از "قمارباز" خوشم نیومده بود و از داستایفسکی ناامید شده بودم، ولی برعکس بعد از خوندن این کتاب تازه فهمیدم که چه قلم قدرتمندی داره این مرد!
توصیه می کنم بخونید این کتاب رو، بقدری غرق در کتاب میشید که اصلا حجم بالاش به چشم نمی یاد.

n  n

If you like your books to move in a linear fashion this book is not for you. It hops around and attention must be paid or you will find yourself flipping back a few pages to reestablish the thread of the story. I took this on a plane flight, crazy right? Not exactly the normal "light" reading I take on flights. It was a stroke of genius. I absolutely fell under the thrall of Dostoyevky's prose. (Thank you to my fellow travelers who didn't feel the need to chat with the guy who obviously is so frilling bored he has resorted to reading a Russian novel.) I zipped through three hundred pages like it was butter and found myself absolutely captivated by the evolving drama of the Brothers Karamazov, the women that drive them crazy, and the father that brings to mind the words justifiable homicide.

I have to give a plug to these Everyman's Library editions. A 776 page novel that feels like a 300 page novel. Despite the smaller size, the print size is still easily readable. I will certainly be picking up more of these editions especially the Russian novels that are translated by the magical duo of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.

n  n
Translators Volokhonsky and Pevear

One of my complaints, when I was in college, and liked to torture myself with the largest most incomprehensible Russian books I could find, was that the nicknames and diminutives of various Russian names increased my frustration level and decreased my ability to comprehend the plots. I certainly spent too much time scratching my head and reading feverishly to see if I could figure out from the interactions of the characters if Vanky was actually Ivan or Boris or Uncle Vashy. I did not have that issue with this book. Despite a plot that skipped around I did not experience the confusion that has marred my memories of other Russian novels.

This is the story of the Karamazov family. The father Fyodor and his four sons. There are three legitimate sons Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha, but I believe that Smerdyakov is also an illegitimate son, though not confirmed by the author given the tendencies of Fyodor to hop on anything in a skirt I would say chances are pretty good that the boy is a Karamazov.

The recklessness at which Fyodor lived his life is really the basis of the plot. The motivations of the other characters all revolve around reactions to the careless and insensitive behavior of the father. Dostoyevsky wrote a description of Fyodor that still gives me a shiver every time I read it.

"Fyodor's physiognomy by that time presented something that testified acutely to the characteristics and essence of his whole life. Besides the long, fleshy bags under his eternally insolent, suspicious, and leering little eyes, besides the multitude of deep wrinkles on his fat little face, a big Adam's apple, fleshy and oblong like a purse, hung below his sharp chin, giving him a sort of repulsively sensual appearance. Add to that a long, carnivorous mouth with plump lips, behind which could be seen the little stumps of black, almost decayed teeth. He sprayed saliva whenever he spoke."

n  n    n  n

Fyodor is a skirt chaser and since he is rich he can afford to throw these opulent parties that evolve/devolve into orgies with the local women. Given the description above I can only speculate that gallons and gallons of good vodka must be in play to achieve this end. Problems mount as he falls in love/lust with a young beauty of dubious morals named Grushenka.

n  n

His oldest son Dmitri is also in love with this young woman and as they both vie for her hand the tension between the Karamazov's ratchets up to dangerous levels. Dmitri while pursuing this dangerous siren throws over Katerina, a girl that he owes 3,000 rubles. After Fyodor is murdered (It was similar to waiting around for someone to kill J.R.)those same rubles become central to the subsequent trial to convict Dmitri of the murder. The murderer is revealed to the reader and as the trial advances the tension increases as we begin to wonder just how the truth will be revealed.

There are subplots with Father Zosima and his life before becoming a monk. Alyosha, the youngest son, was studying to be a monk under Zosima's tutelage, but becomes embroiled in the power struggles of the family and leaves the monastery to seek a life in the real world. Alyosha also becomes involved with the care of a dying child named, Ilyusha who is in the book to illustrate the heavy burden that the seemingly inconsequential actions of people can leave on others. The book explores that theme extensively.

It was fascinating to watch the ripple effects of each character's actions as the chapters advance. Every time I picked this book up I had to read large chunks because it simply would not let me go. The reactions and high drama created by the smallest spark of contention in the characters kept the pages turning and as new information snapped into place I found my pulse quickening as my brain sprang ahead trying to guess where Dostoyevsky was taking me next.

I worked with a young woman years ago that said that I reminded her of one of the Karamazov brothers. Because of the diverse personalities of the brothers, and the fact that I can see a little of myself in each brother I'm still left with the grand mystery as to which brother she was referring too. It serves me right for waiting so long to read this beautiful book.

If you wish to see all my most recent book and movie reviews check out http://www.jeffreykeeten.com

لما سيجموند فرويد يصف عمل روائي بأنه الأعظم على الأطلاق فمن الأكيد ان هذاالعمل به ما يميزه

وعندما تقرأ انت هذا العمل وتنبهر به اذا ففرويد لم يكن مخطأ
وعندما تطلق انت حكم مطلق بأن ديستويفسكى هو افضل من تحدث عن النفس البشريه وقدمها فى الأدب فغالبا لك كل العذر فى ذلك

من الاعمال القليله التى تترك أثرًا جليًا على نظرتك فى الحياة
وكم فى مجتمعنا من مدعى طهارة وشرف وهو فى الحقيقه مجرم أثيم وكم من مذنب ظاهرى وهو ضحية اجرام مدعى الطهارة

وكم من اب آثم فى حق ابناءه وابناء عاقين لأبيهم
ولكن ان تقدم لك هذه العلاقات فى صورة ادبيه بليغه فهو النادر فعلا

عمر الفكرة ما كانت في مجرد إخوة مشتتين وأب ظالم وعاهرة تلقي بظلالها الآثمة ولا أنثى بريئة فسدتها الحياة،ولا حتى مجتمع شرّحه دستويفسكي بمشرط طبيب، بل الفكرة كلها تتمحور حول براءة الإنسان وإلى أي حد نتقبله على ما هو عليه،وأين المجرم، هلى المجرم مجرد المنفذ(من يقتل ،من يسرق،من يطلق النار،من يفسد)أم أن المجرم دائما ما يقف خلف الستارة بعد أن يٌلقي بذور الشر ليحصدها هو وهو بمنأى عن الأذى؟

Anche dopo questa seconda rilettura mi scopro sempre esterrefatto dalla capacità di Dostoevskij d'innestare una tale mole di temi su di una trama di per sé assai esigua. Riflessioni filosofiche, politiche, sociali, istanze di rinnovamento, continui dilemmi, domande, dubbi, estasi religiose, intense meditazioni sul senso della vita non fanno che intrecciarsi tra loro a comporre un unicum l'incredibile fascino. Si tratta forse di un libro in grado di fornir risposte ai grandi temi che caratterizzano l'esistenza? Tutt'altro. Dostoevskij non concede risposte, ma solo spunti di riflessione che spera, forse, aiutino il lettore a trovar le PROPRIE risposte. Ecco perché, innanzi agli eventi narrati e alle loro implicazioni, è così difficile pronunciarsi. Ogni facile giudizio viene subito a vedersi sconfessato e, contesa tra mille opposti diversi, la verità, come sempre accade anche nella vita, stenta a lasciarsi contemplare.

(Book 837 From 1001 Books) - Братья Карамазовы = Bratia Karamazovy = The Karamazov brothers‬, Fyodor Dostoevsky

Abstract: The Brothers Karamazov is a passionate philosophical novel set in 19th century of Russia that enters deeply into the ethical debates of God, free will, and morality. It is a spiritual drama of moral struggles concerning faith, doubt, and reason, set against a modernizing Russia.

Characters: Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov, Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova, Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Father Zosima, the Elder, Ilyusha, Nikolai Krassotkin.

برادران کارامازوف - فئودور داستایوسکی؛ انتشاراتیها (صفی علیشاه، امیر کبیر، ناهید، نگارستان کتاب، سمیر، همشهری) ادبیات روسیه، تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و پنجم ماه سپتامبر سال 2002میلادی

عنوان یک: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم: مشفق‌همدانی، نشر تهران، صفی علیشاه، امیرکبیر، 1335، در دو جلد، تعداد صفحات: 970ص؛

عنوان دو: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم صالح حسینی، نشر تهران، نیلوفر، 1367؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، ناهید، چاپ هشتم 1376، در دو جلد جلد، تعداد صفحات 1108ص، شابک دوره 96462050701، 9646205062؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 19م

عنوان سه: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم رامین مستقیم، نشر تهران، نگارستان کتاب، چاپ نخست 1390، در دو جلد، تعداد صفحات 854ص، شابک دوره 9786001900532، جلدیک 9786001900518، جلددو: 9786001900525

عنوان چهار: برادران کارامازوف، ترجمه: اسماعیل قهرمانی­پور(شمس خوی)، نشر تهران، سمیر، چاپ نخست 1391، در دو جلد، تعداد صفحات 1543ص، شابک: جلدیک 9789642201860، جلددو 9789642201874

عنوان پنج: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم: پرویز شهدی؛ نشر تهران، مجید، چاپ نخست 1391، در دو جلد، تعداد صفحات 1090ص، چاپ هفتم 1398؛شابک 9789644531040؛

عنوان شش: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم: احمد علیقلیان؛ نشر تهران، مرکز، چاپ نهم 1398، در 854ص، شابک 9789642132423؛

عنوان هفت: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم: لادن مدیر؛ نشر تهران، آسو، در 1112ص

عنوان هشت: برادران کارامازوف، مترجم: هانیه چوپانی؛ نشر تهران، فراروی؛ در 920ص؛

عنوان نه: برادران کارامازوف کوتاه شده، ترجمه: حسن زمانی، نشر تهران، همشهری، چاپ نهم 1391، تعداد صفحات: 61ص، شابک 9789642412013

این داستان مشهورترین اثر «داستایوسکی» است، که برای نخستین بار، بصورت پاورقی، در سال‌های 1879میلادی تا سال 1880میلادی، در نشریه ی «پیام‌ آور روسی» منتشر شد؛ گویا قرار بوده، یک مجموعه سه گانه باشد، اما چهار ماه پس از چاپ کتاب، نویسنده از در این سرای زمین، به آسمانها رفتند، و به آن سرای دیگر شتافتند؛ «فئودور کارامازوف»؛ پیرمردی فاسد، و پولدار است، با سه پسر خویش؛ به نامهای «میتیا»، «ایوان» و «آلیوشا»، و پسر نامشروع اش به نام «اسمردیاکوف»؛ کتاب هماره شگفتی اندیشمندان، و بزرگواران را برانگیخته، و آنها را به کف زدن، و آفرین گویی واداشته است؛ نویسنده خود نیز، یکی از شخصیتهای همین داستان است، و گاه نقش راوی داستان را، میپذیرند؛ هر چهار پسر، از پدر خویش بیزار هستند؛ «میتیا» افسر است و زودرنج؛ «ایوان» تحصیلکرده و بدبین و سرد مزاج، و «آلیوشا» قهرمان داستان است و در صومعه، زیر نظر «پدر زوسیما»، با باورهای «اورتودکس» پرورش یافته، و شخصیتی دوستداشتنی دارد؛ و «اسمردیاکوف»، نوکر خانه، و فاسد و بدقلب است؛ ماجرای همزیستی این چهار برادر با هم است.؛ ...؛

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 26/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 07/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

بلاخره تموم شد

Dostoevsky is a remarkable psychologist: every character in The Brothers Karamazov is depicted with such depth that they feel alive. Ivan, Alyosha, and Dmitry — the three brothers — embody different facets of human nature, from cold rationality to sincere faith and wild passion. Through their stories, Dostoevsky explores timeless questions about good and evil, faith and doubt, freedom and responsibility.

In addition, I would highlight a character like Smerdyakov — he is truly complex and provocative. Smerdyakov not only intrigues with his darkness but also evokes discomfort with his passive cruelty and slavish dependence on circumstances. To me, he represents that part of human nature we sometimes fear to confront: weakness bordering on cunning and the inability to take responsibility for one’s actions.

Women in The Brothers Karamazov play a limited but significant role. They primarily symbolize passion, temptation, and moral trials for the male characters.

I enjoyed The Brothers Karamazov more than The Idiot, though both are significant for their character exploration. In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky crafted a more balanced set of characters, despite most being unlikable. The addition of mystery, suspense, plot twists, and courtroom drama made it a more engaging and realistic story. Although, overall, I would consider this novel a fundamental philosophical work.

In 1929 Freud wrote that The Brothers Karamazov was “the most magnificent novel ever written”. Well, it’s possible he had not got round to reading Ulysses yet (copies were hard to get until 1934) and of course he never did get the opportunity to read the work of Dan Brown or J K Rowling, but even so, this gives you the idea of this novel’s impact on the brains of its readers.

A SUMMARY OF THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV

The major themes are

Comedy
Tragedy
Psychology
Politics
Theology
Life
Death
Drinking
Borrowing money

THIS NOVEL IS A SHAPESHIFTING BEAST

For chapters at a time this novel is about children. For most of the last half this novel is like a Richard Price police procedural (Clockers, Freedomland, Lush Life) and also like a great courtroom drama with verbatim closing speeches. Elsewhere it’s a detailed debate about monastic life and the intricacies of the Christian message. The rest of the time it’s an intense psychodrama between seven or eight major characters. In one chapter (“An Ailing Little Foot”) Dosto prefigures Molly Bloom’s stream of conscious. Got to say, this guy Dosto was not a one trick pony, not by a country mile.

SOME POINTS ABOUT 19TH CENTURY RUSSIA

Only peasants and servants work, leaving the rest of the people time to talk a lot

People are really ill quite often. This might be connected to the high alcohol consumption or the poor medical facilities

It is clear that the concept of interrupting someone had not yet been introduced into Russia at this point. So everyone is able to spout forth about anything they like, rambling on with multiple digressions for ten pages, and none of the other people in the room will say “oy, shut it, sunshine, we’ve heard enough from you, let somebody else have a go”. No one will say this. Eventually the speaker collapses to the floor from lack of oxygen and the next character will launch into their ten page rant.

THE NARRATOR IS A MAJOR CHARACTER

He is a bumbling old fart who lives in the little town where all this happens. He says he has gone round talking to people to get all this story straight. He continually says things like
The details I do not know – I have heard only that…

I myself have not read the will

This arrival [of Ivan] which was so fateful and which was to serve as the origin of so many consequences for me long afterwards, the rest of my life, almost…

And on P 573 he says

Today’s item in the newspaper Rumours was entitled “From Skotoprigonyevsk” (alas, that is the name of our town, I have been concealing it all this time).

THERE ARE ZINGERS

You probably thought Dosto was a bit gloomy but this is often a comic novel, yes really. For instance Dmitri says

Who doesn’t wish for his father’s death ? …Everyone wants his father dead

And the narrator himself comes out with

The two were some sort of enemies in love with each other

And Ivan says stuff like

When I think of what I would do to the man who first invented God! Stringing him up on the bitter asp would be too good for him.

THERE IS A MACGUFFIN

There is an amount of 3000 roubles that Dmitri borrows from his current squeeze, and readers had better get used to the phrase 3000 roubles popping up about three times on every other page of this 900 page novel. Because you see, totally co-incidentally, the dead father was robbed of this exact sum also. It can get slightly tiresome, I admit that. We never hear the last of it.

SOME BLURB WRITERS SHOULD BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY BLURB ANY MORE

The blurb on the back of my Penguin copy says

The murder of brutal landowner Fyodor Karamazov changes the lives of his sons blah blah blah

This is likely to get readers all het up and their anticipation of a juicy whodunnit may turn to irritation because the murder doesn’t happen until page 508. This is not Dosto’s fault.


ALL KARAMAZOV BROTHERS RATED

4. Alexei
a.k.a. Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka

This is the holy joe, novice monk, all round too good to be true guy, but he doesn’t seem to have much vim, zip, pazzaz or get up and go about him. You wouldn’t want to be stuck in a lift with him. Not good boyfriend material.

3. Dmitri (a.k.a. Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri)

This is the roister-doistering swaggering loudmouth uber-romantic aggravating jerk who because of his ability to drink ox-stunning amounts of hard liquor and then do the Argentinian tango or the Viennese waltz at the drop of a samovar is a wow with the ladies but you better be expecting to pay for his exhausting company because he never has a bean. Except that on the two occasions he does have a bean (3000 beans!) you will have the best time ever! Definitely not good boyfriend material.

2. Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov (aka the lackey)

The unacknowledged bastard of Big Daddy Fyodor who is kept around as a skivvy and although he has brains because he’s epileptic and an unacknowledged bastard is never given any education and therefore becomes an autodidact with a full tank of bloodcurdling homicidal suppressed rage. He’s completely boring until he starts talking then whooahhhhh. Really not good boyfriend material.

1.tIvan (a.k.a. Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka)

Obvious star of the show, the full-on atheist and progressive thinker – he’s given two entire chapters of brilliant ranting against religion – Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor and every time he slams into the room and starts sneering the quality of the conversation is going to increase. Also probably not good boyfriend material.

NICE BIT OF DOSTO META HUMOUR

Dmitri gets to make a good joke :

Eh gentlemen, why pick on such little things : how, when and why, and precisely this much money and not that much, and all that claptrap… if you keep on, it’ll take you three volumes and an epilogue to cram it all in.

“I am big; it’s the pictures that got small”

In Considering the Lobster, David Foster Wallace observes that the “thing about Dostoevsky’s characters is that they are alive" (264). They are, in fact, larger than life, and Wallace goes on to bemoan the fact that so many “of the novelists of our own place and time look so thematically shallow and lightweight…in comparison to Gogol or Dostoevsky” (271). Like Norma Desmond, who feels the pictures have gotten small, Wallace sees contemporary novels lacking the heft of the classics, but he doesn’t seem to see a way out. Wallace can’t imagine a novelist today writing the way Dostoevsky does.

I understand his point – we’ve been taught that intrusive narrators are unsophisticated and that characters should be understated. Wallace comments that the writer of Serious Novels today “would be (and this is our own age’s truest vision of hell) laughed out of town" (273).

I wonder if this true. At present, novelists experiment with any number of genres. Is there really a divide a novelist can’t cross without being deemed ridiculous?

What is true about so many of the Serious Novels, and especially true of The Brothers Karamazov is, as Wallace states, the characters are alive, and better yet, these novels are driven by character rather than plot. The core plot of the Brothers K is not particularly complicated. The book is motored instead by characters who “live inside of us forever” (Wallace 264), and we don’t need to guess who’s speaking in the novel as each of these characters—Fyodor and his four sons: Alyosha, Dimitri, Ivan, and Smerdyakov, in addition to several other major characters--has been fully drawn and realized.

Where are characters like these in contemporary fiction? A writer now would probably feel s/he could only present characters like those of Dostoevsky ironically. While there's plenty of humor and ironic moments in the Brothers K, it is not an ironic novel. Dostoevsky presents this material seriously.

For instance, Dostoevsky doesn't ironize the goodness of Alyosha or Zosima, two characters who especially interested me, and Zosima's life story - one of the set pieces in the novel - is gripping. His death and rapidly stinking corpse, which confounds expectations (he's thought of as a saint, and--as such--his body would not undergo normal decay) is one of Dostoevsky's ironic touches. But its significance is profoundly serious. Does Zosima's corpse, which causes consternation and confusion, lessen his holiness? But, for all the narrative intrusion, we are not told. Dostoevky's narrator might offer lengthy introductions, but he does not judge.

I don't like everything about the novel. Despite my interest in religion and spirituality, I found the Grand Inquisitor section long, and this may have been due to my desire to get back to the characters. In a lesser novel, the section might have prompted more interest. I'm also still pondering the need for the Ilyusha subplot and its function in the novel.

Yet, quibbles aside, Dostoevsky bares his soul in this novel. He doesn't hide behind irony, which allows an author the ability to maintain distance and ambiguity. And perhaps it is irony that separates the great novels of the past from the many contemporary novels that lack equivalent passion, honesty, and heft.

Irrelevant aside: Although I had three (three!!) copies of this novel they were all paperbacks with yellowed paper and about a size 8 font. I wound up reading this novel - all 900 pages or so - on my computer. You've got to really like a novel to do that.

“Until one has indeed become the brother of all, there will be no brotherhood.”

What is it about snowy weekends that gives me the urge to dive into big, fat Russian novels? I definitely enjoy sipping hot chocolate and occasionally looking up from the book and out the window to look at the snow covering everything like a thick layer of icing – and then diving back into stories set in a similar landscape. The forecast called for thirty-five centimetres of snow, so I thought the timing was perfect to pull a Dostoyevsky off my shelf.

I always thought the plot of “The Brothers Karamazov” sounded more interesting and layered than “Crime and Punishment” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... I do have a weakness for dysfunctional family stories, inherited neuroses and sibling rivalries. And I was told by many avid readers of Russian literature that this was really the magnum opus of Dostoyevsky’s rather impressive catalogue – so I was excited about getting acquainted with Dimitri, Ivan and Alexei.

“The Brothers Karamazov” is a little tough to summarize, but the broad strokes would be: three brothers reunite at their father’s house and try to sort out a family dispute involving a woman that both the father and eldest brother wish to marry, with dreadful though predictable results – which the second half of the book spends unravelling.

If you are reading this for the “murder mystery”, forget it: you will probably lapse into a coma before you get to the conclusion of the intrigue, because while there is a murder, a trial and all that none of these things are the point that Dostoyevsky is working towards. If anything, those events are merely devices that give him a good reason to dwell on plenty of other topics: spiritual starvation, the characters’ incapacity to reconcile their ideals and their urges, the value of traditional morals in a country that’s rapidly modernizing, our relationship and duty to other humans.

Given my taste for deranged characters, I am always in for a treat with Russian literature, because they certainly do not do their “bad guys”  watered down: and yet, the great writers know that a bad guy has more going on under the surface. Dostoyevsky had a wonderful talent for peeling back layers and showing you his characters’ very marrow. Those three brothers are all detestable in their own unique way, but they are also strangely lovable. Most readers seem to get very annoyed with Alexei (Alyosha), but to be fair, his innocence got on my nerves a lot less than Ivan’s self-righteous restrain or Dmitri’s truly horrible decision-making. And Katerina, urgh, Katerina! Make up your mind, for all of our sakes! Grushenka is a strange and fascinating creature, seductive and manipulative, to be sure, but her instinct to destroy is shown to be an attempt that demanding payback from a world she feels has compromised her. Her “fall” gives her the great power of feeling no responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of her schemes – but how long can that immunity last? The memoirs of elder Zosima were a fascinating little interlude and had an earnestness and a beautiful humanity: I was surprised by how much enjoyed those few pages.

As is the case with most classics written in the era, there are often long and rambling passages that while interesting, also weigh down the plot – literally and figuratively. Even if I agree with Ivan’s musings about religion having to be the result of direct experience, and not as something dictated by an organization, I thought that a 6-page paragraph on the topic was a bit long-winded. But those moments are more than made up for by the very modern psychological exploration of the relationship between father and sons, but also between brothers. None of three were really raised by Fyodor Pavlovich, but he remains a looming shadow of their lives, and his conduct bleeds a strange influence on theirs.

Just like my experience of “War & Peace” (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), this was quite the immersive read, and I was happy to be snowed in and really indulge in it for a few days. It also almost ruined my wrists, because my edition of the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation is gigantic (this is another contender for a Kindle version when I’ll feel like re-reading it). Also, just like “War & Peace”, this novel is worth all the praise that’s been heaped on it. It’s a lot of work, and requires quiet and concentration, but it’s a very rewarding undertaking. It gets 4 stars instead of 5 simply because the first half sometimes felt like a chore, but as soon as I reached the midway point, it was quite a gripping read!

I finished reading this book at precisely 0205 hours today. The night still lay majestically over the impending dawn, and in its blackened stillness, swayed the echoes of this imperious book. The walls of my room, at once, turned into a fortress for Dostoevsky’s army of thoughts, and I, right in the middle of it, found myself besieged with its diverse, haphazard but mighty blizzard.

I am no stranger to this rambling Russian’s precocious visions and forbearance and yet, and yet, this work, swells much beyond even his own creator and spills over…. well, almost, everything.

A maniacal land-owner is murdered and one of his three sons is the prime suspect. Thus, ensues a murder trial and in its fold, fall hopelessly and completely, the lives of all the three brothers – the brothers Karamazov.

A life, when spans a trajectory both long and substantial, ends up writing a will that is both personal and universal. A notebook of reflections, a source of knowledge, an oasis of love and a mirror of perpetuity. And may I dare say that for D, this might well be a biography, which he, in his quintessential mercurial satire, chose to write himself, under the garb of fiction.

Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha present the very tenets on which life gets lived, or even more, passed on. The impulsive and emotional Dmitri, the calculative and intelligent Ivan and the naïve and spiritual Alyosha represent the microcosm of a society which wagers war on the name of religion, status, power, values and ideals. And D takes each of these causes and drills, and drills, and drills even more, their various interpretations.

Religion, and church, take centre stage for a good 350 pages of this work. Amid homilies and confessions, monasteries and surrender, is pushed disturbing ideals that can rock one’s faith.n  

If you are surrounded by spiteful and callous people who do not want to listen to you, fall down before them and ask for their forgiveness, for the guilt is yours too, that they do not want to listen to you. And if you cannot speak with the embittered, serve them silently and in humility, never losing hope. And if everyone abandons you and drives you out by force, then, when, you are left alone fall down on the earth and kiss it and water it with your tears, and the earth will bring forth fruit from your tears, even though no one has seen or heard you in your solitude.

nAye, aye, I hear you, D and while some of it makes so much sense to my theist heart, some of it look outright suicidal. But why again, am I tempted to always, measure the righteousness, even lesser, the likeability, of my action from the perspective of my audience? Why make an ideal on a bed that doesn’t smell of my skin? I go to the board and think.

Philosophising, as he does with such ease and amiability, isn’t without unleashing a thundering dose of dichotomies. He steals the mirror from my room and turns it towards me: 'Oh, so you believe in the good? How nice! But, well, then, how come the devil lurks in the dark corners of your room? No? You don’t agree with me? Oh where does all the cursing and ill-will spring from that you aim, with such precise ferocity, towards the people you don’t quite find to your liking? From where does all the impiety and malice, that you secretly drink with panache, emerge from leaving you intoxicated for hours, if not days?' Sheepishly, I dig the chalk a little deeper into the board, and think.

And while I grope to find answers to his questions, I cheat and fall back on his treatise for hints, and insights.n  

You know, Lise, it’s terribly difficult for an offended man when everyone suddenly starts looking like his benefactor.

nWhy might a fallen man, a beggar, still keep a flame of dignity burning in his heart? Why might a harangued father, drive away his heirs from money, while spending his whole life hoarding for them? Why might a pauper, throw away his last penny on trifles, despite carrying a clear picture of his imminent doom in his eyes? Why might a pure heart, deliberately dirty his soul with pungent secrets, knowing there were no ways to erase them? Because deep down, what bind us, irrespective of our backgrounds, are the same threads: love, jealousy, ambition, hatred, revenge, repentance. In various forms, they dwell in us, and drive us, to give their formless matter, shape in different people, in different ways, at different places and in different times. I write a few words on the board and pause to ponder.

But, make no mistake; D turns the mirror on himself too and takes digs on his own character, because, after all, what life have we lived if we didn’t learn to laugh at ourselves? Laugh, yes; ah yes! There is plenty of humor ingrained, albeit surreptitiously, in this dense text and works like a lovely whiff of cardamom wafting over a cup of strong tea.n  

Ivan Fyodorovich, my most respectful son, allow me to order you to follow me!

nThere, I made a smiley on the board. I dropped the chalk and wondered: what created so much debate (and furore perhaps) when this book was first published in the 19th century? And then, I realized – even without my knowledge, my fingers had imparted two horns to the smiley’s rotund face. Yes, now that image surely needs to be questioned.

But do ask these questions. Do take the plunge into this deep sea of psychology and philosophy. Do feel the thuds of paradoxes and dualities on your soul. Do allow the unknown elements of orthodoxy and modernism to pucker your skin. Do allow some blood to trickle. Do allow some scars to heal. Because n  

No, gentlemen of the jury, they have their Hamlets, but so far we have only Karamazovs!”

nThat’s what!

---

n  Also on my blog.n

"Reading Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov is comparable to pushing a beautiful grand piano up a very steep hill."
—Kevin Ansbro

Why, oh why, in a world filled with endless opportunities to enjoy oneself, did I think it was a good idea to embark on a 19th-century book that's almost the size of an electric toaster?
I have friends, I have a wife, I have a life. Heck, I even have one of those home television sets that you so often hear about…

The Brothers Karamazov is by no means a galloping read. It is a whale of a novel that requires the reader to drop anchor and bob about on Fyodor's ocean of esteemed eloquence for as long as it takes. It was a slog at times and I'm ashamed to say that I almost jumped ship on a few occasions.

Dostoevsky threw everything but the kitchen sink at this, his magnum opus. He plucks random details from the alcoves of his mind and scatters them like confetti, and there are more characters here than you could wave a stick at. His imagery is vivid without being overdone, the writing is tight and beautifully paced.

The story focuses on Fyodor Karamazov, a boorish and wicked father, and his three dissimilar sons. Collectively, the eponymous brothers are perhaps designed to represent all of us. Philosophical and theological discussions abound; the existence of God, morality and freedom of choice are the author's themes of choice.

I certainly have no complaints about the writing, which is rich and expressive. Any quibbles I have say more about me as an easily-distracted reader than they do about Dostoevsky's incontestable skill as a writer. I dare say the novel would be a godsend to a bookworm who has chosen to live off-grid for a month. I don't know how long it took Dostoevsky to complete this, but his writing hand must surely have resembled a sloth's claw by the time he'd finished it!

Does The Brothers Karamazov harbour a captivating story to rival the likes of Great Expectations or Les Misérables?
I think not.

Is this venerated novel worthy of the widespread admiration it receives?
Absolutely.