On the Criticism of his Novel

“Dostoevsky’s own faith derives its strength from the fact that he has himself passed through atheism. Commenting on the critics of The Brothers Karamazov, he wrote contemptuously,

‘The dolts have ridiculed my obscurantism and the reactionary character of my faith. These fools could not even conceive so strong a denial of God as the one to which I gave expression . . . The whole book is an answer to that . . . You might search Europe in vain for so powerful an expression of atheism. Thus it is not like a child that I believe in Christ and confess Him. My hosanna has come forth from the very crucible of doubt.’”


I found it interesting. The Unnamable basically forced me to read "The Grand Inquisitor," and I haven't yet finished the entire novel.

Any thoughts from readers who have read the work (or anyone else)?

The Brothers Karamozov is magnificent. "The Grand Inquisitor" is an amazing chapter. It is this novel that contains the famous line (paraphrased here) "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

I'm currently reading the novel for the second time - the first time was probably three years ago. Dostoyevsky's right - Ivan is his most fascinating character, and he is a very clever, devastating atheist.

I'd be interested in what you think of the novel - it's been so long since I read it that I forgot much of what happened (hence my second reading). I remember hearing that many Christians consider this Dostoyevsky's most profound novel - a real examination of faith.

I personally believe Smerdyakov's and Dmitri's existences in the novel are severely underrated. Dmitri defines a level of dogged obstinacy even as he knows he is guilty in the eyes of justice while Smerdyakov is a supercilious, yet subservient grouch who at times seems complacent and smug. I agree that Ivan is an intricately devised character and easily one of the most profound sub-characters in great literature but I also believe there are so many other characters in this profound novel which seem to lack deserved attention (Fyodor Pavlovitch, Grushenka, Ilusha, Smurov, his older brother and Zossimov).

The Grand Inquisitor is, without a doubt a sublime chapter which intellectually examines the roots of faith and the paradoxes of its belief. As of now I'm on a very tight study schedule and don't have much time to re-read the wonderful classics on the long list of books I've already read, but I would love to give The Brother's Karamazov a second look from time to time.

*looks longingly at copy sitting on shelf*

I'll be reading it over the summer. The comments here are only making me more anxious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The Brothers Karamozov is magnificent. "The Grand Inquisitor" is an amazing chapter. It is this novel that contains the famous line (paraphrased here) "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

---

And The Rebellion before The Grand Inquisitor, what to say...
Definitly the best book I have ever read, I think I will read it again this summer, 3 years from reading it passed very quickly!

I have just finished the book and I am happy I did it. It is certainly a masterpiece, I agree with you that ''The Rebellion'' and ''The Great Inquisitor'' are great chapters. I also think that the chapter in which Ivan has got a large discussion with the devil is also very interesting.
What do you think about the end of the book? The epilogue? I didn't like it too much, it wasn't too rewarding for a person who read the entire book. Don't misunderstand me, I loved the book, but I think that Dostoevsky could have written a far more nice end... this one didn't create any rare feeling in my heart, like the two chapters mentioned above did.
And about Dmitri, I wonder, is it any possibility of him killing Feodor Pavlovici? I think not, but I want to be sure: it's absolutely certain that Smerdeakov commited the crime? Could Smerdeakov lie when he told Ivan so? I hope he didn't, because I do symphatize with Dmitri, as with all the brothers except Smerdeakov.
And was Ivan really an atheist, or was he searching for the truth?

Yes, and devil says homo sum et nihil humanum a me alienum puto...How ironic, isn't it?
You probably wanted to see Dimitri on freedom with Grushyenka and Alyosha happy...What can I say, Dostoevskian ending :D
No, I don't think Dimitri could kill his father, they were in fight but Dimitry lived normal life without him, who could always go away from him. Smerdyakov is the most evil character in all books I've seen. Instead of being in same position like his brothers, living peaceful and pleasant life; his is poor servant to his own family,and almost everyone is fooling with him and his illness. What hate had to lean in his hart to his father...
He killed his own father he who hated the most, then made it look like his brother and then took his own life to assure Dimitri wll be punished. His dead is just a prove of his hate and desire to make them suffer at least a bit how he suffered. With him alive, Alyosha could maybe even prove something.
Now Alyosha can only say that he killed himself to assure Mitya will be sentenced. And on court that probably doesn't sound too serious...Really amazing.
I wouldn't say that Ivan is atheist, rather to agree with you. He was a religious, but now his great knowledge doesn't let him to accept some religious things and therefore, he's searching for answers and sense in world around him.

I agree, it was definitely Smerdyakov - Ivan could perhaps have imagined his whole "third and last meeting" with him and simply produced his own money at court, and the prosecutor does bring this up, but of course the money he had cashed the other day had been given in its entirety to Katerina Ivanovna (something like 10K roubles, I believe it was).
Smerdyakov definitely was not lying - if he had obtained the money by any means other than killing the old man (supposing it was before his "falling fit"), he could simply have left for Europe to be a "gentleman" like he wanted. I'm pretty convinced that Dostoevsky isn't playing with us here. (Although I've been known to be wrong...)

Anyway, on my own initial thoughts: I finished this about half an hour ago, and I still have the remnants of tears under my eyes...
I actually thought the ending was fantastic; after that wildly serious, endless business of Dmitri's trial, we have, of all things, children! I very much liked Alyosha's speech to the group - he's my favorite character in a way, so I was glad to end it with him and Kolya Krasotkin - and, when I considered afterwards that I still do not feel certain about Dmitri's "escape", I was actually left wondering how much it really matters...
Fetyukovich - brilliant! Dosto endlessly impresses me with this knack for seeing things from every conceivable perspective. I love it!

In brief, this ending didn't piss me off the way C&P's did, and I will certainly be reading it again in a couple years.

What was it that pissed you off about C&P's ending? I thought it was a suitable ending personally, and really didn't have any issues with it.

TBK also had the most spectacular ending of any book I've ever read. It left me completely emotionally drained. I had to go to bed straight afterwards :p

I just thought I'd register here and make a few posts, because I'd love to take part in these discussions. I really should re-read TBK sometime in the future.

Welcome to the Forum, Dublo7! (Fun username)
Well, "piss off" was probably a bit strong on my part, but I wasn't able to accept the ending in the same way I could the rest of the novel...er, most of it. R's "conversion", or whatever one wishes to call it, just did not seem appropriate to me after everything that had happened. It's been over a year since I've read it though, so I'd have to go back to articulate my objection better. I thought I was missing something at first (maybe I still am), but I was surprised to find, when I read in the introduction to my edition (Modern Library), that it's been criticized for it basically since it was published (I think it was R.L. Stevenson who called it a "pious lie"). The rest of the novel made since to me in a way that the Epilogue did not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamesian

*looks longingly at copy sitting on shelf*

i'll be reading it over the summer. The comments here are only making me more anxious...

---

i know!

I felt the ending strongly implied that the prison warden would be bribed and that Dmitri would walk away at some barren rail station and head to America. I wasn't too disappointed about that part.

Ivan is the perfect atheist and it's clear where it got him. His relativism influenced Smerdyakov to kill F.K. and to feel entirely justified by it. Ivan then lost his mind and died. I have said so in another thread, but the devil stated that his philosophy was the same as Ivan's. Dmitri was a "sensualist" like his father and in the end, his own philosophy haunted him as he pathetically sought out Grushenka who used him merely for entertainment purposes. Alyosha went through his own trial and error stage in the book and he comes out all the stronger for it, though he had to reconcile his own dependency on Father Zossima and seeing the world as it is upon his urging.

No one mentions this in the thread, but Ivan believed himself to be complicit in the murder. Smerdyakov told him when to make himself scarce, and he did so, knowing what would/might happen. So if you asked Ivan who the murderer was, he might have trouble giving a straightforward answer.