I am a huge Russian literature fan. In my opinion Nabokov, Chekhov, Bulgakov, Pasternak, Tolstoy, and even Solzenitzyn need to bow before the great meloncholic Dostoevsky. This is certainly in my top five novels ever written, and it is so well written and condensed in content that every time i revisit it, it feels as if I am reading a new book. Just a hint, as with a lot of Russian lit, the key is to keep track of characters by way of a cheat sheet, that way you can follow character lines and arguments, as well as the copious number of Russian titles, names, and surnames used for each character. ( )

Kurt Vonnegut (or one of his characters) said, "Everything there is to know about life is in the Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, but even that isn't enough any more." Or something to that effect, and after that rattling around in my head for years, I finally got around to reading the book. I encourage others to do the same. It is not what you are expecting. I won't go into the permutations of the plot, except to say that it is labyrinthine and very Russian. You won't understand why the characters do half of what they do. But you'll be pulled along by the ironic and often very funny (yes, funny) narrative. That was the part that surprised me. Along this is a very long book, it is not at all dry, and although it may take you a while to read it, it never seems like a chore. ( )

The classic Russian tale of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his sons Ivan, Dmitri and Alexei. I can see where it would be considered great literature, and I am certainly glad I read it, but it took me a long time. When the story was interesting, it was very interesting, but when it got bogged down in politics, religion, or just rhetoric, I found it difficult to plod through. ( )

I liked this book - but I fully expected to love it, and perhaps that was the kiss of death. I love Dostoevksy and classic Russian Literature, so with so many people hailing this as perhaps the best book ever written, I was sure I'd love it. Was it the too high expectations? Was it the fact that I read the first 400 pages with nary a break while traveling 28 hours back from Europe? Not sure. The one thing that stood out to me versus books like Crime and Punishment and Notes from Underground was that in those books the characters' reactions were so real, so believable. In this book I found myself often feeling that characters' reactions to events in the book seemed not entirely believable, which took a lot away for me. ( )

For some reason, two bits of this stay with me --one, when old Katramazov tells of a skeptic telling an Orthodox prelate "there is no God" and the prelate replying "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and the other when Fr. Zosima dies and his followers expect the odor of sanctity but instead he rots and stinks. ( )

A classic and written by Dostoevsky at the height of his powers. Ahead of its time but also brilliantly captures the 19th century Russian struggle with God's existence as scientific and political changes in thought were rapidly taking place. The characters represent facets of Dostoevsky and Russia: the wicked father, the cad and martyr Dmitri, the atheist, socialist "devil" Ivan, and the angelic, pure Alexei, who has faith in both God and man.

Probably a "must read", and lots of great quotes.

On Brotherhood:
“I love mankind,” he said, “but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,” he said, “I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for even two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I can begin to hate even the best of men…on the other hand, it has always happened that the more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.”

"In order to make the world over anew, people must turn onto a different path psychically. Until one has indeed become brother of all, there will be no brotherhood. No science or self-interest will ever enable people to share their property and their rights among themselves without offense. Each will always think his share too small, and they will keep murmuring, they will envy and destroy one another. ..for everyone now strives most of all to separate his person, wishing to experience the fullness of life within himself, and yet what comes of all his efforts is not the fullness of life but full suicide, for instead of the fullness of self-definition, they fall into complete isolation."

Enlightenment:
"Filled with rapture, his soul yearned for freedom, space, vastness. Over him the heavenly dome, full of quiet, shining stars, hung boundlessly. From the zenith to the horizon the still-dim Milky Way stretched its double strand. Night, fresh and quiet, almost unstirring, enveloped the earth. The white towers and golden domes of the church gleamed in the sapphire sky. The luxuriant autumn flowers in the flowerbeds near the house had fallen asleep until morning. The silence of the earth seemed to merge with the silence of the heavens, the mystery of earth touched the mystery of the stars…"

On the good and evil in man:
"It is usually so in life that when there are two opposites one must look for truth in the middle; in the present case it is literally not so. Most likely in the first instance he was sincerely noble, and in the second just as sincerely base. Why? Precisely because we are of a broad, Karamazovian nature – and this is what I’m driving at – capable of containing all possible opposites and of contemplating both abysses at once, the abyss above us, an abyss of lofty ideals, and the abyss beneath us, an abyss of the lowest and foulest degradation."

On Love:
"I am sorry that I cannot say anything more comforting, for active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science."

"“Love is gone, Mitya!” Katya began again, “but what is gone is painfully dear to me. Know that, for all eternity. But now, for one minute, let it be as it might have been,” she prattled with a twisted smile, again looking joyfully in his eyes. “You now love another, I love another, but still I shall love you eternally, and you me, did you know that? Love me, do you hear, love me all your life!” she exclaimed with some sort of almost threatening tremor in her voice."

On Man's Inhumanity:
"People speak sometimes about the ‘animal’ cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel…I think that if the devil does not exist, and man has therefore created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness."

I love this little story...
"Once upon a time there was a woman, and she was as wicked as wicked could be, and she died. And not one good deed was left behind her. The devils took her and threw her into a lake of fire. And her guardian angel stood thinking: what good deed of hers can I remember to God? Then he remembered and said to God: once she pulled up an onion and gave it to a beggar woman. And God answered: now take that same onion, hold it out to her in the lake, let her take hold of it, and pull, and if you pull her out of the lake, she can go to paradise, but if the onion breaks, she can stay where she is. The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her: here woman, he said, take hold of it and I’ll pull. And he began pulling carefully, and had almost pulled her all the way out, when other sinners in the lake saw her being pulled out and all began holding on to her so as to be pulled out with her. But the woman was wicked as wicked could be, and she began to kick them with her feet: ‘It’s me who’s getting pulled out, not you; it’s my onion, not yours.’ No sooner did she say it than the onion broke. And the woman fell back into the lake and is burning there to this day. And the angel wept and went away."

On Religion:
"“Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer….answer me: imagine you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears – would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth.”
“No, I would not agree,” Alyosha said softly."

"And this need for communality of worship is the chief torment of each man individually, and of mankind as a whole, from the beginning of the ages. In the cause of universal worship, they have destroyed each other with the sword. They have made gods and called upon each other: ‘Abandon your gods and come and worship ours, otherwise, death to you and your gods!’ And so it will be until the end of the world, even when all gods have disappeared from the earth: they will still fall down before idols."

On remembering:
"And so, first of all, let us remember him, gentlemen, all our lives. And even though we may be involved with the most important affairs, achieve distinction or fall into some great misfortune – all the same, let us never forget how good we once felt here, all together, united by such good and kind feelings as made us, too, for the time that we loved the poor boy, perhaps better than we actually are…And even if only one good memory remains with us in our hearts, that alone may serve some day for our salvation."

On "Superman":
"“…Once mankind has renounced God, one and all (and I believe that this period, analogous to the geological periods, will come), then the entire old world view will fall of itself, without anthropophagy, and, above all, the entire former morality, and everything will be new. People will come together in order to take from life all that it can give, but, of course, for happiness and joy in this world only. Man will be exalted with the spirit of the divine, titanic pride, and then man-god will appear. Man, his will and his science no longer limited, conquering nature every hour, will thereby every hour experience such lofty delight as will replace for him all his former hopes of heavenly delight. Each will know himself utterly mortal, without resurrection, and will accept death proudly and calmly, like a god. Out of pride he will understand that he should not murmur against the momentariness of life, and he will love his brother then without any reward…”"

On valuing life:
"If I did not believe in life, if I were to lose faith in the woman I love, if I were to lose faith in the order of things, even if I were to become convinced, on the contrary, that everything is a disorderly, damned, and perhaps devilish chaos, if I were struck even by all the horrors of human disillusionment – still I would want to live, and as long as I have bent to this cup, I will not tear myself from it until I’ve drunk it all! "

As an aside, the 1958 movie version with Yul Brynner as Dmitri and (ack) William Shatner as Alexei was entertaining. The scenes with Brynner and Maria Schell as Grushenka were in particular good. ( )

Have tried more than once, will finish someday

I finished it.

Who am I to go against Joseph Conrad? Here's what he had to say about this,
and I have to concur.

“I do hope you are not too disgusted with me for not thanking you for the
“Karamazov” before. It was very good of you to remember me; and of course
I was extremely interested. But it’s an impossible lump of valuable matter. It’s
terrifically bad and impressive and exasperating. Moreover, I don’t know what Dostoevsky stands for
or reveals, but I do know that he is too Russian for me. It sounds to me like some
fierce mouthings from prehistoric ages. I understand the Russians have just
‘discovered’ him. I wish them joy.”

-from a letter to Edward Garnett (May 27, 1929)

Years of wanting to read this book, hours of reading it, now it's done. Like cleaning up a literary spill. ( )

Please forgive me a few minutes of gloating over my success at having finished this book. It's been like a millstone around my neck for years now, as I've picked up and put down this book three times now before I finally made it through to the end of the book. It was the only book I have ever put down unfinished because I found it too difficult to continue. So, I type this feeling very proud that I finally, finally finished the book.

I must say that this book is nothing like I initially thought it was based on the first 300 pages (my stopping point). What first appears as a religious tome in which the characters intone religious doctrine after doctrine, it turns into quite the murder mystery. Rather than theological in nature, the book fosters a debate on the idea of nature versus nurture in forming personalities. Like Crime and Punishment (one of my favorite books), he also explores the idea of sacrifice.

To be sure, one of the most difficult issues to overcome as a reader is the incessant dramatics and theatrics each character uses. The dialogue is unrealistic, as are some of the characters. Several of my fellow book club members felt that each character represented a caricature rather than actual humans because "no one they know would ever talk this way". I personally think this is characteristic of Russian literature in general, so it's not as off-putting as it may be for others.

Once I got past the philosophical diatribe, I really enjoyed this book. It was slow reading but worth every page. After each chapter, I was left with more food for thought, so much so that I could not put away the book after I put it down. Even as I write this, more questions come to mind about the fate of the characters.

This book has been touted as Dostoyevsky's crowning achievement. While I didn't enjoy it as much as Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky gives his audience much to think about. In fact, I suspect that someone, if it hasn't already been done, could write a dissertation on the psychology of this book. While someone in present-day U.S. might not be able to relate to the Russian peasant, at the heart of the book is human interactions, greed, love, and family relationships. These are themes which never grow old and are key to the longevity of the book. Like a good relationship, this book is challenging but worth the struggle in the end. I would recommend this book to anyone who likes Russian literature or enjoys stories that discuss the psychology of relationships. ( )

This was my second foray into Dostoevsky, and I wasn't dissapointed. Dostoevsky had a remarkable ability to capture people just as they are. His characters secret motivations are displayed for all to see in a way that is more real than any other author that I have read. Reading Dostoevsky is like looking into a mirror. Every character is so human as to be a reflection of ourselves. ( )

This is my first taste of Dostoevsky though not of Russian Classics. I explored with an open mind the lives of the three brothers set against the backdrop of the parricide of their father.

The father and his spurned offspring, the saint, the intellectual and the rake all contributing to the fathers own violent demise gripped me unlike any other. I appreciated the length of the novel that allowed Dostoevsky to fully explore the psyche of all the characters, and in a 19th century tradition, give vent to views of religion, europeanism and intellectualism.

I actually felt the end cut short and that was the only reason for a ½ star deduction. Perhaps another reading will allow me a greater appreciation of what the author was trying to achieve at this point.

I’ve have never read a book that caused me to spent so much time reflecting inwardly at my own psyche. I saw pieces of myself in all the brothers, not always a pleasant experience, Dostoevsky’s examination of them was masterful.

I have never read a better psychological character study. A novel that won’t leave you once the last page is turned. ( )

I confess this would probably get a higher rating if I'd ever finished it. ( )

Best of the best, a synthesis of all previous Dostoevsky's books. Deep, scientific and fulfilling...

- Alyosha Karamazov, a character that gave birth to an entire literature...
- Kolea Kraskotin, the remarkable kid
- father Zosima, talking on Christianity in few chapters - the theory is used in the philosophy manuals ever since (12th grade) ( )

Fyodor Pavlovich has three sons: Dmitri (Mitya) Fyodorovich, Ivan Fyodorovich, and Alexei (Alyosha) Fyodorovich. Each have been affected by their father's "sensualist" nature - dear daddy is a drunkard and carouser, and pretty much left the boys' upbringing to the servant, Grigory. Now adults, Dmitri similarly follows his father in lifestyle and currently has an argument with him regarding his mother's inheritance (added to that, his rival in love), Ivan the intellectual has rejected the idea of God and figures he can do whatever he wants, and Alyosha is training in a monastery. Soon events unfold that will affect the brothers for the rest of their lives.

This story is incredibly hard to sum up without giving spoilers. Coming in at 776 pages long, I'm not sure I would have finished it except for participating in a group read. It definitely had its dull moments, but the second half of the story was a compelling study of people driven by guilt, suffering, and more virtuous motives. I'm glad I pushed through the slower chapters and finished it. ( )

This novel is epic - it's dense, complex, and unbelievably rewarding once you finish it. So incredible to read a story that intertwines all the complexities of human character into one family - while reading the book, I saw parts of myself in all the characters... the rationalist, the tender-hearted philosopher, and of course, the sensualist. Oh how fun it is to watch the fervent nature of Mitka... And all the while, the backdrop of 19th Century Russian society is a fascinating time period to get absorbed in. I will truly miss these characters.

This is on the short list of books that have really connected me personally to the story, and left me affected with life lessons to be taught, i.e. The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Catcher in the Rye amongst a few more... ( )

With so many reviews and descriptions of this book, I'll just add my few impressions for what they're worth -- maybe two cents! I thought it was your typically too-long Russian novel; however I found it more interesting and accessible than that other famous work, War and Peace. The manicness of Dmitri, the spiritual struggle of Ivan, and the purity of Alyosha were well-developed as was the stinkiness of their father.

As to the length...somebody kills dear ol' dad and, really, who cares. The man was an evil snake. I realize this is a major part of the plot, but I got tired of visiting the scene of the crime over and over. This book could have been just as effective if it had been 200 pages shorter. Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the book for the most part even though I had to draw a Venn diagram to keep all the love convolutions straight. Some parts were downright brilliant, especially when Alyosha tries to aid the family of the boy who bit him and the appeal by Dmitri's attorney. I wish I had the luxury of reading a book of this magnitude without all the interruptions of life and other books sandwiched in (I've been reading this book for a month). Perhaps then I could better appreciate Dostoyevsky's acute attention to detail. ( )

It’s quite a simple plot really. Each brother represents a different element of society. There’s the religious humanitarian, the scoundrel and the one that no one can quite place. Add some life-changing events into the mix and then sit back and see how they all react. Oh… and cos it’s the 19th century, let’s sermonise about a whole range of topics on the way. Voila, The Brothers Karamazov.

This was removed from the 2008 edition of the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. There was outcry, but having read others by Fyodor, I can understand why.

If I had not read three other of his novels and, in particular, I had never read Crime & Punishment, I’d probably think this was a masterpiece. It’s good and it’s one of the world’s greatest. But compared to his other works, I think it’s tame.

In essence, it’s all of Notes from the Underground, Crime & Punishment and the Idiot condensed into one novel. Sounds like a fantastic epic but it isn’t at all. Instead, it’s a watered down edit of them. Notes from the Underground is profound in its challenge to consider the great questions of a person’s existence. C&P is profound in its exploration of human motivation, guilt, law and grace. The Idiot is a (admittedly slightly less) profound character study and illustration of Russian society.

Brothers has a little bit of all of these and, as a result, it’s an abridgement. And the ending is flat - totally flat. It’s absolutely not the way the last written words of Dostoevsky should have been.

So, if you’re pushed for time and need to read one Dostoevsky by all means choose this one. But if you want the heart and soul of the man, head into the other three and feast on their themes. ( )

This book is listed just about everywhere as a "must read". I have had the book on my shelves for a few years and grew bored with it easily. I am now a big fan of the group read as I think this finally gave me the encouragement to finish this lengthy novel.

I am glad that I have read it, and this book is a great tool for discussions of socialism, philosophy, and religion. Parts of it are torture to read, and others are riveting.

The story is that of the tumultuous relationship of Fydoor Karamazov and his sons, Dmitri, Ivan, and Alexy. Complete with drunken debauchery, greed, and treatises on heaven versus hell and good versus evil, the Brothers Karamazov is best read in small segments. ( )

“Here however, we have not a simple murder, but a parricide! That impresses....”

I had heard that The Brothers Karamazov was one of the best books ever written. A book that every Reader must accomplish at some point in their lifetime. So when I came upon a group of pilgrims tossing around the idea of approaching it, I got onboard. Quite frankly, I wanted their companionship for the voyage. This book is quite a bit meatier than my standard fare. I wanted to read it and was afraid of it all at the same time. Afraid that I would get lost in the patronymics, that I would give up in the first 200 pages, that it would be completely over my head. First I must say that it was much more approachable, and readable, than I feared it would be. The patronymics did not give me much trouble at all. When I reached Book Two I almost gave up. This book was the epitome of what I didn’t want to read. But I endured, I skimmed a little and hoped for the best. Book Three was my salvation. And so it was, throughout the rest of tome. Some parts uphill, a test of my fortitude and some parts like a sled ride downhill, heart pounding away. The monologues on socialism, the church, etc, were hard to endure. For me, the book works best as a murder mystery, a courtroom drama. In fact, if all the philosophy were cut and the plot elements were pulled out into a ‘good parts’ version, I would have a copy on my shelves. But I must remember the time period this book was written in. I fear I am too much of a modern reader. I am glad that I read it, I did enjoy the story, but it’s not a keeper for me.

Favorite quotes:

“Very well then - tell me the truth, squash me like a cockroach.”

“In schools children are a tribe without mercy.”

“I have, as it were, torn my soul in half before you, and you have taken advantage of it and are rummaging with your fingers in both halves along the torn place...O God!” ( )

The author totally screws over the intellectual character and totally white-washes the religious one, and also pretty much back-peddles from his (awesome) social criticism with what is quite frankly a really weak ending, but it's still a great book. Of course I haven't read it in 20 years and so these opinions are what I thought of it then - I may think differently now :) ( )

So far I've failed to get into this book - I've tried several times and reach a point that defeats me. Perhaps I need the Classic Comics? ( )

I wanted to read this book for many many years. I had heard it was one of the greatest books ever written. Once I'd read it I realized it was much more than that. Highest recommendation. ( )

A character in Slaughterhouse-Five says, "Everything there was to know about life was in The Brothers Karamazov," and I wholeheartedly agree. This is a beautiful, and inspiring novel whose sheer depth is astounding.

I know that many readers are put off by its length, but I believe everyone must read The Brothers Karamazov at some point in their lives. There is simply nothing else like it.

As for me, I must go and find myself more Dostoevsky to read now :) ( )

In this classic Russian novel, Dostoevsky develops intricate character studies of three brothers. One is spiritual (a monk), another intellectual (an academic) and the third is a hedonist, easily overwhelmed by his passions (ex-military). Each shares some of the qualities of the father, a man who neglects and misuses them. After a brutal murder and robbery, suspicion falls on the oldest, most volatile, brother. Through the course of their hardships and finally a lengthy courtroom trial, the brothers are brought together, and come to understand themselves and each other. In many ways an astonishingly modern work, this book is a fascinating read, combining complex philosophical questions with an engaging plot. However it lacks the focus of contemporary novels, often saying in twenty-five pages what might be said more effectively in five, especially in passages of dialogue. Surprisingly, even at 800 pages, it feels unfinished. It was written in installments in a periodical, then published in one volume, but many believe that Dostoevsky intended to continue the tale in a second collection. Alas, he died shortly after it was finished. In any case, this is a fine story to while away a winter’s day (or ten), and is well worth the time spent on it. ( )

At 13, this book BLEW me away! It opened doors in so many directions there were crosswinds shaking my brain. ( )