The Brothers Karamazov

I don’t know how to explain what I just read but let me tell you, it was a JOURNEY. Incredible.

I have read this book three or four times in both English and French translations. In English, grab the Volonhovsky one. I cannot even begin to describe how awesome this book is. If for no other reason than Ivan's two chapters and especially for the Grand Inquisitor, this book is clearly in the upper reaches of the greatest literature ever written in any language. The range of personalities, emotions, and reactions of the various characters - all so fully developed and realistic in that specific Dostoyevsky way - makes the plot move along so very quickly. One's sympathies shift as we vilify Fyodor and idolise Aliosha at first but then we start to feel a bit sorry for Fyodor and resent Aliosha's naïveté as we learn about Misha and Ivan...

There is just so much in this novel to love. This is one of those desert-island books without which the human race would be poorer.

Also highly recommended is Joseph Frank's excellent biography of Dostoyevski if you wish to understand why this book was his last and his greatest.

Ivan's chapters about unbaptized children and The Grand Inquisitor are among the greatest chapters I have ever read, absolutely spell-binding and critical for today's world of "alternative facts" and disdain of objectivity.

Just finished this again, but in audio format. Always so exhilarating!

I know it makes me look ignorant and uncouth to declare a masterpiece of literature by one of the greats to be awful, but here I am. I've wanted to read The Brothers Karamazov for years and years. I was looking forward to the type of revelatory experience I had with Anna Karenina a few years back--the oh-wow-now-I-see-what-everyone-was-talking-about:-Tolstoi-is-AWESOME experience. But no. I managed to wade through the first quarter or so of the audiobook before the library demanded it back for another patron and I can't say I was sorry to see it go. Although admittedly it was right as I was starting on the story of the Grand Inquisitor which is supposed to be the great contribution of the novel, so perhaps I ought to give it a few more chapters.

It's not the translation and it's not the reader (I'm pretty sure he's the same guy who read The Count of Monte Cristo which has a similar prose style to Karamazov except that I ENJOYED that novel). It's the tedious, repetitious prose and above all the gosh-awful characters. The women especially are all over-the-top drama queens full of hysterics and the men aren't much better. Even the heroic protagonist, Alyosha is not someone I have any interest in spending time with.

The most valuable part of the novel are the occasional dialogues set up as an excuse to give lengthy discourses on politics and religion. Which are intriguing insights to 19th century thought, but for that I could read a history or philosophy book, not a painfully constructed novel.

So please, please--somebody point me to a literary critic or something that can help me appreciate this book so I don't feel like such a clueless oaf.

Con qualche licenza poetica, da piccolo demone quale io sono, rigorosamente in disordine (“amate il disordine?”).

Un personaggio ha un minimo di sei nomi.
Tutti odiano Fedor Pavlovic. Hanno ragione.
Tremila rubli.
Pasticcio di pesce (quasi sempre freddo).
Il sangue dei Karamazov porta sfiga.
“Anche in te che sei un angelo vive questo insetto e suscita nel tuo sangue delle tempeste”.
L’eredità va sudata.
Caccia i tremila rubli o succede un bordello.
Gente ubriaca.
Jurodivyj.
Dio esiste. Forse.
Dio non esiste.
E Gesù?
E allora i bambini?
“Tutto è permesso”. Con la coscienza degli altri.
Questo è figlio di quale delle trentotto madri?
"Una belva non può esser mai crudele come un uomo, così raffinatamente, così artisticamente crudele". Vero.
Lo starec fa miracoli.
Inchini.
Lo starec dice cose sulla sua vita (leggermente peso ma ok).
Lo starec fa puzza, Alesa è turbato.
Il classico momento: “mo’ chi è questo?” (problema manifestatosi già da pagina 30).
Il calvario di un’anima. Tribolazione prima (e poi a seguire).
Smerdjakov suona le serenate (secondo me, è innamorato di Ivan).
Il grande inquisitore. Resistete.
Ivan è intelligente e laconico. Non ha preso dal padre.
Grusenka urla (Grusenka è diminuitivo di Agrafena, per qualche motivo…).
La febbre nervosa.
“è libero un uomo simile?”. Non è una domanda.
I tremila rubli.
La febbre cerebrale.
I cinquemila rubli.
La crisi isterica.
Rubli.
Malattie varie (tra cui alcune paralisi).
I lavori in miniera.
Grusenka, sei tu? O è il vento?
I segnali alla porta. Fedor, c’hai un’età, sei ridicolo. Mi pari Berlusconi, mi pari.
Maniaci, ossessionati, indemoniati. Insomma, la gente non si sente tanto bene.
Non ha cacciato i tremila rubli e succede il bordello.
Tutti si credono Sherlok Holmes.
Katja o Grusa? Ambarabaciccicoccò.
L’attacco epilettico di tre giorni. L’alibi di topo gigio.
Bambini si tirano sassi. Anche loro con problemi comportamentali.
Tutti a casa della signora Chochlakova, festa a sbarco.
In provincia le porte degli appartamenti sempre aperte, open bar, tutta notte.
L’unica porta chiusa è quella che vede Grigorij (mortaccitua).
“Detestava le tenerezze vitelline”. In compenso amava molto i binari.
“Vile, vile, vile!”.
Dimitrij, che cazzo fai, buon’anima? (buono sempre).
Dannata coscienza.
I due abissi. Sopra e sotto. Senza scampo.
"I rettili si divorano a vicenda".
Dio esiste. Oppure no.
Gesù c’entra, comunque.
M’ama o non m’ama?
“Ho scoperto il mio caro Alesa in flagrante gesuitismo”.
Ve l’avevo detto che Gesù c’entrava.
“Non sei tu che l’hai ucciso”.
Dire a cani e porci di volersi macchiare di parricidio.
“Non sono colpevole del sangue di mio padre” (mo’ è tardi).
“Credi che io l’abbia ucciso?” (eri tu quello che gridava “al lupo, al lupo”).
Scrivere lettere ad ex amanti incazzate confessando di voler uccidere il proprio padre (bravo).
“Non sei tu che l’hai ucciso”.
Ho stato io.
Un uomo nuovo.
"Disperazione e pentimento sono due cose completamente diverse". Vero.
Rakitin è un po’ Alfonso Signorini.
Lise, lo Xanax l’hai provato?
Il processo. (Sarà doloroso).
I tremila rubli.
I millecinquecento rubli.
Testimoni esagitati.
Testimoni ubriachi.
Bordello in aula.
In fondo tutti vogliamo uccidere il papà, non c’è bisogno di prendersela tanto.
Perry Mason.
“Avete la testa a posto?”. “Certo che ce l’ho a posto…ed è una testa ignobile”.
I lavori in Siberia (immancabili).
Ancora rubli.
“Che tu mi perdoni o no, resterai per tutta la vita nella mia anima come una piaga”. E questo è certo, Katja.
L’America (ma che c’annamo a fà in ameriga? poi che famo? siamo russi fino al midollo)
Si è trovato il cane mangiachiodi?
Ammaestrare il cane.
Umiliati, offesi e trascinati per la barba.
Funerali e grossi lacrimoni.
I bambini sono innocenti.
"C'�� Dio, sì o no?".

Ho voluto fare caciara. La verità è che questo romanzo è tutto. Fede, Libertà, coscienza, invidia, disgusto, desiderio, fratellanza, vizio, amore, Mistero, Bene, Male, Assoluto, Altro.

واقعا نمی‌دانم این داستایوسکی کیست! یک نابغه‌ی داستان‌نویسی؟ یک فیلسوف اگزیستانسیالیست؟ یک دیوانه؟

فقط این را می‌دانم که لذت خواندن رمان‌هایش را هیچ وقت فراموش نمی‌کنم. آن از "قمارباز" که تمام یک فرهنگ و گوهر یک قوم بزرگ را در گیرودار یک نوع قمار به نام رولت روایت می‌کند و تازه این همه‌ی ماجرا نیست و آن کنار آدم‌ها داستان خودشان را دارند و دور این میز رولت هر لحظه ممکن است معادلات تغییر کند و این دقیقا شبیه آدم‌های داستان است که هر لحظه ممکن است یک مسخره‌بازی از خودشان دربیاورند.
جنایت و مکافات را هم که دارم میخوانم و بسیار از غرق شدن در مداقه های موشکافانه این نویسنده در شخصیت هایش لذت میبرم. شاید کامل ترین و روانکاوانه ترین نوع شخصیت پردازی را بشود در جهان داستایوسکی یافت.

"برادران کارامازوف" هم یک رمان به شدت فلسفی است که نیروهای بزرگ معنابخش به زندگی انسان در جسم این سه برادر تجسم می‌یابند و با هم به بحث و حتی جدل و حتی جنگ می‌پردازند. آلیوشا که مهم‌ترین نقش را بین آن‌ها دارد تجسم معصومیت و ایمان انسان دین دار و معتقد مسیحی ارتدوکس است که در برخورد با برادرانش روحش متلاطم میشود و به سمت پرتگاه میرود. دیمیتری تجسم عشق شهوت‌آلود و گناه رنگ است که حاضر است روح معشوقه‌ی خود را با خیانت و هرزگی آزرده کند. و ایوان هم تجسم انسان علم‌زده و علم‌گرای مدرن است که از سویی دیگر ایمان خود به غیب را از دست داده و به عشق هم ایمانی ندارد. خود فئودور کارامازوف هم که پدر این سه برادر عجیب است تجسم کامل "انسان دیوانه و طماع" است. طماع را تنها به معنی طمع پول نگیرید. درست ترش طمع زندگی است در همه جنبه‌های حیوانی آن. این معنا را ایوان به این شکل بیان میکند که " پدر قصد ندارد تا هفتاد سالگی از جام رو بگرداند، راستش در رویای رسیدن به هشتاد سالگی است، خودش این طور می‌گوید." (فئودور داستایوسکی، برادران کارامازوف، ص324) حال آن که در کتاب مقدس عمر انسان را هفتاد سال ذکر کرده‌اند.

بالاخره این رمان نمی تواند این همه نیروی کنترل نشده را در خود تاب بیاورد و دیمیتری کارامازوف پدر خود را می کشد. ظاهر قضیه هم یک کشمکش عشقی و رقابت عجیب بین پدر و پسر بر سر زنی به نام گروشنکاست اما فکر میکنم جنبهء عینی و پلیسی قضیه کوچکترین بخش ماجراست و داستایوسکی با نوع داستان نویسی اش ما را مجبور میکند به جنب�� های عمیق تر ماجرا فکر کنیم. به درون آدمها نفوذ کنیم و از روان و ایمان آدمها سوال کنیم.
برادران کارامازوف و جنایت و مکافات هر دو حول و حوش یک قتل شکل میگیرند. در هر دو داستان مقتول شخصی است دنیاپرست و تهی از ارزشهای عالی انسانی اما حذف شدنش از دایره شخصیتها بر بدبختی بقیه می افزاید. کشمکش داستایوسکی به کشمکش نیچه یعنی انسان ذلیل نزدیک است. او هم به این فکر میکند که نکبت جامعه از وفور آدمهای ذلیل و حقیر نشات میگیرد اما این مسئله را نمیتواند حل کند که با این همه موجود حقیر چه باید کرد.
فقط این را میداند که ذلتی بالاتر از ذلت آنها که با تنزه طلبی قصد دارند دامن از این معرکه برچینندوجود ندارد.
بر اساس نظریه چندصدایی باختین این رمان نسبت به جنایت و مکافات اثری موفق تر است چون صدای دین صدای علم و صدای طمع را با وضوح بیشتری میشنویم.
---

اسفند 96:

The dreamy bearded shrink called the author of The Brothers Karamazov a neurotic, repressed bisexual epileptic in a preface of which I understood one sentence out of three. The friend of Sartre and the plane trees (sorry) has, for his part (passenger), drawn from this 850-page monument the genesis of "The Rebel," the one who always says no. With its murder in mysterious circumstances, investigation, and dramatized trial, The Brothers Karamazov follows the plot of a detective novel. Fyodor Karamazov, the victim, did not steal his fate as a murder victim. A detestable being, he has fleeced and driven his two wives mad. He has not an ounce of affection for his three sons: Alyosha (or Alexis, depending on the page), the youngest, the saint of the novel who devotes his life to religion and spreading good around him; the youngest, Dimitri (Mitia for his friends), a romantic party animal, with a debt of affection and Ivan, a cultured elder who cultivates his nihilism. This legitimate offspring, completed by an envious and epileptic bastard with the name of a cousin, Smerdiakov, has every reason to hasten the succession. Dimitri does not hide his hatred for this older man who refuses him his share of the inheritance and who covets the chosen one of his ardent heart.
Suppose this novel is a monument of literature. In that case, it is because it brilliantly explores the existential questions of all its characters around Faith, Freedom, Evil, and Free Will (no, not the one that calls on VAR, my football friends).
Some passages, particularly the one devoted to Ivan's poem, "the Grand Inquisitor," are incandescent and flammable. I'll summarize it for you. That's the Faith resting on the freedom to believe without proof; the long-awaited resurrection of Christ occurs in Seville amid the Inquisition, barbecues of infidels, and planchas of fornicators. After a few miracles recycled from the gospels, the Grand Inquisitor decides to burn the former crucified (no wonder he keeps us waiting when you see how he is received!) with full knowledge of the facts so that he does not deprive man of doubt, hope and the possibility of choosing between good and evil. Without God, there are no more boundaries between good and evil. With Him, how can we forgive him our suffering and accept the justice of men? The absence is not always wrong.
The rest of the novel is a unique reading experience due to the richness of the characters and dialogue, which makes the narration near-perfect.
That's the last novel by Dostoyevsky, an author with whom one should not count one's hours; I only have to go back in his bibliography.
Unmissable.

The Karamazov Brothers is a challenging novel to review because of its complex nature. Thus my review of the novel is based on my interpretation of the novel, and that in turn is based on limited knowledge of Dostoevsky and the political, social, and religious climate of Russia at the time of his writing this novel. I want to establish this fact at the outset because I believe that this novel is capable of producing different interpretations.

Readers and critics have claimed that The Karamazov Brothers is the best work of Dostoyevsky. After having read many Dostoeveskian novels, I also agree with the universal acclaim. The book in my opinion is a complete work in every aspect: in writing, storytelling, and character and plot development. It is not an easy task to write a lengthy novel that could engage readers' interest and attention but to a master like Dostoevsky, this is not a challenge.

The book is both a crime story and a philosophical debate on religion. In my first reading, I treated the two strands as separate and disconnected from each other. On my second reading, I realized how wrong I had been. There is a closer and inseparable connection between these two threads of the novel, for the crime is at the heart of the religious debate.

Dostoevsky was disturbed by the growing atheism in Russian society, especially in the Russian youth. The newly emerging intellectuals questioned the existence of God and they rejected the claim that HE is the almighty creator of all beings. They couldn't reconcile the idea of suffering with God's creation of beings. There is a part in the story where Ivan Karamazov (the atheist) questions why God created children to suffer as they did, from parental abuse, poverty, sicknesses, etc. But to Dostoevsky, the suffering IS the way to reach God. For the Russian atheists, the Christian principles were a necessary tool to establish some organized social order and no more. They rejected the moral responsibility the religion imposed on men. This is where "everything is permissible" is established. But it is a dangerous idea that permits the committing of crimes. And in the novel, a crime as horrific as patricide is committed because "everything is permissible".

Dostoevsky's religious views play a dominant role in the novel. He was also a non-believer at one point in his life. But his life in the Siberian prison considerably changed his perspective. Dostoevsky who returned from the prison was a believer. However, his belief didn't come within the purview of the Russian Orthodox Church Of course. He accepted the existence of God but believed in a relationship between God and man without the mediation of the Church. His faith was the active practice of love through which God's message could be spread. This is the role of Alyosha Karamazov, Dostoevsky's proclaimed hero.

Alyosha Karamazov may be the proclaimed hero of Dostoevsky, but to me, Ivan is also a hero. I loved them both. They are the two major opposing characters in the story. They both are sensitive and have character. Ivan realizes at a greater cost that his atheist views are destructive to society and that they permit horrible crimes. This knowledge horrifies him and he suffers a nervous breakdown. Although Ivan's reform is not stated, Dostoevsky has hinted this at the end.

Dostoevsky is a brilliant storyteller. Through his masterly storytelling, he invests the readers in the novel. I felt like a part of their community all through the read. Dostoyevsky's beautiful and heartfelt writing absorbed me into the world of Karamazov.

Needless to say The Karamazov Brothers is the sort of book that will become a part of the reader for life. That is the true quality of a masterpiece. It is a blessing to come across in one's reading life such a magnificent work of literature. I feel so privileged.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

n  n

ها وقد انتهت حكاية آل كارمازوف
لماذا انتهت؟ لماذا لا يوجد لها جزء رابع وخامس.. وخمسين؟
كيف تعيش مع أشخاص أكثر من 1500 صفحة، ثم تنتهي هكذا بغتة
أنت لم تعش معهم، فكثير من الناس تعاشرهم ويعاشرونك دون أن تفهمهم أو يفهموك
ماذا عن كل فرد في تلك القصة
أنت تغوص في أعماق أعماقهم، تفهم دوافعهم النفسية، تصرفاتهم الخرقاء وربما الدنيئة، حتى أنك تتطلع على أحاديثهم مع أنفسهم
وتصبح متعلقًا بهم وبمصيرهم، ثم وها تنتهي الصفحات فجأة!
تقول رندة بطلة أعراس آمنة: واحد مثل غسّان، يجب أن يسمحوا له أن يكتب رواية واحدة على الأقل بعد الموت
ودوستويفسكي أيضًا عزيزتي
يجب أن يسمحوا له بكتابة رواية أخرى على الأقل، مجلد آخر، جزء آخر من حياة هؤلاء الكارامازوف!

الجزء الثالث والأخير من الرواية هو الجزء الأكثر إنسانية من بين الأجزاء كلها
هنا وبمنتهي الذكاء يقوم دوستويفسكي بتحليل سيكولوجي عبقري لكل تصرف، ولأقل حركة، ولأدني هفوة صدرت عن أبطاله في الجزئين السابقين
هنا في هذا الجزء طرح فرضيات لما يمكن أن يكون عليه تفسير سلوك الأبطال من وجهات نظر مختلفة
الأولى تتمثل في وجهة نظر وكيل النيابة، والأخرى وجهة نظر المحامي والدفاع

حقًا النفس البشرية هي من أعقد المخلوقات وأكثرها تشعبًا
هناك تصرفات تنبع من الفرد دون أن ينتبه لها أو يقصد شيئًا ما من وراءها
تصرفات حمقاء سخيفة لا تشكل أي قيمة
لكن حين تكون بحظ عاثر مثل دمتري كارامازوف فإن هذه التصرفاات التافهة ستجتمع معًا لتطيح بحياتك ومستقبلك!
العلم النفسي والسلوك من أصعب العلوم، أنت لا تستطيع فهمها وبناء منهج خاص بها
فكلها قائمة على التخمينات
فكيف لك أن تضع لها منهج محدد لدراستها وتدريسها
هي حقًا كما قال دوستويفسكي:
السيكولوجيا سلاح ذو حدين
وبرهن على أنه سلوك واحد من شخص ما، يمكن أن يحلله الشخص-وبدلائل مقنعة- على أساس معين ويستنتج منه نتائج محددة تتوافق ووجهة نظره الخاصة بالطبع
ويقوم آخر يحمل وجهة نظر مخالفة تمامًا لوجهة النظر الأولي، فيحلل السلوك ويستخلص منه نتائج تتوافق مع وجهة نظره أيضًا
بل وبدلائل منطقية مقنعة أخرى!!
حقًا إنها سلاح ذو حدين
لا تحتاج علماء ولا دارسين لوضع نظريات أغلبها مبنيّ على التخمين والتجارب والظواهر
هي فقط تحتاج لشخص كشخص دوستويفسكي
اجتمع الحزن والألم والمعاناة معًا، ليعطوه قلب حساس يشعر بمعاناة الأخرين ويغوص في داخلهم
والأذكي، تلك القدرة في التعبير عنهم بعطف رغم كل ما قد يقترفوه من أفعال بشعة
أنت مع الشخوص التي يخلقها دوستويفسكي، لا تستطيع أن تدين أيًا منهم

n  n

أعتقد أنه حينما قال هذه الجملة، إنما كان يصف نفسه
إلى لقاء آخر أيها العزيز دوستويفسكي
عزائي الوحيد أن هنا الكثير من المجلدات التي خلقت بها المزيد من الحيوات لشخوص أعتقد أن معاناتها لن تقل عن معاناة آل كارامازوف

لا تخافوا الحياة، ما أجمل الحياة حين يحقق المرء في هذا العالم شيئًا من خير وعدل

تمّت