A Spiritual and Philosophical Tour-de-Force

At 39 years old, this is my first reading of "Brothers K". From the first chapter, this title was nearly impossible to put down. Upon completion, this book immediately rocketed to the top of my all-time favorite reads. Glorious!

"How did one person write this book?" is the question I ask myself over and over. And to think that this title was only HALF of what Dostoyevsky really wanted to finish: just outrageous! The absence of this second volume due to his death is perhaps one of the greatest losses in the history of world literature. To consider the circumstances of the author's life (the death of his real-life epileptic son Allyosha, the murder of his real-life father, etc.) and how they intertwine with this title is near overwhelming.

I can't even begin to offer a degree of plot summary that does this title justice. Perhaps the best advice to the new reader is to not worry over memorizing the convoluted Karamozov family tree (ex-wives, distant relatives, etc.). Stick to the father (Fydor), the three brothers (Mitya, Ivan and Allyosha), the four women (Katya, Grusha, Madame Hoklakov, Lise), the servant family (Grigory, Marfa and Smerdyakov) and the four monks (Zossima, Rakitin, Ferapont and Paissy). By the time other characters are introduced later in the book (the children, the captain's family, the courtroom, etc.), you'll be ready for them.

This translation (Garnett) is indeed great for first-timers and Gregory's narration is knockout. Every minute of this title is meant to be savored--relax, be prepared for brilliance around every corner and enjoy what surely must be one of the best rational, spiritual and philosophical reads I'll ever experience in my life. "Hurrah for Karamozov"--then, now, and for generations to come!

178 people found this helpful

How can we judge what is in a person's heart?

Any additional comments?

I wonder what inspired Dostoyevsky to write this novel? During the trial it is mentioned that there was a woman in St. Petersburg who had given birth and then killed the infant, hiding the little body and then later it was discovered she had done this numerous times. I wonder if, assuming that story is true, Dostoyevsky began to wonder about how difficult it would be to forgive someone like that, to see into their heart and find something good. This novel is, after all, about that very idea, the idea of never being able to know what goodness really lies in another persons heart and how difficult it is, or even how inappropriate it is, to judge anyone, no matter how evil they have been.

The novel ends with a promise, a promise that all the boys and Aloysha will never forget each other, never forget little Ilyusha, and never forget the goodness of their childhood memory together. Even, if later, they grow cynical or do many terrible things, Aloysha asks them to always remember this one good moment in their life because it may save them someday, just as an onion almost saved another sinner. Those small moments of goodness could, at least in the eyes of God, be the one link to salvation for even the most terrible sinner.

The novel also deals with the questions of faith and belief and it is these parts I found most fascinating because Dostoyevsky makes the strongest case I've yet heard that counters the scientific arguments of logic and reason. And while I think Dostoyevsky was too hard on science and too opposed to the good science can do for humanity, he does show how logic and reason can absolutely condemn an innocent person. At times I wondered if Dostoyevsky was trying to tell us it would be better just to forgive all criminals and then let God figure it all out later.

And that's the real issue here: forgiveness. How difficult is it really to forgive someone. Not just any regular sinner either, but a person who has done something horribly terrible. And what sort of world would we live in if we did, in fact, forgive everyone easily? A world where we forgive a terrorist or the rapist of a child? Can we even imagine such things? In the character Smerdyakov we have someone who is cunning and ruthless and who takes advantage of the people around him, but we never really know why he does what he does. Smerdyakov is the closest character to the 'main villain', but we never get his own thoughts, we only see him through the eyes of others. He is difficult to forgive because we don't know him, yet this is exactly they point Dostoyevsky is trying to make: we MUST forgive Smerdyakov, he is in the greatest need of it as Father Zosima alluded to earlier in the novel.

Dostoyevsky is not foolish enough to think that we can always forgive, however. He knows we will always be carried away by our emotions and passions. He knows those passions will lead us to do terrible things and to also condemn others, too. He quite clearly sees the onion layers that make up human interactions, the dual nature of all people who can be both good and bad at the same time. He knows how complicated people really are. But he also plants that seed of doubt in our mind while reading this novel as to if we really are qualified to pass judgment on any person. He wants us to know that nothing is what it seems and even when we are positive we know a person we might very well be wrong about them. He's showing us the danger of gossip, of judgment, of not walking in another person's shoes. And he's also showing us how we are all conflicted, how we ebb and flow between goodness and sin and even how what we perceive in others as sin might actually be virtue as in the case of little Ilyusha and his father, Captain Snegiryov, or even the Grand Inquisitor who though his actions go against God he is actually doing so because he is for God.

Then there is the faith question, the tricky nature of how faith works. Here he shows us that if God himself showed up at our doorstep and said "I am God, here I am", we would actually doubt the existence of God even more. But the lack of any proof of God, the absence of proof is the very thing that is needed for their to be faith. If we know for certain there is the possibility of salvation at the end of life then what point would life have since that would take away our own free will? We would already know beforehand if we are saved or doomed so why bother going through the motions?

The book even goes so far as to make me want to be a better person. I found myself questioning my own opinions and judgments of others while at work and out and about town. I started wondering what sort of life each person I saw was really living, how good or how bad, what tragedy or joy they were dealing with. I started to wonder if perhaps you could just do away with all the different religions in the world and have everyone read this novel instead.

And even as I write this it does sound rather absurd and I can imagine anyone reading this saying "Well clearly this person has a religious agenda", but that's not the case. In fact there is no way I could convince you that I don't have an agenda because you can't see into my own heart and know how I really feel about this subject. All I can say is that I was sincerely moved by this novel and that it makes me want to look at the world differently and that I had a better understanding of belief and faith than when I began the novel.

This book is not some "depressing Russian tome", but aside from its philosophical and theological nature it is a well plotted family novel and murder mystery. Like all of Dostoyevsky's other works it's wordy and characters seem to speak in long speeches, but it's never boring - even when it is. Dostoyevsky also makes a great counter to Tolstoy in that Tolstoy allowed you to see into a character's mind where Dostoyevsky is always more interested in looking into his heart.

This is a novel of great compassion and is one of my favorite reading experiences I've ever had.

141 people found this helpful

Best "Karamazov" yet.

Constantine Gregory decided to give a reading of the Constance Garnett translation of "The Brothers Karamazov". Constance Garnett is no longer considered the best translator of Dostoevsky. She goes to great length to "pretty up" the rather rough and bumpy language of the original. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky’s new translation of "The Brothers Karamazov" is now regarded by most critics to be definitive as it does not try to mask Dostoyevskys idiosyncratic prose.

Gregory gives a rather calm and relaxed rendering of the work, which is nice in the long run.
My dream "audio" Karamazov would be David Horovitch narrating the Pevear and Volokhonsky’s translation.
However as it stands now, this version by Constantine Gregory is the best "Karamazov" available.

184 people found this helpful

Worth The Effort

Would you consider the audio edition of The Brothers Karamazov to be better than the print version?

Yes. I need the momentum of the audio version, during some of those long Russian monologues. I like alternating between audio and text. This audio is the Constance Garnett translation which sounds good on audio.

What did you like best about this story?

I liked that the characters surprised me. I liked the world of the story, the sense of sacredness, the way that big questions were brought up in conversation. It's a lot different from the everyday world of today.

What does Constantine Gregory bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

He was very subtle in his character work. I could distinguish characters most of the time. Sometimes I could not. He did a wonderful job overall.

Was this a book you wanted to listen to all in one sitting?

No. It took a few weeks.

Any additional comments?

I'm glad I listened to it. It was a difficult book, but it was ambitious.

40 people found this helpful

great reader

read it and heard audio, too. recommend that kindle book be downloaded at same time.

13 people found this helpful

Wowee Zowee!

Do yourself a favor and listen to this rendition. I had to buy three different versions before I found this one. Don’t bother with the abridged version. That’s like reading an abridged version of “Gone with the Wind “- She didn’t love him. She did love him. He didn’t give a damn.”

You know how when you were a kid you wondered what was so great about the “classics”? Was it just old people thinking their stuff is the best? LOL
Then you grow up and realize that some books go beyond explanation. I read Brothers Karamazov when I was young but not much if it stuck. I’ve always been a vociferous reader and still am but a great narrator like Constantine Gregory brings a long book like this to life. He could not have done a better job.

As for the book, I do not understand why I liked it so much. I shouldn’t. Its wordy yet wordy is the very reason I don’t enjoy Dylan Thomas. Sometimes he goes off on a seemingly unrelated tangents But I don’t mind that either. I can’t say I’m crazy about the ending but it didn’t bother me like some do. Maybe because it was honest. All I know is, with so much mediocrity, thank god for classics, old and new.

Maybe you can’t explain a classic. Maybe, classics last because regardless of technology or fashion, the basic humanity that connects us, remains. The need to be loved, sadness when we are not, shame when we are at our worst and the complicated nature of human relationships are as true today as they were 200 or 2,000 years ago.

24 people found this helpful

Great Story; Great Narrator

If you're going to listen to someone for 36 hours, they better be just right, and this guy was amazing. He was able to give the different characters the subtlest of vocal differentiation so that the story and its many plots and and subplots did not get too confusing in an an audiobook format.

The story was very long, but rewarding. There is a reason this book is a much loved classic. If you have a couple if long road trips, this is the book for you.

15 people found this helpful

Slow start, long, gets better

Hard to get past the beginning but eventally all the chapters tie together. Long book but good.

2 people found this helpful

I loved this story! The reader brings it to life!

He puts such expression into the dialogue, that I feel I know each of the characters personally. Wonderful wonderful performance!!

16 people found this helpful

Riveting, if not for the drunken geldings

Dostoevsky's fascinating exploration of religion, Russia, family and evil -- the 3 Brothers Karamazov -- is likely one of the top 10 novels of all time.

Maybe I'm mellowing. I found Dostoevsky's THE IDIOT more enjoyable and compelling. I also prefer Tolstoy.

A general thought and criticism of Dostoevsky's work: though I don't know much of Dostoevsky's background, I believe he was mistreated by the opposite sex; I find his females hysterical (and I don't use that term to mean "extremely funny").

An assessment of the narration: the narrator has 2 of the 4 important male characters, the father and son Dmitri, neighing like drunken geldings.

15 people found this helpful