When trying to evaluate such a significant novel, one looks to its historical literary context and developments in style and language over the last 140 years in an attempt to explain its shortcomings. The truth is that when read with a modern eye The Karamazov Brothersn  ^n is an inconsistent novel, and not strikingly original. Rather, the opposite is apparent, as its devices have since become familiar influences for countless other works. For something that claims to be philosophical novel, so much of its word count is devoted simply to descriptions of characters and events, much of which are mundane and superfluous (so different to the succinct and incisive Notes from Underground!) If we are honest, most of the first 500 pages of the novel falls into this category. With some exceptions, the role of the first half of the novel is little more than to set up the conclusion, and there is just so much extraneous description and seeming lack of focus that reading it cannot be described as enjoyable. It is easy to see why this novel is so often abandoned. However if one can get through the first half of the novel, the remainder, or more specifically the last 300 or so pages rewards the effort. And because the first half of the novel renders the second half possible, and in fact brings it retroactively to life, I am inclined to regard the entire novel highly based on the merits of the later parts.

As to the content of the story itself and its explorations I won’t go into detail (there are plenty of reviews which cover this already), only to say there is a complexity, richness and nuance that exceeded my expectations. The characters (though often excessively flamboyant or dramatic, sometimes comically so) contain genuine human limitations and contradictions, which together encapsulate the broad possibilities of human experience and whose nature and actions are open to endless interpretation. There is a level of philosophising which is overt in the discourses of the novel, and a secondary level which is hidden in the actions of the characters and evident only under examination. There is so much here beneath the surface, I feel that one could never approach the limits of what this novel has to offer.

The Karamazov Brothers is by no means a perfect novel, but it undoubtedly deserves its reputation as one of the greatest.

* * * * *

n  ^n  In case you were wondering, the translator of this edition explains the variation in the title:

“One need go no further than the title, the standard English rendering of which is The Brothers Karamazov. This follows the original word order, the only one possible in Russian in this context. Had past translators been expressing themselves freely in natural English, without being hamstrung by that original Russian word order, they would no more have dreamt of saying The Brothers Karamazov than they would The Brothers Warner or The Brothers Marx.”

This explanation is compelling enough to me, yet the more “correct” title still sounds odd at first, and loses some of the authority of the distinctive traditional title, with its word order which in English seems for some reason exclusively reserved for Karamazovs and Grimms.

تولستوی و داستایوسکی
تفاوت تولستوى با داستايوسكى، مثل تفاوت سعدى و حافظه.
شعرهاى سعدى، سهل و ممتنعه: يعنى از بس ساده و روان هستن، آدم فكر مى كنه سرودن همچين شعرى كارى نداره. ولى وقتى مى خواد مثلش رو بگه، مى بينه امكان نداره. تولستوى هم همين طوره.
شعرهاى حافظ، ولى يه جوريه كه آدم وقتى مى خونه، نه تنها فكرِ تحدّی هم به مخیّله ش خطور نمى كنه، بلكه حيران مى مونه كه يه انسان چطور تونسته همچين شعرى بگه؛ از بس الفاظ و معانى و مضامين عجيب و غريبى داره و پر از شيدايى و جنونه. داستايوسكى اين طوريه.

این کتاب
بهترین اثر داستایوسکی نیست به نظر من (به رغم عده ی زیادی). بهترین اثرش، جنایت و مکافاته و بعد، ابله. اما در رده ی سوم، این رمان مستطاب قرار میگیره و سومین اثر داستایوسکی بودن، یعنی بهترین اثر ادبیات بودن.

آلکسی قدّیس
هر کدوم از سه برادر، دنیایی شگرف و زیبا و گاهی وحشتناک دارن. اما اون کسی که من عمیقاً و از عمق جانم باهاش همذات پنداری کردم، آلیوشا، برادر کوچک تر بود.
چه اون زمان که مجذوب عوالم دین بود و از برادرانش گریزان بود، چه اون زمان که به ورطه ی سقوط افتاد و چه اون زمانی که به سجده افتاد و زمین خاکی رو بوسید و زندگی رو تقدیس کرد و به نوع جدیدی از عرفان رسید.
مشابه این شخصیت سالک رو، در هیچ رمان دیگه ای ندیدم و بعید میدونم ببینم. چرا، امثال "خرمگس" یا "سرگشته ی راه حق" هم شخصیت هایی مذهبی آفریدن، ولی در مقابل سلوک عظیم آلیوشا، اونا فقط بچه بازی هستن.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes I feel like modern covers have gone too far.

The Brothers Karamazov is the greatest novel… The Brothers Karamazov is the greatest grotesque novel. And I’m afraid my interpretations of it will hardly be very popular.
What is God? What is man? And what are their relationships?

“You see, I close my eyes and think: if everyone has faith, where does it come from? And then they say that it all came originally from fear of the awesome phenomena of nature, and that there is nothing to it at all. What? I think, all my life I’ve believed, then I die, and suddenly there’s nothing, and only ‘burdock will grow on my grave,’ as I read in one writer? It’s terrible! What, what will give me back my faith?”

In his deepest novel Fyodor Dostoyevsky created the whole gallery of human types – both male and female – that later n  T.S. Eliotn will define as ‘The Hollow Men’

“Vanity! Ivan does not have God. He has his idea. Not on my scale. But he’s silent. I think he’s a freemason. I asked him – he’s silent. I hoped to drink from the waters of his source – he’s silent. Only once did he say something.”
“What did he say?” Alyosha picked up hastily.
“I said to him: ‘Then everything is permitted, in that case?’ He frowned: ‘Fyodor Pavlovich, our papa, was a little pig,’ he said, ‘but his thinking was right.’ That’s what he came back with.”

Fyodor Karamazov, the father was a swine, a hungry greedy hog that would devour everything and everybody on its way and nothing, bar death, would stop him.

“Oh, we love to live among people and to inform these people at once of everything, even our most infernal and dangerous ideas; we like sharing with people, and, who knows why, we demand immediately, on the spot, that these people respond to us at once with the fullest sympathy, enter into all our cares and concerns, nod in agreement with us, and never cross our humor.”

Dmitri Karamazov is a parrot, a popinjay – the poseur who admires nothing but his own reflection.

“But Ivan loves nobody, Ivan is not one of us; people like Ivan are not our people, my friend, they’re a puff of dust… The wind blows, and the dust is gone…”

Ivan Karamazov is a peacock proud of his iridescent tail – he cares about nothing but his empty and fruitless ideas.

His heart trembled as he entered the elder’s cell: Why, why had he left? Why had the elder sent him “into the world”? Here was quiet, here was holiness, and there – confusion, and a darkness in which one immediately got lost and went astray…

Alyosha Karamazov is a frightened calf, a cat’s paw – an infantile whipping boy created to serve the others and to be used.

…while the sun, moon, and stars might be an interesting subject, for Smerdyakov it was of completely third-rate importance, and that he was after something quite different. Be it one way or the other, in any event a boundless vanity began to appear and betray itself, an injured vanity besides.

Smerdyakov is a rat – he hides in darkness but he hates the entire world and he is capable of any meanness.

Man is one’s own enemy… By living one unavoidably destroys oneself and the others.

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

بلاخره تموم شد

This book was a literary masterpiece. I cannot describe the book as I read it. I feel like I would not give it the justice it deserves. I would somehow ruin the the greatness of the characters and the whole meaning of the story.

I will just give you a gist of what it is. It surrounds three brothers named Karamazov with the same father. It is read with each his own story and suddenly they collide in the wake of their despicable father's murder. It questions our deepest moral concerns. The origin of evil and wrong but also good and truth, the true meaning of freedom, how much a human craves meaning, and the universal question of whether God exists or not. Did God create man or did man create God? Can loving all men and earth with unceasing, consuming love save us from cruelty and set an example to others?

I feel like this book should be a high school literature requirement. It touches the soul and makes you question what kind of person you are and want to be. A sort of self reflection. It is definitely a hard read but it is worth the sacrifice. It was written in the 19th century but it is so relatable to life today. I can quote so many of the pages but I will do the one that caught me:

And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants... Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them... They have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less. (PAGE 296)

I bought Dostoevsky's other works. I hope they will be as great and insightful as this one.

There's nothing like this book. Given the fact that many before me have spoken about the many beautiful aspects which The Brothers Karamazov posesses, I will just say that no matter at what stage in your live you read this book, it will always be a life changing experience.

داستایفسکی کبیر کتاب برادران کارامازوف را به مانند جدالی بین نیکی و بدی ،خیر وشر ، شک وایمان ، جبر و اختیار ، سکون و طغیان ، ثبات و تزلزل آفریده . شخصیت های او هم بازتاب همین احساسات هستند ، آنها شر مطلق یا فرشته خوبی نیستند ، آنها بسته به شرایط واکنش نشان می دهند ، گاهی ساکت هستند و صبور و گاهی هم طغیان می کنند ، آنها قربانی دوران خود هستند اما هم متهم هستند و هم متهم می کنند . کارامازوف ها آماده طغیان و سرکشی هستند ، سرشار از خشم و نفرت
همانند دیگر کتابهای استاد باز هم جنایتی صورت گرفته و این آغاز سفری ایست برای کارامازوفها که همانند راسکلینیکوف جنایت و مکافات که آشفته و سرگشته شوند ، به شک بیافتند ، مسیری را طی کنند و خواننده را همسفر خود کنند در این راه ، تا با تیپهایی متفاوت دیگر هم آشنا شود ، از پیر سالک گرفته تا خدمتکار و خانواده او . افراد زیادی که معرف وضعیت و طرز فکر روسیه آن زمان هستند . استاد این خصوصیت های متفاوت را بین کارامازوف ها هم تقسیم کرده و البته بیشتر صفات مثبت را به آلیوشا داده ، او را انسانی مهربان و جذاب و با خدا به تصویر کشیده ، انسانی بزرگوار که میان برادران خود میانجیگری می کند ، انسانی که خود را وقف عشق به همنوع خود می کند ، انسانی کامل و مطلوب استاد .
ایوان را هم جوانی روشنفکر و بی خدا دانسته که دل خوشی هم از زندگی ندارد ، با هوش است وآگاه ، ایوان میل به شورش و طغیان دارد ، او از مظاهر روسیه قدیم بیزار است ، شاید نماینده نسل جوان روسیه و صدای خطری باشد که داستایفسکی روسیه را از آن می ترساند .
دیمیتری پسر بزرگ خانواده بیشترین شباهت را به پدرش دارد ، او خشن است و برده شهوت ، هم ساده است و هم جاهل ، می خواره ایست ولخرج که ارزش پول را نمی داند . اما صفات خوبی هم دارد ، دروغ نمی گوید و حقیقت جو ست ، دیمیتری نماینده اکثریت جامعه روسیه است ، فاجعه داستان برای او رخ می دهد و دیمیتری را عازم آن سفر معنوی و طولانی می کند تا از نو متولد شود .
اما پدر خانواده فیودور کارامازوف شخصی ایست به تمام معنی مبتذل ، حقیر و بی ریشه . این فرد ناچیز عشق و محبت خود را از فرزندانش دریغ کرده و وقت خود را به عیاشی گذرانده . داستایفسکی با نشان دادن ذات خبیث این مرد و رفتار او با فرزندانش خواننده را متقاعد می کند که این فرد نباید وجود داشته باشد . فیودور شر و سیاهی را در دنیا دنباله دار کرده ، سامردیاکوف پسر نامشروع او که مهربانی و اهمیتی از فیودور ندیده در زندگی فیودور و داستان کتاب نقش مهمی بازی خواهد کرد .
اما پیرمرد که در دوران حیات زندگی پسران خود را به گند کشیده بود پس از مرگ نیز دست بردار آنها نیست ، چگونگی و چرایی به قتل رسیدن او دست استاد را برای بحثهای فلسفی آزاد می گذارد . داستایفسکی به دقت حالات روانی و ذهنی کارامازوف ها را شرح داده . او خواننده را با خود به تاریک ترین اعماق ذهن آنها برده تا به او بفهماند که همه در این جنایت سهم دارند .
کتاب چند خطابه مفصل و سنگین دارد که خواننده بنا به سلیقه خود آنها را می تواند خسته کننده یا جذاب بیابد . اولین آنها صحبت طولانی ایوان با برادرش آلیوشا در باب روشن فکری و ایمان است و دیگری نطق درخشان فتیوکوویچ وکیل مدافع دیمیتری . یا صحنه مواجه شدن ایوان با شیطان و احساس او قبل و بعد از مکالمه .
در مورد ترجمه فارسی کتاب ، بار اول که آن را خواندم با ترجمه جناب صالح حسینی بود که سخت خوان بودن کتاب در کنار ترجمه سنگین آقای حسینی باعث شد که خواندن کتاب را پس از 400 صفحه آن کنار بگذارم اما ترجمه پرویز شهدی علاوه بر ساده بودن و پرهیز عامدانه او در استفاده کردن از واژه های نامانوس و سنگین باعث شد که خواندن کتاب به تجربه ای شیرین و جذاب و پر کشش برایم تبدیل شود . گرچه برادران کارامازوف به هر صورت کتابی ایست سخت خوان که مطالعه آن اندکی صبر و حوصله و زمان و البته ذهن آزاد نیاز دارد .

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

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

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

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

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