Summer Reading '10: Brothers Karamazov

[_Shannon_]

Does that mean you're also typing from the bathroom? That kind of weirds me out, Shannon.
.

(LOL! Not really...I usually post while baby holding.)

Just a few chapters in by I like the whimsical feel to the narration, the "sit down and let me tell you this yarn" feel to it. I also like the juxtaposition of that style to what is being said--I feel like you're being told some things which would, if written in another tone, make you indignant.

[Quark]

I find Katarina a bit annoying in her devotion to Dimitri.

If you don't like her now, get ready to be very annoyed by the end of the novel.

Just a few chapters in by I like the whimsical feel to the narration, the "sit down and let me tell you this yarn" feel to it. I also like the juxtaposition of that style to what is being said--I feel like you're being told some things which would, if written in another tone, make you indignant.

Yeah, the narrator's casualness relaxes the readers somewhat. I also think it clues you into how the story is going to progress. If the narrator is just a townsperson looking on, then we know that this very personal story about this family is going to have to explode out into the public at some point. If this stayed private, this narration would be impossible. Having this kind of person tell us the story is weak foreshadow of the plot's trajectory.

[spookymulder93]

Just finished Part 1. It's a pretty good read. Nothing life changing so far though. Haven't really connected with any of the characters. I hope this book lives up to its reputation. I know since I'm only 215 pages in a 1045 page novel that this is only the beginning.

[ktm5124]

Ah, I just read about the character Kolya! I love him, he's hilarious!

[wessexgirl]

Ooh, I'll be very interested in this discussion, as I bought the book a while back, (I think it might be the P&V translation) and have also downloaded it on audio. As I still haven't finished Our Mutual Friend though I'm not going to commit myself to joining in, but I will keep a very interested eye on the chat. I liked the sound of it from the audio sample I had, as the narrator sounded quite sardonic. As a lot of you have said, there seems to be quite a bit of humour, which I don't think is always the first thing that springs to mind when you think of Dostoevsky.

[Dark Muse]

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.

At this point, the more I read of the novel the more that I am inclined to take that view of things. Dmitri seems to be a mirror image of his father, if anything I think Dmitri might be even more of a lunatic than Fyodor is.

Ha they are even fighting over the same woman!

They are both given to erupting into fits of passion, though with Fyodor he seems to do it with intent for the pure sake of creating a scene, like when he actually arranges the meeting in the monastery and got everyone together and than began to act up, but Dmitri on the other hand seems to lack actual control over himself. He seems to just lash out without even knowing himself why he does it, or without reason.

[Rores28]

but I have to say Dostoevsky is not what I had expected just from whatever nebulous murmurings I had heard about him. I'm pretty surprised at the Soap-Operaishness of the plot as well as the comedy. I also expected it to be written in a more difficult manner and to basically be drowning me in moral philosophy.

[ktm5124]

At this point, the more I read of the novel the more that I am inclined to take that view of things. Dmitri seems to be a mirror image of his father, if anything I think Dmitri might be even more of a lunatic than Fyodor is.

Ha they are even fighting over the same woman!

They are both given to erupting into fits of passion, though with Fyodor he seems to do it with intent for the pure sake of creating a scene, like when he actually arranges the meeting in the monastery and got everyone together and than began to act up, but Dmitri on the other hand seems to lack actual control over himself. He seems to just lash out without even knowing himself why he does it, or without reason.

I think one of the key differences between them is their views on God. Dmitri solemnly believes in God, whereas Fyodor, whether or not he is a believer, approaches the matter with much levity.

Dmitri also values nobility almost above all else, whereas Fyodor couldn't care less about it.

They are both scoundrels, but they are very different types of scoundrels :-) I think Ivan actually more closely resembles his father than Dmitri.

[Dark Muse]

I think one of the key differences between them is their views on God. Dmitri solemnly believes in God, whereas Fyodor, whether or not he is a believer, approaches the matter with much levity.

Dmitri also values nobility almost above all else, whereas Fyodor couldn't care less about it.

They are both scoundrels, but they are very different types of scoundrels :-) I think Ivan actually more closely resembles his father than Dmitri.

Ivan maybe be more like Fyodor in his view points, but it seems to me that behavior wise Ivan is by far more rational than Fyodor or Dmitri, and he seems to be the sanest member of his family.

While Aloysha is certainly more virtuous than the others, he is something of a zealot, and has found what may seem to be a more worthy outlet for his eccentric energy, than chasing women, causing scenes and getting into fights.

[ktm5124]

Ivan maybe be more like Fyodor in his view points, but it seems to me that behavior wise Ivan is by far more rational than Fyodor or Dmitri, and he seems to be the sanest member of his family.

While Aloysha is certainly more virtuous than the others, he is something of a zealot, and has found what may seem to be a more worthy outlet for his eccentric energy, than chasing women, causing scenes and getting into fights.

I am not sure whether you are saying that Alyosha is over-religious, over-zealous. Dostoevsky happened to be very religious himself - Catholic, I believe - so I'm sure his sympathies would lie more with the zealous Alyosha than the atheist Ivan. The problem with Ivan is that he is too rational; his reason obscures his feelings. I think perhaps a point of the novel is that there is more truth in feelings than in reason.

[Virgil]

I am not sure whether you are saying that Alyosha is over-religious, over-zealous. Dostoevsky happened to be very religious himself - Catholic, I believe - so I'm sure his sympathies would lie more with the zealous Alyosha than the atheist Ivan.

Dostevesky was Russian Orthodox, not Catholic.

The problem with Ivan is that he is too rational; his reason obscures his feelings. I think perhaps a point of the novel is that there is more truth in feelings than in reason.

I take Ivan to be an agnostic, not an atheists and frankly by the end of the novel I think he's more of a believer than not.

I'm almost ready to start joing the discussion. Sorry it's taking me so long.

[Dark Muse]

I am not sure whether you are saying that Alyosha is over-religious, over-zealous. Dostoevsky happened to be very religious himself - Catholic, I believe - so I'm sure his sympathies would lie more with the zealous Alyosha than the atheist Ivan. The problem with Ivan is that he is too rational; his reason obscures his feelings. I think perhaps a point of the novel is that there is more truth in feelings than in reason.

I would not call Aloysha over religious per sae, but he is a bit zealous. For one thing I think he is way too concerned with the love lives of his brothers, which in itself is a bit amusing considering he is a monk and yet he wants to play match-maker, and decide who should be with who and get involved in thier amorous affairs.

I do like Aloysha but he seems to be the exact opposite of Ivan, where you criticize Ivan's rationality obscuring his feelings, Aloysha is too much dependent purely upon his feeling.

He also seems to have the "Sins of the father" mentality. He believes that there is some burden or wickedness in his own soul simply because he is a Karamazov. It seems almost as if he locked himself in the monastery to protect himself because he believes that he was born with some natural instinct to wickedness so he cut himself off from the world to save himself.

He questions his own beleif in God purely based upon his family name.

[spookymulder93]

Just read the Grand Inquisitor.


Do you think he had a point? Did Jesus give man too much credit?

[ktm5124]

I would not call Aloysha over religious per sae, but he is a bit zealous. For one thing I think he is way too concerned with the love lives of his brothers, which in itself is a bit amusing considering he is a monk and yet he wants to play match-maker, and decide who should be with who and get involved in thier amorous affairs.

I do like Aloysha but he seems to be the exact opposite of Ivan, where you criticize Ivan's rationality obscuring his feelings, Aloysha is too much dependent purely upon his feeling.

He also seems to have the "Sins of the father" mentality. He believes that there is some burden or wickedness in his own soul simply because he is a Karamazov. It seems almost as if he locked himself in the monastery to protect himself because he believes that he was born with some natural instinct to wickedness so he cut himself off from the world to save himself.

He questions his own beleif in God purely based upon his family name.

I wasn't a fan of Alyosha at the start, and happened to feel the same way, but then he grew on me later on in the novel. I think it was when I started to see the way he affects others, and how others respect him, that he grew on me. In particular, the way the children respect him made a large impression on me.

Dostevesky was Russian Orthodox, not Catholic.



I take Ivan to be an agnostic, not an atheists and frankly by the end of the novel I think he's more of a believer than not.

I'm almost ready to start joing the discussion. Sorry it's taking me so long.

Oh, thanks for the correction, that's good to know. I see what you mean about Ivan, now that I'm nearing the end of the novel.

Just read the Grand Inquisitor.


Do you think he had a point? Did Jesus give man too much credit?

One thing I did not understand about that chapter is when Ivan says "it's not that I do not believe in God, it's that I don't accept the world he gave us" or something like that. (I'm sure I've butchered the sentiment quite much here...) What do you think it means to not accept the world?

[spookymulder93]

I think what Ivan is saying is that he doesn't like the way that God decided for us to live. Like instead of free will God could have just told us what to do and made us all happy. If we never knew pain, suffering, loss, etc then how could we ever miss it.