 |
|
Title: The Brothers Karamazov: A Novel in Four Parts and an Epilogue (Penguin Classics)
ISBN: 0140449248
Author:
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Publicate Date: 2003-04-29
Publish: 2003-04-29
List Price: $16.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $8.00
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $2.99
Amazon Merchant Price: $10.88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: I occupy myself with this mystery because I want to be a man
Anyone interested in the central question facing mankind will find `The Brothers Karamazov' an essential guide. That question--on man's capacity for responsibility and the proper role of the state and religion--is posed throughout the story in dialogue and events, and is framed neatly in a 20-page section where Ivan presents a poem titled `The Grand Inquisitor' to his brother Alyosha. The chapter that bears that title (Book V, Chapter V) is a masterpiece in itself and should be studied for its narrative technique alone. But the ideas it presents are so immense, so mind-blowing and inspirational, that literary criticism is not sufficient.
Indeed, `The Brothers Karamazov' should not be classed merely as a novel--it is a book of philosophy, theology, and sociology as well that ranks with the greatest documents in those disciplines. There is a fictitious plot, of course, and the characters in the story are some of the most unique in all of literature, so it is rightly praised as a novel. But the modern reader looking for a plot of twists and romantic intrigues is bound to disappointment. Dostoevsky does not stir up drama through the placement of unexpected developments or improbable character traits. Instead, he relies on the inherent needs and wants of all men to make vivid his story.
The amount of dialogue may be shocking (tedious) to one accustomed to the modern show-don't-tell policy in storytelling. Today, novelists and screenwriters let a character's actions speak for them--it is quicker and provides a much more convincing impression. It also limits the kind of ideas that are posed in the story to simple, prosaic ones like `she likes him' or `he wants to defeat him.' By contrast, Dostoevsky allows the characters to speak for themselves, which creates a much longer and subtler exposition, but also frees the ideas to be vast and monumental.
What is the fundamental nature of socialism? What are the uses of the church in finding purpose? In finding salvation? Why is there suffering? What is the meaning of death? Read the brothers' dialogues and contemplate.
Dostoevsky's own philosophy is seen in the protagonist, Alyosha. This is so despite the fact that the author ably covers every perspective on every topic presented in the book, and one can hardly find a positive assertion throughout. If there is one, it rests in the overall effect of the words and actions, a concept Dostoevsky articulated in a personal correspondence--it is that "Man is a mystery; if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do not say that you have wasted your time."
A word about the translations: The title of Book IV has been translated differently in every version I have seen (other chapter titles are also inconsistent, but Book IV is seemingly the most difficult to agree on). The original Russian is `Nadryvy,' which literally translates to `Ruptures,' though no translations I have seen use `Ruptures.' The word is used throughout the book to convey the motif of `pressures' or `strained conditions about to break.' The various options I have seen for this title are `Lacerations' (Garnett), `Strains' (Pevear & Volkhonsky), `Torment' (MacAndrew), `Crises' (Avsey), and `Crack-Ups' (McDuff). Given this is a central theme, the potential reader might look into which translation he prefers before buying. Apropos, the Princess Alexandra Kropotkin print version bears the Garnett translation, as does the Frederick Davidson audio recording.
|
2: Amazing novel, poor translation.
Firstly, I'm loving the book, for all the reasons already mentioned. But don't get this edition.
I hear many reviews of people saying that they thought the book was difficult to read. True, the story is extremely dense and complex, but after giving up on this translation and turning instead to the Andrew H MacAndrew translation, I can say that it is a LOT better, and whilst only roughly halfway through, this edition is MUCH easier to read, and I no longer see it as a 'slog'.
The problem with the David McDuff translation is not that the meaning of the novel is lost or confused, but there is simply so much extra detail which doesn't aid the story at all, and only assists the reader to get bogged down. The Notes section often only describes - for instance - which part of the Bible a certain phrase may have been taken from or what poem Dostoevsky was inspired by to write a certain phrase, etc, and to have to continually turn to the notes section for unnecessary pieces of information really disrupts the flow. This is made worse by the fact that occasionally, there are important and relevant pieces of information in the notes section, so you cannot avoid them entirely either.
Some people may prefer to have all of this information, but to me, it is not worth making the novel so much more difficult to read just for this.
Also, the prose in this translation, to me, is simply too dry. It seems unnecessarily wordy, and there are probably thousands of places in the book where a whole sentence or two could be summed up in one word. Essentially, this is what the MacAndrew edition has done.
The MacAndrew edition, whilst probably not to everyone's taste, due to its slight trimming of details around the edges, is what I believe to be a far superior translation to this one, in terms of being a readable, accessible edition.
|
3: Wonderful, but inferior to Dostoevsky's finest
The culmination of Dostoevsky's thought, this dauntingly large novel contains all aspects of his philosophy. It is, truly, a wonderful, but flawed, novel. Since characters, in my opinion, define any novel, I will focus my review on the characters themselves. Dostoevsky's strength lie here; his plots are fair enough (HINT: they all revolve around murder!), but it is in the men he creates that his strength lies, and in these men that his rightful eminence as one of the greatest novelists of all time rests.
Many, notably eminent critic Harold Bloom, argue that Mitya is the strength of THE BROTHERS K. Mitya is passionate, irrational, hedonistic and violent, lusting after the flawed Grushenka and harming others in the process, himself included. Self-destructive to the core, he is certainly a great character, but I must dissent from the judgement of Bloom and others on this point, and claim Ivan as the best character.
The strongest parts of this novel are those with Ivan. `The Grand Inquisitor' section (often separated out from the work as a whole), Ivan's encounters with the Devil, and his conversations with the [...] Smerdyakov are incredible works of literature; they are some of the most profound and insightful literary episodes I have yet read. Ivan is an extremely intelligent, yet, (as is so often the case with men of great intelligence) a deeply sensitive and troubled man. He is neither pure good, nor pure evil; he does not suffer these literarily damning faults, as does his "pure good" brother Alyosha. One often recoils at Ivan's words and actions; but, as one cannot help oneself from staring at the darkest of scenes, Ivan enthralls and moves us.
Alyosha, as already hinted at, is the weak part of this novel, and the reason I give it four stars instead of five. He is not particularly compelling, and does not fascinate near as much as his two older brothers or his younger [...] brother Smerdyakov (or, for that matter, his father, Fyodor Pavlovich). He is TOO good, TOO pure; we men like to read about humans, not ideals! The parts centred around Alyosha tend to be far weaker than those centred around Mitya or, especially, those revolving around Ivan.
Again I must dissent from popular critical judgement, and admit that I liked "Crime and Punishment" better than THE BROTHERS K. The latter is a great work, this I will not deny, but the former has the strength of Raskolnikov (who is in many ways quite similar to Ivan), without the blot of Alyosha and some of the rather drawn-out episodes. This is an invaluable work, and Dostoevsky is one of the greatest writers of all time. I give it four stars only in relation to Dostoevsky's other works (especially "Crime and Punishment" and the sublime "Notes from Underground"); compared to those of most other novelists, it triumphs immensely.
|
4: A story of fraternity and strife...
Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov is a rich, thick, somewhat ponderous piece of literature which tells the tale of three Russian brothers and the circumstances surrounding their father's murder. Fyodor Pavlovitch, a disgraceful wretch, competes with his son, Dmitri Fyodoritch, for the favor of a local girl. The psychopathic Dmitri struggles mightily throughout the tome to vanquish paterfamilias. Alexey, the youngest, is the voice of reason and hope, while Ivan, the enigmatic atheist of the lot remains, to the bitter end, a hard man to pin down. Amidst these four is a collection of townspeople and relations who combine to drive the plot forward.
Interspersed throughout the angst are generous dollops of theology (inspiring for those so inclined), philosophy, and politics. At nearly 900 pages, it is an effort to get through, but there is excellent character formation. One can't help but admire Alexey's innocence, magnanimity, and gentleness while despising the obsessive carnality of Fyodor Pavlovitch and Dmitri. It is said The Brothers Karamazov is the finest example of Russian literature, but there is room to disagree. Tolstoy's War and Peace and even Anna Karenina are superior to me. 4+ stars.
|
5: The last and the greatest of Dostoevsky's novels
This is the last and the greatest of Dostoevsky's novels. It is the story of the family Karamazov who embody within themselves the character and conflicts of human nature as a whole. Each of the family members as Anne Freemantle writes Dostoevsky gave some part of himself, : to Dmitri his sincerity, generosity, and courage; to Ivan his intellectual temptations and pride, his unmentionable secret sins; to Smerdyakov his malady. To the father he gave his own name; and Alyosha is both the innocent child he once was, and the saint he would become. Also, Alyosha is something more. At the novel's end, Alyosha "half laughing, half enthusiastically" tells a group of boys gathered for a funeral, ". . . we shall all rise again, certainly we shall see each other and tell each other with joy and gladness all that has happened." Alyosha, then, is also the genius, the writer in Dostoevsky, the narrator who "tells all that has happened."
The plot of the novel centers around the question of the patricide of who has killed the sensual, greedy,father of the family.
The work contains one of the greatest chapters, set- pieces of world literature, the Grand Inquisitor. In this section told by the son Ivan there is the possibility raised of Christ returning to earth. The Grand Inquisitor provides Mankind bread and circuses and forbids the return of Christ, for the meaning of Christ's return is that Mankind knows the moral decision and passion of human freedom. And to know human freedom is to know suffering. And all this against the background of the question of the unjust suffering on earth, the terrible injustices Mankind has known.
This is a powerful, complex work, one of those great works of Literature which one can read over and over again throughout one's lifetime - and each time be fascinated anew by the remarkable strangeness, richness , cruelty, complexity and perhaps too simplistic beauty( in the form of the soul of the brother Alyosha and the saintly father Zossima who is his spiritual master) which are the picture of life given by the novel.
|
|
|
|
|
