan and Alyosha. Alyosha, as a spiritual character, represents the Orthodox way of thinking, while Ivan, a skeptic and nihilist, represents the progressive Western way that questions the values of faith and morality.
I would dare to say this is one of his most philosophical works, at least based on what I have read so far. At times I found it really difficult to understand and without the help of video essays, articles and Sparknotes I would most likely be left with more questions than answers. There are two of his more significant theological debates and both take place in the first part of the novel. The first one is famously named “The Grand Inquisitor” – a story Ivan tells his brother Alyosha. It has many possible takeaways but I will choose to see it as criticism towards religious institutions. The Grand Inquisitor, a high-ranking official of the Spanish Inquisition, represents a religious institution that prioritizes power and control over freedom and love that Christ actually embodies, defending itself by claiming that people enjoy being controlled and free will would drive them mad. The story has a very Lutheran approach, which is pretty contradictory since Dostoevsky himself was deeply orthodox - most likely Ivan symbolizes not only western values but also a more western (lutheran) approach to faith. The second, a less radical yet highly contrasting approach, is articulated by a monk named Zossima who is introduced as Alyosha's spiritual mentor. After his death, Alyosha proceeds to write his autobiography which offers a counterpoint to the Grand Inquisitor’s cynicism. These chapters were so far also my favourite ones in the novel, I think it has a perfect balance between great fictional storytelling and complex philosophical ideas. It honestly kept me up at night. "Each of us is guilty before everyone for everyone and everything,” is one of Zosimas more significant quotes and he believes those who understand it will reach paradise. It sounds confusing but his point is pretty simple: as we are all so connected and each of us is influenced by someone, we all carry at least a little bit of responsibility for each other's actions and sins, not only our own. Paradise will be reached once everyone understands this because it encourages collective empathy, forgiveness and responsibility. In opposition to the grand inquisitor, Zosimas teachings claim that religion can not be forced upon anyone as its true faith needs freedom not control. Only from that, love and compassion – the true embodiment of Christ– can grow.
One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer you a “moral of the story” but rather a debate in which it's hard to tell, which side is he on? I did a little bit of research and found out a couple of relevant facts. One of them being that this book would most likely not exist, if Dostoevsky's beloved son hadn't died at a young age. Many of the central themes of this story– such as father-son relationships, moral responsibility and the age-old question “is god real and if so, why does he allow such suffering?” – would likely not exist if his son had lived. The kind hearted and compassionate Alyosha is also said to be based on his son. Dostoevsky himself had orthodox roots but in his youth he rejected faith and joined atheist circles. His mock execution in 1849 was a spiritual turning point for him and doing forced labour in Siberia, he found his way back to God and began to explore redemption through suffering and personal responsibility. Later on he developed a more mature understanding of his beliefs and shared them through his philosophical texts. Interestingly, even though he considered himself deeply religious, he never argued against doubting the existence of God. He famously declared: "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth... I would prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” In a way he is much like Ivan, doubtful, speculating and arguing against his own beliefs in his novels. Yet the beliefs he seems to stand by and consciously choose are mostly represented by Zossima who believes in free will, and sees religion as the ultimate form of love, compassion and forgiveness. I think Dostoevsky was trying to encourage people to reevaluate their true relationship with religion and encourage doubting the existence of God, as this doubt can lead to more mature and secure forms of faith.
I am not a religious person, but the concept of a higher power has always fascinated me—not the existence of the higher being itself, but the psychology behind humanity’s creation of such ideas and how these beliefs evolve as people encounter different life experiences. “The Brothers Karamazov” explores this in a unique way, weaving almost mythical, fairytale-like stories influenced by the Orthodox Christian tradition into the characters’ experiences. But it's also slightly difficult to grasp sometimes as these stories are often highly symbolic and involve references to the bible which I have not read. However I am happy with my reading experience so far and feel most intrigued by Ivan as I'm hoping for a slightly Raskolnikov-esque character arc for him. In any case, I look forward to the rest of the 600ish pages of part 2 but do not expect another book review for another month or maybe two…
PART II
This part of the review focuses on the second book of The Brothers Karamazov, and I will try to keep it shorter than my last one.
I must admit, as I read the second book, it started to feel like Dostoevsky was deliberately extending the word count—perhaps to be paid more—because it really seemed like the novel could have been about 200 pages shorter. Dostoevsky includes numerous descriptions, long philosophical passages, and countless dialogues about religious opinions. While some may find these fascinating, I felt they began to weigh the plot down over time.
Additionally, this part of the novel contains the trial of Dmitri Karamazov. I understand that Dostoevsky intended to satirize the Russian court system by making the process feel long-winded, filled with tedious speeches and an almost theatrical atmosphere. However, truth be told, it did become tedious and unenjoyable at times. Overall, I found the pacing of the first book much better.
Remember when I said in my last review, “One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer a ‘moral of the story’ but rather a debate where it’s hard to tell which side he’s on?” Well… that changed. Ivan’s complete mental collapse by the end of the book—his guilt-ridden descent into illness—combined with Alyosha teaching religious values to children and being celebrated for it, felt far more moralizing. I enjoyed the religious debate and would have preferred if it had remained just that. I wasn’t looking for a resolution or an answer. However, by the end, Dostoevsky seems to make his stance clear: atheism will drive you mad, and faith in God will save your soul. Not quite that simplistically, of course, but I would have preferred if the debate had been left open-ended.
Now, onto the positives.
This novel is brilliant in terms of symbolism, hidden meanings, and subtext. Honestly, I think I would have missed half of its deeper layers if I hadn’t read SparkNotes and watched video essays explaining it. I completely understand why some consider it one of the greatest books of all time—the literary genius behind it is undeniable. However, as a reading experience, I wouldn’t place it among my favorites, as it was quite difficult to get through at times. That said, there were certainly parts I found highly enjoyable, and even funny.
In the second book, special mentions go to Kolya’s story and the ever-changing family dynamics, which wouldn’t have been possible if Dostoevsky weren’t so skilled at crafting deeply complex and interesting characters. The murder mystery, the dark and gloomy atmosphere, and the theme of never-ending suffering are, of course, hallmarks of his work, and they suit the bleak, wintry weather of Estonia perfectly.
In conclusion, The Brothers Karamazov is not my favorite of Dostoevsky’s works, but it is certainly worth reading—especially if you enjoy analyzing literature through symbols, allegories, and psychological themes. Dostoevsky rarely disappoints, and I approached The Karamazovs with both excitement and apprehension. I wouldn’t say I was exactly disappointed, but I had high expectations for this novel. However, I also acknowledge that some of my unmet expectations may stem from my own inability to grasp the full depth of the work.
That said, I can confidently say this is not a Dostoevsky novel I would reread—unlike The Idiot or White Nights,
PART I
The Brothers Karamazov follow a family: Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his three sons―the impulsive and reckless Dmitri, the cold and rational Ivan and the sincere and compassionate Alyosha. Through these characters Dostoevsky conveys both, a compelling murder mystery with love triangles and courtroom drama as well as delving deeply into profound philosophical and theological questions about morality, faith, atheism, and human nature.
The family dynamics of "The Brothers Karamazov" are full of complex and contradictory relationships, through which Dostoevsky reflects both individual characters as well as the complicated Russian society and culture at the end of the 19th century. During this period, Russian society was undergoing rapid transformation. The forces of industrialization, modernization, and the waning power of Tsar Nicholas I disrupted the nation's traditional structures, leading to significant economic inequality and social unrest. Due to these changes, Russians had divided into two main groups: first a traditionalist and conservative social stratum associated with the values of the Russian Orthodox Church and second, a new and revolutionary group with ideas such as nihilism, liberalism, and socialism that criticized the old system and emphasized individual freedom, science etc. It created a sort of identity crisis as the second group was believed to be influenced by the west and a threat to the true russian identity. Dostoevsky was one of the first authors to notice such disunity and express it in his novel through Ivan and Alyosha. Alyosha, as a spiritual character, represents the Orthodox way of thinking, while Ivan, a skeptic and nihilist, represents the progressive Western way that questions the values of faith and morality.
I would dare to say this is one of his most philosophical works, at least based on what I have read so far. At times I found it really difficult to understand and without the help of video essays, articles and Sparknotes I would most likely be left with more questions than answers. There are two of his more significant theological debates and both take place in the first part of the novel. The first one is famously named “The Grand Inquisitor” – a story Ivan tells his brother Alyosha. It has many possible takeaways but I will choose to see it as criticism towards religious institutions. The Grand Inquisitor, a high-ranking official of the Spanish Inquisition, represents a religious institution that prioritizes power and control over freedom and love that Christ actually embodies, defending itself by claiming that people enjoy being controlled and free will would drive them mad. The story has a very Lutheran approach, which is pretty contradictory since Dostoevsky himself was deeply orthodox - most likely Ivan symbolizes not only western values but also a more western (lutheran) approach to faith. The second, a less radical yet highly contrasting approach, is articulated by a monk named Zossima who is introduced as Alyosha's spiritual mentor. After his death, Alyosha proceeds to write his autobiography which offers a counterpoint to the Grand Inquisitor’s cynicism. These chapters were so far also my favourite ones in the novel, I think it has a perfect balance between great fictional storytelling and complex philosophical ideas. It honestly kept me up at night. "Each of us is guilty before everyone for everyone and everything,” is one of Zosimas more significant quotes and he believes those who understand it will reach paradise. It sounds confusing but his point is pretty simple: as we are all so connected and each of us is influenced by someone, we all carry at least a little bit of responsibility for each other's actions and sins, not only our own. Paradise will be reached once everyone understands this because it encourages collective empathy, forgiveness and responsibility. In opposition to the grand inquisitor, Zosimas teachings claim that religion can not be forced upon anyone as its true faith needs freedom not control. Only from that, love and compassion – the true embodiment of Christ– can grow.
One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer you a “moral of the story” but rather a debate in which it's hard to tell, which side is he on? I did a little bit of research and found out a couple of relevant facts. One of them being that this book would most likely not exist, if Dostoevsky's beloved son hadn't died at a young age. Many of the central themes of this story– such as father-son relationships, moral responsibility and the age-old question “is god real and if so, why does he allow such suffering?” – would likely not exist if his son had lived. The kind hearted and compassionate Alyosha is also said to be based on his son. Dostoevsky himself had orthodox roots but in his youth he rejected faith and joined atheist circles. His mock execution in 1849 was a spiritual turning point for him and doing forced labour in Siberia, he found his way back to God and began to explore redemption through suffering and personal responsibility. Later on he developed a more mature understanding of his beliefs and shared them through his philosophical texts. Interestingly, even though he considered himself deeply religious, he never argued against doubting the existence of God. He famously declared: "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth... I would prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.” In a way he is much like Ivan, doubtful, speculating and arguing against his own beliefs in his novels. Yet the beliefs he seems to stand by and consciously choose are mostly represented by Zossima who believes in free will, and sees religion as the ultimate form of love, compassion and forgiveness. I think Dostoevsky was trying to encourage people to reevaluate their true relationship with religion and encourage doubting the existence of God, as this doubt can lead to more mature and secure forms of faith.
I am not a religious person, but the concept of a higher power has always fascinated me—not the existence of the higher being itself, but the psychology behind humanity’s creation of such ideas and how these beliefs evolve as people encounter different life experiences. “The Brothers Karamazov” explores this in a unique way, weaving almost mythical, fairytale-like stories influenced by the Orthodox Christian tradition into the characters’ experiences. But it's also slightly difficult to grasp sometimes as these stories are often highly symbolic and involve references to the bible which I have not read. However I am happy with my reading experience so far and feel most intrigued by Ivan as I'm hoping for a slightly Raskolnikov-esque character arc for him. In any case, I look forward to the rest of the 600ish pages of part 2 but do not expect another book review for another month or maybe two…
PART II
This part of the review focuses on the second book of The Brothers Karamazov, and I will try to keep it shorter than my last one.
I must admit, as I read the second book, it started to feel like Dostoevsky was deliberately extending the word count—perhaps to be paid more—because it really seemed like the novel could have been about 200 pages shorter. Dostoevsky includes numerous descriptions, long philosophical passages, and countless dialogues about religious opinions. While some may find these fascinating, I felt they began to weigh the plot down over time.
Additionally, this part of the novel contains the trial of Dmitri Karamazov. I understand that Dostoevsky intended to satirize the Russian court system by making the process feel long-winded, filled with tedious speeches and an almost theatrical atmosphere. However, truth be told, it did become tedious and unenjoyable at times. Overall, I found the pacing of the first book much better.
Remember when I said in my last review, “One of the most interesting things about this novel is that Dostoevsky does not offer a ‘moral of the story’ but rather a debate where it’s hard to tell which side he’s on?” Well… that changed. Ivan’s complete mental collapse by the end of the book—his guilt-ridden descent into illness—combined with Alyosha teaching religious values to children and being celebrated for it, felt far more moralizing. I enjoyed the religious debate and would have preferred if it had remained just that. I wasn’t looking for a resolution or an answer. However, by the end, Dostoevsky seems to make his stance clear: atheism will drive you mad, and faith in God will save your soul. Not quite that simplistically, of course, but I would have preferred if the debate had been left open-ended.
Now, onto the positives.
This novel is brilliant in terms of symbolism, hidden meanings, and subtext. Honestly, I think I would have missed half of its deeper layers if I hadn’t read SparkNotes and watched video essays explaining it. I completely understand why some consider it one of the greatest books of all time—the literary genius behind it is undeniable. However, as a reading experience, I wouldn’t place it among my favorites, as it was quite difficult to get through at times. That said, there were certainly parts I found highly enjoyable, and even funny.
In the second book, special mentions go to Kolya’s story and the ever-changing family dynamics, which wouldn’t have been possible if Dostoevsky weren’t so skilled at crafting deeply complex and interesting characters. The murder mystery, the dark and gloomy atmosphere, and the theme of never-ending suffering are, of course, hallmarks of his work, and they suit the bleak, wintry weather of Estonia perfectly.
In conclusion, The Brothers Karamazov is not my favorite of Dostoevsky’s works, but it is certainly worth reading—especially if you enjoy analyzing literature through symbols, allegories, and psychological themes. Dostoevsky rarely disappoints, and I approached The Karamazovs with both excitement and apprehension. I wouldn’t say I was exactly disappointed, but I had high expectations for this novel. However, I also acknowledge that some of my unmet expectations may stem from my own inability to grasp the full depth of the work.
That said, I can confidently say this is not a Dostoevsky novel I would reread—unlike The Idiot or White Nights,
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
If you come into this book thinking it's a courtroom drama/murder mystery like I did, you'll be disappointed. If you go into it thinking it's a family drama with some heavy philosophical analysis, you'll be pleasantly entertained.
The book is slow for the first 10/12 sections and then it starts to pick up as it's done with all of the background to the character and scene setting, but again, that was just from the perspective I had with this book.
The book is slow for the first 10/12 sections and then it starts to pick up as it's done with all of the background to the character and scene setting, but again, that was just from the perspective I had with this book.
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
slow-paced
A día de hoy sigo sin tener las palabras precisas para describir este libro. Sé que tendré que leerlo un par de veces más para digerir cada parte de esta maravillosa obra.
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
tense
medium-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
Though the story itself may have bored me at times, this book was life changing. Helped me revolutionize my thoughts on love, honesty, non-violence, and integrity. Love at the foremost though, my view has shifted greatly and made me so happy resultingly, this book is a masterpiece, and I truly believe it's meant to be a philosophical text moreso than a story.
challenging
emotional
tense
fast-paced