This summer we will be reading Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Printable View
This summer we will be reading Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky.
Please post your comments and questions in this thread.
Just what I need another fat book to read. Haha, though I do really want to read this one, right now I am already reading two books that are around 800 pages, though luckily I am almost finished with the other two.
Haha, I have already been reading this book for the past month - how fortunate that it turns out to be the LitNet summer reading. Right now I'm on Part III, if I remember correctly.
Looking forward to the discussion here :-)
I gotta read Mountains Beyond Mountains first...and then I'll start. I made this my FB book club book for July to help me to stay motivated until the end.
Oh --What translations are we all reading and how'd you pick?
Cool it won. Thanks for letting me know, Scher. I bought the book awhile ago and have wanted to read it. I haven't read anything in ages; so here is my chance to immerse myself in some reading. I enjoyed "The Idiot", so I am sure I will find this book special too, even if it is a really thick book.
I guess I can give it a go since the last time it was chosen I didn't finish it.
I've got my copy and I'm ready to go. Let's hope we have a long summer!:smile5:
For anyone who likes audiobooks, you can get the whole book at Librivox free. I just downloaded the first several chapters in MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the audiobook directly in itunes. I did that, too...saw it after I did the first download. I can wear my headphones around and listen while I do housework or chores.
Will this be a three month read? I was pleased to know the reading is of the Constance Garnet translation - since my book is also. Wowy, it's a long novel but it sounds exciting enough to hold my interest.
Oh great! For such a long book, would it be possible if we had the discipline to discuss parts of the novel at a time? The novel is divided into four Parts. Why don't we do a Part at a time and then at the end have discussion for the entire novel? It will make our discussions go smoother I think.
By the way, I have the new Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. I don't think there is that much of a difference between translations. The Garnett was translated almost a hundred years ago now, so I suspect the P&V (which has gotten great reviews) is a bit more accurate. I don't think that will make a difference to us.
That's the one I've got, too. I am hoping it facilitates easier reading the way the newest translation of Count of Monte Cristo did for me. I plowed through that book because the modern language made it much easier to read. It's been an interesting thing to me, to watch my ideas about translations grow and change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't know about the discussing in parts--it seems like that might be difficult in this format, unless there are four different threads. I like the idea of discussing it that way, but I am unsure about the practicality of it <wishes there was a scratching head smilie>
Ah man, I still have to finish The Shadow of the Wind...I'll do it this weekend.
I have the Andrew McAndrew translation, which I've heard is quite easy to read. Obviously the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is the one you really want, as it's most faithful to the original.
I'm quite excited about starting! :lurk5:
We discussed DH Lawrence's Women In Love chapter by chapter. It worked out well. There are too many chapters to do it with TBK, and four parts is acutally quite managable, and if someone goes beyond the part of discussion, no one is going to get their knuckles rapped. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by _Shannon_
I picked mine up two days ago. I was afraid everyone else would be finished.
With this book?! I suspect it will take me two months to read. But I'm already halfway into it, on Book VIII, having started it a month ago, so I should be able to keep up with all the fast readers here :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
Oh, and did I say that I love it so far? It starts out great, and it stays that way. I especially love the beginning scene with Fyodor Pavlovich at the elder's. Haha, I laughed so hard :-) I love that man - he's quite a character.
I have read Brothers three times, and have enjoyed it more each time. The only novel which comes close to Brothers is Don Quixote. After reading the novel, try to find a VHS recording of the 1950s movie. For some reason it has never been put on dvd. In the movie, Yul Brynner is Dimitri, Richard Basehart is Ivan, and a very young Captain Kirk is Alyosha. I don't remember the actor's name, but the bastard brother was nominated for an academy award. Fyodor Karamazov is superbly played by Lee J. Cobb. Claire Bloomi is Dimitri's intended, with Maria Schell as Grushenka. It's too bad this classic movie seems to have been lost.
I didn't know that dfloyd. Sounds like it's worth seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
Thanks! I'll have to check out the library to see if they have it!Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
I just finished Book 1 and so far I am already really enjoying it and I find that it actually does read pretty quickly. It is easy to get into and it has nice short chapters and leaves you just wanting to read more. I cannot wait to see what happens next.
I listened to chapter 1 last night. I just downloaded the next four chapters, since they are short and you long to devour more, as Dark Muse has pointed out.
I just started reading Book II and I find the meeting in the monastery to be quite hysterical.
I loved this passage, because I agree, I think that those who have a tendency to take offence as everything, do it because they simply enjoy being offended, it makes them feel self-important.
Quote:
The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Yeah, the prose is pretty straight-forward, so it doesn't take long to turn a page. It's also pretty enjoyable, too. Maybe Alyosha's sub-plot gets a little tiresome in the middle of the novel, but for the most part it's a good, quick read (for a 900 page monster). The story also gets better as the novel goes progresses. Really, the best parts are further on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I saw that a while back ago. Funny, I never even noticed Shatner (talk about a different role for him). The cast was good, though. The actor they got for Dmitri was excellent. I had always imagined Dmitri as a larger, more imposing presence, but I think the movie did a great job capturing his intensity. The movie avoided the usual pitfall for adaptations: trying to show everything the novel showed. So often that makes adaptations impossible to follow, as you rush from one scene and one set of characters to another. The movie cut BK down to pretty much Dmitri and his story, and was at least able to make that work. The other brothers come off more as minor players (which is unfortunate, but necessary), and they mess up the ending (which was both unfortunate and unnecessary). It also emphasizes the love triangle thing a little too much. It becomes almost a soap opera at times (she loves him, but he's in love with someone else! Oh, no!). But, overall, it followed the plot and was very watchable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
That's a good quotation to start off with. It's a funny piece of Fyodor's buffoonery, but there's also a serious point being made. So much of what the story will hinge upon is the idea of intention, and the father is giving a little insight into how that works. Throughout the novel, characters will claim or act as though there's some one-to-one relationship between cause and effect, intention and action; yet, what the novel portrays time and again is that there is no one single impulse behind an action, but rather a range of possible actions that characters choose among for many reasons. For example, when Dostoevsky compares Smerdyakov with a peasant depicted in a certain painting he gives the reader a range of different possible outcomes for these characters rather than a single fate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Again, it's not a one-to-one relationship between "hoarding up his impressions" and an action. Rather, there's a range of possible actions that Dostoevsky relates to us subjunctively with "perhaps" this and "perhaps" that. This character can burn a village or take a pilgrimage. Or, he can do both. There's a range of possibilities here.Quote:
He stands, as it were, lost in thought. Yet he is not thinking; he is "contemplating." If any one touched him he start and look at one as though awakening and bewildered. . . . if he were asked what he had been thing about, he would remember nothing. Yet probably he has hidden with himself, the impression which had dominated him during the period of contemplation, Those impression are dear to him and no doubt he hoards them imperceptibly, and even unconsciously. . . . He may suddenly, after hording impressions for many years, abandon everything and go off to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage for his soul's salvation, or perhaps he will suddenly set fire to his native village, and perhaps do both. There are a good many "contemplatives" among the peasantry. Well, Smerdyakov was most likely one of them, and he most likely was greedily hoarding up his impression, hardly knowing why. (BK, 150)
Similarly, in the bit of dialogue from the father, Fyodor shows that it isn't simply an offense is given and then an offense is taken, but rather that possibility of taking an offense is opened up and then a person chooses to be offended for a variety of reasons. This distinction becomes key later on in the book. For more on this reading, you could look Gary Morson's book Narrative and Freedom (1994). He spells this out more clearly than I can in a few hundred words.
Although I like Yul Brynner very much, I don't think he was cut for the role of Dmitri. Yul's posture is too dignified, too proud. It isn't the way I pictured Dmitri at all. For me, Dmitri is an uncontrollable, impulsive and foolish man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Anyway, as I see it, through 4 brothers Dostoevsky tried to depicture 4 different life paths:
Dmitri - "the way of the animal"; food, sex and violence :biggrin5: which leads to destruction of self or others
Ivan - the way of the mind; rationalizing everything and everyone which leads to madness
Aleksey - the way of faith and human compassion
Smerdyakov - nihilisim
Ack!!! I think my book is buried in my storage closet. I know I bought it for the last go around but now I can't find it.
I wanted to pass on a word on encouragement and a feeling of envy.
Having just completed TBK this past April, I can tell you from experience, you will enjoy it immensely. I posted a small blurb under "Finally Finished".
Beginning with the Constance Garnett translation, I was soon swayed to the Pevear/ Volokhonsky translation by various comments posted in the Forums and from various articles.
At the same time, I likely would have been none the wiser given my rudimentary knowledge of literature and the ability to discern such differences.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/11/bo...l?pagewanted=2
Upon completing the novel, you may celebrate as I did in the appropriate fashion:
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...1/IMG_1470.jpg
Enjoy the read.
Gilliatt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
This makes me think of the incident in which takes place by Fyodor and his son Dmitri. When Dmitiri finally arrives at the monetary and he begins an argument with his father. Though he claims that he knows his father is just trying to make a scene, and that is the whole purpose for him bringing them all there in the first place, and he claims that he is not going to allow his father to get away with it, he ultimately enables his father to do just that.
In spite of the fact that he says he knows his father just wants to cause trouble he still allows himself to be offended by what his father says, and further more persists to argue back with his father, when if he truly wanted to prevent a scene, he could have just ignored his father, or simply turned around and left.
But he chooses to engage his father in the dispute and thus he himself ends up creating the scene in which he states that his father wants to do, and of which he says he will prevent his father from doing.
No, Brynner (was it really Yul Brynner? I'm so bad at pointing out actors in movies) doesn't really match the image of Dmitri I had in my head, either. You're right that he's too stiff for the part. After all, it's Dmitri's impulsiveness that his father uses to get the better of him for most of the novel. But, at the same time, I think Brynner does a good job of playing what I called Dmitri's "intensity." Dmitri also has a sense of honor. He gets into duels and takes the most offense at the father's antics. Dmitri's a military man, and is quick to action. That part of his character sometimes gets lost when the narrator keeps shaking his head at Dmitri's foolishness and, as it's phrased in the novel, "debauchery." The film brought that out a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianfan
Check under the sofa cushions.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
It's been a while since I've read the novel, but, yeah, I think that's the case in the opening episode with the father. Fyodor isn't the only one responsible for his outbursts. Dmitri helps to get the father an audience, the audience gives Fyodor the attention he wants, and then once that's all in place does Fyodor make an *** of himself. It's not just the actor that's responsible. All the people who make the situation available also have something to do with the action. How much they have to do with it is questionable, but the novel wants to suggest that there's some responsibility people have to the possibilities they open up and not just the actions they commit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I love Fyodor. Probably would not want to hang out with him, but he cracks me up. He is hysterical. Yes I agree that there is a suggestion of shared reasonability within the book. Everyone knows how Fyodor is, and what he is like and no one is surprised by his outbursts and yet they still both getting angry with him when he is just being himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Like Miosov when he made that whole scene about how he wasn't going to go to dinner if Fyodor was going, but he knew from the beginning how Fyodor was going to act, and he still went with him just so he could act offended and ashamed by his company.
It is kind of like watching a train wreck. They don't really want to be involved it, but none of them can stop themselves from wanting to watch, but then try to act like they are really ashamed about being there.
If you like train wrecks, you should read Notes from the Underground. That's Dostoevsky's best disaster case, if you ask me. The narrator tries to play the genius, but ends up making an idiot of himself at every turn. It's cringingly funny at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I have read it, and I loved and I loved the narrator. It was quite sardonicaly funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
It seems to me that in Fyodor and Dmitri's case we can use the phrase: like father, like son. The only difference is in the fact that Fyodor is cunning and Dmitri is frank.
Yes, I agree with you on Dmitri's sense of honour, however, Brynner acts like a king or pharaoh (remember his role as Ramses II) with every move, every gesture being hardly thought of, Dmitri is a way much "simplier soul".Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That's a good way of summing up their personalities. I would caution people, though, from viewing Dmitri as a duplication of Fyodor. To completely understand why I think you have to look at nineteenth century fiction as a whole. The money-grubbing, selfish, ineffectual father is a figure that comes up again and again. You can see him in Stendhal's Red and the Black, Balzac's Lost Illusions, Dickens' Dombey and Son. Or, if the father isn't ineffectual, he's nonexistent. The orphan literature of the nineteenth-century is immense. Part of the reason (and I stress that this is only part) is that by having the father fail to give a place for his children, the child then has to rely on institutions and to some extent his or her own will. This is perfect for novels that want to explore society (as Realist fiction frequently does). It gets the children out of the house. Dmitri is one of those children that has to leave and attach himself to some institution. In this case, it's the army. By necessity, then, he has to live a much different life than the father. Even though Dmitri inherits many traits from his father, I think he ends up becoming a little different through the course of his life which takes him away from his father.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianfan
Yeah, definitely. I remember Dmitri laughing frequently in the book, but I don't think Brynner even gives a smile.Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianfan
Well, I just managed to start with it recently. I've liked whatever I've read so far but it's still not enough to comment about or discuss. So I'll get back to this discussion when I have really got something to say about it.
I am holding off commenting to give people a chance to read. Since I may be flying home early next week, I'll probably jump into the conversation in about a week from today. :)
Oh wow, Quark and Virgil (among other good discussers) are in the discussion this time. I will have to make a real effort here to listen to my podcast of the novel. I also have the novel in print to refer back to. With Walden and Alice in Wonderland going on at the same time I hope I can keep the stories straight. However I have them all on podcasts so I am set. I only listened to one chapter of each book so far....so it might take me awhile to complete all three.
Dmitri is especially full of laughter in the interrogation scene (I am in the Third Torment right now). Does Brynner possess the same mirth during this scene in the movie?
Very interesting. Indeed, I have read three Dickens novels and all three feature orphans as main characters - Great Expectations, David Copperfield, and Hard Times. And as Dickens is a well-known satirist and critic of society, it would seem that the orphan, as you say, would be an effective vehicle for his criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
At the same time, I prefer not to think of Fyodor as an archetypal character, because at least from my own breadth of reading he seems to be quite an original personality - his buffoonery, that is. When I came to the scene in elder Zosima's cell, I thought to myself: this guy's quite a character. And he has continued to amuse me as an original character ever since. The way he loses his wits around Grushenka still has me in fits...
David Copperfield isn't an orphan though, he has a strained relationship with his step-father and attends a boarding school, but isn't an orphan. Although, I think the absentee father, dead in this case, functions in the same way. Though, I think Copperfield is less about society and more about how an individual defines themselves. Remember the opening line of David Copperfield: "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."
Anyway, on topic I would be interested in discussing the "Parable of the Grand Inquisitor" told by Ivan to Alyosha when more people have read that far. I think it's one of the more interesting parts of the novel.
Woah, this is fortunate, I just started reading this book two days ago.
I just started reading it today and I'm only 60 pages in but so far it's a good read. I like the way Dostoevsky tells the story. I though this was going to be like a totally serious book but there is a lot of humor here.
Fyodor is epic. The Man has caused the deaths of 2 women without even physically harming them and even forgot he had kids. Acting like your foolish than you really are can be funny at times so I can see where he's coming from.
You're reading Walden, Janine? I wouldn't have thought you would go in for Thoreau. Good luck with the podcasts. I would assume that the audio would be helpful for dialogue in the novel (of which there is quite a lot).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
In a word, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
No, I don't mean to say that Fyodor's is just some stock character without a life of his own. Really, I was trying to talk about Dmitri and why, while sharing some traits with Fyodor, he ends up a different person. Maybe the point is more commonsensical than I was making it. All I was going for is the fact that Fyodor doesn't provide a place in the world for his sons, so they have to forge their own path--often allying themselves with institutions other than the family. Ivan goes off to university and becomes an intellectual. Aloysha join the monestary as a novice. Dmitri--even though being very much like his father--leaves and joins the military. With a set up like this I think we have to take the sons not simply as personalities, but also as people who have lived lives and have certain allegiances. The paths of their lives lead them into connections with other groups and that affects their identity. In this sense, we can't just take Dmitri or any of the sons as just random people. They also represent the groups they've come across. Clearly Ivan is not just a singular creature. Dostoevsky uses his character to cover a whole range of practices that are certainly not just limited to his one fictional intellectual. The idea is that these are things that are widespread. This goes for each of the brothers. In post #21 back on page 1 I quoted a description of Smerdyakov that links him with a wide swath of Russian society: the peasantry: "There are a good many "contemplatives" among the peasantry. Well, Smerdyakov was most likely one of them" (150). Again, I don't mean to suggest that the characters are just types and that they don't have any life of their own. I just think you have to acknowledge that Dostoevsky (or at least his narrator) means these characters to resonate with existing types (or possibile types) of people in Russian society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm5124
Well, David Copperfield is one of those works that you could say is about anything and everything. While certainly having something to do with autobiography, psychology, and just David's personality, it's also about child labor (David in the warehouse), marriage (David evolving notion of it from Dora to Agnes), the carcareal (David's friend and benefactor is placed in a debtor's prison). All of this is pretty topical stuff for the time. It's not just meant to be about the fictional character David, but is supposed to resonate with Dickens' readers' idea of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
That might be out of step with Virgil's good suggestion that we discuss the story beginning at the start and moving on toward the conclusion. If you put a spoiler tag on it, though, I'd be willing to entertain conversation about that rather famous part of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip