My endless love ❤️
A true masterpiece.
The cleverest thing I ever laid my eyes on.
The paperback version full of my highlights.

Once a upon a time there were three brothers actually there aren't, but that's a spoiler, Dmitri, Ivan and Alexei, who went forth into the world each bearing a legacy from their parents. Along their way they each use the gifts they have to deal with the problems that lie in their path. First Dmitri, the eldest brother who is strong and powerful, falls by the wayside and then Ivan, the middle brother who is clever and educated falls by the wayside, but Alexei, little Alyosha, the youngest brother who is humble and faithful, finds a true path to live happily ever after.

The Brothers Karamazov was Dostoevesky's last work. Like all his major novels it was written and published in instalments in so-called 'thick' or 'fat' journals. Dostoevsky was an epileptic, while writing the novel section by section to a monthly deadline, he had severe fits which left him weak and stopped him from writing for months at a time. Shortly after completing the novel he died.

Once upon a time there were three brothers. The eldest brother, Dmitri, had been an army officer, his strength and exuberant vitality seem to represent a pagan, pre-Christian world. The middle brother Ivan, shows the cold, atheistic, rational learning of the Western world. Only the youngest brother, little Alyosha, portrays the simplicity and humility of the best of Russian Orthodox spirituality(from Doestoevsky's point of view), and it is this that answers the question posed by Gogol in Dead Souls when he asks where the galloping Troika is heading to.

Once upon a time I wrote out long hand in pencil and then typed with four and a half fingers an undergraduate dissertation on The Brothers Karamazov. My ambition was amusing because this is, well I don't want to frighten anybody away from reading it, but if you want to get under the surface of this book and start there is an awful lot to explore. At the same time though it is a relatively simple story. It's like a folktale, once upon a time there were three brothers who set out on a quest. The quest turns out to be about the nature and salvation of Russia, but don't let that put you off, social criticism lies at the heart of many a Dickens novel too but you don't have to be learned at law to enjoy Bleak House. Anyway the downside of having studied something like this a little is that you have a vague awareness, like the child who has picked up one pebble off the beach, of just how much you don't know and how much there potentially is to explore.

Once upon a time there were three brothers. One place to start is Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale. There's a type of Russian folktale with three brothers. The eldest is the strongest, the middle brother is the cleverest while the youngest is the most humble, straightforward and helpful. They each set off in turn on a journey. The strength of the eldest gets him into trouble, the middle one is brought down through his own cleverness, and so it's the youngest one who with humility, by being nice and winning friends who not only reaches the destination but saves his brothers. This is essentially what we get here, but in the 'realist' form of a nineteenth century novel.

Some types of stories are so ubiquitous or deep-rooted that it probably isn't possible to escape their influence, but if the folktale structure was a deliberate choice then really that only enhances the ways in which the story is about Russia, what Russia is about and what it's fate should be. Dostoevsky's story is set in a town modelled on Staraya Lagoda. Staraya Lagoda according to the oldest Russian chronicle was the town taken over by Rurik to be his capital when he and his Viking kin were 'invited in' to bring 'order' to the Russian lands. Rurik was one of three brothers. One of the roots of the Brothers Karamazov then is sunk deep into the origin myth of the country and its own sense of identity.

The question of what Russia is, an eastern or a western country, is of course a deeply stupid and meaningless question. Perhaps it is a tendency of profoundly ridiculous questions to get under the skin and trouble people in a particularly tenacious manner. The issue is a trope in nineteenth century Russian literature. Apart from the Gogol, one can think of Oblomov with his oriental gown contrasted with his old friend the 'German' Stolz (ie Pride), Westernisers and Slavophiles in Turgenev or the rejection of 'Western' agriculture in Anna Karenina and the triumphing of the instinctual 'Russianness' of Natasha in War and Peace. Here in addition to Dostoevsky showing how he dislikes the new western style court system with jury trials (pointedly convicting an innocent man) he shows the insufficiency of Dmitri and Ivan, model western military man and western intellectual respectively. Instead we see the success of Alexei, who begins the novel in a monastery intending to become an Orthodox monk.

If Dostoevsky was just a nationalistic author he wouldn't be so interesting to non-Russian patriots, he is also a writer concerned with everything to do with spiritual life. Alexei is not just a monk but is devoted to the starets (or Elder) Father Zosima. This was an informal position in Orthodox monasticism that re-emerged in the nineteenth century. The starets was a charismatic figure, in a monastery, but outside the formal hierarchy, believed to have a special, personal relationship with the divine, possibly having miraculous powers as a result - we see a fair bit of this in the novel. (It was a Starets that Tolstoy went to see when he ran away from home at the age of 82). The practise was a throwback to late medieval Byzantine monasticism.

Another throwback to the Byzantine religious world is the holy fool. An idea typified by Saint Andrew of Constantinople, who was your scabrous, beaten and broken down, homeless, unwashed, stank so bad that even the dogs wouldn't go near him type of a holy man. However just as Emily loved Bagpuss so too did God and his Mum love Saint Andrew giving him a vision of the Virgin Mary protecting Constantinople with her veil and saving it from conquest in the year 911. I'll digress a little further, the figure of the Holy Fool was popular in Russia, one of my lecturers at university ran into one in the church in the artist's village that Soviet Union had outside Moscow this was probably in the 80s. The Holy Fool was famed for speaking truth to power. There is a moment in Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov when the eponymous Tsar asks a Holy Fool to pray for him only to be told "Bugger off you child murdering Tyrant, I can't pray for you, what kind of fool do you take me for!", actually he doesn't sing that he sings Nel'zia, Boris, nel'zia ("Impossible, Boris, impossible"). My longer version is just implied, honest...if you are extremely unorthodox in your translation.

Well the relevance of all this is that mother of Ivan and Alexei is meant to be something of this type and the tendency towards an extreme self-abasing humility runs strong in Alexei. The point of the holy foolishness and the Starets is that it is non-institutional, based on a personal relationship to the Divine and is free to oppose and run counter to Earthly law, order and expectations. This is a complicating element in Dostoevsky. Yes he is ultra conservative, hyper-nationalistic and thoroughly Orthodox, but he is also happy to reject the given political and social order. There is a spirit, not quite revolutionary, maybe not radical but ready at any moment to throw over the apple cart in a moment of carnival - and here, I best mention it, that if you are going to study Dostoevsky then Mikhail Bakhtin is inescapable, (a modern work of secondary literature on Dostoevsky that doesn't mention Bakhtin in its bibliography is probably not worth reading).

Another root of the The Brothers Karamazov is Schiller's Die Räuber. Father Karamazov is particularly taken by the parallels between himself, Dmitri, Ivan and the Old Moor and his sons in the Schiller play. Once upon a time there were two brothers, Dostoevsky by adding a third son and then a fourth was translating the dynamic of ideas in the earlier play into the cultural context of later nineteenth century Russia. Cold Rationality and the honour culture receive the addition of an Orthodox spirituality that stands outside of conventional authority, but also a particular, diseased take on rationalism that pushes it to a destructive conclusion. The novel then is a laboratory of ideas. Three concepts are taken and stress tested until only one is left standing, offering a hope of salvation, possibly only personal but maybe a salvation that is available to a broader community of the faithful.

Admittedly the salvation on offer is probably not available to the unorthodox, but one has to accept the integrity of the author's world vision, in just the same way that you have to accept that one must become an American, at least in spirit, to be eligible for the American dream. The fun for me as a non-Orthodox, non-Russian reader is the power and skill of the writing not the message. Dickens presents Australia as the only conceivable chance to achieve a reasonable life for Mr Micawber and family, but I don't toss David Copperfield aside for trumpeting colonialism as the answer to Britain's own social problems (actually, that is really pessimistic now I come to think of it, particularly in those grim days before the invention of factor 50 sun block). Authors, even great ones, are allowed to be just as flawed and limited in their outlooks and thinking as the rest of us.

The business of salvation is summed up in Grushenka's story about a miserly old woman whose one good act was to give a half rotten onion to a beggar. As it turns out the onion wasn't strong enough to save her but in principle salvation doesn't require saintly levels of virtue, or rather the level required is calibrated to the individual. The story seems to be an inversion of a tale that Dostoevsky tells in Notes from the House of the Dead. During his imprisonment in Siberia Dosteovesky heard tell of Robber captain who asks one of his men what he managed to steal one day:

Well, says the robber, a peasant came by but all he had on him was an onion, so I let him go. Fool! Said his captain. You should have killed him and taken the onion. Once you had two onions you could have sold them for a penny down the market.

Salvation and damnation in Dostoevsky can be triggered by the simplest kindness or brutality.

I've said this is also a simple book, albeit one with a lot going on under the surface if you want to look for that. So, once upon a time there were three brothers. Dmitri in particular has a tumultuous relationship with their old and really pretty unpleasant father. The father is murdered and it appears blatantly obvious that Dmitri was the murderer. He is arrested and put on trial. In the meantime Ivan has a series of conversations including one in which he tells Alyosha his story of the Grand Inquisitor, (a charming tale of God, man, sin, order, truth, meaning and divine love) which culminate in his mental breakdown. With two brothers down it is up to Alexei to save the day by being simple and holy.

There is a film version of The Brothers Karamazov starring Yul Brynner as Dmitri. I've never seen it. However I've read the novel at least three times. The first time my sympathies were with Alexei, but I was young then. The second time I identified more with the rational spirit of Ivan. When it came round to my third reading I realised that I was deeply in tune with Dmitri. If you've read it yourself you can guess why I might be reluctant to read it a fourth time. My sense of association with Dmitri leaves me unhappy and dissatisfied with elements of the ending of the novel, but this is counter balanced by knowing that I am not too in thrall to Dostoevsky's world view.

It has been said, I can't remember by who, that Dostoevsky was always rewriting the same novel. The same types of characters and relationships recur. The Underground Man is a prototype Ivan, the Idiot something of an Alyosha. The Dmitri - Grushenka relationship of damaged people stuck in a dynamic of hurting each other is replayed often enough and seems to echo Doestoevsky's relationship with Apollinaria Suslova. The Brothers Karamazov is not perhaps the best starting point for reading Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment is probably more accessible, if more intense. If that is too long then perhaps the short story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man will do the trick.

Once upon a time there were three brothers. It is a common experience reading the Brothers Karamazov to feel a particular closeness to one of the brothers. When I first read it I felt closest to Alexei. Later, I found Ivan was more compelling. Now I know I am in direct relationship to Dmitri and I suspect that one day I'll wake up as Fyodor Karamazov, capable of being the father of all of them however disparate their characters seem. The apple doesn't fall so far from the tree.

أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَٰهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَىٰ بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ ۚ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ (23) وَقَالُوا مَا هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا يُهْلِكُنَا إِلَّا الدَّهْرُ ۚ وَمَا لَهُم بِذَٰلِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ ۖ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ (24)

سورة الجاثية

الأب المؤمن بالمادية الذي ليس له حظا من الأبوة إلا أن الله رزقه بالولد و ليس له حظ من الإنسانية إلا شهوات دنسته و دنست من يخالطهم أما الأبناء فقد انقسموا إلى ثلاثة نماذج مختلفة من الخارج متطابقة من الداخل و لا عجب في ذلك فقد كان ديستيوفسكي يصور لنا الإنسان بكل تناقضاته

“الانسان متى جحد المعجزة أسرع يجحد الرب. لأن ظمأه هو إلى العجائب لا إلى الرب. وإنه لكونه لا يستطيع أن يحيا بغير معجزات سيخلق هو بنفسه معجزات أقوى . فهوى . ولو كان متمردا كافرا ملحدا . إلى خرافات سخيفة . تنطلي عليه أباطيل السحرة وخزعبلاتهم.
انك لم تنزل عن الصليب حين دعاك الجمهورإلى ذلك صائحا "انزل عن الصليب فنصدق أنك أنت" . انك لم تنزل لأنك لم تشأ أن تستعبد البشر بالمعجزة. وانما أردت أن يجيؤوا إليك بدافع الايمان . لا بدافع العجائب. كنت تريد أن يهبوا إليك محبتهم أحرارا لا أن ينصاعوا إليك عبيدا أذهلتهم قوتك.”

هل آفة البشر الغباء أم أنه الفضيلة بعينها؟

“ما أكثر الشرفاء عن غباوة..”

لقد طال شرح هذا الموضوع في عدة مجلدات تجاوزت الآلاف منذ بدء الخليقة و لا زالت الكلمة تجري و ستجري أبد الدهر و هذا هو الغباء بعينه أن نسمع و لا نعي و أن نعيا بما نسمع.

“لأن المرء يكون أقرب إلى الحقيقة حين يكون غبيَّاً. إن الغباء يمضي نحو الهدف رأساً. الغباء بساطة وإيجاز. أما الذكاء فمكر ومخاتلة. إن الفكر الذكي فاجرٌ فاسد. أما الغباء فمستقيم شريف. لقد شرحت لك يأسي. وعلى قدر ما يكون الشرح غبياً يكون الأمر أفضل في نظري.”

و منذ أن يصطدم وعينا بالخلق الأول فلا نجد إجابة يقتنع بها عقلنا الصغير لا نجد حينئذ إلا حلا من اثنين لا ثالث لهما .. إما التسليم التام و وضع غلالة على العقل تمنعه من طرق هذا الباب مرة أخرى و إما بذرة التمرد و الشك التي ستنموا إلى أن تبتلعك أو تذبل حتى تذروها الرياح

إن الرب قد خلق الضياء في اليوم الأول. وفي اليوم الرابع خلق الشمس والقمر والنجوم. فمن أين جاء الضياء إذن في اليوم الأول .”

و لأن المؤلف العبقري لم يبخس أي شخصية حقها في هذا العمل الفلسفي الدرامي المبهر فقد كان لكل نصيب من الكفر و الإيمان في كل مرحلة من مراحل الرواية

" إنني لا أقبلُ العالم َعلى نحوِ ما خلقهُ الله. ولا أستطيع الموافقة على قبولهِ رغمَ علمي بوجوده. لستُ أرفض الله. . . افهمني جيدًا. . . وإنما أنا أرفضُ العالمَ الذي خلقهُ ولا أستطيعُ الموافقةَ على قَبوله".
ألا فاعلم أن السخافات لازمة لوجود هذا العالم. ان الكون يقوم على سخافات بدونها قد لا يوجد شيء و قد لا يحدث شيء.
نحن نعلم ما نعلم.
لست أفهم شيئا و لقد أصبحت الأن لا أريد أن أفهم شيئا. أريد أن أكتفي بالوقائع و أن أقتصر عليها. لقد قررت منذ زمن طويل ألا أحاول تأويلها. فلو حاولت أن أفهم إذا لشوهت الوقائع فورا. و أنا أحرص على أن أبقى في الواقع لا أخرج منه.

الإبن الأصغر بطل القصة و محورها يتردد مليا بين الشك و الإيمان و لكنه لا يعرف إلا الحب الذي يقوده في النهاية لمعرفة الرب

إننى لا أعرف الحل لمشكلة الشر. و لكننى أعرف الحب

أما الأوسط فقد استهوته الشياطين في الأرض حتى هوت به من السماء السابعة و ليس بعد السقوط من صلاح

“ان ما من شئ في هذا العالم يمكن ان يجبر البشر على ان يحبوا أقرانهم. و انه ما من قانون طبيعي يفرض على الانسان ان يحب الانسانية. فاذا كان قد وجد و ما يزال يوجد على هذة الارض شئ من الحب فليس مرد ذلك الى قانون طبيعي بل الى سبب واحد هو اعتقاد البشر انهم خالدون. ان هذا الاعتقاد هو في الاساس الوحيد لكل قانون اخلاقي طبيعي. فاذا فقدت الانسانية هذا الاعتقاد بالخلود فسرعان ما ستغيض كل ينابيع الحب بل و سرعان ما سيفقد البشر كل قدرة على مواصلة حياتهم في هذا العالم. اكثر من ذلك انه لن يبقى هنالك شئ يعد منافيا للاخلاق و سيكون كل شئ مباحا. حتى اكل لحوم البشر.”

الإبن الأكبر كان مثالا للشهوة المجسدة كأبيه و لكنه مع ذلك صقلته الألام و اكتوى بنار الحب

“يا رب! اقبلني رغم حطتي. ولكن لا تحكم عليّ. اللهم اسمح لي أن أجيء إليك دون أن أمثل أمام محكمتك... لا تحكم عليّ. ما دمت قد حكمت على نفسي بنفسي.... لا تحكم عليّ. لأنني أحبك يا رب! اللهم إنني خبيث دنيء. ولكني أحبك. وحتى في الجحيم. إذا أنت أرسلتني إلى الجحيم. سأظل أحبك. وسأظل أهتف لك بحبي إلى الأبد. ولكن دع لي أن أحب حبي الأرضي حتى النهاية.. إسمح لي أن اظل أحب. في هذه الحياة الدنيا. خمس ساعات أخرى. إلى أن تطلع شمسك الدافئة.. إنني أحب ملكة قلبي. ولا أملك أن أمتنع عن حبها. اللهم إنك تراني كلي في هذه اللحظة. سوف أهرع إليها. فأرتمي عند قدميها. وأقول لها: لقد كنت على حق حين نبذتيني. وداعا.. إنسي ضحيتك. ولا تدعي لذكراي أن تعذبك يوما”

أما الأب فهو الشيطان نفسه و لا شك

أعتقد أنه اذا لم يكن الشيطان موجوداً . و اذا كان الانسان قد خلقه. فلا شك في ان الانسان قد خلقه على صورته هو.
“يجب أن نعلن بغير تردد أنه ليس يكفي المرء أن ينسل نسلا حتى يكون أبا ‘ وإنما ينبغي له أن يستحق شرف هذا الاسم . أنا أعلم أن هناك رأيا مختلفا عن هذا الرأي . أن هناك فهما آخر لمعنى كلمة الأب . هو أن أبي يظل أبي ولو كان شيطانا رجيما ومجرما عاتيا في حق أولاده وذلك يا سادتي لمجرد أنه أوجدني
!!”

يصهر ديستيوفسكي كل تلك الشخصيات التي تمثل المجتمع الروسي في قمة تناقضاته في منتصف و نهاية القرن التاسع عشر محاولا البحث عن طوق النجاة في الآلام التي ستتولد عنها اللذة و الغفران يوما ما
الإيمان هنا في الرواية يولد من الآلام و ليس من العقل و هو يتأرجح دائما كبندول الساعة و ان لم يكن بنفس الانتظام

“الآلام أنواع : فهناك آلام تخفض قيمتنا أو تنقص قدرنا . كالجوع مثلا . فالناس تحب أن تصدقنا في ما يتعلق بهذا النوع من الآلام . ليجعلوا من أنفسهم محسنين إلينا بعد ذلك. أما إذا كان الألم أرفع من هذا درجة أو درجتين . إذا كان ألما نحتمله في النضال من اجل فكرة مثلا . فإن الناس يرفضون أن يصدقوه. باستثناء قلة قليلة. وهم لا يصدقونه لأنهم حين نظروا إلى صاحبه رأوا أن رأسه ليس ذلك الرأس الذي لابد أن يكون في نظرهم رأس من يتألم في سبيل قضية رفيعة تلك الرفعة كلها. وهم عندئذ يأبون أن يتعاطفوا معه أي تعاطف. دون أن يكون في موقفهم هذا شيء من روح الشر على كل حال”

البشر يحبون الجريمة. جميع البشر يحبون الجريمة. يحبونها دائما لا في بعض الساعات فحسب. و كأن هناك اتفاقا عاما بين الناس على الكذب في هذا الأمر. ما من أحد يحب أن يكون صادقا مخلصا في هذا الأمر. هم جميعا يؤكدون أنهم يكرهون الشر. مع أنهم يحبونه في قرارة أنفسهم.

“ولكن كيف يكون هذا الإنسان فاضلاً بدون الله ؟. إلى من سيندفع..”

في النهاية تأتي وصية إليوشا للأطفال في وداعهم الأخير و كأنها كانت وصية المسيح للحواريين في موعظة الجبل و كأن ديستيوفسكي يقول أن كل منا بداخله مسيح و شيطان يتصارعان. نعم مسيح و شيطان و ليس ملاك و شيطان فالمسيح هنا تجسيد لكل ما في الملاك و الإله و الإنسان من معان و ايحاءات. كما تأتي توبة ميتيا في النهاية و كأنها الأمل في الخروج من النفق التي علقت فيه روسيا آمادا طويلة

كيف يمكنني أن أعيش تحت الأرض بدون الله؟ و حين سيطرد البشر الله من على سطح الأرض سنهتدي نحن إليه في جوف الأرض و نرتد إليه. ان السجين المحكوم بالأشغال الشاقة لا يستطيع أن يحيا بدون الله. و هو أعجز عن ذلك من الإنسان الحر الطليق. فمن غياهب الليل سنغني نحن اللذين نعيش تحت الأرض. سنغني نشيدا حزينا يمجد الخالق ينبوع السعادة و الضياء. تبارك الرب. و تبارك فرحه. إنني أحب الله.

No one:
Mitya and me: SAVE ME IVAN KARAMAZOV! IVAN KARAMAZOV SAVE ME!

Many of you have read this book way before me, or if not read, at least know a lot about it, so I won't ramble too much in this review and will rather use it to share some of my thoughts.

I've been wanting to read this book for the longest time but, even though I'm a huge fan of Russian literature, I must admit I was scared of it. After finishing it, I'll say I HAD NO REASON TO BE. Surprisingly, I pretty much flew through it. I quickly became addicted to the story and wanted to use all my free time (and I didn't have a lot of it since I was in the middle of preparing my Surgery exam (fun times)) to read this. It's a very addicting story with so many possible outcomes. Maybe I would suggest taking things slightly slower than I did, it could be that I missed some great details. After finishing it, this book leaves you with that very specific empty feeling of wanting more (even though it has a million pages) while at the same time wanting to reread the material. So, it could be that my reading pace was totally okay and this is just that kind of book that you want to come back to over and over again.

I loved this book so much but it's not my favorite Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment (no matter how cheesy that sounds) will always hold a special place in my heart. I remember reading that book for the very first time in 7th (you read that right) grade and it changed my life forever. After that, I've done a reread many times and it always surprises me in a new way. Truly a masterpiece.

I loved the central theme of this book. I call this the "family sin" trope, not sure about the official name lol. It amazed me just how much this book stepped outside of the main plot. It had paragraphs and paragraphs on religion, love, philosophy (even more than Crime and Punishment). I don't care if you're a fan of classical literature or not, I would always recommend reading some Dostoevsky. Just absorbing these thoughts makes you feel more educated and smarter?!

For those who care, Ivan was my favorite brother. Even though this book gave him the least attention out of all the brothers (which is a shame), I LOVED THE CRUMBS. I loved all female characters without exception, truly some inspiring women.

I still ended up rambling. Hope you enjoyed this mediocre review.

سفر خوبی داشتم همراه با آلیوشا، میتیا و ایوان. علی‌رغم طولانی بودن صفحات، بسیار کوتاه بود. با اینکه سعی کردم با آرامش بخوانم و مشغولیات زندگی هم فرصت مطالعه ام را کم کرده اما خیلی زود گذشت چون خوب گذشت.

یک رمان کامل بود اما هم دوست داشتم ادامه پیدا کند هم در پایان کاملا احساس می کردم ادامه دار است. وقتی در جایی خواندم قرار بوده این کتاب بخش اول یک سه گانه باشد و داستایوفسکی چهارماه پس از نگارشش درگذشته بسیار ناراحت شدم

خیلی فکرکردم به تمام رمان هایی که تاکنون خوانده ام، تا قبل از برادران کارامازوف، خیلی دشوار است برایم رمانی را پیدا کنم که از این رمان بهتر بوده باشد. جلد اول را که تمام کردم نوشتم: «اگر داستان‌ها و رمان‌های روسی داستان و رمان هستند، آثار دیگر ملل چگونه جرات دارند ادعای ادبیات داستانی داشته باشند؟ همچنانکه اگر شعر فارسی و ایرانی شعر است، نوشته های دیگر زبان‌ها و ملت‌ها چگونه ادعای شعربودن می‌کنند؟»

برای من که دانش آموز توامان ادبیات و فلسفه بوده ام این رمان از هر دو منظر قابل تامل و ارزشمند بود. هم ادبیات و ساختار زیبای داستان شگفت زده ام کرد هم نبرد سهمناک اندیشه ها در آن

پیش از مطالعه کتاب از اهالی فلسفه ستایش های فراوانی را درباره این کتاب شنیده بودم اما پس از مطالعه کتاب و در گشت‌زنی‌های اینترنتی دیدم که متفکران و دانشمندان بزرگ معاصر در رشته های گوناگون در تحسین و تحلیل این رمان نوشته اند، از مارتین هایدگر فیلسوف بزرگ، تا آلبرت اینشتین فیزیکدان نابغه، تا زیگموند فروید روانشناس مشهور. این به خودی خود نشان از اهمیت این اثر داستانی دارد. هرچند بعضی از این نظرات، مثل نظر فروید بسیار سخیف و سطحی است و گذر زمان بی اعتباری اش را ثابت کرده است. اما رمانی که بتواند اینهمه نظر نخبه را به خود جلب کند هم عظمت خود را ثابت می کند هم برتری ادبیات خلاقه بر دیگر علوم و عوالم را


***
پ ن: کتاب را با ترجمه صالح حسینی خواندم. قابل تحمل بود اما خوب نبود. هم اشکالات فراوان داشت، مخصوصا در علائم و نشانه‌های نوشتاری. امری که اگر مخاطب دقیق نباشد گیجش میکند کدام متن دیالوگ است و کدام روایت راوی و گاهی حتی دیالوگ دو شخصیت خلط شده. همچنین استفاده از بسیاری از عبارات تازی نامانوس و غیرمستعمل متن را برای مخاطب جوان سخت میکند. مشکل دیگر هم اصطلاح گزینی های تطبیقی در برابر اصطلاحات نویسنده اصلی است. از همه بدترش یک جا برای حضرت مریم (سلام الله علیها) عبارت «بی بی دو عالم» را به کار برده و در مقدمه هم به این کار خود افتخار کرده. حال آنکه بی بی دو عالم اصطلاح خاص برای یک شخصیت خاص است در زبان فارسی و انتخابش برای چنین مقامی قطعا پشتوانه ادبی و علمی ندارد. خلاصه که امیدوارم شما ترجمه بهتری را برای مطالعه انتخاب کنید و مهمتر امیدوارم که ترجمه ای حرفه ای از زبان اصلی از این کتاب انجام بگیرد تا مخاطب فارسی زبان بتواند ارتباط و نسبت بی واسطه تری با این شاهکار ادبیات داستانی جهان برقرار کند

11th book of 2022.

“I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigmarole," so Nabokov once said. I disagree with him on the latter, I think it's a brilliant novel, and I don't intensely dislike this, but Nabokov's view has allowed me to feel slightly less alone.

3.5. Often called the 'greatest book ever written', it's hard not to go in with some high hopes. It's even harder having read Crime and Punishment and loved it. The problem was, I knew this was a different sort of novel, denser, longer, more overtly philosophical. Most of the time I could only read this in fairly short chunks, most of the time not even managing 50 pages a day, which I would, usually, easily read of a big novel. The 'plot', the murder mystery/courtroom drama as the blurb suggests is really a selling point, these two things don't come around until the final third of the novel. The first 2/3 of the novel is mostly giant tirades on morality, religion and the relationships between the characters, the brothers and various women in the story. Considering its reputation, I barely underlined anything though I found many bits interesting. The characters were all very good but at times I struggled to care about what they had to say. The last portion of the novel was good and putting the novel down I felt its collected power accumulating inside me which is always a good sign. Reading isn't always pleasant but can still reap wonderful rewards and feelings. I guess this is one of those books.

As far as the big Russian novels goes, this one falls in with Anna Karenina as being a great novel, having my respect, but ultimately being a little disappointing. For me the pinnacle so far remains to be War and Peace which completely bowled me over with its brilliance. I guess you could say I'm more Tolstoy than Dostoyevsky [1], but I'd also want to read more of both before saying anything final. Putting it aside I feel like the message of the book is a wonderful one and I will have to read it again when I'm older and wiser; in a way I'm glad I read it in my mid-twenties so when I can read it in my 30s or 40s I can (hopefully) think to myself, what an idiot I was in my twenties! And then know for certain how much wiser I've become, and maybe better, too.
_________________________

[1] In the choosing favourites game with natural pairs, Camus v. Sartre, Balzac v. Zola, Hemingway v. Fitzgerald, etc.

Ein Meisterwerk und Meilenstein, insbesondere was die Hervorhebung der Psyche und die Auswirkung der Kindheitserlebnisse auf das Erwachsenenleben angeht. Vergleichbares habe ich bis zum Entstehungszeitpunkts dieses Werks in den 1860er Jahren noch nicht gelesen. Bewundernswert finde ich auch den tiefen Glauben, der in diesem Geschichte verwurzelt ist, wobei es nicht nur der christliche Glaube ist, sondern auch der Glaube an die Mutter Erde und das Väterchen Russland, der immer wieder in dem Ringen der Brüder Karamasow um Schuld und Sühne.

Es hätte ein bewegendes Leseerlebnis sein können, wenn Dostojewski für mich nicht so unangenehm geschwätzig und sich wiederholend wäre. Wenn er eine klar durchdachte Handlung und eine Konzeption der Geschichte hätte. Dostojewski bekommt für mich selten eine Atmosphäre hin, ständig habe ich das Gefühl, das Drama in Form eines Schauspiels zu lesen. Diese Mischung aus Familien-, Moral-, Liebes-, Kriminal-, Gerichtsverfahrengeschichte ist sehr dialoglastig. Die Menschen tragen ihre Herzen auf den Zungen, und ihre Herzen quellen über, und ihre Zungen sind groß. So schön, wie ein Theaterbesuch auch ist, eine 40-stündige Aufführung muss einfach ihre Längen haben. Gerade die Plädoyers von Staatsanwalt und Verteidiger im Vatermordprozess sind mitreißend und schon eine Analyse des Buchs im Buch selbst. Doch sie wollen nicht enden, bauen eine Vermutung nach der anderen auf und man sehnt sich nach der Glocke des Richters, der den Redenden endlich zum Kern seiner Aussage bringen möchte. Zudem finde ich die Frauenfiguren bei Dostojewski stets nervig, am Rande des Nervenzusammenbruchs und nie rational, sondern stets durch die Gefühle getrieben. Das liegt nicht an der Zeit, in der es entstanden ist. Andere Zeitgenossen Dostojewskis waren ja schon durchaus in der Lage komplexe und starke Frauen zu kreieren.

Die vier Brüder stehen alle für verschiedene Charaktereigenschaften, zudem sind die Nebenrollen auch meist Symbolfiguren für einen bestimmten Glauben, Denkweise oder Eigenschaft. Daher ist es mir sehr verständlich, dass dies unter psychologischen Aspekten Sigmund Freud als den besten Roman der Literaturgeschichte ansah. Nach meinem Empfinden leidet aber der Realismus an diesem Hang zur Symbolik.

Ich bin froh, dass ich es gelesen habe und trotz der Längen bis zum Ende durchhielt. In seiner Fülle von Themen ein überwältigendes Buch.

Dane causes scandal in online literary circles, admitting: I just didn’t love The Brothers K

A reporter representing discerning readers everywhere yesterday rounded up the Danish reader in front of her home as she was attempting to slink off to her car, carrying a suspiciously thin volume under her arm. What follows is an attempt to get to the bottom of the Dane’s reaction:

Reporter: Excuse me, Ma’am, it has been brought to our attention that you’ve given The Brothers Karamazov a rating of three stars on goodreads. Do you have a comment?

Dane: Wha..aat? Why would I have a comment? And don’t call me ma’am.

R: Sorry, m.., but a rating that low just doesn’t go unnoticed. An explanation is called for.

D: Oh. Well, I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t always hang on to it. I liked the overall idea, the philosophical questioning of ideas, but it seemed to vacillate back and forth between the exploration of ideas – with the characters representing different ethical positions – and a melodrama brimming with pathos. And of course Dostoevsky’s trademark dealings with guilt, crime and blame galore.

R: Well, yes. Frankly, that is part of the point. Dostoevsky wrote philosophical novels, as you must be aware.

D: Of course I’m aware of that. I even agree with much of what is expressed in the novel. In fact, I found myself agreeing with Ivan in his lengthy soliloquy – the Grand Inquisitor – when he said to Alyosha that it’s not that I don’t accept God, I just most respectfully return him the ticket. I can relate to that. The problem is, I felt I wasn’t supposed to agree with Ivan. As a Lutheran growing up in a highly secularized, if not entirely faithless, society, I felt too distanced from the overall themes of faith, redemption and punishment, or at least in the way they were repeatedly offered up at the expense of story. My sporadic knowledge of the Bible probably didn’t help.

R: Ah, and shouldn’t it be assumed that serious readers are aware of Biblical references? Surely it cannot be the author’s fault that you failed to understand aspects of the novel based on your own ignorance of specifics in the Bible?

D: Of course not. I do have a general knowledge of the Bible, and I have no problem not getting all intertextual references in a novel. But there were long passages in which a character would speak soliloquy-fashion without another character interrupting or the character speaking doing anything else. The genre went from novel to sermon in those passages, and I felt preached to.

R: But, but, but…That’s part of Dostoevsky’s style, his sophistication, his Big Ideas.

D: And I deeply sympathize with many of his ideas. I was touched by many things he said, especially everything he said about children. I loved what he said about being a father at the trial – totally agree. In fact, I was quite taken with the whole court scene. I can see that it’s brilliant.

R: Well, then…?

D: Look, I know it’s supposed to be tough Russian realism, but it never felt very real to me. The characters didn’t seem real. Although I experienced moments of philosophical or spiritual or intellectual profundity, I just didn’t connect with the overall manic, tragic, morbid intensity of it. Everyone seems to be yellow in the face and scrawny; they invariably sob and scream. The poor were automatically good, the rich automatically corrupt. It seemed too black and white to me – like a communist, religious manifesto. I know he was influenced by Dickens, and like any modern, decent individual I sympathize with the problems they point out, but where Dickens showed, Dostoevsky often told, hence my feeling preached to. There was nothing left between the cracks for the reader to guess at and co-create the text with; it was all out there. Even Virginia Woolf said as much although at one point she deeply admired him.

R: You are doubtless aware of Kierkegaard’s influence on Dostoevsky as well, then?

D: Yes, I am aware of it, and it showed. Kierkegaard personifies the overly aesthetic ideal only to contradict it in his subsequent purely ethical stance, and everything is viewed through the prism of religion. He was a kind of existential philosopher, founded on religion, which I guess, in a way, Dostoevsky was, too. Mind you, Kierkegaard didn’t write novels. And as I said before, to me Dostoevsky often digressed from that genre, although I suppose you could call it a more modern take on the novel.

R: Aha, and coming to that: don’t you realize that it’s objectively speaking a masterpiece? That it’s considered one of the best novels in the world?

D: Certainly I do! But that’s not a reason for liking it. That’s a reason for reading it. And now I have. OK? I felt it was amazing but monstrous. I was impressed by much of it, but it wore me out.

R: Hm. I wonder if you are aware that Dostoevsky has been in fashion in literary circles for a while now; that serious readers greatly admire, even love, this novel?

D: Yes, yes, I know. And I know what it’s like to have a favourite book rated low for no good reason or for inadequate reasons. I hope I’ve explained myself at least a little. I didn’t utterly dislike it, but the extent of the religious fervor threw me off the path of the story. Ultimately, I resent the underlying belief that you cannot be a decent person or love another person properly if you don’t believe in God.

R: And you admit to these, shall we call them, shortcomings on your part?

D: Uhm, well, as I’ve seen someone else put it: we all like and dislike with impunity, don’t we? Sure, I feel guilty. Inadequate even, but there it is: I. Just. Did. Not. Love. It.

Neighbours were approached for an explanation of this un-heard-of phenomenon but answered with blank stares, followed by an occasional ‘Karamazov who?’ or ‘Is that that weird Russian rocket launcher?’ and other telling comments. In this sea of ignorance surrounding the Danish reader, we may have found the true cause of the mystery.

Sau, un subtitlu subiectiv: CONSECINŢELE DRASTICE ALE RAŢIONALISMULUI, URMĂRILE DEZASTRUOASE ALE EMPIRISMULUI ŞI FERICITA CALE DE MIJLOC.
...
Încep cu puncte de suspensie, căci nu se poate altfel atunci când ÎNCERCI să spui câteva cuvinte despre "Fraţii Karamazov".
Triunghiul Alexei-Ivan-Dimitri. Societatea rusească din secolul al XIX-lea?! No way. Timpul -secolul al XIX-lea- şi spaţiul -Rusia- nu reprezintă decât un fundal pe care Dostoievski îşi aşterne personajele, căci în cadrul operelor sale nu se poate vorbi de o dimensiune spaţială şi una temporală decât dacă privim opera dintr-un unghi pueril. Personajele lui Dostoievski -şi implicit trăirile lor- rămân veşnice, anacronice, lipsite de spaţiu, căci personalităţile complexe dăinuiesc veşnic, indiferent de spaţiu geografic ori de timp istoric, iar asta nu pentru că le-a teoretizat geniul incontestabil al literaturii universale, ci pentru că ele au existat de când lumea şi vor dăinui tot atât, potenţiala "nebunie" cu care sunt descrise nefiind altceva decât formele pasiunii într-un anumit cadru istoric (pasiunea pentru Dumnezeu, pasiunea pentru ştiinţe -de orice ordin- şi pasiunea pentru femeie, inoculate în Alexei, Ivan şi Dimitri deopotrivă). Desigur, aceste forme ale pasiunii nu ţin de geneza ontologică a personajului, ele fiind cultivate de diverşi factori ce se răsfrâng asupra subiectului înzestrat cu o capacitate raţională (şi, prin urmare, cu o capacitate de a discerne, subiectiv, anumite evenimente de care are cunoştinţă). Fără doar şi poate, din acest motiv Dostoievski alocă o bună parte din filele romanului originii fraţilor Karamazov. Cu discrepanţele de vârstă (faptul că unul a avut o mama diferită nu constituie un argument pentru marea diferenţa ideologică dintre dânşii şi, de asemenea, amprenta lui Feodor asupra fiilor săi nu a fost pusă decât prin propria-i spermă *cah*, dat fiind că el nu voia să aibă într-adevăr ştiinţă de rostul copiilor lui în lume), noile mlădiţe ale Karamazovilor cresc -aparent!- armonios...
Alexei nu este un "tinerel firav" şi nu avea în el "ceva bolvavicios". Aspiraţia sa demiurgică nu survine din nevoia vieţii eterne, motiv pentru care Dostoievski dă amănunţite explicaţii: "... minunile nu vor reuşi niciodată să-l descumpănească pe un realist. Nu datorită minunilor un realist va ajunge credincios. [...] se va îndoi de propriile lui simţuri decât s-o admită ca atare. [...] minunea ia naştere din credinţă".
Despre Ivan -trecând peste considerentele evoluţiei sale- ajunge să spun că, undeva în volumul doi, când acţiunea planează în jurul crimei odioase, spune: "Totul e permis!".
Pentru Dimitri, "iubirea plăteşte totul, răscumpăra totul".

I. IUBIREA în "Fraţii Karamazov".

1. O interesantă remarcă ce surprinde iluzia proiectării omului în absolut prin iubire. Aşadar, iluzia absolutului nu poate dăinui în om decât atunci când acesta este cuprins de o apoteotică "uitare de sine", de o pasiune mistuitoare, fie pentru Dumnezeu, fie pentru cunoaştere, fie pentru femeie: "Pe măsură ce iubirea va triumva, veţi ajunge să va convingeţi de existenţa lui dumnezeu şi să credeţi în nemurirea sufletului".

2. "...cu cât urăsc mai mult indivizii luaţi în parte, cu atât dragostea mea pentru umanitate în general e mai fierbinte."

3. "să ştii că faţă de iubirea contemplativă, dragostea activă pare aprigă şi înfricoşătoare."

4. Definirea romanţată a pasiunii omului de geniu, care -în mod absolut!- trebuie să fie conştient că pasiunea, chiar şi în stadiul embrionar fiind, ştirbeşte judecata: "... a fi amorezat e una şi cu totul altceva e să iubeşti. Poţi să fii mort după o femeie şi în acelaşi timp să o urăşti."

5. "Mi-e milă de el şi milă nu e chiar cea mai bună dovadă de dragoste [...] l-aş urî."

II. EXISTENŢIALISMUL (precoce) în "Fraţii Karamazov".

1. Titlu de capitol: "Degeaba mai face umbră pământului omul acesta!"

2. "Nu putea să suporte incertitudinea!"

3. Înrădăcinata dăinuire a iubirii dincolo de hotarele raţiunii: "Viaţă dumitale va fi preocupată cu contemplarea dureroasă a propriilor tale sentimente, a eroismului şi a suferinţei de care ai avut parte."

4. Incontestabila cale a sentilui vieţii: "Cred că toată lumea trebuie să iubească viaţă mai presus de orice. [...] s-o iubeşti mai presus decât logică, căci numai aşa ai să-i înţelegi rostul".

5. "Taina existenţei umane nu constă în a trăi, ci în a şti pentru ce trăieşti."

6. Nevolnicul om în faţă incognoscibilului adevăr: "Totul pe lume este trecător, singur adevărul este veşnic."

III. DIMENSIUNEA RELIGIOASĂ în "Fraţii Karamazov".

1. "Dacă nu există nemurirea sufletului, nu există nici virtute." Deducţia aparent fără temei, are, în fapt, o însemnătate cosmică. Doar autoiluzionarea nemuririi îl poate împinge pe om să respecte riguroasa dogmă a virtuţii. Cred că un exemplu arhicunoscut este cazul călugărilor catolici, care ori "cad în păcat", ori "se debarasează", cu brişca, de un deget al manii. Chiar autoflagelarea ("să cauţi fericirea în durere") acesta nu reprezintă altceva decât lupta omului cu virtutea. Deşi, în plan obiectiv, nu are decât iluzia vieţii eterne, el lupta cu flăcările pământeşti pentru ipoteitca (în plan obiectiv), dar sigura (în plan subiectiv) dobândire a vieţii eterne.

2. "... Nu-mi place ipocrizia, cuvioşiilor-voastre, iubesc adevărul. Părinţi monahi, de ce postiţi, rogu-vă? De ce aşteptaţi răsplată în ceruri? Pentru o răsplată ca asta aş fi în stare să postesc şi eu! Nu, cuvioase, caută mai bine să fii virtuos în viaţă şi să aduci folos societăţii, nu te fereca în mănăstire ca să stai acolo pe mâncare şi pe băutură şi să ai totul de-a gata, şi nu aştepta o răsplată de acolo, de sus, asta-i ceva mai greu de înfăptuit."

3. Nuanţare a pragmatismului, cu iz de indolenţa: ".. admit existenţa lui dumnezeu, o admir pur şi simplu fără niciun fel de complicaţii."

4. "Dacă diavolul nu există şi este numai o născocite a omului, atunci într-adevăr acesta l-a plăsmuit după chipul şi asemănarea lui. "



Volumul II este o oglindă a celui dintâi. În volumul II se conturează, romanţat, ideile filosofice expuse în primul. Dacă primul aruncă remarci asupra iubirii, în al doilea, procestul (nebunie!!! nebunie totaaaaallllaaa!!) în care Dimtri este acuzat de omucidere, reprezintă o "punere în practică" a iubirii înfiripate în volumul I. De asemenea, Ivan pierde, buimăcit -ca şi mine!- de teroarea aia de proces. Smerdeakov este, de asemenea, o teroare, o întruchipare, în plan metafizic, a Diavolului.
Alexei singur, ţinând cu dintîi de "calea lui Cristos", merge mai departe: "Mereu vom merge aşa, toată viaţă, mâna în mâna! Trăiască Aleoşa Karamazov!!"

Ajunge! Sunt incapabil...


Andrei Tamaş,
28 februarie 2016

Março, o mês do meu aniversário, foi o mês que escolhi para reler aquele que considero um dos livros da minha vida. O livro acompanhou-me durante todo o mês e foi uma experiência incrível reler e perceber certos pormenores que me tinham escapado na primeira leitura.

O livro tem várias discussões sobre religião e a existência de Deus e um dos capítulos mais famosos da literatura - 'O Grande Inquisidor' - versa precisamente sobre estes temas de uma forma absolutamente genial.

Aliocha é monge e a representação do ser humano perfeito e é o grande mediador do romance (coitado, sempre que havia problemas, lá estava o pobre Aliocha no meio). Já Ivan é ateu declarado, intelectual e existencialista.
Um dos grandes temas do livro é a escolha entre o bem e o mal e a presença da maldade na vida do ser humano. Ivan tem muita consciência da maldade e sabe que o ser humano podendo escolher entre o bem e o mal, se Deus não existir, tem tendência a optar pelo mal. Por isso, "se Deus não existisse, tinha de ser inventado"

Se Deus não existe, isso não quer dizer que tudo é permitido? Hoje em dia, acreditamos que o ser humano tem a capacidade de construir os seus próprios valores de forma livre, sem depender de alguma moral que coincida com a existência de um Deus. Mas na época de Dostoievski, igreja e estado coexistiam, havia até alguma confusão entre o papel de ambos (o estado estava dentro da religião e vice-versa) e, por isso, estas eram questões muito importantes. Ainda hoje o são, se substituirmos Deus por qualquer outra coisa superior ao ser humano.

Este não é um livro feliz (o facto de ser o meu livro favorito da vida diz alguma coisa sobre mim?!). Um livro que envolve questões existencialistas, a vida, a morte, a liberdade, o declínio da sociedade e do indivíduo, que trata de questões sócio-económicas, filosóficas, psicológicas, religiosas e até jurídicas é obviamente um livro denso. Mas também é um livro que nos impacta como nenhum outro, um romance que é, ao fim e ao cabo, um tratado sobre a alma humana.

Rosewater said an interesting thing to Billy one time about a book that wasn’t science fiction. He said that everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov, by Feodor Dostoevsky. ‘But that isn’t enough anymore,’ said Rosewater.

—Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five

I’m not sure I’m aware of any quote about a book that sums it up more perfectly than that one.
tt
This book is vast. Not in terms of plot (the actions takes place over a few days), but in terms of ambition. When I put it down, and give it thought, I am hard pressed to think of a single aspect of human life that Dostoyevsky does not incorporate into this grand work. Religion, sensuality, money, politics, love, education, crime, morality, history, science—all are touched on and woven into one whole fabric. And behind all of this is one fundamental question of the novel: what gives life meaning?
tt
To explore this question, Dostoyevsky creates personifications of certain philosophies, and pits them against one another. We have Rakitin’s socialism, Ivan’s rationalism, Fyodor’s sensualism, Dmitri’s romanticism, Katerina’s pride, Smerdyakov’s nihilism, and Alyosha’s piety. Each derive meaning from something fundamentally incompatible, but each are forced into each other’s lives by one single momentous, mysterious event. This event puts each of these characters through a singular ordeal, and the outcome is the moral of the story.
tt
I must say at this point that, if there was one aspect of the human soul that was completely alien to Dostoyevsky’s mind, it was apathy. For him, the question “what gives life meaning?” was so fundamental and so urgent that he required an answer at all costs, even if that answer was suicide. But the answer most people give to that question, I suspect, is simply to stop asking it. This gives his novels that characteristic Dostoyevskian insistence. Every character is animated by some idea, and the voyage of their lives is the development, examination, or possible refutation of that idea.
tt
This is why I agree so strongly with that quote by Vonnegut, because our current intellectual climate is characterized by the disappearance of the question, rather than any definite answer. We did not respond the mystery of the meaning of life by substituting a social utopia or heaven-on-earth for God—now the very question “what is the meaning of life?” seems almost silly. Perhaps this is why we need people like Vonnegut.
tt
Let me get back to the novel. If we are to regard Nietzsche (and justly so) as an intellectual prophet, who foresaw the great, defining struggle of Western thought, and inspired some of the 20th century’s greatest works—if we, I repeat, are to give Nietzsche his due, then how should we regard Dostoyevsky? However great Freud’s debt may have been to Nietzsche, Nietzsche’s debt to Dostoyevsky is surely greater. Here, in this book, are the exact same conflicts portrayed by the German thinker, with the same predictions of an imminent crisis of faith.
tt
Both responded to and rejected Marx (at least indirectly). Marx attempted to replace the second coming with the proletariat revolution, and to offer a future communist paradise as a substitute for heaven. But both Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche believed that this is merely to sidestep the issue, that transforming humanity’s external surroundings would leave the most pressing question entirely untouched—why live in the first place? The great difference between the two men was that Dostoyevsky believed that the only salvation laid in a return to Christ, whereas Nietzsche saw that morals were to change, and new values had to be posited.
tt
I’m afraid that I’m rambling now. Anyone that attempts to encompass Dostoyevsky’s vast mind is sure to fail. It is like throwing pebbles down the Grand Canyon. The Brothers Karamazov, whatever philosophical themes it contains, is a story, and a damned good story. And perhaps that’s the most impressive thing about it: that all of human life is turned into a page-turner.

Review in English below

n  "Si el grano de trigo no cae en tierra y muere, queda él solo; pero si muere, da mucho fruto."n
Juan 12:24

No está de más decir que esta es una de las tantas veces en las que no tengo idea de cómo abordar mi reseña, ni por dónde podría empezar, así que veamos cómo resulta.
Desde hace unos cuatro años, cuando un amigo me decía que había terminado de leer Los hermanos Karamázov y que le había parecido una de las mejores experiencias lectoras de su vida, siempre tuve la curiosidad por descubrir qué tenía esta obra que la hacía ser tan especial. Ahora, después de haberla leído, no sólo descubrí el por qué es la obra maestra que es, sino que además algo en mí ha sido cambiado para siempre. Desde ya lo digo y lo creo: uno no es el mismo después de haber leído Los hermanos Karamázov.

Es curioso que en más de 1000 páginas de las que se compone dicha novela, la trama pudiera no abarcar tantos hechos como podría pensarse en un inicio; básicamente tenemos a tres hermanos y un padre, quienes se han encaminado cada uno hacia direcciones distintas, y deciden reunirse en un determinado momento, solo para que tras dicho encuentro la tragedia se presente en sus vidas. Suena simple, pero es mucho, mucho más que eso.
Además, la historia se divide en cuatro partes muy bien diferenciadas, cada parte en tres libros cada una, y finalmente cada libro en un gran número de capítulos cuyo título nos da una pista de los acontecimientos que nos vamos a encontrar en él.

Hablando de lo que más me gustó de la novela, lo podría definir en una palabra: todo. En verdad, pienso que no puedo ser imparcial aquí, no hubo nada que no me gustara o que pudiera decir, 'esto me pareció un aspecto negativo del libro'. Si bien su extensión puede llegar a parecer abrumadora, desde ya digo —y este es un prejuicio que yo tenía hacia esta novela en particular al considerarla una obra difícil de leer, confusa o incluso bastante densa— que me ha parecido una lectura relativamente fácil de llevar. Si bien el inicio y el final son las partes más filosóficas, cargadas de temas religiosos y referencias bíblicas, el medio (unas 500 páginas quizá) no representan una complejidad como se suponía que sería. Incluso por ahí del 45% del libro sentí que estaba leyendo una novela policiaca, estilo Ágatha Christie, y fue tanto lo enfocado que estaba en la historia y en lo que estaba pasando que no lo pude soltar por un par de horas; cuando me di cuenta, ya había leído 20% más.

La narrativa de Dostoyevski es insuperable, magistral y cargada de emociones. Te hace reflexionar sobre muchos tópicos, no sólo a nivel personal, sino también a nivel social, colectivo. Hay muchas referencias (además de las bíblicas que mencioné) hacia autores previos a Dostoyevski, como Gogol, Voltaire y Pushkin; este último con ganas de leerlo próximamente.
Me gustó mucho el desarrollo de sus personajes, de todos sus personajes: principales, secundarios y extras. No les miento si digo que terminas conociendo bastante bien hasta aquel personaje que aparece apenas una o dos veces en toda la novela.

Tengo dos partes favoritas muy bien identificadas: primeramente, parte cuatro, libro undécimo, capítulo nueve. Muy pocas veces en mi vida he leído algo que me haya puesto los pelos de punta, que me produzca miedo de verdad, y es curioso que ni en las obras de terror que son precisamente hechas con el fin de asustarte me haya pasado algo parecido. Ahora solo viene a mi mente La taberna de Émile Zola donde se da una escena similar a lo que se narra aquí, pero por lejos este capítulo de Dostoyevski es insuperable y único. La capacidad del autor para introducirse en la mente de sus personajes y hacer que broten de su interior un conjunto de reflexiones, pensamientos e ideas como si de una caldera hirviendo se tratase, es algo que se le debe reconocer indudablemente como obra maestra.
La segunda parte favorita, y sin duda la mejor parte en mi opinión, es el final. No quisiera que sonara muy cliché, pero es sin duda uno de los mejores monólogos finales que he leído en una novela en mi vida. Cada frase dicha, y hacia quien es dicha, lo hace ser más significativo y emocional. Derramé lágrimas cuando terminaba de leerlo, no porque fuera triste, sino de lo emotivo que es y por saber además que este viaje memorable estaba llegando a su fin.

No me voy sin antes decir que leer a Dostoyevski, y especialmente esta obra, es una experiencia irrepetible, inigualable e inmensurable. Uno no se puede morir sin haber leído Los hermanos Karamázov; creo que con esto lo he dicho todo.

n  "Y aunque estemos ocupados por los asuntos más importantes, alcancemos honores o caigamos en la desgracia más grande, aun así no olvidemos nunca lo bien que estuvimos aquí, todos juntos unidos por un sentimiento tan bello y bueno y que, en estos momentos de amor por el pobre niño, quizá nos haya hecho mejores de lo que somos en realidad."n

----
----

n  "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit."n
John 12:24

Needless to say this is one of the many times at which I have no idea how to start typing my review, or where to start, so let's see how it turns out.
For about four years, when a friend of mine told me that he had finished reading The Brothers Karamazov and it had turned out to be one of the best reading experiences of his life, I have always been curious to find out what this novel had that made it so special. Now, having read it, I not only found out why it is the masterpiece that it is, but I also know something inside me has been changed forever. From now on I can say it and I believe it: one is not the same person after having read The Brothers Karamazov.

It is curious that in the more than 1,000 pages that this book is made up of*, the plot may not cover as many facts as one might originally think; basically we have in this novel three brothers and their father, whose paths have followed different directions; then they decide to meet at one moment, and consequently a tragedy will take place in their lives. It could sound simple, but it is much, much more than that.
In addition, the story is divided into four very well differentiated parts, each part is composed of three books, and finally each book is made up of a large number of chapters whose titles give us a hint of the events that we are going to find in each of them.

Speaking of what I liked the most in the novel, I could say it in just one word: everything. Certainly, I don't think I could be impartial here, since there was nothing I didn't like reading it or could say: 'this was a negative aspect of the book'. Although its length may seem daunting, I can already say (and this is a bias that I had towards this novel in particular, due to I used to consider it as though it was a difficult work to read, confusing or even quite dense) that I found it to be a kind of easy read to tackle. Although the beginning and the end are the most philosophical parts, with a bunch of religious topics and biblical references, the middle of the book (maybe 500 or so pages) is not as complexed as it was supposed to be. Even around 45% of the book I felt as if I was reading a detective story, an Agatha Christie's novel for instance, and I was so focused on the plot and what was happening on it that I couldn't put it down for a couple of hours; by the time I realized it, I had already read 20% more.

Dostoevsky's narrative is outstanding, masterful and quite emotional. It makes you reflect on many topics, not only on a personal level, but also on a social, collective level. There are many references (in addition to the biblical ones I have mentioned before) to authors prior to Dostoevsky, such as Gogol, Voltaire and Pushkin; I'm especially looking forward to reading the last one soon.
I really liked the development of his characters, of all his characters: main characters, secondary characters and tertiary ones. I'm not lying if I say one ends up getting to know quite well even that kind of character who appears only once or twice in the entire novel.

I have two well-identified favorite parts: firstly, part four, book eleven, chapter nine. Few times in my life have I read something that has given me goosebumps, that really scared me in the way this part made me feel, and it is curious that not even reading horror books (which are made precisely with the purpose of scaring you) something similar had happened to me. Now only Émile Zola's L'Assomoir comes to mind since there is a similar scene to what is narrated by Dostoevsky, but by far, this chapter in The Brothers Karamazov is unbeatable and unique. The author's ability to get into the minds of his characters and make a set of reflections, thoughts and ideas sprout from within them as though it were a boiling cauldron, is something that should undoubtedly be recognized as a masterpiece.
My second favorite part, and definitely the best part in my opinion, is the ending. I don't want it to sound too clichéd, but it's absolutely one of the best final monologues I've read in a novel in my life. Each phrase said, and to whom it is said, makes this moment more meaningful and moving. I shed tears when I finished reading it, not because it was sad, but because of how emotional it is and due to I also knew this memorable journey was coming to an end.

I am not leaving without first saying that reading Dostoevsky, and especially this book, is an unrepeatable, incomparable and immeasurable experience. One cannot die without having read The Brothers Karamazov; I think I have said it all with this last statement.

n  "And even though we may be involved with the most important affairs, achieve distinction or fall into some great misfortune—all the same, let us never forget how good we once felt here, all together, united by such good and kind feelings as made us, too, for the time that we loved the poor boy, perhaps better than we actually are."n

----

* Speaking of the Spanish edition I have read, I can tell it is an unabridged one (1010 pages), and yet, somehow other editions both in Spanish and in English have 700-900 pages on average. To be honest, whether these editions are unabridged or not, I don't have any idea.


P.S. While I was looking for further information about this book, I came across a piece of art named The Meeting (1884) by Maria Konstantinova Bashkirtseva. From my point of view, this might be one of the most representative pictures of The Brothers Karamazov, even if the artist painted it without that purpose in mind – I am not sure about that.
Here is the painting I am talking about: