You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
dream_sequence 's review for:
The Brothers Karamazov
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
First and foremost, I am glad I chose the Brothers Karamazov as a first foray into Russian literature. I picked up Dostoyevsky’s work with great expectation due to Kurt Vonnegut’s commendation of the book as one “that can teach you everything you need to know about life…” For the first half of the novel, I was confused about how an unreliable patriarchal figure like Fyodor Karamazov is expected to deliver those life lessons; but I am glad that I bore through those first 300 or 400 pages of drudgery.
Amongst the characters, I found Smerdyakov to be the most complex and interesting of all. Through his own interpretation of Ivan’s words, he espoused the belief that "If God does not exist, everything is lawful"; a powerful philosophy that later induced him to kill his father Fyodor Karamazov and frame Dmitri for the crime. Whether the parricide was inspired by the grudge he holds towards the man who treated him like a servant or simply in hope of escaping the lowest stratum of social hierarchy, it is unclear.
Smerdyakov is often described as a cunning and unlikeable character. At times, his actions seem to be driven by pure malice but underneath it all, he hides a deep yearning for a higher purpose. He aspires to a respectable existence that was denied to him by birth and dreams of going to France where he can start over as a new man.
Following the murder of his “father”, Smerdyakov initially planned to use the three-thousand rubles to rewrite his future, but instead he confessed his culpability to Ivan following the latter’s constant suspicion and accusation. In the loneliness of knowing that his one confidant was unaware of his supposed “complicity” in hatching the plan of the murder, Smerdyakov ends his own life.
Almost driven mad by the guilt and repercussion of his careless words, Ivan tries futilely to save Dmitri by presenting the roll of rubles in court as incriminating evidence against Smerdyakov. His feverish actions only served to fuel the suspicions centered on Dmitri and tightened the noose around his neck. The court hearing devolved into a state of he said she said and judgment was passed against Dmitri, the scene described was not unlike a kangaroo court.
Often times, the oddity of reality is widely beyond the scope of human imagination and unlike the principle of the Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is not the most reflective of facts. It is sad to say that even with the aid of forensic science and more advance technologies, cases of wrongful conviction are still present in today’s world. Prejudices and heuristics still sway the results of courtroom cases.
All in all, I really enjoyed the book and the interwoven themes presented through it. The theatrical behavior of the characters was thoroughly entertaining; but above all, throughout the trial, the loyalty and the strength of the bonds that they share were admirable.
Amongst the characters, I found Smerdyakov to be the most complex and interesting of all. Through his own interpretation of Ivan’s words, he espoused the belief that "If God does not exist, everything is lawful"; a powerful philosophy that later induced him to kill his father Fyodor Karamazov and frame Dmitri for the crime. Whether the parricide was inspired by the grudge he holds towards the man who treated him like a servant or simply in hope of escaping the lowest stratum of social hierarchy, it is unclear.
Smerdyakov is often described as a cunning and unlikeable character. At times, his actions seem to be driven by pure malice but underneath it all, he hides a deep yearning for a higher purpose. He aspires to a respectable existence that was denied to him by birth and dreams of going to France where he can start over as a new man.
Following the murder of his “father”, Smerdyakov initially planned to use the three-thousand rubles to rewrite his future, but instead he confessed his culpability to Ivan following the latter’s constant suspicion and accusation. In the loneliness of knowing that his one confidant was unaware of his supposed “complicity” in hatching the plan of the murder, Smerdyakov ends his own life.
Almost driven mad by the guilt and repercussion of his careless words, Ivan tries futilely to save Dmitri by presenting the roll of rubles in court as incriminating evidence against Smerdyakov. His feverish actions only served to fuel the suspicions centered on Dmitri and tightened the noose around his neck. The court hearing devolved into a state of he said she said and judgment was passed against Dmitri, the scene described was not unlike a kangaroo court.
Often times, the oddity of reality is widely beyond the scope of human imagination and unlike the principle of the Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is not the most reflective of facts. It is sad to say that even with the aid of forensic science and more advance technologies, cases of wrongful conviction are still present in today’s world. Prejudices and heuristics still sway the results of courtroom cases.
All in all, I really enjoyed the book and the interwoven themes presented through it. The theatrical behavior of the characters was thoroughly entertaining; but above all, throughout the trial, the loyalty and the strength of the bonds that they share were admirable.