“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love”--Father Zosima, to Fyodor Karamazov, a scoundrel and atheist who somewhat disingenuously asks of his son Alyosha’s spiritual mentor what it is he needs to transform his life.

I have always said in bar or coffeeshop conversations about The Best Books of All Tme that the two best books I have ever read (for my tastes) were The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment. Great epic explorations of nineteenth century Russian society--politics, society and morality--and both are also great murder mysteries that help to complicate the social and cultural and moral issues Dostoevsky raises. I took the time to read and listen to this 750-page tome because I was sheltered at home and hoped he/it would help me take a broad look at my own time and place and inner life again. I took notes all along the way but cracked my laptop screen a couple days ago, lost several things including 3-4 ongoing reviews, including a review of this book, boo hoo, so am just writing this again, having taken roughly a month to finish the book. I will say that this particular edition of this book is a gift from perhaps the best (let’s say among the very best, more modestly?) translation team of our time, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.

Dostoevsky spent nearly two years writing The Brothers Karamazov, which was published as a serial in 1879-1880. Dostoevsky died less than four months after its publication. He wrote it after he was released from six years of prison in which he made his most complete commitment to God after a lifetime of doubt and struggle (though if you are worried this is some kind of religious tract, relax, there is still a lot of anguish and struggle in it). What’s it “about”? Debates about God, doubt, free will, love, capital, inequity . . . and (there henceforth spoilers) patricide.

Fyodor, Daddy K, is a wastrel, scoundrel, rake, philanderer. . . you get the picture. We are not rooting for him. One wife leaves and he neglects his son, another dies and he neglects the next son. He fathers a child with a disabled woman in the village, known as Stinking Lizaveta, ugh. (I mean he despicable, not her). We would not be unhappy to see him go. . and he does, but not for a long time in this story. He’s in love with Grushenka and in some dispute with his son Dmitri over money and his shared love/lust/jealousy about her.

Dmitri is, like his father, a ladies man, a “sensualist” or hedonist, engaged to Katerina Ivanovna, but later in love with Grushenka. A trial ensues after his father is killed, and he is accused.

Ivan is an intellectual, the most cynical of the three brothers, an atheist that battles his monk brother Alyosha over issues of faith; recites a poem/tale of The Grand Inquisitor that is seen as one of the great statements about faith and doubt ever written. Ivan, distressed about the massive suffering of the world, doubts that a benevolent God would allow it. He also seems to be in love with Dmitri’s betrothed, Katerina Ivanovna.

Alyosha is the youngest brother, a novice monk who has left the lust and greed and cynicism of his family (which are some things Dostoevsky himself struggled lifelong with, and more). Called by the narrator as the “hero” of the novel, he is also named after Dostoevsky’s dead 3-year-old son, Alyosha. While the novel primarily moves forward through rich and entertaining dialogues on social issues and family, Alyosha speaks the least, and is potentially the least interesting in a way because he is just so. . . good, but the novel ends with him interacting with children in love, an image of hope and reconciliation. At one point he is briefly engaged to disabled neighborhood friend Lise. His spiritual father is Father Zosima, who gets to make some of the best defenses for faith in God; even if you are an atheist you might want to check out these speeches.

Smerdyakov, an epileptic as was Dostoevsky, is the “illegitimate” son of Fyodor and Lizaveta. Maybe as grim and cynical as Ivan. His father hires him as a servant.

I felt a kind of intellectual vindication of my feeling for the book when in grad school I read Mikhail Bakhtin’s assertion in The Dialogic Imagination that the novel was the best of all forms of writing for an exploration of the world. Not poetry, not debate/argument, but narrative. At its best, Bakhtin said, the novel could function as a kind of “cultural forum,” as opposed to some kind of didactic treatise. Bakhtin held up the Brothers K as the best example of this tendency in the best of novels, not a sermon with mere types of characters but a rich dialogue among very real and visceral human beings representing a range of human (and decidedly Russian) experience. Bakhtin thought the later Tolstoy, such as in Resurrection, created a kind of black and white, saints and sinners universe, not nearly as good an example of the novel’s possibilities as Brothers.

In Brothers Dostoevsky has a credible atheist, a credible hedonist/sensualist, and a credible Christian, all three brothers making a kind of case for how one might live one’s life. Dostoevsky, a gambler, a heavy drinker, an intellectual, an epileptic, a passionate lover of women, a passionate and anguished believer and doubter of Christianity, isn’t writing a tract for faith but an exploration one can use to think about one’s own moral life.

“And what's strange, what would be marvelous, is not that God should really exist; the marvel is that such an idea, the idea of the necessity of God, could enter the head of such a savage, vicious beast as man.”

That murder and trial? As good a page turner as any murder mystery you’ll find. You just have to wait about half of the book to get to it. . . I am not sure if you can actually predict the verdict. I mean, Dmitri is found with blood on his clothes, had motive, was on the scene, was spending money drunkenly afterwards. . . So he did it, right? Maybe. A lot of people had reason to kill the old man.

Some interesting things:

*So, Father Zosima finally dies, but not before he makes a final sermon to those around him at the monastery. Whether or not you are a Christian, or even religious, this is a great and powerful speech. Then, almost as comic relief, we see that many people are disappointed to find that the body of this guy they think of as a saint actually decays. What, no resurrection?!

“This is my last message to you: in sorrow, seek happiness.”

*As the father of two boys with autism, I was especially anguished this time around about the chapter on Lizaveta, who roams the streets, with no verbal language (as is the case with one of my sons). Most people accept her, feed her, support her, but as now, not everyone. And she is pretty clearly raped by Fyodor, because we can’t assume consent.

*One sort of feminist acknowledgement of patriarchy is that people of this time found a tendency in some women to largely go “bad” because of. . . men. These women were referred to as "shriekers," and if you saw the limitations many women faced in this time, you would shriek, too.

*Early on I love the dialogues between the hedonist/wastrel/sensualist/sinner Fyodor and Father Zosima, who is the closest thing we have to a saint in any Dostoevsky story, though his follower Alyosha may just fill his shoes.

*After all the anguish, I like the sweet simple image of love and faith that concludes the book, with Alyosha and some children.

Some good and thoughtful quotes:

“The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for.”

“I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.”

“Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to the animals, for they are without sin, while you, with all your greatness, you defile the earth wherever you appear and leave an ignoble trail behind you--and that is true, alas, for almost every one of us!”

“If he's honest, he'll steal; if he's human, he'll murder; if he's faithful, he'll deceive.”

“Everything passes, only truth remains.”

The best book ever? For me it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Αδελφοί Καραμάζοφ: η τέλεια τραγωδία.
Ένα έργο ευσυνείδητης μεγαλοφυΐας, αποκορύφωση, διακριτή ως επίτευγμα στην υπαρξιακή παράδοση της ανθρωπότητας και στα παγκόσμια λογοτεχνικά πρόσωπα.

Η πατρίδα όλων των ανθρώπων βρίσκεται σίγουρα στην καρδιά αυτών των μεγάλων τραγωδιών.

Τρομάζει το μεγαλείο που κρύβεται μέσα σ’αυτό το βιβλίο. Μια φανταστική ύφανση πολυπλοκότητας κατακλύζει πλήρως τον αναγνώστη κατά τη δι��ρκεια της εξέλιξης.
Η αλληλεπίδραση είναι τόσο απλή και φυσική σαν να συμμετέχεις στην πλοκή της ιστορίας παρέα με τους υπέροχα δημιουργημένους χαρακτήρες φθάνοντας απο κάποιο σημείο και μετά να θεωρείται αυτονόητο πως είσαι μέρος της ζωής τους.
Αυτό βέβαια δεν είναι τόσο εύκολο όσο ακούγεται. Ο Ντόστο σε πετάει σε απροσμέτρητα βάθη με τη γραφή του, όσο προσπαθείς να αποστασιοποιηθείς ως αντικειμενικός αναγνώστης, τόσο περισσότερο σέλιδα τη σελίδα σε κατακαίει μια αχνιστή λογοτεχνική τελειότητα που σε αφήνει άφωνο και κατάπληκτο.
Πως μπόρεσε αυτός ο μύστης να γράψει με τέτοιο βάθος για την ανθρώπινη ψυχική άβυσσο, πως δημιούργησε μια τέτοια ομορφιά γεμάτη καρδιακές θραύσεις και οδυνηρές ιδέες.
Γαντζώνεσαι απο μια δυστυχισμένη γοητεία και γίνεσαι έρμαιο των περιστάσεων ως την τελευταία σελίδα.

Άπειρες φορές ένιωσα πως θέλω άμεσα να επέμβω στα γεγονότα. Να βοηθήσω, να παρηγορήσω, να φιλήσω παιδικά δακρυσμένα μάγουλα, να εμπόδισω το θάνατο και το σπαραγμό, να φωνάξω οργισμένη την αλήθεια, να πετάξω μέσα στο κενό τους τις εγωιστικά ηλίθιες, χαμένες αριστοκρατικές φιγούρες που προκαλούσαν πόνο, να ζεστάνω ψυχές, να χαμογελάσω διώχνοντας τη θλίψη, να προειδοποιήσω, να συμφωνήσω, να αγκαλιάσω την απόγνωση και να διώξω την απελπισία. Άπειρες φορές.
Τόσο πολύ που κουράστηκα, και ως ανήμπορη μπροστά στα τεκταινόμενα απλώς έκλαιγα ή γελούσα, με το μαύρο ζοφερό χιουμορ, εκ περιτροπής.

Ο μεγαλύτερος συγγραφέας ψυχών όλων των εποχών ο Ντόστο, δημιουργεί ένα έργο πολιτικής, ψυχολογικής, κοινωνιολογικής, φιλοσοφικής και θεϊκής σκέψης, το οποίο ταυτίζεται ως αληθές σε χώρες και λαούς παγκόσμιας κλίμακας.

Οι αδελφοί Καραμάζοφ είναι ο πυρήνας πολλών ιστοριών. Ουσιαστικά είναι ένα επιβλητικό έπος που σαρώνει αλήθειες και ψέμματα της ζωής και της ανθρώπινης μοίρας. Αποκαλύπτει, εξηγεί, μετριάζει, περιπλανιέται μέσα στη ζοφερή πραγματικότητα που αντανακλάει τα αιώνια αναπάντητα ερωτήματα της ζωής.
Η πίστη κυριαρχεί και άρχει μέσα στην ιστορία, ποτέ όμως ως δόγμα πάντα ως απαντοχή στην δυστυχία της δημιουργίας του κόσμου.
Ενός κόσμου που δεν ειναι τέλειος. Δεν θα γίνει ποτέ. Ενός κόσμου που χωρις θεό δεν έχει όρια και φραγμούς δεν μπορεί να συνεχίσει να υπάρχει επομένως ο θεός δημιουργείται απο τον άνθρωπο όπως και ο διάβολος.

Έτσι πρέπει. Έτσι θα κρατηθούν οι συμπαντικές ισορροπίες. Όταν κλείνεις την πόρτα στη φυσική νομοτέλεια του καλού και του κακού ως αμάγαλμα σύνθεσης της ζωής αυτή σίγουρα θα μπει απο το παράθυρο με περισσότερη ορμή και οργή.

Αριστουργηματική η στιχομυθία του σατανά με έναν απο τους αδελφούς, όπως επίσης και η ιστορία του μέγα ιεροεξεταστή που καίει στην πυρά τον Χριστό για να σώσει την ανθρωπότητα απο το βάρος της απόλυτης ελευθερίας.

Η ιστορία που κυριαρχεί είναι απλοϊκή.
Ένας άξεστος, αδίστακτος, χαμένος μέσα στα πάθη του γαιοκτήμονας εκπροσωπεί την πατρική φιγούρα Καραμάζοφ.
Οι τρεις γιοί του απο δυο διαφορετικούς γάμους και οι υπηρέτες τους αποτελούν τον κορμό του οικογενειακού δράματος.
Κλοπή. Φόνος. Δική.
Εξελίσσεται αργά και βασανιστικά η εξιστόρηση πολλών γεγονότων που απεικονίζουν όλη τη χαμέρπεια και την μεγαλοψυχία των ανθρωπίνων συναισθημάτων και κινήτρων.
Πολλοί δευτερεύοντες χαρακτήρες που κρίνονται απαραίτητοι για να μας δωθούν σε ισάριθμες δόσεις η ζήλεια, η αγάπη, ο πόνος, η απανθρωπιά, η φτώχεια, οι αρρώστειες,ο θάνατος,το ερωτικό πάθος που κινεί τα νήματα και η ευλογία της βαθύτερης κατανόησης του συνανθρώπου.
Το βιβλίο αυτό είναι μια παγκόσμια κοινωνία, είναι ο ίδιος ο Ντοστογιέφσκι, είναι αυτός, σε ένα βιβλίο. Γύρω του οργισμένες φιγούρες ουρλιάζουν, κλοτσούν, σκέφτονται και προσεύχονται.

Ο συγγραφέας πραγματοποιεί έναν προσωπικό άθλο. Αν είναι μάταιος ή επιτυχημένος δεν κρίθηκε ακόμη. Δεν νομίζω πως θα αξιολογηθεί ποτέ. Δεν υπάρχουν κριτήρια.

Ανεβαίνει -γράφοντας- την πλαγιά ενός πανύψηλου απόκρημνου βουνού. Απο κάτω η γήινη άβυσσος, πάνω, στα δυσθεώρητα ύψη, η ουράνια άβυσσος, εκεί που αναπνέει ο Θεός. Προσπαθεί να αναρριχηθεί για να φτάσει στην κορυφή, να δει τον ορίζοντα και να γράψει πάνω σε αυτόν τα όνειρα του για μια πιο δίκαιη και στοχαστική κοινωνία.
Ξαφνικά γλιστράει σε μια τρελή πτώση με τον διάβολο και βυθίζεται στην γήινη άβυσσο. Δεν απελπίζεται. Γεμάτος σκοτεινή ενέργεια και αναρχία αρχίζει πάλι
-γράφοντας-την αναρρίχηση προς τον ορίζοντα, θέλει να τα πει όλα, θέλει να πιστέψει, θέλει να ακούσει την αναπνοή του θεού.
Κάθε φορά που πέφτει μυείται σε έναν μυστικισμό και ψάχνει να βρει απαντήσεις στον πόνο του ανθρώπου. Συνεχίζει να γράφει, να μας παίρνει μαζί του σε αυτή τη σισύφεια προσπάθεια. Παγιδεύεται σε όλα τα πάθη και τα λάθη κατά την ανάβαση και μαζί του και μεις, που ίσως κάπου χάνουμε την ελπίδα, έρχεται η απογοήτευση.
Ο αναγνώστης κουράζεται, ο συγγραφέας γεμάτος ενέργεια οδηγείται στην αποδιοργάνωση, μα δεν σταματάει να γράφει και αυτό ακριβώς κάνει το βιβλίο τούτο αξεχαστο.
Όντας αποδιοργανωμένος δεν παύει να χτίζει με την πένα του υπόβαθρα και μία τεράστια μεταφυσική, υπαρξιακή, ψυχολογική υπό-δομή για να μπορέσει να σταθεί ο αναγνώστης.
Όσο για τον ίδιο, συνεχίζει την ανάβαση ,θέλει πάση θυσία να κρεμάσει στον υπερβατικό ορίζοντα τα κάδρα της φιλοσοφίας και των πεποιθήσεων του. Ακυρώνει την πίστη όταν η σωτηρία της ψυχής δέχεται την ακραία και άδικη ταλαιπωρία των παιδιών και των αδύναμων, όμως δεν επικροτεί την αθεΐα.
Σε όλο το έργο του Ντοστογιέφσκι επικρατεί εξαιρετική τήρηση αναλογιών.
Η πίστη, η δουλεία, η αθεΐα, η αδιαφορία, η πραότητα, τα αρνητικά ένστικτα και οι παρορμήσεις συγκρούονται.

Η παραπλάνηση ανοίγει την πόρτα στους εφιάλτες και χάνεται η λογική και το νόημα. Όλα τα πλάσματα εκτός απο τα ανθρώπινα όντα γνωρίζουν το μονοπάτι που πρέπει να ακολουθήσουν.

Στο τέλους του βιβλίου υπερισχύει η δήλωση πίστης, η υπόσχεση αγάπης και μεγαλοπρέπειας.
Επικρατεί μια όμορφη εκστατική ατμόσφαιρα ελπίδας, όμως κατά τη γνώμη μου δεν εξαλείφεται η αμφιβολία, η τραγωδία, η ειρωνεία και η αμφιθυμία που χαρακτηρίζουν αυτό το ορόσημο της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας.

Καλή ανάγνωση
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.

*Είτε διαβάσατε όσα έγραψα,είτε όχι, λίγη σημασία έχει.

Chronology
Introduction
Further Reading
A Note on the Text

--The Brothers Karamazov

Notes

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
The Brothers Karamazov ~~~  Fyodor Dostoevsky



This was my introduction to Russian Literature at the age of 14. I remember buying this at a flea market one weekend for $0.50 ~~ in hardback, & feeling very adult since I would be reading a n  Russian Novel.n Dostoyevsky started a love affair with Russian literature that exists to this day. Oh, and as for the novel, it's one of the best I’ve ever read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have read this book three or four times in both English and French translations. In English, grab the Volonhovsky one. I cannot even begin to describe how awesome this book is. If for no other reason than Ivan's two chapters and especially for the Grand Inquisitor, this book is clearly in the upper reaches of the greatest literature ever written in any language. The range of personalities, emotions, and reactions of the various characters - all so fully developed and realistic in that specific Dostoyevsky way - makes the plot move along so very quickly. One's sympathies shift as we vilify Fyodor and idolise Aliosha at first but then we start to feel a bit sorry for Fyodor and resent Aliosha's naïveté as we learn about Misha and Ivan...

There is just so much in this novel to love. This is one of those desert-island books without which the human race would be poorer.

Also highly recommended is Joseph Frank's excellent biography of Dostoyevski if you wish to understand why this book was his last and his greatest.

Ivan's chapters about unbaptized children and The Grand Inquisitor are among the greatest chapters I have ever read, absolutely spell-binding and critical for today's world of "alternative facts" and disdain of objectivity.

Just finished this again, but in audio format. Always so exhilarating!

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.

People of Goodreads, I don't get it. I don't share the excitement, not for the great Russian authors in general nor this title specifically. They tell me of its its great literary and historical importance and I guess I've got to respect that, but I don't feel the love.

Sitting through page after page I got the feeling I was the victim of the world's longest "I told you that story so I could tell you this one" gag. I also had a strange sense of deja vu at times - a case has been made that every significant Western novel from 1880 on had some sort of germinating seed sown here. Any dialogue on the subject of morality, any debate on the goodness of God or the need for religion in modern times, any courtroom drama – they're all in development here, and reading this book later in my reading career is like visiting with old friends and having their mom pull out the embarassing photos of their awkward teen years.

Really, what's so great about it? We've got some weighty philosophical questions to deal with, but they're handled so clunkily. I don't mind grappling with big ideas, but the presentation puts me off. Long-winded doesn't even begin to describe it! And I take issue wtih Dostoyevsky's habit of introducing a minor character then launching into a longish backstory about them. "We must pause to say a few words about..." or "I really must mention..." —no, really, you needn't and mustn't do anything seeing as how YOU're the author here and the one calling the shots. I don't need all this padding, just the primary story is enough, thanks.

Oh, how I detest the dull formalities of high society, the blowhard dialogue, the pages and pages spent detailing bricks on walkways, print on wallpaper, buttons on overcoats. This maximal prose style wears me out and runs counter to something I love most in my literature, which is to say: brevity. Knock me out with a sentence or two, and spare me the exposition!

Somewhere beneath the bulk is a slender novel a few hundred pages shorter that makes its points quicker and repeats itself less. I'd probably have liked to read that abridgement much more.

3 stars. I made myself sit through to the end.

Dark abysses in moonless skies will engulf the titillating brightness of stars and ghastly winters will obliterate the warmth of the earth until justice has been done.
Recline comfortably in your velvety chaise longue and concentrate on the spectacle that is about to begin, for the so much awaited day of the trial has arrived and the Karamazov family will be submitted to relentless interrogation, psychological scrutiny and the righteous proof of circumstantial evidence. There is humor, melodrama and suspense to be expected.
The peasants in the jury rub their hands greedily in anticipation because it is a widely known fact that the Karamazov brothers are evil creatures, doomed wretches and witless idealists, cursed with inherent vice and rotten spirit. Murder is not the real crime but only a succulent appetizer to the real feast. Prejudice doesn’t exist when the morality of Mother Russia has been challenged, defiance is the biggest offense and adequate punishment needs to be inflicted.
Let the trial begin, let the accused condemn themselves.

Prosecutor Ippolit Kirillovitch knows the Karamazov well.
Fyodor, the murdered head of the family, an appalling father and a worse Christian is a man of excesses drawn by hedonistic pleasures, whose debauchery and petty buffoonery put his name to shame. Malignant cynicism is his moral code and sarcasm his only religion. When Grushenka, the quintessential femme fatale, crosses Fyodor’s path he is irredeemably attracted to her like a moth to a bulb light. She becomes his obsession and ultimate perdition.

“I am an inveterate buffoon, and have been from birth up, your reverence, it’s as though it were a craze in me. I dare say it’s the devil within me. But only a little one.” Book II, chapter one (41).

Mitya, a man of wild passions and destructive jealousy seeks for absolution but his love for Grushenka eclipses his commitment to his betrothed Katya. Ashamed of his weaknesses he struggles against himself in constant contradiction. Good and evil, a scoundrel but not a thief, a deceitful swine but of noble heart, a squanderer but a man of honest generosity, a sentenced murderer but a redeemed victim, he suffers to purge his corrupt spirit.

“In thousand of agonies – I exist. I’m tormented on the rack – but I exist! Though I sit alone on a pillar – I exist! I see the sun, and if I don’t see the sun, I know it’s there. And there’s a whole life in that, in knowing that the sun is there.” Book XI, chapter 4 (665).

Ivan, the rebellious atheist of sharp intellect and faster tongue who, in spite of proving God’s non-existence through the intrinsic cruelty of mankind, admits receiving nightly visits from the devil. Ivan’s strategist and scheming mind rejects the idea of mercy and his Grand Inquisitor makes him refuse his own humanity.

“I don’t want harmony. For love of humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation.” Book V, chapter 4 (268).

Aloysha, the bright star whose light nurtures, guides and absolves those rotating in his Solar System of forgiveness and gentleness. He spreads Father Zossima’s belief in the goodness of people with innocent idealism, never faltering faith and a modest heart that pumps unselfish love through mankind’s veins.

“If you are penitent, you love. And if you love you are of God. All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a sinner even as you are, am tender with you and have pity on you, how much more will God have pity upon you. Love is such a priceless treasure that you can redeem the whole world by it, and cleanse not only your own sins but the sins of others.” . Book II, chapter 3 (53).

Smerdyakov, Fyodor’s pitiful bastard and valet, neglected creature and cursed with epilepsy hides his vile temperament behind a mask of groveling servitude. His nihilist tendencies find solace in Ivan’s calculating logic and cold rationalism.

“That was quite right what you taught me, for you talked a lot to me about that. For if there’s no everlasting God, there’s no such thing as virtue, and there’s no need of it.” Book XI, chapter 8 (710).

Guilty, guilty, guilty. Three times guilty villains! One after another, all the members of the Karamazov family succumb to temptation and become plagued by doubt. Lust, envy, greediness, wrath and arrogance are only a few of their countless sins.
There is neither verbose nor pompous enough speech the defense attorney could articulate to convince the jury of their blamelessness. Conscience is the sterner judge of all and these sensualists have condemned themselves. The prosecutor basks in his victory but wears a distorted smile on his pallid and emaciated face because the price to pay for the irrefutable proof of guilt might be too dear. For aren’t we all blameworthy?
“Nothing is more seductive for a man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is greater cause of suffering.” Book V, chapter 5 (279).

Nothing is what it seems and fictional actors in the most grotesque of stages can transcend the borders of realism and become myths to decide the fate of a nation or the destiny of mankind’s soul.
Russia is on trial. The fraternal, ambiguous and chauvinistic troika represented by Fyodor and Mitya, the mystical mother earth embodied in Alyosha’s untainted belief in the worthiness of its people and Ivan’s intellectual realism and detached views on European Enlightenment are presented as diverging instruments to save the fate of Russia. Traditional conservatism, religious idealism or disruptive modernity?
The true nature of humanity is being dissected, probed and mercilessly judged while the Karamazov brothers emerge as allegorical symbols of incongruous contradiction coexisting in their intrinsic need for spiritual redemption. It is only human to strive for salvation. Even The Grand Inquisitor, the emblem of unsatisfied indignation and logical argumentation feels his heart beating with relief when a kiss of forgiveness has blessed his right cheek, or when he has given an onion and performed a good deed.
Step aside, Mr.Kirillovitch. The real judgment of the Karamazov brothers’ soul can’t possibly take place in a courtroom, neither of human nor even of divine nature. Nothing can supplant the judgment of one’s own conscience. The onion needs to be peeled of its pungent layers to get to its tender core. It is a painful task to perform but once the tears have washed away the itchiness, a bright light remains which will illuminate the shadowy paths to redemption.
The Karamazov Brothers have fought their own demons, admitted their own flaws and achieved spiritual transformation. They have been absolved. And so has been this humble reader. There will be hope as long as there is love.
“Hurrah for Karamazov!” Epilogue, chapter 3 (870).

n   “"What is hell?" I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.” n Book VI, chapter 3 (356).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brothers Karamazov is an exceptionally tricky and intricate book. It's also an exceptional pain in the ass. I might have to create a new shelf for it called "I'd Have To Read It Again To Get It But I'd Rather Just Not Get It." Tristram Shandy can join it there. The first problem is when a speech is so long that it reminds you of Atlas Shrugged. The second problem is that when I finished it just now, the words that unconsciously escaped my mouth were, "Well, fuck you Karamazov."

Here's a game I made up during the interminable ramblings of Elder Zosima: Zosima or Baz? Guess whether each boring platitude below is from the Elder Zosima or Baz Luhrmann's 1998 novelty hit, "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)":

a. Don't be reckless with other peoples' hearts; don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.
b. Keep company with yourself and look to yourself every day and hour, every minute.
c. Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth.
d. Cherish your ecstasy, however senseless it may seem.
e. Love children especially.

Answers at end of review

Okay, I almost never had a good time reading this book. Why'd I give it four stars? One reason: cowardice.

Listen, I know this book's smarter than me. Its inventiveness is impressive. Watch how careful Dostoevsky is with words: how each character, including the narrator, uses and misuses them, repeats them, throws them to each other. Check out how the stories - Ilyusha and Dmitri, Katya and Grushenka - intertwine. Feel how the word "Karamazovian" implants itself in you: you wouldn't be able to say what it means, maybe, I probably can't, but you'll know it when you see it from now on. Debate whether the whole thing is a comedy or a tragedy.

Before I read them, I used to think Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were probably more or less the same, y'know? Like, old Russian guys who wrote crazy long books, how different can they be? But they're not the same at all. Tolstoy is exceptionally controlled. Dostoevsky is pure virtuosity. I don't mean to say he doesn't know what he's doing; actually, Karamazov is more tightly structured than War & Peace is. But the energy behind it is more or less insane.

Four stars because I know this book is good; if I give it two stars, it would be like admitting that I let a brilliant masterpiece escape me for the prosaic reason that it's incredibly fucking boring. Y'know?

Four stars, dude. A brilliant masterpiece.

Introduction note: You can and should read the first section of Pevear & Volokhonsky's intro, up to p. xiv. It gives you great background. Get out quick after that though - right after "transforming them finally into a universal human drama" - 'cause they're gonna blow the whole plot in the next paragraph.

I forget which brother is which
Liz M. said this and it's perfect:
"Alyosha = superego or soul (youngest brother)
Ivan = ego or head (middle brother)
Dimitri = id or heart (eldest brother) "

If you haven't read Dostoevsky before: Start with Crime and Punishment. It's a better read.

Quiz Answers: Fuck you, Karamazov.