Rating: 
Summary: read for philosophy, not dostoevsky's best story-telling
Review: some profound philosophical scenes here, especially for those obsessed with anti-christianity and anti-totalitarianism. dostoevsky pours his thinking into his last work. all the elements from his previous works are there, but alas! he goes too far...the characters come off stiff, or in some cases unbelievable. sermon after sermon, especially as the all-too-obvious ending approaches. it doesn't have the suspense of crime and punishment. it doesn't have the satire of demons. dostoevsky wrote it during the most comfortable period of his life. his self-assurance led him to proselytize, rather than entertain. this one's for academics and hard-core fans. hard to beat this translation, by the way--constance garnett's sucks.
Rating: 
Summary: Incredible Book
Review: Reading this book may seem like a monumental task at first, but it is not a difficult read at all. In fact it is quite a pleasurable one. In my opinion there is hardly a wasted paragraph. There are around 800 pages to cover, but events are basic enough to understand the plot completely. Almost every character is fascinating in their own way. Also, it is difficult to think of a theme more relevant, especially for our time: the purpose of spirituality in our lives.A very interesting book to read and compare to Brothers Karamazov is The Trial by Kafka. These two books almost seem like opposite sides of the same coin. But I'd side with Dostoevsky's optimism.
Rating: 
Summary: No story!
Review: If you are interested in reading a book with a plot, or something resembling a plot, you're in the wrong place. Classic or no, I couldn't care less about the characters and never finished the book. It was a waste of valuable reading hours.
Rating:
Summary: some good, mostly bad
Review: I do not feel that I am stupid, nor dim, nor do I only need to read action-packed stories, but I just do not see the fascination with this novel. I understand the conflicting personalities and all that - but man, it was wrapped up into a whole lot of boring stuff!
Rating:
Summary: Best book I know
Review: This is the best book I know. From what I read, it was also the favorite novel of Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and Albert Camus. It's no difficult read, though it is very long, but once you get through the first pages you'll find yourself hooked in this vast web of situations and conversations. The book is very philosophical and theological, but you don't have to know anything about philosophy or anything, it's written in words everyone can understand. Alyosha is a truly inspiring character, representing the perfect, selfless christian (Dostojevski wanted to write a sequel to 'Karamazov' in which Alyosha would become a revolutionary, but he died before he got the chance to write it); Dmitri is the drunk/gambler/hedonist with a good heart; Iwan (my favourite) is the thinker, constantly doubting gods existence or nonexistence (like Dostojevski himself). Then there's the father Fyodor, a really funny character, mocking everything, turning everything into a game, the real nihillist. The chapter about 'The grand inquisitor' is the best, and also the chapter when Iwan has a conversation with the devil. There are a couple of stories in this book , not just one, and every character is very deeply portrayed. Dostojevski put everything that was inside of him into this book : his constant struggle to stay a christian, his hatred for the church of Rome and the West, the loss of his son Alyosha, his love for the Russian common people, his epilepsy, his gambling problem, his conviction to Siberia, love affairs... 'Karamazov' has it ALL! Believe me. Dostojevski does not write beautiful sentences. His sentences are crooked and simple. He is not after your smile with smart irony. Dostojevski was not a rich man when he wrote his books. He had a family to take care of and a gambling problem, and also bad health. In this condition he wrote many many beautiful, long books. I think he didn't bother to write smartass literature like Oscar Wilde or something.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book - one of the best
Review: Dostoyevsky commands emotion, feeling, and passion equal to the greatest writers. This book is one of the best (long) novels a person can read, that details the intense lives of an overly dramatic Russian family (prior to communism). One of the major themes present in the book however, is a form of socialism (different from communism). Alexi and his master, Father Zosima, represent all that is good and orderly in a Russian world of chaos. Alexi constantly strives to affect the world around him, outside of the monestary, while Father Zosima constantly strives to affect his fellow brethen living inside the monestary so that they may better lead the outside world. The main point where Dostoyevsky and I disagree lies in man's responsibility to clean up all other man's problems, spills, crimes, etc. He uses religious undertones to protray a feeling of shared responsibility. The fact that children are hungry in Africa or that a murder is committed in LA is as much your fault, as of the individual that committed the crime or the dictator who hoardes the food. This point I disagree. I belive in respect, kindness, etc., however the stong cannot always cary the weak (read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand). Regardless of your political or socioeconomic viewpoints, Dostoyevsky will make you ponder, seriously ponder the meaning of life. At times I could only read a few pages or paragraphs and then I would find myself thinking of how the issues and themes presented by the author related to my own beliefs today. Aside from the philosophy of the novel, historically, the book contains some interesting facts surrounding life at that time in both Russia and the world beyond. France is seen as the cultural center of the world. Medicine is expanding to include prescriptions and a better understanding of bacteria. Law is changing to include psychology. Science is beginning to theorize about atomic energy and minute chemical balances. This alone could make for an interesting discussion. As in the version, I wish I had purchased a more expensive copy, as the text was too tight to the page and sometimes made reading difficult. The translation however, was amazing. Overall a clear 5 out of 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: This is what it means to be Russian
Review: By far the greatest work ever written. A work that shows humanity for all it is and all it is destine to become. Ivan Karamazov is by far the most interesting chraracter in all European liturature. The Grand Inquisitor was....astounding. Only a few works of art compare to this marvel the 9th symphony by beethoven, David, the Hajia Sophia. But this work is the most sublime, it speaks to humanity but at the same time is able to discribe the Russian soul, people, and culture in a way no one else could truly understand. Russia is a vast torrent of thoughts, violence, lust, love...all life. The brothers karamazov speaks the word of God. And in spite of what all other say of him, for me...Dostoyevsky is the greatest writer in the history of mankind.
Rating:
Summary: words fail to describe this enduring classic
Review: Dostoevsky's final work, The Brothers Karamazov constitutes the culmination of his life's work, drawing from all of his previous writings. It is the tale of the three Karamazov brothers--Alyosha, the pious spiritualist; Ivan, the tormented, calculating atheist and author of that famed passage, The Grand Inquisitor; and Mitya, the sensualist involved in a twisted sort of love triangle in which the participants maliciously chicane one another--and their illegitimate half-brother Smerdyakov, sickly and conniving. The central plot focuses on the murder of the brothers' father, Fyodor, and the trial of the suspected murderer (whom I will not name, lest I spoil the book for any would-be readers). Of course, the novel transcends mere murder mystery and courtroom drama; indeed, these elements serve merely as a background for what truly concerns Dostoevsky, the battle for the soul, in which the forces of modern ideologies (e.g. socialism) struggle against the forces of religion, specifically orthodox Christianity. This war for the spirit wreaks havoc on the individual, disorients and incapacitates him; in fact, the most interesting character in the book is not Dostoevsky's declared hero, Alyosha, but rather his brother Ivan, the atheist, whose contemplation of the lack of moral restraint effected by God's absence places him in the most fragile of mental states, which collapses when he must make a moral judgment. It was Dostoevsky's genius to recognize that socialism is more than a form of labor organization, that it is "above all an atheistic phenomenon, the modern manifestation of atheism, one more tower of Babel built without God, not in order to reach out toward heaven from earth, but to bring heaven down to earth." And there lies his enduring relevance to modern times, over one hundred years after his death. Communism and socialism, indeed, have been virtually routed as viable political and economic systems. But the fight of the West versus Communism was not simply a political-economic one; it was, as Dostoevsky would have recognized--and, indeed, as his modern heirs such as Whitaker Chambers and Alexander Solzhenytsin understood--merely a continuation of that great war for the human soul. And that struggle was not, and has not been, won. For those who wish to understand that fight and to take it up with the foe, Dostoevsky is the essential starting point.
Rating:
Summary: The suffering Russian soul
Review: Fyodor Dostoevsky believed that the Russian people were specially marked by God to endure great suffering in order to prepare them to show the truths of Christ's religion to humanity. He did not accept the notions of material progress and scientific rationalism that were coming out of the "Enlightened" West and felt that such ideas would lead only to spiritual bankruptness and immorality. Dostoevsky articulated these viewpoints and sought to project his vision of what the Russian national identity should be in his masterpiece, "The Brothers Karamazov". As Dostoevsky himself revealed in the story, the three legitimate sons of Fyodor Pavlovich each represented different aspects of the Russian identity:
1. Dmitriy Fyodorovich was the uncontrollable and irrational brother who could commit acts of senseless violence and engage in extreme debauchery, but despite all of that, aspired to goodness and felt remorse at all of the bad things he had done.
2. Ivan Fyodorovich was the educated brother who espoused the rationalism and cynicism of the West and who claimed to have renounced God. Despite that, he still had not lost his "Russian-ness" and he himself did not believe in what he preached and still had troubling doubts about the existence of God.
3. Alexei Fyodorovich (Alyosha) was the devout brother who aspired to live in a monastery under the guidance of his spiritual father figure, Father Zossima. Alyosha represented all that was beautiful and holy about the Russian Orthodox faith. Each of these three brothers underwent a crisis in faith that was brought about by the death of their father, either directly or indirectly (as in the case of Alyosha). In each situation, each brother finally came to terms with the suffering that had been placed upon them and accepted responsibility for their actions, or indeed, for all men's actions. I thought Dostoevsky's description of this painful process of spiritual transformation brought on by suffering and anguish was mesmerizing, because I was able to relate to it in some small way. Indeed, considering the responses of many of the other customer reviewers here, I would say that my reaction was not unusual. I would suggest that reading "The Brothers Karamazov" could actually lead you to reevaluate your life principles and manner of relating to people (at least it did for me). I wil not go so far to say that this book changed my life (as some reviewers here have claimed), but at least it made me think, and for that reason this book is wonderful. It's funny how such a transcendent book as this, which has something to say to everybody, was originally written as propaganda for Russian nationalism.
Rating:
Summary: Dare I give stars to the Greatest of all?
Review: The Brothers Karamazov becomes more ironic and comedic with multiple readings and age, i.e. mine. It is also, for me, the novel of the Russian soul/landscape, the ungovernable, mystic and irrational. Traces of Rasputin can be gleaned in Fyodor Karamazov, the patriarch whose decadent life and death is the magnetic core of this masterpiece. Dostoevsky, in his last novel spares few but least of all the lesser landowners, moneylenders and petitbourgoise whose treachery and self-absorption is the essence of the drunken Karamazov. From 3 women, come the brothers and the bastard and it is within their various souls, the archetypal Russian nature and its conflict, comes the plot. In all, the span of the story is but 4 days. Karamazov is the comedy as well as the nature of the murderous avenging of devils that lightens and lifts, to the degree that is possible in this notoriously dense read. In one scene glaring with "a broad, drunken half-witted leer." he manages to speak some of the author's tormented inner debates about religion, God and the progressive, radical elements that would choose violent change and destruction. Despite his tyranny to servants, children and women, Karamazov is a yellow bellied coward. Confronted by Dmitri, his son, Fyodor squeals and runs around the table, "He's going to hurt me, stop him stop him" grabbing desperately to another son's coattails.
Dostoyevsky's final work of the obsessions that consumed him as well as his age is no where more labrynthine than in his depiction of the Russian church. He indicts the overly powerful clergy of the Holy Mother Church of the Tsar- while remaining fanatically Christian. He has contempt for the court system and the repressive penal codes, but a greater contempt for the radicals and assassins who assert that blood is the path to reform and the end of crime. Here, he enlarged on the theme of Crime and Punishment where destabilization and rampant appetites and excess were condemned. Karamazov is less a sermon or a catharsis for its delightful comedy, the burlesque of dreamers, rebels, the pious and the rogues who are part of the great folly, the foolishness and perhaps unredeemable condition of mankind. Dostoevsky was a Christian who could only love a suffering Christ- Ivan, his son intellectualizes religion yet it does nothing but infect his mind and bring nightmares, one of which is the famous chapter of "The Grand Inquisitor." There is an attack upon the deification of the uneducated Russian countrymen when after a verdict came through someone yelled, "Hooray, Trust our Russian peasants, Trust the peasants." Yet they had just convicted an innocent man. Dostoeyvski speaks in the preface as author and creator, in particular in regard to his hero, tells us in the preface that the Aleksi, (Aloysha). The Christlike youngest brother is superior in thought alone, but in his action, he fails to inspire. In no area is Dostoeyevski's own uncertainty more brilliantly depicted than in the question of the nature of the holy man on earth- the monks, the starets and the saintly. Fyodor insults the monks where Aloysha has gone to prepare for the priesthood. He shouts in a mad frenzy to the monks, "why shouldn't I act the fool? ....every single one of you is worse than me. That's why I'm a buffoon- a buffon of shame..Master (falling to knees) what must I do to earn eternal life?" Was he in jest?
It has been said that all the characters are insane, and then rebuffed with, we are just seeing them, in so much vivid light, but they are, like ourselves, just ordinary. This is an event, a necessary ingredient to any reading life.
|
