Rating: 
Summary: Dostoyevsky's most captivating Book, Easy to Read
Review: This is one of Dostoyevsky;s best books. The theme of a russian prison camp and it's "comfortability" amazed me from the first time I read it's review, formerly I thought that penal servitude in Siberia was exrutiatingly hard work, but through Dostoyevsky's descriptions it appears that life in the prison is better than that of a peasant.
Rating:
Summary: Tsarist Gulag
Review: "The House of the Dead" is an account of the prison years of Aleksandr Petrovich Goryanchikov, told in the first person. Of course, one can almost read it as Dostoyevsky's account of his own incarceration: it certainly has a feel of authenticity in its level of detail.For those who have read Solzhenitsyn's novels and "The Gulag Archipelago", much in "The House of the Dead" will be familiar - perhaps depressingly so in that little seems to have changed between the times the two writers were imprisoned. This is not to distract from the quality of Dostoyevsky's novel. The reader is presented with a series of impressions, sketches and reflections rather than a straightforward narrative. The central character, Goryanchikov, is not depicted in great detail. Rather, he acts as the cipher through which the other prisoners and prison life are related to the reader. Goryanchikov describes lives and histories of the other prisoners, their treatment by the guards, living conditions and notable events. The squalor and brutality of prison life come over very strongly, as does the ability of humans to adapt to such treatment. For some, of course, prison life was infinitely preferable to their normal existence, which says a great deal about conditions in Tsarist Russia. Class, religious and national distinctions were maintained in prison: Goryanchikov is a nobleman, which creates problems for him regarding his fellow inmates. In all, an interesting novel which succeeds in relating the horrendous conditions of prison life, the brutality of men and the will to survive. G Rodgers
Rating:
Summary: Tsarist Gulag
Review: "The House of the Dead" is an account of the prison years of Aleksandr Petrovich Goryanchikov, told in the first person. Of course, one can almost read it as Dostoyevsky's account of his own incarceration: it certainly has a feel of authenticity in its level of detail. For those who have read Solzhenitsyn's novels and "The Gulag Archipelago", much in "The House of the Dead" will be familiar - perhaps depressingly so in that little seems to have changed between the times the two writers were imprisoned. This is not to distract from the quality of Dostoyevsky's novel. The reader is presented with a series of impressions, sketches and reflections rather than a straightforward narrative. The central character, Goryanchikov, is not depicted in great detail. Rather, he acts as the cipher through which the other prisoners and prison life are related to the reader. Goryanchikov describes lives and histories of the other prisoners, their treatment by the guards, living conditions and notable events. The squalor and brutality of prison life come over very strongly, as does the ability of humans to adapt to such treatment. For some, of course, prison life was infinitely preferable to their normal existence, which says a great deal about conditions in Tsarist Russia. Class, religious and national distinctions were maintained in prison: Goryanchikov is a nobleman, which creates problems for him regarding his fellow inmates. In all, an interesting novel which succeeds in relating the horrendous conditions of prison life, the brutality of men and the will to survive. G Rodgers
Rating:
Summary: behind the bars
Review: As you can guess from the title, this book tends to the grimmer side of life. Bsed on Dostoyevsky's personal experiences as a prisoner for some political scheme or other, one can see his genius at human observation. The impersonal style, and the grey feeling you get delivers the truly mundane and painful existence of a prison in the 19th century. Lacking are the heroic escapes, the outlaw with a heart of gold, and other typically American themes (cff the Green Mile). This book is a series of subtle observations, and truly meant for those with a psychological outlook.
Rating:
Summary: behind the bars
Review: As you can guess from the title, this book tends to the grimmer side of life. Bsed on Dostoyevsky's personal experiences as a prisoner for some political scheme or other, one can see his genius at human observation. The impersonal style, and the grey feeling you get delivers the truly mundane and painful existence of a prison in the 19th century. Lacking are the heroic escapes, the outlaw with a heart of gold, and other typically American themes (cff the Green Mile). This book is a series of subtle observations, and truly meant for those with a psychological outlook.
Rating: 
Summary: A good story, but not Dostoevsky at his best
Review: Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead is an account of life in a Siberian prison, drawing heavily from its author's own imprisonment for sedition. The narrator is nominally serving time for murdering his wife out of jealousy, but Dostoevsky makes very little effort to maintain the artifice that the narrator is anyone other than himself, as the narrator even refers to himself as a political prisoner on a couple of occasions. The novel consists mainly of a series of anecdotes relating such things as the staging of a prison play, the memories of some convicts of the crimes that landed them in prison, and the attempted escape of two of the prisoners, all interspersed among observations of more day-to-day affairs like prison food and corporal punishment. A number of the stories are very interesting, and overall Dostoevsky paints an impressive picture of prison life as a whole. Though it's clear that his experience in prison was a brutal one, the reader never feels as though Dostoevsky is overplaying the prisoners' suffering, which makes it seem all the more authentic. However, I'd have to say this sort of narrative doesn't really play into Dostoevsky's overall strength as an author. Dostoevsky's best works generally have a strong and coherent (though in some cases somewhat melodramatic) plot that develops more or less linearly throughout the novel; The House of the Dead, on the other hand, is hardly more than a series of related roughly-15-page short stories and so inevitably lacks the suspense of much of Dostoevsky's other work. For the same reason, none of the characters get especially well developed--the reader is left with a lot of interesting character sketches, none of which get fleshed out. As such, it's sort of unfair to compare The House of the Dead with many of Dostoevsky's best known works, since the format doesn't allow Dostoevsky to show some of the strengths he shows elsewhere. Taken in isolation, though, it's a fine account of life in the Siberian prisons of the mid-19th century, and it mixes the elements of a documentary with those of a novel well enough to ultimately be a very interesting and enjoyable work.
Rating:
Summary: 3 and 1/2 Stars -- Different For Dostoyevsky
Review: Fyodor Dostoyevsky is well-known for his novels and novellas, of which some of the best ever written flowed from his pen. This book, however, is an entirely different animal. Though ostensibly a work of fiction, The House of the Dead is actually a thinly-veiled autobiographical narrative. Dostoyevsky, who endured four years of hard labor in a Siberian prison -- after getting the "silent treatment" is isolation for eight months and facing a firing squad, in a death shroud, only to have his sentence commuted to the aforementioned punishment at the last minute -- created this book as a sort of memoir of his experiences. The book's Introduction sets up a fictional character to tell the story -- it was Dostoyevsky's intent to have the notes "written by a stranger" and to have his personality completely eliminated (one suspects for reasons not entirely related to literary conduciveness) -- but we see the emperor through his clothes. Since this is not really a work of fiction, then, it is not surprising that there is absolutely no plot to speak of, no linear development, no climax, and no resolution. It is, basically, a series of anecdotes -- the more interesting things that Dostoyevsky saw while in prison. Indeed, an alternate title that I have seen for the book is much more fitting (and revealing): Notes From a Dead House. This book certainly does not rank in the upper tier of Dostoyevsky's work: all of his long novels are acknowledged masterpieces. With that said, it should also be noted that this book is also an acknowledged classic. As a book relating the prison experience to the masses (of which there are many), it is rather fine. The book reads much like a documentary -- which, of course, is what it basically is. Unlike many other prison books, we don't see such exciting elements as dashing escapes and noble, heroic prisoners. This is the real thing. It is also remarkable how infrequently Dostoyevsky gets on his soapbox: this is not a polemic against prisons, a tome about being a "victim of society", or a tract for prison reform -- it is not even an admirable psychological portrait of an enthralled criminal. Indeed, the book, as it goes, is quite remarkable for its uniqueness. Those who like to read books of this kind -- criminologists, say -- will find much to like here and will also probably find it to be quite unique. It is also a treasure for Dostoyevsky readers, who will find much material that enlivens the author himself. Readers new to the author, however, should start with one of his great novels.
Rating:
Summary: Dostoyevsky is rarely more personal
Review: House of the Dead is not a general account of imprisonment and system of law of Russia, ala Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, but is a much more personal account of the author's own experiences. There is no attempt to overplay or dramatize personal suffering, though there was probably ample reason for the author to do so. Instead, the author focuses more on his fellow inmates: their personalities, their culture, their way of life and way of thinking. The effect is immeasurable, and makes the House of the Dead one of the most potent, moving pieces of literature ever written. The convicts that Dostoyevsky describes seem to come alive -- their descriptions are so complete and realistic that its almost as if they're reading the book with you. This method of describing imprisonment defies conventiality, but Dostoyevsky pulls it off easily. By knowing the convicts, you feel for them, you understand them, and you walk away knowing and loving humanity just a bit more. A great aspect of the book is that you can pick it up at almost any spot, so long as you know the general plot. I can't tell you how many times I've picked the book up and flipped straight to the first chapter describing the hospital, and read simply that alone. When Dostoyevsky tells of the dead convict, little more than a husk or a shell of a man who couldn't even stand the weight of his clothes or his wooden crucifix, being dragged off routinely with his heavy fetters still on, one can hardly help but grimace. And when another convict yells, inexplicably, "He had a mother too!" you start to sympathize for these convicts: the filthiest, most degenerate human beings you can imagine. Its a story of love for humanity, of resurrection from despair, and of a man's final reconciliation with his own life.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I love this book. I'm so sad that I will never be able to read this book for the first time again! I would say that there are a few technical errors in this book, but it's beauty and originality far over shadow any of that. If you are thinking of reading this, please do!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I love this book. I'm so sad that I will never be able to read this book for the first time again! I would say that there are a few technical errors in this book, but it's beauty and originality far over shadow any of that. If you are thinking of reading this, please do!
|
