The Brothers Karamazov

Do you spend a lot of time thinking about God, morality, and the right way to live? If so, this is a book for you. I am not one of those people, but I do like to check the classics off my list, so here I am. The book tells the story of the titular siblings and their father, using them to examine various approaches to existence. The father, Fyodor, is a grotesque old man who badly mistreated both of his wives and completely neglected his children. He's spent his life amassing money, chasing women, and drinking. His latest obsession is a young woman called Grushenka, who he knows doesn't love him but hopes to entice into marriage with his money. His rival for her affections is his oldest son, Dmitri (also called Mitya). Dmitri is in some ways a chip off the old block in that he is a hardcore party boy, but he has zero money management skills and also is not complete trash as a human. He's desperate to get money to make a play for Grushenka before she takes up with his father but is already 3,000 rubles in the hole because he stole that amount from his fiancee, Katerina. Katerina loves Dmitri no more than he loves her. Rather, she loves the middle brother, Ivan. Ivan is highly intelligent and rational, rejecting the religious faith that drives the youngest brother, Alexei (almost always referred to as Alyosha). Alyosha is, when the story begins, a novice at a monastery and devoted to an Elder in the Orthodox church. The characters are richly drawn, with Alyosha the obvious hero but all three of them are interesting in their own ways. The plot is both sprawling and simple: tension builds, followed by a murder about halfway through, and then a trial. It's unwieldy and constantly wanders off down little theosophical side paths. I liked it much better than the first Dostoyevsky novel I tried (Crime & Punishment), but I don't know that I'd say that means I liked it in a global sense. There were things that I found compelling, primarily in terms of character development. The trial at the end is propulsive and very engaging. But ultimately there was just way more religion than I'm looking for in the sorts of stories I enjoy.

There is far too much in this book for a simple mind like mine to comprehend. As a straight read it frequently drags like molasses. For this I'd give it two stars. Many of the characters are deeply unlikeable, including at least one, and maybe two, of the brothers Karamazov. For them I'd give it two stars. But The Brothers Karamazov is far greater than any of this superficial stuff. I'm an uneducated lump, so I could only discern it vaguely and remotely. In fact, I had to read Nicholas Berdyaev's “Dostoevsky” to even begin to discern what Dostoevsky was getting at. That book itself was at least 90% over my head, an immensely difficult read, but the 10% I did comprehend shone a light on Dostoevsky and at last I was able to see a little into the vast depths of TBK. After all that, can I say I enjoyed it? Absolutely not. It's a mission to read. It is not light entertainment for a wet weekend. But it might be one of the greatest books I've ever read.

Desengane-se quem pensa que “Os irmãos Karamázov” é uma narrativa linear e de fácil leitura e interpretação. Trata-se de uma obra longa e pesada, mas que em nada diminui a grandeza e genialidade deste romance.

O livro desenrola-se ao longo de doze livros, em que o enredo se torna cada vez mais cativante e onde se disserta sobre importantes temas filosóficos, sobre religião, livre-arbítrio, moralidade mas também sobre a Rússia czarista e as fragilidades das suas gentes e dos seus sistemas.

Foi dos livros que mais me cativou à medida que ia avançando na sua narrativa, e que se tornou nas leituras mais importantes (e até educativas) que fiz recentemente.

I'm not going to attempt a review–the book's too big and I have only just finished it for the first time. I will confine myself to a few reactions.
1. I LOVE IT!
2. Dostoyevsky has written one of the world's great books.
3. I will be reading it again.
4. This is one of the most psychologically accurate, perceptive, and honest things I have read in a long time. Or ever.
5. I LOVE IT!
6. Everybody was right who told me to read it. I was wrong to wait so long.
7. Wow. I am, to be honest, speechless, so I will shut up for now. Maybe later I will be able to write intelligently about this book.
8. Thank you, Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

The Brothers Karamazov is a blend of contrasting worldviews, embodied by its characters - the cold rationality of Ivan, the altruism of Alexei, and the passion of Dmitri; this array of perspectives prompts readers to think about their own approach to life. As I navigated the exceptionally well-woven web of relationships and ideas in this novel, I couldn't help but reflect on parallels with my own life and those of my friends. Some of my friends resemble Alyosha, embodying gentle stoicism, innate goodness, or warm empathy. Meanwhile, like Dmitri, other friends find ourselves wrestling with our demons, troubled by imperfection and impulses. Some of my friends also resemble Ivan, rationalizing all behaviors as “everything is permitted” (and who dares to counteract like Father Zosima, with a “everyone is responsible for everyone and for everything”?) However, all of us contain multitudes inside us, and Dostoevsky's refusal to offer a definitive answer reinforces the complexity of human nature, where morality is not a fixed point but a shifting landscape shaped by individual choices and circumstances. So the novel probes the question of life's best path, mirroring the Karamazovian brothers' dual nature, each harboring conflicting abysses within. In [b:Crime and Punishment 7144 Crime and Punishment Fyodor Dostoevsky https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1382846449l/7144.SY75.jpg 3393917], Raskolnikov's turmoil stems from a relatable clash between his ideologies and conscience, echoing Dostoevsky's own inner struggle amid surroundings of moral ambiguity. Dostoevsky's personal battles, including a gambling addiction, epilepsy, torments endured such as the famous mock-execution ceremony which involved being led to believe he would be executed by firing squad before being spared at the last moment, serving as a form of psychological torture intended to break his spirits, jail time, and complex relationship with an avaricious, tyrannical father as reflected in Pavlovich's character (which the friend who cheekily recommended this to me was aware would resonate) shines through in this novel as a lifelong contemplation on the nature of good, evil, free will, and duty. Perhaps Dostoevsky believed that through such contemplation one could find redemption by embracing the truth of life's suffering.

Long, slow moving novel about three brothers and their unworthy father in 19th century Russia. Full of philosophical and theological arguments about guilt, atonement, and forgiveness, as well as whether people are better off being happy or understanding truths about God. The last third of the book is a bit of a murder mystery. The characters represent all levels of Russian society and they are operatic in their feelings and their behavior. I feel I would understand this novel better if I started over from the beginning and read it through again–but I need to rest from it first!

Absolutely magnificent. Dostoivisly has a way of making you not only people you know in his novels (which in itself is quite an acomplisment) but also yourself (which at times can be rather unpleasant).

Is there a God? Does man need a God to be good? What does it mean to be a good man, what's the meaning of good?

The book stays with you long after you have finished it.

I've been meaning to read BK for a very long time. It was one of the few Russian classics that I hadn't read. Overall, I liked it—I guess for the big ideas. The prosecutor's speech and “après moi, le déluge” in particular really resonated with me. However, BK is not very good fiction: bad pacing, turgid dialogue, horribly unrealistic women characters, and not much plot given the absurd length. There is also a lot of religious dribble, especially in the first half, which I really struggled through. In the end, I'm glad I read BK, and I would generally recommend that people read it at some point, but I doubt I'll ever pick it up again.

Re the translation: I read the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation. I appreciate that they're going for a more literal translation of the Russian. However, I found it annoying that this often resulted in English sentences that are simply ungrammatical (in the formal linguistic sense; e.g. illicit argument structure for the given predicate, violations of the anti-that-trace constraint). Why?

Unlike anything I have ever read. This book had some of the best characters I have ever read in fiction. It was uneven in a good way, it would surprise me with the most interesting, heart-rending, worth-considering, and absurd occurrences in the most unsuspecting parts of the story. I will say it was a challenge because of the writers style, some passages are very long but it was a great exercise for the brain to grapple with a very different writing style. I expect much ink has been spilled over the GI in this book and other parts too (I'm excited to research this).

Overall an unforgettable, and totally unique read.

I feel jealous about all the people who managed to really have a profound experience reading this. After forcing myself to read all this - I just feel like I understood half of it, intimidated by the absolute density of the work and the ambition the book reaches.

It is a philosophy book first, a novel second, and it truly takes its time to discuss these massive philosophical topics. The plot takes a backseat and it makes no qualms to devote pages upon pages to whatever the topic of the chapter is. Most of it is way beyond my understanding and in typical Dickensian fashion, is way more verbose than needed (though that can be due to the translation).

This is definitely a great book - but a book I do not feel as I was prepared for. This is not a beginner's introduction into classics for sure. Maybe one day I will build up myself to take a proper chance at this once again, but for now I am relieved that I got to accomplish at least finishing this book.

I believe in many way it's overwritten, but I am also a fan of overwritten emotions, they feel very specific and precise that way. The characters are very rounded and feel alive. There are a ton of ramblings from side-characters that I do not appreaciate even if they pull you more into the age this was written.

There are a ton of perspectives that are given weight that directly contradict themselves and that is the beauty of this book. Something you can't quite pin down, something haunting.

Simply perfection in every use of the word. Dostoevsky is a genius and a master of literature.

Favourite characters:

1. Ivan - one of the most complex and interesting characters oat.

2. Alyosha- a Christlike, beautiful figure to love and look up to.

3. Mitya- a relatable, lustful character who wants to change but doesn’t have the strength to do so.

4. Father Zossima- a wise monk who serves as a mentor to Alyosha and to us as well.

5.a. Smerdyakov- a hateful bastard of Fyodor Pavlovitch (don’t want to say anymore without spoiling)

5.b. Kolya- an impressionable young boy who seeks to be respected, and needs a figure such as Alyosha in his life.

Top 5 books:

1. Pro and contra

2. Ivan

3. Epilogue

4. Alyosha

5. Mitya

Top 5 chapters:

1. Grand inquisitor

2. The Devil. Ivan’s nightmare

3. Rebellion

4. Ilyusha’s funeral

5. Cana of Galilee

Overall: this book is a 10/10 and is for sure my favourite novel of all time, and is currently my third favourite piece of fiction as well.

Ivan- #1 deuteragonist #2 character

Alyosha- #7 protagonist #11 character

“But now, for one brief moment, let's pretend what might've been.”

Dostoevsky's best, easily. There are so many wonderful moments that I don't think I'll ever experience anywhere else. Some of my favorites:
- Zosima, bowing suddenly before Dmitri,
- Ivan's speech to Alyosha, and obviously the Grand Inquisitor,
- Alyosha kissing Ivan right after,
- “But to us, sir, you are like a small child...”
- The dehumanizing interrogation sequence—“I'm the wolf, and you're the hunters, let the chase commence.”
- A lovely scene with a puppy (it was so magical that I don't want to share more),
- Ivan's nightmares,
- Dr. Herzenstrube's testimony,
- Dmitri in the epilogue.

It is unfortunate that this book is weighed down by so much anti-semitism, christofascist sympathies, Russian nationalism, all with a little bit of thinly veiled misogyny... if it wasn't for these themes (which comes up during part 4 more than any other part IMO), I would have it in me to agree that this is one of the best novels ever written.

I'd also say your enjoyment of this novel hinges on whether or not you consider Dmitri to be a sympathetic character. If you're 200 pages in and you hate him, consider shelving it... I definitely sympathized with and even liked him, but he can be a lot. I can easily see why people might hate him, but I don't know how enjoyable the book would be if you can't stand the guy.

Peerless. The Brothers Karamazov is simply the book.

“Without God, all things are permitted.” I believe this is the primary theme of the novel. Each of us has a devil within, just like Ivan. Whereas Alyosha and even Dmitri may find themselves defended by God, Ivan has forsworn such protection, and Dostoevsky had him suffer the consequences. A man of enlightened education and unmatched intellect, Ivan nonetheless succumbed to the moral bankruptcy that is inevitable in a refutation of God.

I think Ivan is the character with whom modern readers empathize most. Especially among readers of Dostoevsky, we've all faced the same questions that Ivan did: What is true? Who is true? How can anything be true? So, how come we ourselves are not driven to the same madness?

Delusion. Unlike us, Ivan refused to delude himself. His doubt fed on itself, and the devil within him bloomed. Ironically, Ivan is perhaps the monk Zosima's most ardent adherent, for Ivan did as Zosima preached: “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”

We, meanwhile, are content to lie to ourselves. We accept some things as true and others as right. Not because they are, but because we want them to be–we wish they were. It is quite literally a projection of our desires on a void reality, only to maintain our sanity.

The doubt and anguish faced by the brothers shake the foundations of the reader's worldview. But if the edifice remains, one might become somewhat certain.

P.S. The idea that delusion is the bedrock of sanity is well-established in existentialist writings. But what is incredible about The Brothers Karamazov is that Dostoevsky wrote before all of them. One can derive so many existentialist concepts solely from an analysis of this book. Yet another reason why it is so groundbreaking.

Мне кажется, писать ревью на такие книги довольно бессмысленным занятием. Все умное уже давно сказано. Так что единственный смысл таких ревью в наши дни — просто поделиться эмоциями с друзьями (в гудридзе, да).

Книга отличная. Куча умных, интересных мыслей, классных персонажей, “души”, да и всего того, чего вы ожидаете от Достоевского.

Единственное — четко ощущается, что книга не завершена.

Достоевский говорит о глубоком двумя путями: через персонажей и через сюжет.

В первом случае, он иногда посвящает отдельные главы мыслям и чувствам персонажей, в которых он методично и последовательно раскрывает их внутренние переживания, говорит об их жизненном опыте и дает мысли на подумать.

Во втором случае сам сюжет произведения создает какую-то цельную картину с итоговой моралью, которую читатель выводит для себя сам (как в “Идиоте”).

Так вот беда в том, что у “Братьев Карамазовых” должна была быть вторая часть (у нее даже черновики сохранились), но Достоевский не успел ее написать. И из-за этого первый метод в книге есть, а второго нет.

Может создаться впечатление, что книга мне не понравилась — но это не так, просто о хороших сторонах писать бессмысленно, их бесконечно много, и о них уже все сказано до меня.

В общем, ай лайк ит.

Finally got to the end with this brick of a novel. A typical Dostoevsky. Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong for Dimitry Karamazov who does not get along with his father in the first place when they even start to chase the same woman. Lots of Unlucky love and philosophizing about religion, human behavior, Russia and so on and so forth.

Maybe an over interpretation but I immediately thought Father Zosima to be Dostoyevsky himself who sends Alyosha to the world to spread love and forgiveness. I found the last chapter of the epilogue to be a very powerful farewell.