Finally finished

[Psynema]

After 9 months on and off (exhausting read).

Thoughts...

1. I think you have to be christian to really like this book - I'm still a proud atheist LOL, never been religious so many of the references went over my head.

2. What do you think happened to Ivan and Mitka? Does the epilogue at the end foreshadow anything? Is alyosha speaking about ivan/Mitka and not Illushka at the funeral? Sad as I don't think either brother has that "happy childhood memory" Alyosha speaks of. Although Illushka dies it brings the children together and sad to say the guilty verdict is the closest the three brothers have been.

3. Does Illushka dying allude to ivan/dimitri dying - Alyosha's speech at times comes off as sappy until you realize he's probably going to go through one or both of their deaths in the immediate future, so part me thinks there's a purposeful mirroring of the boys to the brothers. I guess Kolya is a mini Ivan before Alyosha intervenes. Not so sure on Illyushka.

4. The Peasants stood up and voted Mitka guilty - that seemed to come from nowhere - what is the deal with that? It seemed like a briefly "thrown in" commentary not developed in the book and abandoned afterwards. Not quite sure on the moral of that comment ie "the peasants had their say". Is it greed on their part, envious of Mitka's lifestyle/Fyodor's well-to-do ness. Or maybe commenting on Mitka's greed, forgetting the needy until it is too late? That dream he had of the starving/homeless people also seemed like a random "throw in".

5. The prosecutor's speech - my god my most hated/boring chapters. Though it does help point out a strong moral of the book - sometimes a THOUGHT is just as powerful as A PESTLE. Mitka is guilty not of the murder, but being a base individual, and ditto for Ivan. Raskolnikov actually had to remorse over his murder because he was actually guilty, but Mitka's arch is quite different. I'd think he'd get furious at the injustice and it would cloud his recovery and salvation, but he seems defeated. I guess he accepts the fact he can't blame anyone for thinking he's guilty and recognized his character did him in...but part of me is still suspicious of him.

6. The writing itself (I read the Pevear version) - MY GOD was Dostoevsky paid by the word? I loved his other books, but this seems like a completely different writer. I know it was an innovative book at the time - one of the first novels to do so much character switching and narrator commentary. All Fyodor's other classics were known for being deep individual character studies, so this is quite different. But anyway...

Garnett was criticized for omitting sections - I can honestly see why - I know changing a classic is frowned upon, but I'd love to see this book abridged...way too much supercilious descriptions etc. And a lot of awkward clause placements that could be more efficiently condensed. It's too easy to get confused to which character the pronouns (he / she) are referring to quite often. And a few mistakes, like Kolya's mother being 30, yet Kolya was born when she was 18 and he's now 13 and her husband died 14 years ago...odd math. There are some clunky sentences like "with an errand to her besides"...odd wording. I may not be sold on Pevear. I know it's supposedly close to the Russian as can be...but their word order, clause structure is not the same. I compared Monas' Crime and Punisment to Pevear's and thought Monas upstaged them - Pevear's reads like an android by comparison.

I do plan on rereading this in the future (not the immediate future) but may pick up another version like 5-10 years from now. Many gripe about Garnett, but anyone have experience with MacAndrew or Katzner?

[bazarov]

Originally Posted by Psynema

After 9 months on and off (exhausting read).

Thoughts...

1. I think you have to be christian to really like this book - I'm still a proud atheist LOL, never been religious so many of the references went over my head.

What does religion have with understanding the plot?

2. What do you think happened to Ivan and Mitka? Does the epilogue at the end foreshadow anything? Is alyosha speaking about ivan/Mitka and not Illushka at the funeral? Sad as I don't think either brother has that "happy childhood memory" Alyosha speaks of. Although Illushka dies it brings the children together and sad to say the guilty verdict is the closest the three brothers have been.

Dostoevsky planed to write another book about Alyosha but he never did. Ivan obviously gone mad, would probably die very soon.

3. Does Illushka dying allude to ivan/dimitri dying - Alyosha's speech at times comes off as sappy until you realize he's probably going to go through one or both of their deaths in the immediate future, so part me thinks there's a purposeful mirroring of the boys to the brothers. I guess Kolya is a mini Ivan before Alyosha intervenes. Not so sure on Illyushka.

Did you get the feeling that Ivan is intellectually afraid of someone like Kolya is of Alyosha?

5. The prosecutor's speech - my god my most hated/boring chapters. Though it does help point out a strong moral of the book - sometimes a THOUGHT is just as powerful as A PESTLE.

Read comments about book (if they are in the book).

6. The writing itself (I read the Pevear version) - MY GOD was Dostoevsky paid by the word? I loved his other books, but this seems like a completely different writer. I know it was an innovative book at the time - one of the first novels to do so much character switching and narrator commentary. All Fyodor's other classics were known for being deep individual character studies, so this is quite different. But anyway...

They were paid per page.
Ivan and Alyosha are not deep enough? Do you see a big difference from Prince, Raskolnikov and Underground man? You can maybe say something against Zosima (which I doubt, he played his role) or Mitya, but this whole idea is...ridiculous!

[mea505]

Once again, bazarov came through with a very well-written response to someone's input and list of questions! This is what I like about him -- he dives into the material and provides honest answers to people's questions!

Mark

[Mathor]

Originally Posted by Psynema

1. I think you have to be christian to really like this book - I'm still a proud atheist LOL, never been religious so many of the references went over my head.

I feel like you must've enjoyed it to some extent or you wouldn't have posted such an extensive review, so I think you enjoyed it although Atheist. I feel like some sort of backround with the church helps in understanding the lives of the characters, though I think any religion can appreciate Dostoevsky.

[Gladys]

Originally Posted by Mathor

though I think any religion can appreciate Dostoevsky

Since Dostoevsky, like Ibsen, does allude to Christian narratives, understanding allegorical overtones in his novels is problematic for many readers. Still, most Christian readers also fail to see these allusions while still enjoying the novels. For me, these scriptural overtones are the real fireworks, and particularly so in the endings.

[Rodya]

I just finished like yourself, though I read it over a period of 3 weeks. I was at the cottage, and completely engrossed by it, so I never really stopped.

I am an athiest, thought spiritual, and I never had any problems regarding that. As you must have noticed, as I too read the Peaver translation, the references were mostly referenced in the back. They are not thorough, but most of the religious allusions are not imperative to the main theme of the story.

I will agree with you that the prosecutors speech was quite tedious to get through. I read quite fast, and I still found myself losing my train of though. Though, after reading the Defense attorneys closing speech, it tied it all together. I found his insight into Psychology and its "double edged" nature fascinating and accurate, and I enjoyed reading it. If I was reading it over a long time, though, I could see how that speech would be annoying.

I noticed Bazarov did not answer the question about Mitya, and lord knows I can. I was dissapointed, obviously, because I came to love Mitya, but I expected a guilty verdict... It would just be far too miraculous and not at all like Dostoevsky to let him off. What he meant by the peasants speaking up, I am not sure.

Overall, I loved the book. I think it is his best work I have read yet, and am reading The Idiot currently. I loved Raskolnikov, and the venomous Underground man, but I could read about the Karamazovian sensualists for hours on end.

[Gladys]

Originally Posted by Rodya

I think it is his best work I have read yet, and am reading The Idiot currently.

I too adored The Brothers Karamazov read long ago, and remember well my vain anger at Mitya's fate. Tellingly The Idiot, read more recently, does not suffer by comparison.