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.

به نام او

زنده‌باد داستایفسکی!

آخرین عبارت از آخرین رمانِ منتشر شدة فیودور داستایفسکی این است:‌ «زنده‌باد کارامازُف!»
و حالا برایِ تکریمش و به مناسبتِ اینکه آخرین رمانش را برای اولین‌بار و به عنوان آخرین شاهکاری که باید از او می‌خواندم تا کهکشان داستایفسکی‌خوانیم تکمیل شود، خواندم. با شور و شعف هرچه تمام می‌گویم: «زنده‌باد داستایفسکی!»
زنده‌باد نویسنده بزرگی که اگر نبود نه تنها بسیاری از رمانهای ماندگار ادبیات، بلکه بسیاری از شخصیتهای ادبی که به ظاهر خیالی‌اند ولی در اصل موجودیت دارند و مانا خواهند ماند، نیز نبودند و چه تاسف‌آور می‌بود اگر راسکلنیکف، سونیا، پرنس میشیکین، راگوژین، اسماردیاکف، ایوان کارامازُف و تعدادی دیگر از ستارگان کهکشان داستایفسکی خلق نمی‌شدند و در میان ما نفس نمی‌کشیدند.

به نظر بنده دو نوع داستان داریم، یک داستان‌های روایت‌محور و دیگری داستان‌‌های شخصیت‌محور. برای نویسندگان دسته اول، داستان و بستر روایی ،اهمیت بسیار بالایی دارد چنین نویسندگانی روایت و گره‌های روایی را طراحی می‌کنند و شخصیتها را در دل این روایت قرار می‌دهند. اغلب نویسنده‌ها چنین تکنیکی استفاده می‌کنند به عبارتی آنها افراد عادی را در بستری غیرعادی قرار می‌دهند. در این شیوه هرنویسنده به فراخور استعدادش موفق است به نظر من لف تالستوی استاد و سرآمد نویسندگان این شیوه است و به قولی مو لای درز داستانها و منطق روای‌اش نمی‌رود. در مقابل، نویسندگانی هستند که شخصیت‌پردازی را بر روایت ارجح می‌دانند من به شخصه نویسندگان کمی را می‌شناسم که به این شیوه قلم زده و می‌زنند. چنین کسانی شخصیتهای غیرعادی را در بستری عادی قرار می‌دهند و این افراد غیرعادی موتور محرکه داستانهایشان هستند، اگر افرادی پیدا شوند و با من اختلاف نظر داشته باشند و نپذیرند که تالستوی سرآمد نویسندگان دسته اول است ولی مطمئنا در اینکه فیودور داستایفسکی بزرگ و به نوعی پادشاه بلامنازع شیوه دوم است با من هم‌نظر هستند.

و اصلا به همین‌خاطر است که بسیاری از منتقدان ادبی ایرادات اساسی و غالبا به‌جایی بر رمان‌های داستایفسکی و خط روایی‌اش می‌گیرند داستایفسکی حتی در شاهکارهایش هم در بعضی مواقع بسیار سهل‌انگارانه عمل می‌کند ولی در عین حال چنان شخصیتهای جذاب و بی‌بدیلی خلق می‌کند که بسیاری از مخاطبان یا آن خلل‌ها را نمی‌بینند و یا به راحتی از کنار آنها می‌گذرند و این است جادوی داستایفسکی.

و دیگر اینکه به همین دلیل است که ادبا و نویسندگان بزرگ طرفِ تالستوی را می‌گیرند و فیلسوفان و روانشناسان شاخص جانبِ داستایفسکی را.
و اما من که به فرم علاقمندم (و در گوشی به شما می‌گویم جزو گروه اولم) اگر بخواهم از میان آثار داستایفسکی اثری را به عنوان بهترین اثر انتخاب کنم مطمئناً جنایت و مکافات را انتخاب می‌کنم، به این دلیل که این رمان در عین اینکه یکی از شاهکارهای اوست ساختمندترین آنها نیز هست تا پیش از خواندن برادران کارامازُف هم انتخابم همین بود ولی گمان می‌کردم ممکن است بعد از خواندن آن نظرم تغییر کند ولی چنین نشد باز هم جنایت و مکافات انتخاب من است. ولی باید بگویم که اگر از من بخواهند داستایفسکی‌وارترین رمان داستایفسکی را انتخاب کنم، مطمئنا این کتاب برادران کارامازُف خواهد بود. این رمان به نوعی کمال شیوه این نویسنده بزرگ است و به خوبی تمام جنبه‌های کارنامه هنری او را نشان می‌دهد هم امتیازاتی که برای او برمی‌شمرند و هم نقایصش را.

به عنوان مثال از لحاظ روایی صد صفحه این رمان به راحتی قابل حذف است و خللی به داستان وارد نمی‌کند (هرچند خیلی‌ها خصوصاً عشاق سینه‌چاک فلسفه و روان شناسی این نظر را برنمی‌تابند) ولی با این حال این رمان فرازهایی دارد که به نظر من هیچ‌کس به غیر از داستایفسکی توانایی نوشتن آنها را ندارد و اصلاً ورای استعداد هر نویسنده‌ایست مثلا فصل مفتشِ اعظم و فصل دیدار ایوان با شیطان.

به هر رو اگر داستایفسکی‌بازید و برادران کارامازُف را نخوانده‌اید بدانید که خودتان را از خواندن مهمترین اثرش محروم کرده‌اید. البته من یک دلیل داشتم برای نخواندن و آن اینکه ترجمه خوبی از آن در بازار نبود، ترجمه صالح حسینی که اصلا خوب نیست و ترجمه احد علیقلیان نیز به مانند اغلب کارهایش بی‌روح و مکانیکی بود و من نخواندم نخواندم تا اینکه ترجمه اصغر رستگار بیرون آمد و واقعا چقدر خوب که اینقدر صبر کردم چرا که ترجمه رستگار با فاصله بعیدی بهتر از آن دو است. امتیاز دیگری که ترجمه رستگار –علاوه بر نثر بسیار خواندنی‌اش- دارد. پانوشتهای آن است. رستگار که خود کتاب مقدس را پیش از این ترجمه کرده‌است، تمام ارجاعات متن به کتاب مقدس و همچنین اطلاعات تکمیلی دیگر را در قالب پانوشت در انتهای هر فصل آورده است. این ترجمه اینقدر خوب است که اگر پیش از این برادران کارامازُف را با ترجمه دیگری خوانده‌اید پیشنهاد می‌کنم این‌یکی را نیز بخوانید. تنها خرده‌ای که بر این ترجمه می‌توان گرفت افراط رستگار در اعراب‌گذاری‌ها و برخی ابداعات نه‌چندان مناسبش در زمینه رسم‌الخط است و دیگر هیچ.

در آخر اینکه برای مقایسه بخشی از فصل «مفتش اعظم» را با این سه ترجمه در انتهای این یادداشت آورده‌ام:

«"انصاف بده حق به جانب که بود- تو یا آن‌که از تو پرسش کرد؟ نخستین پرسش را به یاد بیاور، مفاد آن -هرچند نه عین واژه‌ها- چنین بود: "تو به دنیا می‌روی، و با دست تهی می‌روی، با وعدة آزادی، که انسانها در سادگی و تمرّد ذاتیشان حتی نمی‌توانند به آن پی ببرند، از آن می‌ترسند و وحشت می‌کنند –چون تاکنون برای انسان و جامعة انسانی هیچ‌چیز تحمل‌ناپذیرتر از آزادی نبوده است. اما این سنگها را در بیابان ترک‌خورده و بی‌حاصل می‌بینی؟ آنها را به نان بدل کن و آدمیان چون گلّه، سپاسگزار و فرمانبردار، سر در پی تو خواهند گذاشت، هرچند تا ابد می‌لرزند که مبادا دست خود را پس بکشی و نانت را از آنان دریغ کنی"»
ترجمه صالح حسینی

«"خودت قضاوت کن حق با که بود: تو یا کسی که آن‌گاه از تو پرسید؟ پرسش نخست را به یاد بیاور؛ معنایش، هرچند نه عین کلماتش، این بود: «می‌خواهی به دنیا بروی، و داری تهی‌دست می‌روی، با وعده‌ی آزادی که آن‌ها به سبب سادگی و بی‌قانونی ذاتی‌شان نمی‌توانند حتی درکش کنند، از آن در هول و هراسند –چون برای انسان و جامعه‌ی انسانی هرگز چیزی تحمل‌ناپذیرتر از آزادی نبوده است! اما آیا این سنگ‌ها را در این بیابان لخت تفته می‌بینی؟ آن‌ها را به نان مبدل کن و انسان‌ها همچون گوسفند از پی تو خواهند دوید، سپاسگزار و فرمانبردار، گرچه تا ابد لرزان که مبادا دستت را پس بکشی و نان تو دیر به آنان نرسد.»
ترجمه احد علیقلیان

«"خودت کلاهت را قاضی کن ببین حق با تو بوده یا با آن روحی که می‌خواست وسوسه‌اَت کند. وسوسه‌یِ اول را یادت بیار، عینِ جمله‌اَش را نمی‌گویم، مفهومش را می‌گویم: وسوسه‌یِ اول را یادت بیار، عینِ جمله‌اَش را نمی‌گویم، مفهومش را می‌گویم: وسوسه‌گر به تو می‌گوید: "تو می‌خواهی بروی سراغِ اهل دنیا ولی با دستِ خالی، با یک وعده‌یِ گنگ و مبهم، با وعده‌یِ آزادی، وعده‌یی که آدم‌ها چون نادانند، چون ذاتاً مسئولیت‌پذیر نیستند، نمی‌توانند درست درکش کنند چون وعده‌یی است که آدم‌ها را به وحشت می‌اندازد و مرعوب می‌کند؛ چون برایِ بشر و جامعه‌یِ بشری هیچ‌چیز طاقت‌فرساتر از آزادی نیست!"وسوسه‌گر به تو می‌گوید: "این سنگ‌ها را در این بیابانِ برهوت ببین. اینها را تبدیل کن به نان، آن‌وقت می‌بینی که بشریت، عینِ یک گله‌یِ حق‌شناس و مطیع، دنبالت افتاده، ولو این که دائم بترسند از این که دستت را پس بکشی و دیگر نانی تویِ دامن‌شان نگذاری."»
ترجمه اصغر رستگار

باید یک بار دیگه نسخه ی نوشتاری کتاب رو هم بخونم
نسخه ی شنیداری تمرکز خیلی بالایی میخواد و این یک امتیاز رو در واقع از خودم کم میکنم که گاهی تمرکزم کم میشد :))
نقطه ی اوج و قوت داستان ، جلسه ی دادگاه بود
تا اینجا که بهترینِ داستایفسکی بوده برای من و البته بهترینِ آرمان سلطانزاده

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I will generally finish a novel no matter what...but I could not push through this one. I have tried twice, so I suppose this is going to be a novel that doesn't ever make it to my "read" list.

UPDATE: It took me three starts and an unusual amount of determination to finish this novel. I was inches away from abandoning it for good and all. I am glad I didn’t, but believe me when I say I hope I never encounter a book this hard to endure again in my reading lifetime.

The themes Dostoevsky tackles along the way are significant and weighty. Just when he begins to move the story forward, he always seems to stop and write a few chapters of political or religious philosophy, and the reader is required to stop with him, digest what the arguments mean, and weigh in personally on which side of the debate truth lies. The book inspires soul searching, but requires almost inhuman concentration.

The brothers themselves are atypical characters, volatile and impassioned, unpredictable and complicated. Nothing they do seems to be logical. Even Alyosha, who is easily understood to be the “good” brother, behaves sometimes in a way that is puzzling to my non-Russian mind. The father is a buffoon, and so crude and cruel that he garners no sympathy from me at all.

Over half way in, I feel that I do not care what happens to a single character here and that at least 90% of what has occurred makes no real sense. Then, things begin to gel, the story begins to move, I find myself caring about what happens to these men, particularly Dmitri (Mitya) and to the two women with whom he is involved. I know I will make it through this time.

I understand why this is considered an important work and a classic piece of literature. It addresses many important issues that have universal implications. What happens if you remove God from the equation? What purpose does faith serve in life? Does suffering lead to self-awareness and can it change a man for the better? To what extent are we morally responsible for others? If you wish a murder, if you fail to stop one, are you equally guilty with the man who commits the deed?

I suspect I will be pondering The Brothers Karamazov for a long while. I did not enjoy this read, but it will mean something to me. Perhaps, like Mitya, I needed to suffer to attain appreciation. At the very least, I have come away with a sense of accomplishment. Now for something very, very, very light.

"La cuestión principal que se tratará en todas las partes de este libro es la misma que me ha hecho sufrir consciente o inconscientemente: la existencia de Dios."

Esta frase resume toda la epopeya karamazoviana que Fiódor Dostoievski encarara a final de su vida en esta obra literaria monumental y que le llevara tres años de apretada y sufrida elaboración. Dostoievski, que había tenido una vida plena de emociones iba a culminar su propia carrera con un libro perfecto, más allá de que tenía pensado elaborar una segunda parte del mismo que se iba a llamar “Los niños”, aunque la muerte lo alcanzaría a los 59 años y para posicionarlo merecidamente en el sitio de uno de los más grandes escritores de toda la literatura universal.

“Los Hermanos Karamazov” comenzó a ser publicado por capítulos en “El Mensajero Ruso” y editado definitivamente como libro en noviembre 1880, un año antes de su deceso, cerrando con lazos de oro su brillante carrera literaria.
No hay forma alguna de abstraerse de semejante tour-de-force literario que implica leer Los Hermanos Karamazov y es evidente que Dostoievski puso absolutamente todos sus conocimientos, vivencias, alegrías, tristezas, creencias, miedos y esperanzas en esta obra descomunal. Usualmente, al rememorar los más grandes libros que nos dio la literatura rusa nos vienen primero a la cabeza “La Guerra y la Paz” y “Anna Karenina", ambos de Lev Tolstói y es precisamente a este último al que Dostoievski calificaba “una obra de arte perfecta.” Personalmente, me es indispensable agregar a estos dos libros antes citados, éste libro que estoy reseñando junto con “Crimen y Castigo” y además sumaría a esa lista otros clásicos como “Almas Muertas” de Nikólai Gógol o “Eugenio Oneguin” de Alexandr Pushkin, esa especie de semidiós que representaba el padre de las letras rusas para Dostoievski.

Es imposible despegar a Los Hermanos Karamazov de la resonancia que tuvo en la sociedad rusa de la época, tan convulsionada ya a esas alturas de la dinastía zarista que iba en declive a partir de 1870. Gran parte del pensamiento ruso comenzaba a cambiar, incluso habían aparecido sendos grupos revolucionarios nihilistas que estallaban contra el sistema sus ideas de rebeldía y caos. Esto es algo que Dostoievski anticipara en su libro “Los Demonios” de 1872 a través de personajes como Piotr Verjovenski, Nikólai Stravroguin o Alexéi Kirilov. El nihilismo, mezclado con altas dosis de ateísmo fervoroso y convulsión social entre los jóvenes de la época tarde o temprano iría a desembocar en una verdadera revolución que explotaría literalmente en 1917 con la caída del imperio zarista para dar luz (u oscuridad) a otro período que Rusia conocería a partir del siglo XX.

Considero que en general, la idea que mantuvo presente Dostoievski en “Los Hermanos Karamazov” fue la de incluir absolutamente todos los aspectos de los que se componía la sociedad rusa, aquella que había defendido Pushkin y que habían infectado los “occidentalistas” con Turguéniev a la cabeza, intentando europeizar las raíces de un pueblo que nunca pudo congeniar con las ideas de Europa. Esto hizo que la literatura y los intelectuales de la época giraran a aspectos e ideales que nunca habían pasado por la mente y los corazones de los rusos. A mi entender, fue muy importante la acérrima defensa que autores como Dostoievski o Tolstoi hicieron de la cultura rusa ante el avance de ideas que chocaban contra la realidad que atravesaba Rusia y que este país en cierta manera no aceptaba.

Dostoievski sabía que podía incluir todos los elementos posibles en la elaboración del nudo argumental en su libro y que además, podía contar con todos los estratos sociales de su amada Rusia. Es asombroso descubrir que en este libro nos encontraremos con cinco (no tres) personalidades distintas, a saber, la del padre Fiódor Pávlovich Karamazov, sus hijos Alexéi “Aliósha” Fiodoróvich, Iván Fiodoróvich, Dmitri “Mitia” Fiodoróvich y la de Pavel “Smerdiakov”, el lacayo e hijo no reconocido de Fiódor Karamazov. A su vez, aparecerán otros personajes claves para la historia como lo son Katerina Ivanovna, Agrafievna “Grushenka” Aleksándrovna, el Stárets Zósima, Lisaveta Smerdiáshaia, Ippolit Kirilovich, el pequeño Illiusha, “Kolia” Krasotkin, Rakitin y tantos otros.

No voy a hacer un estudio de perfil psicológico de los tres hermanos, puesto que de eso se encarga magistralmente el autor durante toda su obra, pero sí puedo dar unas leves pinceladas de cada uno de ellos y de otros personajes que son los más importantes durante la lectura de este libro.

En el caso del padre, Fiódor Pávlovich Karamazov, podemos encontrarnos rápidamente con un ser frío, déspota, desamorado, que nunca quiso hacerse cargo de sus hijos (“cuanto más lejos, mejor, que los cuide el criado Grígori). Sumamente borracho y déspota y con una avaricia devoradora que haría poner colorado al personaje de Molière y al padre de Eugènie Grandet. Se cree que este personaje tiene una conexión directa con el propio padre de Dostoievski, quien fuera supuestamente asesinado por sus siervos debido a su crueldad sin medida, algo que Dostoievski siempre recordaba de su infancia. Probablemente todo esto haya influido en la creación de este personaje tan importante en la novela.
“En el cielo Dios, en la patria el Zar, en la casa el Padre”, reza un tratado espiritual de la época del zar Iván "el terrible” y pone en el candelero el tema de lo que la figura de padre representa para nosotros a través de la historia por la cuestión del parricidio que luego se transformará durante el juicio en el eje de las exposiciones del fiscal Ippolit Kirilóvich y del célebre abogado defensor Fetiukóvich.

Iván Fiodoróvich Karamazov es compasivo al principio del libro, mantiene firme sus ideales y su particular visión acerca de la duda sobre la existencia o no de Dios: ”Si Dios no existe, todo está permitido”, posee un profundo existencialismo y una alta filosofía. Pero este hombre comenzará a tener un desmoronamiento mental que desdibujará lo que al principio del libro vemos de él.
Hay dos capítulos esenciales en el libro que involucran a Iván y que hasta se pueden leer como libros separados y son “El Gran Inquisidor” y “El Diablo. La pesadilla de Iván Karamazov”. Sobre el primero pueden leer mi reseña aquí en goodreads y no voy a explayarme porque habla por sí misma. Es aquí donde toma fuerza la frase de Dostoievski sobre la existencia o no de Dios. Y vaya que tenía forma de plantearla…
Para ello, Dostoievski nos prepara en el capítulo previo al Inquisidor, llamado “Rebelión”, ese en donde expone el planteo moral y religioso y sobre lo destructivo de la injusticia y crueldad de los hombres, es acaloradamente expuesto en esa charla con Aliósha.
La pesadilla de Iván y el Diablo es sencillamente de antología. Dostoievski, en este encuentro casi real que sufre Iván nos recuerda al desdoblamiento que sufriera otro atormentado héroe dostoievskiano, el señor Goliadkin de su segunda novela, “El Doble”. Esa declaración de principios que realiza el Diablo solamente puede salir de una pluma tan genial como la de este escritor y no tiene nada que envidiarle ni a Dante, ni al Mefistófeles del Fausto de Goethe ni al Lucifer de Milton y es imposible que Mijaíl Bulgákov no se haya maravillado con este capítulo. Me arriesgaría a decir que lo leyó como inspiración para su Voland en “El Maestro y Margarita”.

Aliósha Karamazov es junto con su hermano Dmitri quien domina gran parte del espacio del libro y ambos los más importantes, en primer lugar por su relación directa con su protector espiritual, el Stárets Zósima, pero además porque es el propio Dostoievski quien comienza a contar la historia ”Al comenzar la historia de mi héroe, Alexéi Fiodoróvich Karamazov…” y aquí nuevamente una implicancia autobiográfica del autor, puesto que en Aliósha Dostoievski le rinde homenaje a su hijo fallecido, que también se llamaba Alexéi. Dostoievski lo llama "mi héroe".
Hay señales de que Dostoievski buscó delinear en él la figura de Cristo que no tuvo la solidez que pretendía para el Príncipe Mishkin. Sus carácter reflexivo, su humildad y el "poner constantemente la otra mejilla", su intento de ayudar al prójimo, su férrea creencia en Dios y en las actitudes cristianas más solidarias son sus cualidades más sobresalientes. Su amor incondicional con sus hermanos (especialmente con Dmitri) lo posicionarán en el ser más espiritual de esta familia tan particular.
Hay episodios en el libro en el que aprendemos sobre lo maravilloso que es “ser humano”, puesto que las experiencias que atraviesa Aliósha son edificantes: todo lo que tiene que ver con el Stárets Zósima lo marcarán a fuego, su anécdota con Snieguiriov, el padre de Iliusha, la especial y fraternal relación con este niño enfermo, los diálogos con sus hermanos, interceder con Katia Ivanovna y Grushenka para llegar a soluciones dentro del caos que se desata a mitad del libro, son algunos de los ejemplos de la importancia que este personaje posee.

En tercer lugar, nos encontramos con Dmitri Karamazov, de una vida disoluta, es pendenciero, impulsivo y desenfrenado y vive siempre con grandes deudas de dinero producto de su hedonismo desmesurado. Un ser sin control que despilfarra dinero mientras reniega de la herencia que su padre no le concede. Su violenta enemistad con Fiódor Karamazov lo llevará a vivir las escenas más difíciles y desgarradoras del libro. Su personalidad no lo ayuda, su impulsividad de caballo desbocado lo hará caer en lo más bajo y degradante que le hará auto proclamarse “infame”. El mundo se le volverá en contra y conocerá el sufrimiento, la desesperación y el pecado. Deambulará entre Grushenka y Katerina Ivanovna, a quien el propio Dostoievski definía como "Una criatura que no vive, sino que se pasa la vida cavilando". Tendrá las ideas más radicales, esas que se le atravesaran alguna vez a Rodion Raskólnikov y fermentarán la idea de matar en su cabeza. Porque no queda otra solución a su problema que matar. Algunas de las mejores frases del libro le pertenecen a él. Son contundentes, maravillosas y ejemplificadoras, aunque procedan del personaje más polémico del libro: "Yo creo que si el Diablo no existe y es entonces el hombre el que lo creó, lo creó a su imagen y semejanza.”

El caso de Smérdiakov es clave para el desarrollo de la historia. Su participación en el crimen es vital, demasiado crucial e importante. Es un ser con cierto rencor en su corazón por su condición de lacayo cuando sostiene que podría haber sido un Karamazov. Sabemos que el hijo bastardo de Fiódor Pávlovich es totalmente taimado y sumiso a su padrastro. Sus cruces con Mitia o Iván serán tremendos y en ellos se desentrañará el nudo de la intriga que nos ofrece el autor.

Por último, nos encontramos con el más importante de todos: Fiódor Mijáilovich Dostoievski.
Se preguntarán por qué sostengo esto: yo siempre he estado de acuerdo con el teórico Mijaíl Bajtín acerca de que Dostoievski es el inventor de la novela polifónica, que se hace un costado, casi desaparece como autor y deja a sus personajes la exposición de sus ideas como estandarte para que todas ellas armen como engranajes el motor de la historia principal.
En este libro he podido descubrir otro Dostoievski. Un autor que decidió meterse de lleno en la ficción desde lo real a partir de lo experimentado en su vida y transformado en enseñanza para todos nosotros. Este autor maravilloso, único e irrepetible que agradezco a Dios haber conocido me enseñó sobre la vida como si fuera mi propio padre.
Dostoievski es el Stárets Zósima, por sus lecciones espirituales en oposición al ateísmo reinante en esa época y que se extienden hasta nuestros días siguiendo el camino de Cristo como única fuente de fe: ”Sólo es necesaria una semilla diminuta: arrójala al alma simple del hombre y no morirá, va a vivir en su alma toda la vida, va a ocultarse en él en medio de las tinieblas, en medio del hedor de sus pecados, como un punto luminoso, como una gran advertencia”.

Dostoievski puede transformarse en un férreo fiscal acusador devenido en Ippolit Kirilóvich, quien me hará reflexionar acerca del crimen y de todo el castigo que ello me puede causar. La exposición que hace durante el juicio es contundente, pero también se pone las investiduras Fetiukóvich, el abogado defensor de la injusticia. Él defenderá a capa y espada la inocencia de su cliente y nos reconfortará el hecho de saber que nos custodiará hasta el final, hasta que llegue la verdad.

Y Dostoievski también puede personificar al Diablo con una versatilidad inusitada para dar su propia versión de los hechos ante un alucinado Iván: ”“Pero Dios mío, yo ni siquiera pretendo compararme contigo en inteligencia. Mefistófeles, al aparecérsele a Fausto, testimonió sobre sí mismo que él quiere el mal pero sólo hace el bien. Bueno, como a él le parezca. Yo, al contrario, quizás sea la única persona en toda la naturaleza que ama la verdad y desea sinceramente el bien.”
Hay también en el libro otra frase que define con exactitud a los hermanos Karamazov y la dice el fiscal Kirilóvich:
”Dos abismos, señores, ¡recuerden la naturaleza karamazoviana de mezclar todos los puestos posibles y contemplar a la vez ambos abismos, el abismo sobre nosotros, el abismo de los ideales superiores y el abismo debajo de nosotros, el abismo de la más baja y fétida caída!”

Su último libro, su obra cumbre es a la vez el último libro que me faltaba leer de él. Puedo levantar la cabeza, mirar hacia atrás y decir orgulloso que he leído toda su obra, que he aprendido y que soy otro a partir de él. Este no es un libro sobre la vida de tres hermanos y un padre.
Es un libro sobre la vida misma.

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؟

n  "My brothers are destroying themselves," he went on, "my father too. And they are destroying others with them. It's 'the primitive force of the Karamazovs,' as Father Païssy said the other day, a crude, unbridled, earthly force. Does the spirit of God move above that force? Even that I don't know. I only know that I, too, am a Karamazov..."n

n  Initial Thoughts n

Reading Dostoevsky is a bit of a landmark in anyone's reading career and when I was given the challenge to read something outside of my comfort zone it looked like the perfect time in my life for some classic Russian literature. But which novel should I choose? The obvious answer would have been his most famous work, Crime and Punishment, but after doing a bit of digging around I discovered many consider his final novel, The Brothers Karamazov, not only his personal best but also the greatest book ever written. On that basis I decided to give this beast of a novel a whirl.

Yes it's worth noting before you start that this book is huge and a big commitment. It's divided into four parts, each of which is broken down into a further four "books" each containing eight to ten chapters. And yes the text is dense. I'm not sure if that's a feature of Dostoevsky work yet, but I'm assuming it is. But as they say if you want to reap the rewards you go to put that effort in. Wish me luck.

n  "In the town I was in, there were no such back-alleys in the literal sense, but morally they were. If you were like me, you'd know what that means."n

n  The Story n

Although the work is complex, the tale itself is a pretty simple one. Parricide is the order of the day as it centres around the murder of one of the most vile and despicable father's in history. An absolute devil who funnily enough goes by the name of Fyodor. Although he is great at making money, he is good for absolutely nothing else and lives a life of debauchery and sin. Something we all aspire to!

He has three sons, who couldn't be more different. There's the emotional and passionate Dmitri, the calm and rational atheist Ivan and the spiritual and kindhearted Alyosha. There also may be the possibility of a fourth, illegitimate son who goes by the name of Smerdyakov. It's the eldest, Dmitri, that Fyodor is in conflict with as they are both infatuated with the same woman. The bewitching but slightly crazy Grushenka. This is despite the son being married to the beautiful Katerina Ivanovna. There's nothing more complicated than family but this is taking it to another level.

The first half of the novel is spent getting acquainted with the characters and the latter turns into a murder mystery of sorts. There's a lot of sub plots on the go, which all interconnect, but if you think I'm going to tell you all about them then you got another thing coming. Dostoyevsky does a far better job of that than I ever will.

n  The Writing n

When someone says a book is dense this is what they're talking about. There is a lot going on and you need to give it your full attention. The story contains a lot of dialogue that gets deeply philosophical. Dostoyevsky's understanding of society and human psychology is at genius level and the way he incorporated it into the narrative is quite breathtaking.

The main plot is definitely an engaging one but this is certainly not a plot-driven narrative. The story itself is a vehicle used to explore a range of ideas through the exploration of characters and this is interspersed with moments of extreme drama that was greatly entertaining. The way it's done is so thought provoking and you really need to pay attention to what you're reading. Almost every passage has meaning, blink and you could miss something life changing.

But there are a couple of unusual aspects that caught me by surprise. For one, the majority of the main characters have two names and this is not made clear at the onset and it took me a little while to catch on. For instance, Grushenka also goes by the name of Agrafena Alexdrovna and Alyosha by Alexei.

Then the dialogue is interspersed with French and Polish (I think) dialogue with no explanation. My advice is just to keep reading and it doesn't really have an impact.

n  "The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so looses respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and sinks to bestiality and vices, all from continual lying to other men and to himself."n

n  The Characters n

This is the moment I've been waiting for. If you love character development like I do, the The Brothers Karamazov is the book for you. The author's style is to concentrate on his fantastic array of characters and their response to stressful situations and interactions with one another. And he really is a master of this like no other.

Dostoyevsky goes so deeply into their lives, their sense of motality and the way they think and view the world that they really do become living, breathing entities. Over the course of the novel, which lasted me almost two weeks I really felt like part of their lives.

Perhaps the most scary thing was I began to see myself in some of them despite the majority being pretty awful people. By the second part of the novel I felt that I knew each character so well that I was invested in their circumstances and plight. It's so well done and perhaps the best character development I've come across in my pretty limited reading career.

The focus of the story is of course the three Brothers Karamazov and as I've already said they are drastically different. Each is used to portray a different outlook on life and morality. Alyosha is the deeply religious one who is the most virtuous, whereas as Ivan is the most intellectual and logical but chooses not to believe in God. Then there's Dimitri who is wild, emotional and impulsive. The distinction is deliberate, and it's up to you in the way you interpret it's meaning, but what is truly impressive is that the author argues both sides so convincingly you would never know, which side he falls on. For instance, Ivan's argument that God doesn't exist is far more convincing and this is recognised by Alyosha. But, how far does that being right get Ivan as he is far less happy and is certainly not the better man?

And while we're on the subject of Alyosha, he was probably my favourite character in the story. The only one who could be termed heroic. After finishing I found that Dostoyevsky's own son died while he was writing this novel and he named this character in honour of him. Some of the moments featuring Alyosha and centering around the meaning of being a father are so emotionally charged you can feel the impact that this event had on the author imbued in the words.



n  Final Thoughts n

So I began this review by saying many regard this as the greatest novel ever written. I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who said this. It's a tremendous literary achievement and I got more out of this that any other novel I've read. But so I should based on the bloody size of it. Almost as big as this review!

I was expecting it to be a really tough read and had a couple of short stories on standby in case I needed a break. But I didn't need them. From the very first page I was hooked till the moment I put it down. A book that's consumed my thoughts almost entirely during my reading and for a long time afterward. An absolute masterpiece!

It's a book that reminds me of how I have changed as a person. In my youth I'd have found this too slow and boring, lacking the patience to persevere. But now I appreciate the depth and beauty in the writing and the ideas within.

So my first book by Fyodor Dostoevsky but certainly not my last. I'm already lining up Crime and Punishment. I'm starting to feel like a whole new world has opened up to me. The power of reading!

Thanks for reading and...Na Zdorovie!


Genius... Fyodor Dostoevsky

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

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

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

Someone: Helloooo… yoo-hoo…. Fucktard, you there?

Ben: Yes, I'm here... I finished The Brothers Karamazov the other night and I'm a bit blown away. Emotionally exhausted. Right now, it has me sitting here thinking about it, feeling all kinds of things, thinking complex, important thoughts....

Someone: The great Fyodor Dostoevsky should do that to you. He's a literary Giant; one of the all time greats. But you see, knowing you, shitfuck, I'm not surprised you gave it five stars. You give everything five stars, do you not? I mean, God -- and I mean "God" in a purely metaphorical sense, as he is simply an opiate for the weak masses -- you even gave The Wind-up Bird Chronicle five stars, which was more disturbing than Grace Jones chasing me on horseback. You see, most of Murakami's narrators sound as if they just disembarked the short bus. Not lyrical so much as the product of blunt-force trauma to the head, I think. But sometimes the two are in fact interchangeable.

And don't even get me started on your review of The End of the Affair. A bit self serving, wasn't it? I mean, goodreads isn't your goddamn therapy group. Just about every review you've written is a sap-fest. So what kind of personalized, kitschy, life changing moment are you gonna compare this book to? Just face it, fucktard, you're one of those easily excitable star whores. You throw these five stars out left and right like you’re a John for one of my leprous herpes-infected Argentinean -- or (Westside) South Bend -- hookers....

......

You aren't going to tell anyone, are you?

Ben: heh.

Someone: What is that supposed to mean?

Ben: Well, I do plan on sharing this conversation with others, although I can edit out the hooker part, if you'd like. I want to share it because I really want people to know how great this book is, and I know you love this book as well. I hope the fact that it has your full seal of approval will encourage them to read it.

Someone: Look, fucktard, usually I'd be happy to be the idol in any person's religion, but I've learned that it's just too much pressure. I reserve my right to be surly and malevolent.

And you get my point, right? You're changing over there, and it's obvious. Toughen up cowgirl. Before you know it you'll be a priest or something.

Ben: Actually, Someone, I'm quite cautious about the number of stars I award. My average rating is 3.09, which is far below just about anyone else's I've seen. And in regards to giving out 5 stars like one of your Johns, it actually takes quite an experience for me to award five stars. I've literally only given 5% of all my rated books 5 stars.

Although I should add that I did give a good rating to one of your homeboys recently: I gave Nine Stories four stars. I know you like-

Someone: That pissed me off fucktard. That's a five star book if there ever was one. Salinger-

Ben: I know, I know: you want to have passionate sex with him and all the rest. You don't need to go into details.

Someone: Don't patronize me, Haruki-hag. Stand up, wipe the sand out of your vagina. Who do you think you are, that innocent little Alyosha or something?

Ben: I guess that's better than "jewhole". And Alyosha is one of my top 5 literary characters of all time. So intuitive, insightful and empathetic -- yet a great leader who stands up for what he believes in. Ivan makes my top five as well. He's-

Someone: Ivan! He's subject to various interpretations, and at a surface level, some of his thoughts appear contradictory. Then again, I am not a huge fan of systematic philosophies. He and I are kindred spirits of sorts -- without kindred mustaches, however. We both veer toward iconoclasm and (endearing?) arrogance, we both hate Hegel, and we both have few qualms about embracing a horse. Wait a second... that's Nietzsche..

Ben: Yes, Nietzsche. But Ivan was absolutely brilliant and interesting, wasn't he? So intellectual, cerebral and logical, yet passionate and moral. Of course he's not as "perfect" per se, as Alyosha. Like most of Dostoevsky’s characters, he's complex, human, and real.

Really, the personalities of all the characters are extreme -- almost ridiculously so. Yet somehow Dostoevsky gets you absorbed inside their heads and hearts, and makes them so realistic that you feel like you really know them, and God do you care for them. And their thoughts, ideas, and philosophies -- they span everything, and when his characters interact with each other -- in what is nearly perfect dialogue -- you see the thin line between being brilliant and crazy, and how superb it is when they intermingle, as they often do -- and the magic of life itself opens up: you feel the full rush of all the varying natures within; your heart beats HARD, your senses are on high alert -- shit man, you're feelin' the same way those crazy characters are.

Someone: The storyline is brilliant as well, fucktard.

Ben: Yes! The unmatched talent and the outpouring of heart that Dostoevsky puts into this can change your life. Through this novel you can come to your own conclusions about important, existential philosophies: you can even use this book to better yourself in concrete ways by comparing yourself to the different brothers, learning from their mistakes, and taking the good aspects from each.

Someone: There you go with your idealistic, finding yourself, magic bullshit. Look, Penis Wrinkle, I'll let you get away with it, since this novel is--

Ben: It's fucking great! It's one of the best books of all time, dammit. I haven't read as much as you, and I'm not as smart as you, but it’s GOT TO BE. Right?

Someone: Yes, yes, you're right. This is one of only 21 books in my literary Valhalla, otherwise known as my “pants-crapping-awesome” bookshelf. This novel is--

Ben: YES! The great ranges in our emotions, the soaring capabilities of our passions, the depths of our intellect and souls. This book hits the full spectrum of just about everything. It seems to hit just about every side of just about every important existential issue; it spans all that’s important in life: love, family, faith and doubt, friendship, money, revenge— everything. It's such a full and complete spectrum that reading this book is like devouring life itself. And it does so in real and fascinating ways. It has to be one of the greatest novels of all time. It has to be. This novel is a literary grand slam. You have to read it to understand. Nobody should live without reading this book. That's all I can say. I'll never be able to do this beautiful, deep, mesmerizing, brilliant, masterpiece of a book the justice it deserves. All I can really say is--

Someone: Read it.