Take a photo of a barcode or cover
333_lucy_333 's review for:
The Brothers Karamazov
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
All I can say after this is "Thank God."
The Brothers Karamazov is an example of the importance of an editor to me. This book at times is wonderfully striking with its points and images, and some of its characters have their shining moments of truth, but for the most part, it's rambling, an issue that could be easily fixed if Dostoevsky sheared off some of his writing. Those paragraphs that have no end in sight are not, in fact, impressive by their sheer length. There can be great power in short statements. The phrases that are impressive in the book are often buried underneath sentence upon sentence of extraneous dialogue.
Speaking of, the dialogue is incredibly hard to believe. Characters just talk and talk for pages and pages... is the reader supposed to believe that the person listening doesn't once do anything but sit there and listen?
Here's the thing about novels: they should be somewhat interesting. I've been scrolling through the reviews of this book, and lots of people praise this novel for not being a novel--no plot, characters representing ideals, endless philosophical discussions... maybe it has good philosophical ideas, but not every novel that has good philosophical ideas should be a novel (see: "Island" by Aldous Huxley, a novel that I can levy the exact same criticisms against but for some reason is more poorly rated). This book isn't fun to read, and while others might defend it by saying that it's not supposed to be fun, here's my rebuff: it's so boring at times that I can't bother to be "intellectually stimulated," so it fails to push its points across because it shoots itself in the foot with its dullness.
If you're going to write philosophy masquerading as a novel, at least give it a point to be a novel instead of a treatise.
2/5
EDIT: Adjusted rating because I realized it was probably only slightly better than the mentioned "Island"
The Brothers Karamazov is an example of the importance of an editor to me. This book at times is wonderfully striking with its points and images, and some of its characters have their shining moments of truth, but for the most part, it's rambling, an issue that could be easily fixed if Dostoevsky sheared off some of his writing. Those paragraphs that have no end in sight are not, in fact, impressive by their sheer length. There can be great power in short statements. The phrases that are impressive in the book are often buried underneath sentence upon sentence of extraneous dialogue.
Speaking of, the dialogue is incredibly hard to believe. Characters just talk and talk for pages and pages... is the reader supposed to believe that the person listening doesn't once do anything but sit there and listen?
Here's the thing about novels: they should be somewhat interesting. I've been scrolling through the reviews of this book, and lots of people praise this novel for not being a novel--no plot, characters representing ideals, endless philosophical discussions... maybe it has good philosophical ideas, but not every novel that has good philosophical ideas should be a novel (see: "Island" by Aldous Huxley, a novel that I can levy the exact same criticisms against but for some reason is more poorly rated). This book isn't fun to read, and while others might defend it by saying that it's not supposed to be fun, here's my rebuff: it's so boring at times that I can't bother to be "intellectually stimulated," so it fails to push its points across because it shoots itself in the foot with its dullness.
If you're going to write philosophy masquerading as a novel, at least give it a point to be a novel instead of a treatise.
2/5
EDIT: Adjusted rating because I realized it was probably only slightly better than the mentioned "Island"