Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.31 AVERAGE
4.31 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
reflective
tense
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:
Complicated
emotional
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
It felt as if the characters existed to deliver a series of essays through their dialogue.
"What is at the root of all you Karamazovs is that you're all sensualists and holy fools!"
I've just finished this near masterpiece for the second time, though I've probably read its thematic center, The Russian Monk, scores of times. I understood it and appreciated it much more this second time around, even though I loved it the first time. It helps to understand the structure of the behemoth before delving into it.
It is a book of so many genres and concerning so many things, but for me, at least this time around, it's principally about human nature as viewed through the lens of fools and holy fools. Narratively, the book is built around the death of the fool of fools, Fyodor Karamazov, the father of the three (really four) Karamazov brothers. But thematically, I feel the book is built around the death of the holiest of holy fools, the Elder Zosima. Dostoyevsky presents three ways of life through the three principal brothers: Secular Rationalism (Ivan), Sensualism (Demitri), and Christianity (Alyosha). If it wasn't obvious already the narrator, and therefore Dostoyevsky himself, admit that Alyosha is the true hero of the story. We see how Ivan and Demitri's ways through life come to a bad end. In this way, Dostoyevsky is contrasting the life of Father Zosima (who Alyosha emulates) against each of the brothers. The pillars of Zosima's faith are 1). each of us has sinned against the whole of creation and must take responsibility for that and seek forgiveness, 2). there should be no slaves and masters, and 3). paradise can be established here on earth if we are to, 4) love one another.
Demitri specifically bears a close resemblance to Zosima in his early life. Both fall in love with a woman who already is in a relationship with a soldier, they both beat an innocent person in anger over this, and they both end up begging someone to forgive them for all of humanity's sins.
Demitri: "And you, do you forgive me Andre?"
Andre: "What should I forgive you for sir? You've never done me any harm."
Demitri: No, for everyone! For everyone, you here alone on the road, will you forgive me for everyone? Speak, simple peasant heart."
In Demitri's desperate moments, he lapses into spiritual fervor, resembling Zosima, only to shift back into actual, not holy, foolishness (namely, blowing thousands of dollars the moment he gets it even though it was meant to repay a debt). It should also be mentioned that Demirti much resembles Mikhail, the murderer who befriends Zosima and ends up confessing to the murder he committed. Notably, both men are suspected of a murder, even if Demitri may or may not have committed what he's accused of.
Ivan so dearly wants to believe in the God of Zosima and Alyosha, but convinces himself otherwise again and again, trapped in a cold, hopeless nihilism. He settles for Nietzche-like conclusion that "all things are lawful." But he begins to pay the price for this assertion when it is used by an impressionable soul to commit an awful crime. This sends Ivan into madness.
The Brother's lineage is very important. The mother of Ivan and Alyosha was a sort of Zosima-like figure herself. Smerdyakov, the half brother servant, is the son of an impoverished, "idiotic," mute mom, herself a bit of a holy fool. Ratikin, an enemy of the Karamazovs, draws the point explictly to Alyosha: "You're a sensualist from your father, a holy fool from your mother," and going on says the quote I started with, "You're all sensualists and fools!" Even Alyosha, the monk, agrees this complicated contrast is in his blood:
“My brothers are destroying themselves. My father too. And they are destroying others with them. It’s the primitive force of the Karamazovs, as father Piece said the other day. A crude, unbridled, earthly force. Does the Spirit of God move above that force? Even that I don’t know. I only know that, I too, am a Karamazov. Me, a monk, a monk.”
And so, I think its fair to say, Dostoyevsky wants us to see that we are all Karamazovs. We all carry these rival inclinations inside of us. Terrence Malik, in his film heavily inspired by this book, puts this quote in the mouth of his Demitri-like character: "Father, Mother, always you wrestle inside me. Always you will."
So what kind of Karamazov will you be? The one prone to self-deception, self-destruction, and foolishness or the servant-hearted, always loving Alyosha, who wins this praise from the school boys on the final page: "Hooray for Karamazov! Hooray for Karamazov!"
P.S. Why did I call this a near masterpiece and not give it a fifth star? One, because it reflects some cultural assumptions of Dostoyevsky's time that are rather sinister, such as the negative view of Jesuits and Catholics, but most of all, of Jews. They are portrayed in a low light with all sorts of anti-Semitic tropes. Are these just the views of Dostoyevsky's characters and not his own? Possibly, but this moment puzzling, troubling does not bode well for Dostoyevsky:
"Alyosha, is it true that at Easter the Jews steal a child and kill it?"
"I don't know."
"There's a book here in which I read about the trial of a Jew, who took a child of
four years old and cut off the fingers from both hands, and then crucified him on
the wall, hammered nails into him and crucified him, and afterwards, when he was
tried he said that the child died soon, within four hours...That is nice"
"Nice?"
"Nice, I sometimes imagine that it was I who crucified him. He would hang there
moaning and I would sit opposite him eating pineapple compote. I am awfully
fond of pineapple compote, Do you like it?" (XI, III, pg. 552).
Alyosha's nonchalant response in this passage is highly uncharacteristic of his virtuous, loving character. If the very symbol of Christian love can respond like this in Dostoyevsky's novel, it would seem ant-semitism was quite natural for him.
And other than that ethical reason, yes, I am but a man and this book is long. There are simply parts where it drags. Alyosha's errands grow exhausting at times and the courtroom drama ending, while riveting at times, is procedural and boring at other times. That said, I don't fault Dostoyevsky for having some slumps in a thousand page epic.
I've just finished this near masterpiece for the second time, though I've probably read its thematic center, The Russian Monk, scores of times. I understood it and appreciated it much more this second time around, even though I loved it the first time. It helps to understand the structure of the behemoth before delving into it.
It is a book of so many genres and concerning so many things, but for me, at least this time around, it's principally about human nature as viewed through the lens of fools and holy fools. Narratively, the book is built around the death of the fool of fools, Fyodor Karamazov, the father of the three (really four) Karamazov brothers. But thematically, I feel the book is built around the death of the holiest of holy fools, the Elder Zosima. Dostoyevsky presents three ways of life through the three principal brothers: Secular Rationalism (Ivan), Sensualism (Demitri), and Christianity (Alyosha). If it wasn't obvious already the narrator, and therefore Dostoyevsky himself, admit that Alyosha is the true hero of the story. We see how Ivan and Demitri's ways through life come to a bad end. In this way, Dostoyevsky is contrasting the life of Father Zosima (who Alyosha emulates) against each of the brothers. The pillars of Zosima's faith are 1). each of us has sinned against the whole of creation and must take responsibility for that and seek forgiveness, 2). there should be no slaves and masters, and 3). paradise can be established here on earth if we are to, 4) love one another.
Demitri specifically bears a close resemblance to Zosima in his early life. Both fall in love with a woman who already is in a relationship with a soldier, they both beat an innocent person in anger over this, and they both end up begging someone to forgive them for all of humanity's sins.
Demitri: "And you, do you forgive me Andre?"
Andre: "What should I forgive you for sir? You've never done me any harm."
Demitri: No, for everyone! For everyone, you here alone on the road, will you forgive me for everyone? Speak, simple peasant heart."
In Demitri's desperate moments, he lapses into spiritual fervor, resembling Zosima, only to shift back into actual, not holy, foolishness (namely, blowing thousands of dollars the moment he gets it even though it was meant to repay a debt). It should also be mentioned that Demirti much resembles Mikhail, the murderer who befriends Zosima and ends up confessing to the murder he committed. Notably, both men are suspected of a murder, even if Demitri may or may not have committed what he's accused of.
Ivan so dearly wants to believe in the God of Zosima and Alyosha, but convinces himself otherwise again and again, trapped in a cold, hopeless nihilism. He settles for Nietzche-like conclusion that "all things are lawful." But he begins to pay the price for this assertion when it is used by an impressionable soul to commit an awful crime. This sends Ivan into madness.
The Brother's lineage is very important. The mother of Ivan and Alyosha was a sort of Zosima-like figure herself. Smerdyakov, the half brother servant, is the son of an impoverished, "idiotic," mute mom, herself a bit of a holy fool. Ratikin, an enemy of the Karamazovs, draws the point explictly to Alyosha: "You're a sensualist from your father, a holy fool from your mother," and going on says the quote I started with, "You're all sensualists and fools!" Even Alyosha, the monk, agrees this complicated contrast is in his blood:
“My brothers are destroying themselves. My father too. And they are destroying others with them. It’s the primitive force of the Karamazovs, as father Piece said the other day. A crude, unbridled, earthly force. Does the Spirit of God move above that force? Even that I don’t know. I only know that, I too, am a Karamazov. Me, a monk, a monk.”
And so, I think its fair to say, Dostoyevsky wants us to see that we are all Karamazovs. We all carry these rival inclinations inside of us. Terrence Malik, in his film heavily inspired by this book, puts this quote in the mouth of his Demitri-like character: "Father, Mother, always you wrestle inside me. Always you will."
So what kind of Karamazov will you be? The one prone to self-deception, self-destruction, and foolishness or the servant-hearted, always loving Alyosha, who wins this praise from the school boys on the final page: "Hooray for Karamazov! Hooray for Karamazov!"
P.S. Why did I call this a near masterpiece and not give it a fifth star? One, because it reflects some cultural assumptions of Dostoyevsky's time that are rather sinister, such as the negative view of Jesuits and Catholics, but most of all, of Jews. They are portrayed in a low light with all sorts of anti-Semitic tropes. Are these just the views of Dostoyevsky's characters and not his own? Possibly, but this moment puzzling, troubling does not bode well for Dostoyevsky:
"Alyosha, is it true that at Easter the Jews steal a child and kill it?"
"I don't know."
"There's a book here in which I read about the trial of a Jew, who took a child of
four years old and cut off the fingers from both hands, and then crucified him on
the wall, hammered nails into him and crucified him, and afterwards, when he was
tried he said that the child died soon, within four hours...That is nice"
"Nice?"
"Nice, I sometimes imagine that it was I who crucified him. He would hang there
moaning and I would sit opposite him eating pineapple compote. I am awfully
fond of pineapple compote, Do you like it?" (XI, III, pg. 552).
Alyosha's nonchalant response in this passage is highly uncharacteristic of his virtuous, loving character. If the very symbol of Christian love can respond like this in Dostoyevsky's novel, it would seem ant-semitism was quite natural for him.
And other than that ethical reason, yes, I am but a man and this book is long. There are simply parts where it drags. Alyosha's errands grow exhausting at times and the courtroom drama ending, while riveting at times, is procedural and boring at other times. That said, I don't fault Dostoyevsky for having some slumps in a thousand page epic.
ivan is my friend evan, alyosha is my girlfriend. dmitri is gob bluth
I don't really know how to approach reviewing The Brothers Karamazov. It's certainly one of the longest books that I've read; and, it's a book full of weighty ideas, most of which could themselves form the basis of an individual review (or book). Despite the seeming inaccessibility of the book based on these traits, its appeal is clear. It's simultaneously a love story (or a series of love stories), a family drama, a murder mystery, and--adding depth--a discussion of religion, morality, and free will. Its popularity across ~140 years is understandable and--more so than Crime and Punishment, which feels so much more confined and less ambitious by comparison--it's a mostly enjoyable novel to read. Instead of summarizing the novel's plot and themes and setting out my thoughts on both, I've copied bullets below from my notes on the book. The thing I think that I'll remember the most about this novel is how excellent many of the characters are--Smerdyakov (neither rational like Ivan, nor spiritual like Alyosha, and certainly not sensual like Dmitri (or Ivan or Alyosha); spiteful, solitary, and incredibly complex); Lise (described below); Kolya (described below).
* The Grand Inquisitor posits the idea of free will as disruptive and chaotic. More than any other character, Dmitri seems to exemplify this theme, as his life feels governed by disorder and chaos, and his free will is ultimately on trial at the end.
* Some of the parts in the Father Zosima exhortations chapters are a little boring. I like hearing about his life, but his theology seems like just a loving Christianity that I don’t find particularly interesting. Altogether it sounds like Father Zosima believes in a gospel of loving kindness to others, to appreciating the pleasure of being alive.
* Ivan trying to get 3,000 rubles so that he can settle his debt with Katerina and be with Grushenka is very much a desperate wild goose chase. You can feel his need and his maddened frustration at everyone seeming to unwittingly stymie him. Samorov purposefully sending him away; the peasant L being drunk; Madame Kholkarov telling him to go seek out gold mines. It feels like one failure after another, and makes the tragedy in which it ends seem inevitable.
* Book Nine, the investigation of Dmitri, is very fun to read. Lots of dialogue, familiar story being retold by Dmitri but with his adding new facts to make us question his presumptive guilt. Additionally, given the theme of characters falling in love with those whom circumstance prevents them from being with, Grushenka's immediately falling back in love with him feels not-too unexpected.
* Book Ten—Boys—reads as a kind of sharp turn away from the murder that takes place in the previous books. It’s a lot of fun to read, and the lightened tone, despite the otherwise grave plot (i.e., Ilyuchka dying), is a bit of a relief. Kolya is an excellent character; an intelligent scamp; an adult mind in a child's body. The dynamic between him and Alyosha is great—they seem like equals despite their age difference, and yet both acknowledge that K will be A when he’s older.
Relatedly, Lise is an excellent character. Young and romantic, but weirdly sadistic, violent, and depressive. Very interesting and unique. I was disappointed Dostoyevsky novel didn't return to her
later in the novel.
* The trial is a good representation of the rest of the book. A lot of sudden impassioned speeches of love and spite.
* The final book, which features the trial, reads as kind of long winded and unnecessary. Still, I think the defense attorney’s arguments are interesting. That interpretations and psychology cut both ways— that there isn’t strong proof either way and we can see Dmitri as either a murderer and robber or not. Also, I find the contrasts between the US legal system and the Russian legal system interesting. Dmitri's trial takes place all in one day (ending after 1:00am); and there's a presumption of guilt in his not answering questions. Both of those would be unconstitutional in the US.
* The Grand Inquisitor posits the idea of free will as disruptive and chaotic. More than any other character, Dmitri seems to exemplify this theme, as his life feels governed by disorder and chaos, and his free will is ultimately on trial at the end.
* Some of the parts in the Father Zosima exhortations chapters are a little boring. I like hearing about his life, but his theology seems like just a loving Christianity that I don’t find particularly interesting. Altogether it sounds like Father Zosima believes in a gospel of loving kindness to others, to appreciating the pleasure of being alive.
* Ivan trying to get 3,000 rubles so that he can settle his debt with Katerina and be with Grushenka is very much a desperate wild goose chase. You can feel his need and his maddened frustration at everyone seeming to unwittingly stymie him. Samorov purposefully sending him away; the peasant L being drunk; Madame Kholkarov telling him to go seek out gold mines. It feels like one failure after another, and makes the tragedy in which it ends seem inevitable.
* Book Nine, the investigation of Dmitri, is very fun to read. Lots of dialogue, familiar story being retold by Dmitri but with his adding new facts to make us question his presumptive guilt. Additionally, given the theme of characters falling in love with those whom circumstance prevents them from being with, Grushenka's immediately falling back in love with him feels not-too unexpected.
* Book Ten—Boys—reads as a kind of sharp turn away from the murder that takes place in the previous books. It’s a lot of fun to read, and the lightened tone, despite the otherwise grave plot (i.e., Ilyuchka dying), is a bit of a relief. Kolya is an excellent character; an intelligent scamp; an adult mind in a child's body. The dynamic between him and Alyosha is great—they seem like equals despite their age difference, and yet both acknowledge that K will be A when he’s older.
Relatedly, Lise is an excellent character. Young and romantic, but weirdly sadistic, violent, and depressive. Very interesting and unique. I was disappointed Dostoyevsky novel didn't return to her
later in the novel.
* The trial is a good representation of the rest of the book. A lot of sudden impassioned speeches of love and spite.
* The final book, which features the trial, reads as kind of long winded and unnecessary. Still, I think the defense attorney’s arguments are interesting. That interpretations and psychology cut both ways— that there isn’t strong proof either way and we can see Dmitri as either a murderer and robber or not. Also, I find the contrasts between the US legal system and the Russian legal system interesting. Dmitri's trial takes place all in one day (ending after 1:00am); and there's a presumption of guilt in his not answering questions. Both of those would be unconstitutional in the US.
Fyodor's three sons: The passionate heart (Mitya), the restless mind (Ivan), and the eternal spirit (Alyosha).
challenging
dark
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes