Rating: 
Summary: Thank you, Fyodor, for giving us this great gift.
Review: I agree with Sanjay and the rest who adore this book. The Brothers K is a spiritual feast. Dostoyevsky was truly a conduit for incredible wisdom from the cosmos when he put pen to paper and created the Brothers. I have read it many times and, having a degree in Russian and having lived in Russia for years, I must say that this work is an accurate representation of the willingness of the Russian soul to discuss the unanswerable, attempt to locate the unfindable, aspire to almost other-worldly goodness while yet seeing and understanding human suffering and evil. Thank you, Fyodor, for bringing this great torch into the world. May we someday meet.
Rating: 
Summary: Ponderous but rewarding. Intelligent yet readable.
Review: I finally completed Brothers Karamazov, and I needed to share my thoughts. I will try not to insult anybody's intelligence by outlining this book--Cliff Notes and the like abound, so if somebody wants a full explanation of Dostoevsky's plot, they can simply pick up one of these. What I want to say is much more difficult to define--whether or not I would recommend it to others, and why.More than many other works, Brothers Karamazov was an experience for me--not the plot, nor the themes, nor even the characters: any number of writers can create believable characters and scenarios and, with them, play out lofty themes. But I speak here only of the simple process of reading this tome. It weighs in at 700 pages and it took me a year to read. In fact, I began the first 100 pages at least four different times before I finally plodded forward to the end. I used two different translations and an audio book version. Why did I do this to myself? Why did I start the thing three times? For any lesser book, I probably would have given up and tossed aside. There. That said, I also refuse to extinguish the fire with the spittoon (you did want to read this book, right?), so I should tell my readers that the book is excellent. In fact, let's call the book superior. I realized that my problems with Dostoevsky's writing were stylistic concerns, and these I should be able to conquer, because the author was saying something _important_. The importance of his work could be felt in each page. And despite many long and admittedly tedious passages, he was unassumingly polite to the reader. He was not confusing his verbosity with his intelligence, although the author was undoubtedly brilliant and possessed a very large vocabulary. Somewhere in the novel, you realize, without really knowing when it happened, that you care deeply about his characters and their struggles. It became obvious to me that, for Dostoevsky, the object of his work was far more important than his ability to tell the tale. So I attacked the work many times, hoping to capture the articulation of the author's vision. So a bit about my difficulties--In the style of many writers of his era, Dostoevsky tends to explain the back story, rather than to depict it. One wonders that, if the author's popularity was not at its height at the time of this work's publication, his editor would not have removed perhaps half the novel's current bulk. The largesse of the novel comes across as rather unpalatable for readers in this era of television, where it is expected that we be told a story, rather than _shown_ a story. One only need think of the extremely common use of flashback as a storytelling device in television and film to understand this point. Dostoevsky weaves his narrative with expertise and intelligence yet there are moments when the book moves toward a heavy-handed didactic style. His work frequently reads like an essay, in my opinion; especially during the first half of the novel. Despite this, one leaves with the feeling that Dostoevsky was a man of many strongly-held opinions, and that he processed his thoughts rigorously before he reached them. These tendencies may frame this work as too reflective for twenty-first century readers, but it is not without purpose that the author does this--his themes are far too expansive to be treated lightly, wants the reader to realize that the questions posed by his work are not solved by simple, grunting yeas and nays. So, you may wonder if I even liked the book. My answer to this is an adamant yes, but it was a challenge. Once, in my early readings of the first few hundred pages, I described this book to a friend: it seemed like a very long list for a shopper at a religious bookstore. This was only partially in jest--it seems like this at times. Yet Dostoevsky is not without its merits. He develops his characters with acuity of a person who has spent years watching others, and not judging their actions, but discovering why they acted in certain ways. Dostoevsky is a forerunner of the Multiple Intelligences movement in vogue today. One comes away from the novel sympathizing deeply for each of the characters and their struggles. His narrative segments are, if nothing else, thought-provoking, and all the more meaningful to those who struggle with religious faith. I recommend the book with the following proviso: the reader should be ready to be challenged. The narrative style is not for the faint-hearted, and Dostoevsky develops the plot at a snail's pace. If you are looking for excitement, or a quick thrill, or romance, this will not be the book for you. Something more contemporary would probably be more to your appeal. But if you are looking for a beautiful and meticulously-constructed work that has maintained its appeal for 120 years, you should give The Brothers Karamazov a try. Finally, I should mention something about translations. Constance Garnett's classic translation is widely available. However, this translation is steeped in language that is, well, a century old, and may seem too stodgy for readers of today. A far more readable translation is the more recent Pevear and Volokhonsky, which transforms many of the more archaic terms and metaphors. I enjoyed the Audio Book version, by the way. One can fade in and out, still catching the gist of the novel and its main characters. It also allows you the luxury of reflecting on the work as it is being listened to, rather than become irritated by all the Russian names and their variations. If you enjoy the kind of loftiness I described, and are not afraid to think about what you are reading, then read this book, by any means. You may even find yourself, as I did, falling in love with a new author.
Rating:
Summary: Ponderous but rewarding. Intelligent yet readable.
Review: I finally completed Brothers Karamazov, and I needed to share my thoughts. I will try not to insult anybody's intelligence by outlining this book--Cliff Notes and the like abound, so if somebody wants a full explanation of Dostoevsky's plot, they can simply pick up one of these. What I want to say is much more difficult to define--whether or not I would recommend it to others, and why.
More than many other works, Brothers Karamazov was an experience for me--not the plot, nor the themes, nor even the characters: any number of writers can create believable characters and scenarios and, with them, play out lofty themes. But I speak here only of the simple process of reading this tome. It weighs in at 700 pages and it took me a year to read. In fact, I began the first 100 pages at least four different times before I finally plodded forward to the end. I used two different translations and an audio book version. Why did I do this to myself? Why did I start the thing three times? For any lesser book, I probably would have given up and tossed aside.
There. That said, I also refuse to extinguish the fire with the spittoon (you did want to read this book, right?), so I should tell my readers that the book is excellent. In fact, let's call the book superior.
I realized that my problems with Dostoevsky's writing were stylistic concerns, and these I should be able to conquer, because the author was saying something _important_. The importance of his work could be felt in each page. And despite many long and admittedly tedious passages, he was unassumingly polite to the reader. He was not confusing his verbosity with his intelligence, although the author was undoubtedly brilliant and possessed a very large vocabulary. Somewhere in the novel, you realize, without really knowing when it happened, that you care deeply about his characters and their struggles. It became obvious to me that, for Dostoevsky, the object of his work was far more important than his ability to tell the tale. So I attacked the work many times, hoping to capture the articulation of the author's vision.
So a bit about my difficulties--In the style of many writers of his era, Dostoevsky tends to explain the back story, rather than to depict it. One wonders that, if the author's popularity was not at its height at the time of this work's publication, his editor would not have removed perhaps half the novel's current bulk. The largesse of the novel comes across as rather unpalatable for readers in this era of television, where it is expected that we be told a story, rather than _shown_ a story. One only need think of the extremely common use of flashback as a storytelling device in television and film to understand this point.
Dostoevsky weaves his narrative with expertise and intelligence yet there are moments when the book moves toward a heavy-handed didactic style. His work frequently reads like an essay, in my opinion; especially during the first half of the novel. Despite this, one leaves with the feeling that Dostoevsky was a man of many strongly-held opinions, and that he processed his thoughts rigorously before he reached them. These tendencies may frame this work as too reflective for twenty-first century readers, but it is not without purpose that the author does this--his themes are far too expansive to be treated lightly, wants the reader to realize that the questions posed by his work are not solved by simple, grunting yeas and nays.
So, you may wonder if I even liked the book. My answer to this is an adamant yes, but it was a challenge. Once, in my early readings of the first few hundred pages, I described this book to a friend: it seemed like a very long list for a shopper at a religious bookstore. This was only partially in jest--it seems like this at times. Yet Dostoevsky is not without its merits. He develops his characters with acuity of a person who has spent years watching others, and not judging their actions, but discovering why they acted in certain ways. Dostoevsky is a forerunner of the Multiple Intelligences movement in vogue today. One comes away from the novel sympathizing deeply for each of the characters and their struggles. His narrative segments are, if nothing else, thought-provoking, and all the more meaningful to those who struggle with religious faith.
I recommend the book with the following proviso: the reader should be ready to be challenged. The narrative style is not for the faint-hearted, and Dostoevsky develops the plot at a snail's pace. If you are looking for excitement, or a quick thrill, or romance, this will not be the book for you. Something more contemporary would probably be more to your appeal. But if you are looking for a beautiful and meticulously-constructed work that has maintained its appeal for 120 years, you should give The Brothers Karamazov a try.
Finally, I should mention something about translations. Constance Garnett's classic translation is widely available. However, this translation is steeped in language that is, well, a century old, and may seem too stodgy for readers of today. A far more readable translation is the more recent Pevear and Volokhonsky, which transforms many of the more archaic terms and metaphors. I enjoyed the Audio Book version, by the way. One can fade in and out, still catching the gist of the novel and its main characters. It also allows you the luxury of reflecting on the work as it is being listened to, rather than become irritated by all the Russian names and their variations. If you enjoy the kind of loftiness I described, and are not afraid to think about what you are reading, then by all means get this book. You may even find yourself, as I did, falling in love with a new writer.
Rating:
Summary: An Outstanding Translation of an Epic Work
Review: I hope that I need not persuade anyone that this book is one of the most moving and significant in all of literature. I give as proof, generations of academic and armchair scholars of Dostoevsky's writings. My main purpose is to give my thanks to the translators for their outstanding work in providing the most accurate version of this work I have yet to encounter. My focus in reading all of Dostoevsky's literature are his perceptions of the Orthodox Church and its application in the lives of himself and his characters. I discovered this translation after reading two others, one of them being the often read Constance Garnett edition. I found that translation appalling, especially in reference to church-related issues (even simple things, such as church service being repeatedly referred to as "mass", instead of properly as "liturgy"). After that debacle, it was a true pleasure to read Volokhonsky's translation. Knowledge that she has worked on translating the church fathers is comforting and apparent in this translation's accuracy. The work of Pevear and Volokhonsky is invaluable and I highly recommend all of their translations of Dostoevsky. Especially for the Orthodox scholar, their efforts allow for the communication of Dostoevsky's spiritual message in the most full way possible for a non-Russian speaker.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking - not force fed - philosophy
Review: I read Crime and Punishment when I was in high school and it was one of my favorite books then. Most people have said that the sheer size of The Brothers K is daunting, but when I started it, somehow, that never even came to mind. In fact, all I really cared about was reading more and more. Sometimes I even put it ahead of my schoolwork. What I loved about it: By having all these characters (especially the brothers) with different philosophies and attitudes in life, Dostoevsky presents many sides of philosophy and almost leaves it to us to choose what we think best (I say almost because the plot leads you in certain directions at times). This is also seen with The Grand Inquisitor chapter and the teachings of the Elder Zosima. We can read them and pick up any gems that we choose. This is why the comparisons to this great novel to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged have irked me. The Brothers K presents life in 1000 pages and allows you to learn from it. Atlas Shrugged repeats one philosophy over and over and won't allow you to think otherwise - and even repeats its first 800 pages in a 70 page treatise at the end. Not wanting to stray from The Brothers K: One thing that dissapoints me is that Dostoevsky never wrote the second part to this - and I wonder what more he could present then - especially in the character of Alexei - of whom I wanted to read more.
Rating:
Summary: It slowly changed my life. It's still haunting me.
Review: I think I am going to read this wonderful book again. There is so much life and passion in it, that reading it again will definitely enrich my soul even further. I want to tell you how this novel changed my life. It was recommended to me by a Russian Orthodox priest who considered it the best source of Russian Orthodox spirituality in literature. So I read it. I read it because at the time I was striving to become a true Orthodox Christian myself. The result, however, turned out the opposite: I lost any faith I ever had in the truth of the Church and all its dogmas. This book gave me an idea that if there is God, it is certainly not what we are taught He is. I think that in this work Dostoevsky reached the very height of what I would call "a war with oneself". He created this unforgettable contrast between what he wanted to believe (and, indeed believed at times) and what he actually was going through in his spiritual search, which were probably indescribable spiritual torments of doubt. I now have this indelible image of Ivan confiding in Alesha, arguing with Satan and, at last, denying God himself in his search for the truth. It was he, who stirred my whole being and it was Dostoevsky himself speaking through Ivan with the most profound sincerety and desperation. On the opposite, Dostoevsky introduces Alyosha, who didn't doubt, but just loved and believed. This young man, according to Dostoevsky's plan, is a prototype of Jesus Christ himself, a man in whom the truth is open within, a man through whom one can truly feel God's love. It is a fascinating character, although, Dostoevsky depicts him in the light of Christian Orthodoxy, as an example of TRUE spirituality, as opposed to any other spirituality. Nevertheless, if we were to take liberties in the interpretation of the work, put the dogmas aside and look at Alyosha as a human being, then we could boldly say, that this young man IS the embodiment of love, truth and godliness. I really would want to at least resemble such a person! And in the midst of this spiritual struggle, there is murder, treachery, repentance, love and comedy, which bring the characters out into your own life. I just love this book! I love the brothers, even though they are so different! There are so many things to love "The Brothers Karamazov" for, but it is for this brave, but nevertheless desperate challenge to our faith, and at the same time, a great example of living it, that I praise this book so highly. It is truly as rich, thought-provoking and awe-inspiring as life itself. P.S. I highly recommend the translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. It is the most correct and true to the spirit of the book translation available. By the way, they also translated "Crime and Punishment", "The Demons", "Notes from the Underground" and lots more, so I recommend those as well. And if you really would like to get the feel of how Dostoevsky DID NOT write, try the translation by Constance Garnett! It is outdated and, frankly, in some places she took liberties at what to leave and what to take out. I read "The Brothers Karamazov" in Russian and English, going line-by-line sometimes and discovering those literary atrocities all along the text.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest novel of all time?
Review: I think so, is there an author alive who can match wits with the Former and Indisputable One, I doubt it. Dostoyevsky showcases the entire sphere of human psychology with a clarity of vision that has yet to be challenged in the overstuffed world of literature. What more can be said; other than long live Alyosha!
Rating:
Summary: Best Book Ever on the Human Pscyhe & Excellent Translation
Review: I won't review the patricide, betrayals and other complications here because that's well covered in other reviews. But I will point out one aspect that warrants additional emphasis, the books characters. The characters are so real in this novel they could walk right out of the book and you could talk to them. Dostoyevsky's style is to have his characters enter into a scene and immediately spill out everything that's on their mind without edit. It's a bit awkward but it's also what makes them more real than any author has ever been able to achieve. And not only are they revealing they're also an eerie representation of the people one encounters in one's real life -- you will be able to identify each character in the book with a real person in your life. If I could only put one book on a "required reading" list this could very well be it. (Moby Dick would be my other choice.) The publisher also did an excellent job on the translation, keeping it as close as possible to the original Russian meaning.
Rating: 
Summary: great ideas; sluggish otherwise
Review: I've read three of Dostoyevsky's novels, and each time I've approached one of his major works I did so for the ideas, rather than for the characters and plot. If you're of a philosophical bent, this is a good book for you; Dostoyevsky possessed deep insight into the human condition; he foresaw (as did Nietzche) the onslaught of nihilism that would overthrow almost all vestiges of traditional values, in Russia and Europe; in this sense his books are "prophetic" (it is fruitful to read this book if you are trying to understand, for example, the epidemic of school shootings in this country in the past couple of years). He was possessed of a deep and genuine Christian faith, which he believed to be the best (perhaps only) antidote to the problems of "modernity". However, I think most people read novels for believable characters and an engaging plot that moves along at enough of a pace to keep the reader interested. This isn't to say people aren't interested in theme. But theme is generally brought out through concrete events, rather than long, digressive conversation among characters(Dostoyevsky's method). As compelling as these conversations sometimes are, they do bog the movement of the story along, tremendously. Chekhov's economy of means represents the opposite of Dostoyevsky's method, and his best stories are so poignant that they can evoke in the reader the same deep questioning about life. So, if you're looking for a light read or a book in which the characters are not merely puppets in services of the author's ideas, there are much better choices out there.
Rating:
Summary: I admit that I had to start it a second time to appreciate
Review: If you like to challenge yourself with great literature, not alway immediately accessible, I cannot recommend a greater book. During my first reading, I "lost" Dostoevsky's "voice,"... I just could not find a theme in what I was reading. I decided to start over, and I am glad that I did. As wonderful and complex as the characters are (and they are complex) maybe a better aspect of this book is the author's narrations. The book is almost a work of fiction along with Fyodor's non-ficiton narrative. Give yourself 8 weeks to get through it.
|
