Wait a sec...
Fuck the five stars!
★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★
It actually hurts to give it only five. Need I say that this book must be considered one of the wonders of mankind? Would it be necessary to talk about Dostoyevsky's extraordinary ability to create such interesting and realistic characters, or the fact that he was a master of the human psyche? This, of course, is an understatement. Check Ivan Karamazov's encounter with the devil if you don't believe me. In fact, the whole novel is a unique proof of this statement. From the first, introductory pages to the redemptive finale, this novel is a pure masterpiece. I honestly think that books like The Brothers Karamazov defined literature the way bands like The Beatles defined music.
Enough said.

تصمیم سخت... ناتمام

اگر چند سال پیش بود خودم رو زجر می دادم که تمومش کنم ولی الان انقدر می دونم که در شرایط ذهنی و روحی ای نیستم که بتونم ازش لذت ببرم، یا اینکه کلا به درد من نمی خوره
و گفتن این جمله سخته چون وقتی با کتاب مورد علاقه ی خیلی ها ارتباط برقرار نکنی به خاطرش سریع قضاوت میشی

این از کتاب هاییه که من می فهمم چرا یک نفر می تونه شیفته اش باشه ولی من حداقل الان اون آدم نیستم

شاید روزی بهش برگردم و اونروز در مرحله ای از کتابخوانیم باشم که از تک تک صفحه هاش لذت ببرم، نه اینکه مثل بار روی دوشم بکشمش و متوقفم کنه

99.5.18

2014 has started out as a real crapper on the reading front. I'd like to believe it's because of work distractions, family drama, competing entertainment - but we all have those things and find plenty of time to read. So the honest answer is that for weeks I couldn't come to grips with just how little I was enjoying this novel. And that frustration lead me away from all other reading material. The tight downward spiral of self imposed illiteracy.

I haven't completed all of FD's works, but everything else I've read by him I have found tremendous. His short stories - even Netochka Nezvanova - held rich characters and thematic threads that I keep coming back to. Crime and Punishment is one of my top five fave fictional works. I was waiting to read TBK, his reported magnum opus, as the last piece after completing everything else of his - I was encouraged by friend spenke's tattoo and the fabulous reading group here on GR to take it on before The Idiot and Demons - now I've scared the shit out of myself for finishing the rest of his oeuvre.

I'm prepared to accept that TBK and me may have been snake-bit from the start. I really did read the first 250 pages four times; on the fourth read through I just had to accept that the lack of subtlety and over-drawn characterizations wasn't going away. Christ-like Alyosha? Hit me over the head with that again please. Dmitri's constant flying at his conversational partner? By mid-novel I just went ahead and pictured him with a pair of giant dragon wings to entertain myself. Then there's the long, unnecessary story about the young toughs that belongs in a different book; the unraveling pot-boiler of a whodunnit murder story that I just couldn't have given a shit about; and brain fevers/vapors/weak constitutions enough to make me wonder if there was something in the town's well. And in case the reader wasn't paying close enough attention to FD the first 650 pages, we are going to get it served up thick-and-meaty from two lawyers' soliloquies that there isn't a chance we won't get it.

In what could possibly be the greatest advertisement never, ever, NEVER to get a Kindle Paperwhite - and just read from a book made from trees like we've done since the dawn of man - there's a nifty, over-engineered function that allows you to click on a character's name on a page, and ostensibly it should give you a sentence of some very basic info on who this person is. Great in theory. Until you click on a character's name AND IT GIVES YOU A HUGE FUCKING PLOT SPOILER REVEAL!!! I'm not joking. I almost snapped that wafer-thin electronic over my knee. For those of you that have a Paperwhite give it a go: Smerdyakov. Just please don't try it until you've finished the book.

Snake-bit, I tells ya. Snake-bit.

This is a review both of the book and the translation. See my review of  Crime and Punishment for an explanation of why I don't entirely like this translation -- the authors sacrifice clarity and readability for technical accuracy in a way that tends to obscure the meaning. That said, though, it's a very good one, and I'd give it a four out of five. My pet peeve in most translations is the choice of the word "meek" instead of "gentle". These have utterly different connotations in modern English, and describing a man as having "meek eyes" totally misses the point Dostoevsky was trying to make, which was that the person was serene and handled someone else gently. Argh.

Anyway, this is the best book ever written. Every time I read it, I discover new truths about life, and find myself reading passages out loud to anyone within range. Different plot lines and passages stand out to me every time I read it, in different parts of my life. It has profoundly affected my outlook on the world, and is very nearly the equivalent of a bible. (Think Moby Dick in Heathers. :) )

Nominally, it is the story of three sons of a lecherous, nasty old man. The oldest is Dmitri, a passionate, sensual man who hates his father for cheating him out of his money. The next is Ivan, an intellectual and enlightened man, who hates his father for abandoning him and for just being a reprehensible person. The third brother is Alexei (called Alyosha by most) -- a quiet, gentle (but not meek!!) mostly innocent boy who (when the book opens) is living in a monastery, and doesn't hate anyone. There is also a possible fourth brother, the illegitimate child of the father and a town fool he raped. The first half of the book culminates in the murder of the father, the second half is spent discovering who did it and why.

To be honest, the first few times I read the book I didn't even remember who actually ended up doing it -- so much more is going on in the book that it turns out to be the least important thing. Any of them could have done it, certainly. But in the course of the book, Dostoevsky uses these characters (and a bunch more) to examine the nature of humanity, religion, faith, good and evil, love, hate, and just about everything that matters in life. He's not like modern authors who gloss over everything -- his characters all do terrible things at various times. There are very few purely good or evil people in his books; he is obsessed with examining all aspects of people, and who they are within themselves and through society. There is an interlude, The Grand Inquisitor, which is a story Ivan tells to explain what he hates about organized religion, that is frequently used as a short story in itself by literature and religion classes around the world.

On a deeper level, Dostoevsky uses the book to express the conflicting parts of himself. He names the father Fyodor, his own name, and splits the sons into caricatures of himself; a passionate side, an intellectual side, and a pure side that is striving for goodness (which last, it must be noted, is named for his son Alexei, who died at three years old.) He has the parts argue with each other and themselves, and tries to work out how they complement each other and what it all means, with the help of other characters who bring out those parts of him. The fourth brother represents the nasty parts of himself that he's mostly unwilling to acknowledge (thus the unacknowledged son), but oddly enough, he gives the fourth brother epilepsy, a problem Dostoevsky himself had.

I could go on for pages, but I'll stop now. Read this book! I mean it! But go for the Constance Garnett translation if you can find it. Or check out several translations, and pick the one that appeals to you the most.

When I started this book a month ago, my initial thought was that the characters were fantastic. Then things got slow, and then they got slower. Still, I trudged on. This was my Moby Dick; this was my War and Peace. Almost 900 pages? I was determined to get through it.

All of a sudden, things started making sense at about the halfway point. Allow me to explain.

I have for many years thought that I must be an adopted child. You guys, my family is crazy. I don't mean the fun kind of hahaha crazy, either. I mean that raw chicken has been thrown at people in anger during family gatherings. In my 5 person immediate family, there are all degrees of religious beliefs, all degrees of political beliefs, several different degrees of sexuality, income levels that range from poverty to upper middle class, major differences in education, and one person who thinks cilantro tastes like soap. Family gatherings are always stressful and someone inevitably ends up in tears. How can I be related to these people?

This novel made me realize that, though my family members are all very different, we have something in common: we are very passionate about things that are important to us. We are the Karamazovs.

I won't pick apart the plot, because that's been done. What I will write is that there are so many interesting things to think about in this story. Wisdom, faith, religion, justice, suffering, guilt, redemption, and free will are all shown.... along with the exact opposite of all those things. Without being preachy and without ever telling the reader which is the right way to go, this story follows a family of people who experience all extremes imaginable and deal with the consequences.

I learned from The Idiot that this author is a master of doing a slow character build through the first half and then hooking you in for the rest of the book. During the second half, all that stuff I thought was fluff in the first half became clear. There is no fluff in this book, and I was extremely satisfied at the end. But a fair warning for everyone who reads this novel to the end: don't read the last chapter without a tissue in your hand. I was in public and unprepared.
It was almost like when my older sister slipped the cilantro into the salsa thinking my younger sister wouldn't notice, but better. Much better.

“Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath…” – Ephesians 6:4

I greeted the prospect of reading The Brothers Karamazov with trepidation. It is the book of choice by the Obscure Reading Group and part of me wanted to join in the discussion, which I know will be rewarding. The reluctant part of me fretted about not having sufficient time to read this tome and whether I am ready for this classic, Dostoevsky’s last work that has been hailed as his masterpiece.

A new year has dawned and on the wings of courage borne of new beginnings, I decided to make the acquaintance of the three Russian brothers. What a meeting that was! For an entire month in January right up to the eve of the lunar new year (when I heard the tiger roar), I was steeped in an intricate philosophical treatise that examined good and evil, the abyss of human depravity, hope, and redemption. The propensity to wrongdoing was matched by a knowing surrender to all that was vile and violent. This complex examination of the human condition was accomplished via a story of three brothers and their father’s murder. The tale was sordid and ugly, and there were days I fled and read a lighter work to catch my breath. Yet, I cannot help but recognize the enormity of the conflict between the flesh and the spirit that Dostoevsky painstakingly and brilliantly brought to awareness.

Right from the start, there was a sense of impending doom. Blood would be shed. The characters, both major and minor, were skillfully developed. They came across as real people percolating evil and justifying their evil to themselves. The patriarch, Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov, is a mean, lascivious, self-serving debauchee who mistreats his children. Dimtri (Mitya), abandoned as a child and cheated of his birth right, is irascible, impulsive, self-loathing, passionate and lives by his senses. Ivan, an atheist and the intellectual in the family, scorns faith and believes he is the law unto himself. Alexey (Alyosha), the youngest son is like a lamb living amongst a pack of wolves. A novice monk under the tutelage of Father Zassimov (a name I still cannot remember: Mimossa, samosa, Assimov – dreadful) is the voice of conscience. Dostoevsky seemed to have represented in this set of brothers: the senses, the intellect, and the soul. The Karamazov family saga, bitter feud, parricide, and trial of the murderer were carefully staged. It picked up pace in the last two parts and then I read on rather feverishly.

Of interest to me is this idea of hatred and murder. Dostoevsky suggests that hatred is murder in itself. With it, guilt is inevitable. As the unnamed narrator, the author evidently had some words of wisdom and a compassionate worldview strewn throughout this massive work. Here is a quote by Father Zassimov:

“for love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams is greedy for immediate action, rapidly performed and in the sight of all... But active love is labor and fortitude, and for some people too, perhaps, a complete science.”

It has not been easy to read The Brothers Karamazov but I am glad I did. Published in 1879, its insight into human nature continues to hold true today.

I wish I could give ten stars! This book was incredible. It is a mellodrama which concerns a murder in the family. We try to figure out the guilty one. The charictor development was masterful and the plot was awesome.
The book was very long, but it did not lag at any point.
Quite possable the best book I have ever experienced.
I recommend it to all.

ادغام درد و شعف، همچون یک غش صرع :

در میان انبوهی از تفسیرها، نقدها و ستایش‌هایی که از میان بزرگان جهان به این اثر ازلیِ شکاک اعظم وارد شده، دیگر دل و دماغی برای نوشتن از آن باقی نمی‌ماند. گفتنی ها را، بهترین‌ها پیش از این گفته‌اند.
پس عجالتا از همان صحبت‌های همیشگی درباره شک و ایمان، وجود خدا، الحاد، انگیزه‌های پدرکشی، راه‌های رستگاری، ماحصل رنج و تاثیر زندگی شخصی نویسنده بر آثارش و بخصوص این یکی، می‌گذرم. سعی می‌کنم از حاشیه‌های برخوردم با این ابر اثر بنویسم. از شخصی‌ترین برخوردها.
مثل هر پسر بچه‌ای که تازه کله‌ش بوی قرمه سبزی گرفته و پی این است که التهابات مغزش را که بخاطر سوال‌هایش ورم کرده را با کتاب آرام کند، داستایفسکی بسیار زود کشف شد و بسیار دیر خوانده شد.
معلم انشایی داشتم که مشوق اولی و اصلی من برای کتاب خواندنم بود. کرد بود و با صورتی شش تیغ و سبیل کلفت سفید اما مرتب که صدای بم و ته لهجه‌ی کردی‌اش، صلابت و نفوذی داشت که هر کلامی که خطاب به من بود برایم تاثیر زیادی داشت. خوشبخت بودم که همیشه از آن آدم تعریف شنیدم وگرنه نمیدانم اگر حرف تند یا مخربی به من زده بود چطور با آن کنار می‌آمدم. عادت داشتم همیشه آخر زنگ انشا بروم پیشش و یک ربعی درباره مطالبی که اخیرا نوشتم یا کتاب‌هایی که خواندم با او صحبت کنم.
هر انشا یا داستان یا هرچیز دیگری که می‌نوشتم در واقع به نوعی کلنجار ذهنم بود با آخرین کتاب یا کتاب‌هایی که خوانده بودم به علاوه‌ی تجربیات اخیرم، در نتیجه برای او بسیار جالب می‌آمد. همیشه می‌گفت آخرین چیزی که نوشتی را بیاور، می‌برم خانه می‌خوانم و برایت می‌آورم.
می‌برد خانه و می‌خواند اما نمی‌آورد. این برایم حتی لذت‌بخش‌تر بود. هر کتابی که می‌خواندم تشویق او را به همراه داشت تا اینکه یکبار دیگر با اطمینان تشویقم نکرد و تا حدی شوکه شد. روزی بود که حین گپ و گفت به او گفتم می‌خواهم ابله داستایفسکی را بخوانم. چیزی نگفت. فهمیدم که بایستی مراقب این یکی باشم.
از آن پس هر کتابی که میخواندم، در واقع پیش درآمدی بود برای کتاب‌های داستایفسکی. یا حداقل شاهکارهای او. همیشه بی‌پروا سراغ سخت‌ترین ها می‌رفتم و اتفاقا تبدیل به نویسنده‌های محبوبم می‌شدند؛ فاکنر، وولف، جویس، ساباتو، رولفو و ... اما داستایفسکی همیشه عجزی غریب همراهش بود. دویست جلد کتاب خوانده بودم که تازه جرئت کردم یادداشت‌های زیرزمینی را بخوانم. صد و خورده‌ای جلد دیگر خواندم تا آماده شوم جنایت و مکافات را بخوانم. خیزی که برای ابله برداشته بودم هم همین حدود لازمه‌اش بود. و الان هم که برادران کارامازوف ( طبعا می‌بایست قبل از برادران کارامازوف ، شیاطین را می‌خواندم اما از آنجایی که بنا بر خوانده‌ها و شنیده‌هایم آن کتاب هر آن چیزی که از ادبیات می‌خواهم را یکجا دارد، آن را کنار گذاشتم برای کویرترین روزهای زندگی‌ام به لحاظ حظ ادبی و کتاب‌خوانی ).
جنایت و مکافات را چهار روزه خواندم. اولین هفته‌ای بود که بخاطر کرونا دانشگاه تعطیل شده بود و فکر می‌کردیم از هفته‌ی بعدش دوباره برمیگردیم سر کلاس. زمان محدودمان اقتضا می‌کرد که بیشترین کار را در کمترین زمان انجام بدهیم و من در آن یک هفته سه شاهکار مدام منتظر فرصت را خواندم. ابله را نه روزه خواندم، آن هم بنا بر شرایط مجبور بودم تقریبا زود بخوانم. برادران کارامازوف جلد اول حدود یک ماه طول کشید و خواندن جلد دوم حدود دو ماه و فاصله بین خواندنشان هم حدود هفت ماه. به بیانی این کتاب را اول مرداد شروع و اوایل اردیبهشت تمام کردم. این هم بنا به شرایط آنقدر طول کشید.
به نحوه خواندن این کتاب‌ها که نگاه می‌کنم می‌بینم که هرچند زمان و شرایط حکم کردند که همگی آن‌ها زودتر از معمول یا بسیار دیرتر از معمول به سرانجام برسند اما وجه مشترکشان این بود که مهم نبود چند روزه خوانده شوند، همگی آثار داستایفسکی تازه بعد از خوانده شدن در ذهنم شروع می‌شدند. ( ولی در نهایت توصیه می‌کنم که اگر امکانش را دارید، اصولی‌تر از من بخوانید ).
برادران کارامازوف، ملغمه‌ای از شخصیت‌ها و عقایدی است که همه‌ی آن‌ها نشانگر بخشی از کاراکتر داستایفسکی است. چیزی که من برایم بیشتر ملموس می‌آمد، تقلاها و چالش‌های نویسنده‌ای بود که سعی می‌کرد با بسط دادن داستانش، خودش را برای خودش شفاف کند.
نوری بیلگه جیلان، فیلمساز درجه اول ترک که به گفته‌ی خودش بیش از فیلمسازان بزرگ، متاثر از چخوف و داستایفسکی است، در مصاحبه‌ای به نکته بسیار شفاف کننده‌ای اشاره می‌کند. او می‌گوید داستایفسکی با ایمان نیست بلکه تمام عمرش تقلا که به ایمان برسد. و این در تک تک آثارش مشهود است. هرچند که شخصیت با ایمان آلیوشا را در برادران کارامازوف ، با داستایفسکی متاخر مقایسه می‌کنند و می‌گویند که هر یک از برادران نمایانگر دوره‌ای از زندگی داستایفسکی است که البته بی‌راه هم نیست اما من کماکان به شک بنیادینی که تا آخر راه یقه‌ی او را ول نکرد، اعتقاد بیشتری دارم. تنها چیزی که ظاهراً تا آخر عمر بدان معتقد ماند، البته شاید حتی این یکی هم صرفا تلقینی مکرر بود که به خود بقبولاند به آن اعتقاد دارد، رستگاری زاده رنج بود که تفسیر و تشریح آن بماند بر عهده مفسرین و برداشت های شخصی مخاطبان این اثر چرا اینجا نه جای مناسبی برای این کار است و نه من آنقدر فاضل که جرئت پرداخت به آن را داشته باشم.
هر خرده روایت این کتاب هم کلاس درسی است چه برسد به پلات‌های اصلی داستان. به وضوح می‌بینم که فیلمسازان بزرگ یا نویسنده‌های بزرگ با یک ادای دین کوچک و یا اقتباس از بخش کوچکی از این کتاب، چگونه به اثر خود اعتبار می‌دهند و چگونه بخش زیادی از جهان‌بینی خود را با وصف بخش بسیار کوچکی از این کتاب به رخ می‌کشند پس چیزی کمتر از ارجاع مدام مخاطبان جدی تفکر به این کتاب، روا نیست.
اثری که ممکن است هر روز در شما زنده شود، شما را بیازارد و در تعلیق‌های ابدی نگه دارد اما از شما انسان بهتری بسازد.
شاید مصداق همان آیه از انجیل یوحنا، که داستایفسکی به مثابه چکیده وجودش بر سر در این کتاب حک کرده :

اگر دانه نمیرد، تنها ماند اما اگر بمیرد ثمر بسیار آورد.


در باب ترجمه : اصولاً باید شخصی مسلط به زبان روسی، نتیجه‌ی ترجمه‌ها را بررسی می‌کرد ولی با تقلیل به اکتفا کردن صرفا بر مبنای فارسیِ ترجمه، ترجمه‌ی استاد رستگار یک سر و گردن بالاتر از ترجمه‌ی آقایان صالح حسینی، احد علیقلیان و پرویز شهدی بود که من کمابیش تطبیق دادم.
جدای از لحن اثر، تسلط و تحقیق‌های مفصل آقای رستگار در باب عهد عتیق و جدید، برای انتقال بهتر حال و هوای داستایفسکی مزید بر علت است. بنابراین این پیشنهاد می‌کنم مادامی که ترجمه‌ی مستقیم و خوبی از روسی وجود ندارد، این کتاب و ترجمه‌ش را غنیمت بدانید.

اردیبهشت هزار و چهارصد و سه

A book majestic & long, wonderful & deep, full of sorrow yet lovely, philosophical, mystical, terrifying, beautiful, and not without its comic moments. I have come to the end of this book and realize I have only begun to comprehend it. I look forward to re-reading it again next year; Dostoevsky has so much to teach.

The depth of the literary artistry of this magnum opus is tremendous. This is not merely beautiful writing on the surface level; the content is rich, philosophical, important. Dostoevsky is frightfully perceptive of human emotions, and he carefully describes the hidden reasons for his characters’ emotions, so that the reader understands (or soon discovers) what they feel and why they act the way they do.

There are amazing passages of an intellectual nature: Ivan’s poems ‘The Grand Inquisitor’, and the 'Geological Cataclysm’, which is quoted back to him by the devil in a delirious nightmare, are amazing for their depth and insight. These passages are the works of a tremendous intellect. The interview with the devil is even written in such a way that neither the reader nor Ivan can tell whether it is real or purely delusional.

I also love the potentially vertiginous implications that emerge when the prosecutor accuses the defense attorney of ‘writing novels’, not realizing that they are themselves the characters in a novel. The ending should hit the reader like an iron fist to the gut, a reminder of the things that are most important in life.

Profondo è l'animo umano, un abisso senza fine, un mistero da scoprire.
Una famiglia a giudizio, tra conflitti e sentimenti, delitto e patimenti.
Un tripudio di introspezione, con fratelli in competizione.
In cerca della colpa la storia inizia, augurando infine la meritata giustizia.

Il romanzo è ambientato nel 1800 in Russia e narra di una famiglia e dei suoi problemi.
La capacità di Dostoevski nel mettere in gioco così tante sfaccettature dell'animo umano e i numerosi temi trattati valgono la lettura del romanzo e rappresentano un modello da emulare per ogni scrittore.

Ed ecco che una pur semplice trama diviene il mezzo per parlare di uomini e donne, di vita e di morte. Penetra con forza dirompente nei dubbi e nei sentimenti e noi, che siamo semplici lettori, rimaniamo li a porci domande e a riflettere, ritrovando a volte le stesse coordinate proposte dai temi espressi, o al limite, partecipare alle vicende narrate nelle vite tristi e dolorose dei protagonisti come umili spettatori. L'unico limite lo poniamo noi.

In questo caso il limite è autoimposto, sono io stesso, che pur apprezzando i temi trattati con fervore e la filosofia che permea il romanzo, non digerisco troppo quelle storie familiari che si dilungano, girano e rigirano, precipitano, si accavallano essendo solo tramite per offrire altro. In questo caso i temi e lo studio psicologico.
Imperdibile per tutti gli altri.

------------------------------------
The human soul is deep, an endless abyss, a mystery to be discovered.
A family in judgment, between conflicts and feelings, crime and suffering.
A riot of introspection, with competing brothers.
In search of guilt the story begins, finally wishing for the well-deserved justice.

The novel is set in 1800s Russia and tells of a family and its problems.
Dostoevski's ability to bring into play so many facets of the human soul and the many topics covered are worth reading the novel and represent a model for every writer to emulate.

And here a simple plot becomes the means to talk about men and women, life and death. It penetrates doubts and feelings with disruptive force and we, who are simple readers, remain there asking ourselves questions and reflecting, sometimes finding the same coordinates proposed by the themes expressed, or at the limit, participating in the events narrated in the sad and painful lives of protagonists as humble spectators. We set the only limit.

In this case the limit is self-imposed, it's me myself, who while appreciating the themes treated with fervor and the philosophy that permeates the novel, I don't digest too much those family stories that linger, go round and round, precipitate, overlap, being only a means for offer more. In this case the themes and the psychological study.
A must for everyone else.

Cartea pe care a luat-o cu sine Lev Nikolaevici Tolstoi cînd a fugit de-acasă, în 28 octombrie 1910 după stilul vechi. Cartea despre care autorul spunea că e numai o introducere în biografia lui Alexei = Alioșa Karamazov și că va avea negreșit o continuare. Din păcate, Dostoievski n-a apucat să-și ducă gîndul la capăt. A murit peste cîteva luni. Pentru nota de față, am ales un singur episod, din finalul cărții.

Vă mai amintiți? După ce l-au petrecut pe Iliușa la groapă, copiii se opresc în jurul lui Alioșa Karamazov și-l întreabă dacă există cu adevărat Învierea. Iar Aleoșa răspunde că există negreșit și adaugă, „cu însuflețire, deși zîmbind”, că atunci vor avea prilejul să-și povestească „veseli și fericiți” tot ce au făcut în viața de acum. Unul dintre copii (Kolea Krasotkin) exclamă: „Vai, ce frumos va fi!”.

Tensiunea romanului se risipește tocmai prin acest sfîrșit senin, iar cititorul poate exclama la rîndu-i, cînd închide romanul lui Dostoievski: „Cu siguranță, va fi foarte frumos!”.

P. S. Mă întreb și vă întreb: unde afirmă Ivan Karamazov ilustra frază, citată de teologii cei mai isteți, „Dacă Dumnezeu nu există, totul este permis”? Eu unul n-am găsit-o sub forma asta în carte...

Ο απόλυτος μυθιστοριογράφος, μάστορας του λόγου και της γραφής, τεράστιος υπαρξιστής, ανελέητος αναζητητής της αλήθειας και των θεμελίων της ηθικής, ποιητής της ανθρώπινης τραγωδίας, παρατηρητής των ανθρώπινων μαρτυρίων και βασάνων. Προσδοκώντας τη λύτρωση, σκάβει τόσο βαθιά στην ανθρώπινη συνείδηση, που νιώθεις σχεδόν να σε πονάει. Παίρνει την ανθρώπινη ψυχή και ένα χειρουργικό νυστέρι και αρχίζει με απόλυτη μαεστρία να την τεμαχίζει, με αποτέλεσμα κάθε χαρακτήρας των έργων του να ενσαρκώνει και μια πτυχή του συνόλου του ανθρώπινου χαρακτήρα.

Κανείς δεν μπορεί να είναι καθαρά και μόνο σαν τον εγκεφαλικό, απόλυτα ορθολογιστή, αρνητή κάθε συναισθήματος Ιβάν που κηρύττει την αρχή του ‘’όλα επιτρέπονται’’. Ή σαν τον άπληστο, φιλήδονο, γεμάτο από σαρκικούς πόθους στην πιο βρώμικη μορφή τους, Φιόντορ. Ή σαν τον Ντμίτρι που ενεργεί υπό το άλογο, μη ελεγχόμενο πάθος χωρίς να υπολογίζει καθόλου τις συνέπειες. Ή σαν τον συμπονετικό, γεμάτο κατανόηση και καλοσύνη Αλιόσα που προσκολλάται στις παραδόσεις και στο Θεό. Ή τέλος σαν το νόθο γιο Σμερντιακόφ που, διαστρεβλώνοντας τις μηδενιστικές ιδέες του Ιβάν, καταντάει ένας χυδαία αποκρουστικός και ποταπός χαρακτήρας.

Αν όμως πάρεις σε διαφορετικές αναλογίες και δόσεις τα παραπάνω χαρακτηριστικά και τα αναμείξεις, τότε ναι δημιουργείς έναν σφαιρικό ανθρώπινο χαρακτήρα, με τα καλά και τα κακά του χαρακτηριστικά, τα οποία προβάλλουν περισσότερο ή λιγότερο ανάλογα με τις εκάστοτε συνθήκες.

Όποιος έχει τον Ντοστογιέφσκι στο μυαλό του σαν έναν τυφλό ακόλουθο του ορθόδοξου χριστιανισμού κάνει μεγάλο λάθος. Ο Ντοστογιέφσκι πιστεύει στο Θεό ναι, αλλά πιστεύει αναρχικά και ιδιότυπα. Τα έργα του διαπνέει όχι η δογματική θρησκευτικότητα μα η βαθιά πνευματικότητα.

Τρανή απόδειξη το βαθιά αντικληρικαλιστικό κεφάλαιο του Μέγα Ιεροεξεταστή, στο οποίο παθιασμένα υποστηρίζει ότι ο άνθρωπος δεν έχει ανάγκη από διαμεσολαβητές στη σχέση του με το Θεό. Είναι μια σχέση βαθιά προσωπική και εσωτερική και οι μεσάζοντες περιττεύουν. Πρώτη φορά ο Χριστός υμνήθηκε μέσα από τη σφοδρή κριτική στο πρόσωπο του. Ένα κεφάλαιο που αποτελεί ταυτόχρονα κραυγή και ωδή της ελεύθερης βούλησης. Αδυνατώ να σχολιάσω οτιδήποτε παραπάνω για το κεφάλαιο αυτό. Είμαι πολύ μικρή σε όλους τους τομείς για να κάνω κάτι τέτοιο. Αρκούμαι στο να διαβάζω εκστασιασμένη ξανά και ξανά τις εκατό εκείνες σελίδες και να αφήνομαι να με συνταράσσουν οι Μεγάλες Ιδέες των Μεγάλων Ανθρώπων.

Όλη αυτήν την τεράστια ουσία την ξετυλίγει μέσα από ένα δικαστικό δράμα και ομολογώ ότι από τα πιο αγαπημένα μου σημεία ήταν η δίκη στο τέλος του βιβλίου. Ακούς τα ίδια γεγονότα από διαφορετική σκοπιά (αυτή του συνηγόρου και του κατήγορου) και από διαφορετική ψυχολογική προσέγγιση.
Επίσης μου άρεσε πολύ και το ελπιδοφόρο τέλος! Το ίδιο ελπιδοφόρο όπως και στο ‘Έγκλημα και Τιμωρία. Μια ελπίδα, μια προσμονή για όποιον το επιθυμεί...