Rating: 
Summary: Laborious yet insightful reading
Review: Brothers Karamazov is very complex, in relation to the characters and their interactions. To me the characters were not described very well and the dialogue seemed forced, at times incoherent(why is everyone having convulsions?)It seems Dostoyevsky did not have any strength left to make the dialogue interesting. People would lapse into fits for no reason and hallucinate constantly, it made you just want to get to the more philosophical sections. The personal interactions were mainly confusing and frustrating, many times I wanted to throw the book in the garbage. 75% of this book consisted of the characters going back and forth to each others houses talking about god knows what(you lose interest and lose track of who's who eventually and they all sound the same). This book was a definite chore-read, I did not suspect this having read "crime and punishment" beforehand, a book I was very impressed with. The only part I did enjoy were Dostoyevsky's questions about morality, which are always satisfying and informative. It is possible that Dostoyevsky's illness in later life reflects the poor effort of this book. I think that because it was his last, people assume that it was his greatest. I wouldnt waste your time, maybe read the cliff's notes. (...)
Rating: 
Summary: This book is not for literary wimps
Review: A deep philosophical treatment on well just about everything important: God, Satan, pleasure, pain, justice, honor et cetera.
Not only that Dostoyevsky creates many of the most memorable characters in literature. The Brothers Karamazov are both archtypes to ways of life and real people. The only reason one might not like this book is if you want a simple, entertaining diversion. This is a trying book. It is suppose to be trying. This book will expand your mind. If you like this book you might also like Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun tetragy, it is the only other literary work comparable to it.
Rating:
Summary: Best ever written book
Review: I guess I am a bit bias toward this book because I had read it three times. First time when I was 15 or 16 years old I was supposed to read Dostoyevskiy at Ukrainian high school, so I did. Second time at 18 and now I am rereading it third time. This is a real book. No movie, of theatrical action can fully describe the deepness of moral, political, religious dilemmas raised by author. If you think you know everything about life and its meaning, read this book, and you may rethink it. In a way it's a controversial book ,in a sense, that if you believe in God (as I do)-book will strengthen your faith; but if you don't (believe in God) you may find a lot of logical labyrinth that prove your atheism. Still aside of religion question this book is just wonderfull piece of good writing. Characters are fully developed, there's no shallowness in them. Anyway read this book, you won't be sorry. Best ever ever literature.
Rating:
Summary: Beware of the Winger
Review: Although I have enjoyed her vibrant, subtle performances in such movies as Shadowlands and Black Widow, I am sorry to report that Debra Winger bashes to bits any pleasure that might otherwise be gleaned from listening to the Brothers Karamazov on tape. Dostoevsky is, you might argue, an odd choice for B. on Tape, but I do believe my drive through Wyoming and South Dakota would have been nicely complemented by a more careful reading of this classic. Winger reads the entire book like she has to go to the bathroom: a misplaced urgency and frantic pace pervade her every word. Her reading of characters' speech is worse, sounding more like the awkward improvisations of a college freshman bound for business school who takes an acting class for fun than an accomplished stage and screen actress. The result is that one feels like every paragraph is the climax of the story, and that every character is a cocaine addict who can't score any blow. Indeed, I even found myself wondering if this was Winger's first read of the book. In short, I say stay away from the Winger.
Rating:
Summary: everything is permitted, so read
Review: Where did modernism come from? Russia. I can understand why some people find Joyce's Ulysses annoying. He is a kind of show off. I think that book is unnecassarily difficult. Joyce created a structure based on Homer and Shakespeare and every other master that ever wrote and his holy house of modern fiction is filled with words spoken mostly by one character to himself. Odd, huh? Proust puts the focus of his work on one sensibility, his own, but is every trifle of his comfy existence among Counts and Countesses worthy of the focus he brings to it. Again, kind of odd. If those two books don't really sit well with you or even if they do read Dostoyevsky's masterpiece. The Brothers Karamazov is also a huge book like those later two but it's focus is wider(four + main characters, all very different)and its ultimate effect more profound. Dostoevsky's theme is nothing less than the death of God. All of his work is existential but this is the most complete exploration of the topic. "If there is no God, then everything is permitted". If that sounds like a good thesis to you and you've grown tired of the drawing room that is(much of)the western canon then begin reading this. Once you begin no one will be able to distract you. I read it in college during a week long break when I was stranded on an empty campus. My favorite scenes are not the long speeches which are a bit like tracts inserted into the text but scenes like the strange dream sequence which I think the Russians do better than anyone, in fact many parts of the book leave one in a dream like delirium. Perhaps the modern was born of a long sleepless night in Russia. You will lose sleep reading this because it is long but you will have chosen the right story and storyteller, this Russian mystic will infuse your days as the characters encountered the night before whisper in your head and your dream life will be rich. I like to imagine the Russia Dostoevsky describes still exists. I think perhaps it does. Joyce is great and so is Proust, both bring a great deal of psychology to the novel and that is one thing that makes them modern. Dostoevsky is also a psychologist. Some might say a slightly more primitive one, but to some that might think civilization does not move all that quickly, if at all, Dostoevsky remains a master. His expertise: those areas of the psych that have not yet submitted to civilization. Heavy, powerful stuff that makes for great heavy nights.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent novel with deep meaning
Review: Although I'm not even in college yet, Dostoyevsky is by far the most perceptive author I have read, which includes Orwell, Huxley, Zamyatin, Dickens, etc.Seeing as how I'm lacking age, I have not yet managed to grasp some of the concepts and deeper meanings of the book, however one thing was clear to me when I finished it for the first, and definately not the last time: this is a book that changes people at a personal level, speaking different words to different people, as opposed to 1984 for example, which communicates the same ideas to everyone, making it's mark on the society, not the individual.
Rating:
Summary: Don't do it to yourself
Review: This is without question one of the greatest novels ever written. Do not atempt to argue against this book. Some critics paint Dostoevsky in braod strokes i.e he is too "over the top" and only has momentary flashes of brilliance. This is the kind of drivvel that gives fools internet rage. Thats when you have to jump out the cuts and lay that crikkety-clack-smack down on fools. READ THIS BOOK FOR YOUR OWN EDUCATION. I would recomend more Dostoevsky to anyone. One might also want to check out Pushkin, and Dumas.
Rating:
Summary: Trite but true: one of the best books ever written
Review: Even people who are intimidated by long books should be able to rip through this. The text is dense and every page is filled with importance, but instead of struggling to comprehend the message, you find yourself nodding along, thinking "Of course!" to every other sentence. This book asked question after question about life and personal responsibility, and gave very few answers. However, the best books don't shove a message down your throat but let you find your own way.
Rating: 
Summary: Slightly over the top
Review: There's really no point in arguing that this anything but a really great novel. It is an epic work, with an almost epic length as well; an the exploration of the relations between three (actually four, if the illegitimate house-servant is included) brothers, the sons of a selfish, greedy, conniving, morally and physically repugnant father. In many ways, "Brothers Karamazov" can probably be viewed as a reflection of Russian intellectual/spiritual culture in the 19th century, and perhaps even beyond. Like his other works, this book also contains Dostoevsky's literary musings on the state of Russian society as he saw it. Even so, this is also weighty book: in a fashion similar to Tolstoy, Dostoevsky was quite obsessed with the concept of personal redemption, the moral catharsis (or 'moral bath' as Tolstoy called it in "War & Peace"), atonement for sins, etc. and this, together with his religious mysticism (and the accompanying good vs. evil symbolism), can become quite tiresome at times. Dostoevsky was a very conservative Christian tormented by his own vices and a virulent opponent of Western European Enlightenment ideals (he viewed them as a threat to Russian culture and the Russian soul), and this is often reflected in "Brothers Karamazov." Personally, I think the best parts of the book are when Dostoevsky explores the mindsets of his various characters, creating a very psychologically tense atmosphere. Also, his portrayals of the interactions and conflicts between his various characters is superb. In this sense, it is similar to "Crime and Punishment," which is a better book - simply because it tends to focus more on one major theme. Thus, after reading "Crime and Punishment" one can easily be left with the impression that the "Brothers Karamazov" is a slight case of overkill in some aspects. However, on its own it is nonetheless a great book and definitely worth reading - although due consideration should be given to its historical context, meaning the place and time in which it was written (tsarist Russia in the 19th century).
Rating: 
Summary: Great novel, but read a different translation.
Review: Dostoevsky's original Russian is meaty. Constance Garnett's translation is Victorian. Garnett may well have thought that she was improving on Dostoevsky's cluttered and lumbering prose, but she did not. Garnett was the first person to translate many of the classic Russian novels (by Dostoevsky and Tolstoy) into English, and it is rare that the early translations of classic works are good. When buying a translation, if there is an option, you are overwhelmingly better off buying the most recent possible. Luckily, Dostoevksy does not now lack for translators, and the Brothers K is *at least* five stars when better translated. Nabokov & others have derided Dostoevksy for his deep and tormented characters and soul-bareing conversations. However, it is pointless to criticize Dostoevsky for not having shared in the form-enfatuation of the 20th century and not having joined the race of style that started three decades after his death. Dostoevsky most concerned himself with his characters. And for him, real evaluation occurs in extreme conditions and conflicting values. He helps himself to these circumstances with none of the frugality of many modern novelists. Although many judge The Brothers as Dostoevsky's greatest novel, it is not the most Dostoevskian of his great novels. That would be The Devils, where the strange workings of his characters and the originality of his social insight are most clearly and uncomfortably evident.
|
