|
| The Brothers Karamazov | 
| Author: Fyodor Dostoevsky
Creators: Richard Pevear, Larissa Volokhonsky
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Category: Book
List Price: $18.00
Buy New: $10.03
You Save: $7.97 (44%)
New (41) Collectible (7) from $10.03
Avg. Customer Rating:  112 reviews
Sales Rank: 2500
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 824
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.5
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.5 x 1.5
ISBN: 0374528373
Dewey Decimal Number: 891.733
EAN: 9780374528379
ASIN: 0374528373
Publication Date: June 14, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Before You Die July 29, 2007
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Before you leave this earth, you must read Brothers K. Do it with a read group; otherwise, you won't make it through 800 pp. But you will feel so enriched having accomplished this read. Then tackle War and Peace, another must before dust.
Perhaps the Best Translation of the Greatest Novel Ever Written July 22, 2007
7 out of 8 found this review helpful
I have a special affinity for Dostoevsky's writings due to their dark, yet philosophical nature. His books usually contain the sort of philosophy that probes questions of a spiritual, humanistic nature, and no other work perhaps addresses the most crucial questions to life like his last novel, the Brothers Karamazov. Since this book is so popular with audiences, I need not expound on the plot. Instead, I would like to focus on the translation at hand and say why this version of the book deserves to be read by people not only searching for answers to these deep questions, but also for those who want to learn why Dostoevsky was known as Russia's greatest prose writer of the 19th century. Pushkin, Chekhov, Tolstoy, and Gogol were great, but Dostoevsky was a highly different breed of writer. His language flows like music, yet it is not verselike in the way that Pushkin is. For this reason, especially for those who do not know Russian, it is essential that a person read a translation that clearly represents Dostoevsky's complex literary language. This is not to say that other translations are not as good. I am just saying that of all of the translation that exist, this is, in my opinion, the best. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, two of the greatest translators of Russia's great novels, hit the nail on the head every time they publish a translation of a great author's book. Their Anna Karenina is superb, their Crime and Punishment a model of literary translating, and their Chekhov stories the benchmark upon which all other English versions must be judged. This Karamazov then, is perhaps for me their greatest achievement so far. I absolutely adore the way they make the verses come to life without adding any Victorian pretense or awkward phrasing that would seem anachronistic or foreign to the period in which the novel was set. They not only convey accurately the kind of philosophy that Dostoevsky is known for, but they also give the words a kind of poignancy that characterizes the novel's dark themes. I await the War and Peace that these two fascinating translators are about to release this October. As for this book, I recommend it to those wish to know why Dostoevsky's last novel is regarded by many to be the greatest novel ever written. In fact, Kurt Vonnegut himself lauded this book as the one that has everything you ever need to know about life.
A Complex Masterpiece June 23, 2007
8 out of 9 found this review helpful
As background information, I have read most of Dostoevsky's 14 novels including some of his early works and all of his most popular 6 or 7 novels, and set up a Listmania list with comments. Among those I have read some from Oxford Classics and some Vintage translations by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. It took me about one to two weeks or so to read the 776 pages in this present Vintage edition translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. This translation has a very brief introduction and a list of characters at the front of the book. That character list is essential for reading a Dostoevsky novel, especially his later works. If the book does not have one, usually you make your own. Beyond those few pages, this book is the basic text plus some notes at the end.
This is not a quick light read. It is a heavy read that requires a substantial time commitment to get the most from the novel. It is far more interesting and complex novel than Crime and Punishment. By comparison, Crime and Punishment is a quick light read.
Most critics think that this is Dostoevsky's best novel. It is the story of a man and his three sons who live in a small Russian town similar to where Dostoevsky himself lived in his later years. It is a novel about character flaws, compulsions, and good versus evil. Perhaps the novel does not have the clearest plot, nor is it a simple read, nor are all the characters stunning and interesting, but it is both a complex and a satisfying read. It took me a few tries over a few months to warm up to the novel and to get started. I read the first 50 pages twice to get oriented to all the characters and their complex names. Later I read many sections twice: the section on the visit by the devil, the murder scene, and parts of the trial near the end. It is the type of book that one will want to read a second time.
The present work follows three other Dostoevsky novels that revolve around the common themes of religion, morality, and Russian life and values: Demons, The Idiot, and A Raw Youth. Those three plus the Brothers Karamazov were written near the end of his life and they follow a similar pattern: long rambling novels involving discussion of morality, good and evil, etc. The books are each a bit different. Some have strong plots, while some have more dialogue and less action and lack strong protagonists. The Brothers Karamazov is the best, followed by The Idiot. The Brother Karamzov is simply a better novel than most of his other works: more complexity, good descriptions of events, good characters, lots of drama, and lots of artistic confusion planted intentionally by Dostoevsky near the end - according to historical notes.
The novel has a high degree of artistic feel to the plot. As with the other three novels, Dostoevsky uses family characters and their relationships with other people to explore some of his favorite ideas about Russian society, character flaws in people, and moral values, etc. Most people know that the story involves the murder of a father, but by the end of the novel the reader is less certain of who is the murderer. That is the artistic twist that Dostoevsky injects into the novel. He does this intentionally to remind the reader at the end that they are reading a creative novel and it is not reality. In many ways, this artistic twist along with the highly creative writing is what wins over the reader's admiration for Dostoevsky by the end of the novel. What starts off as a slow and religiously oriented story finishes as a brilliant work of art.
In any case, the first 300 pages are interesting but a bit slow. Some readers might give up. But press on and be rewarded. After page 300 or so, the novel becomes quite engrossing and interesting. There are many sections and characters that are highly memorable and you will want to re-visit them a second time.
This is a complex and a time consuming read, but a very worthwhile read.
A Classic June 12, 2007
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
I enjoyed this book very much (Pevear and Volokhonsky translation). I had read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment before this one (which I also enjoyed immensely and would highly recommend) but I found this book to be deeper on a philosophical level while still preserving a very interesting and engrossing story. I particularly liked this book for its existential themes; it has become one of my favorite books on existentialism (although since it is in novel form perhaps it is unfair to compare its ease of reading with books by Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, for example). I found the chapter entitled "The Grand Inquisitor" (which I have also seen sold as an individual piece for some unconscionable reason) to be especially intriguing.
For those who are interested in the philosophical aspect of this novel, iTunes U has some lectures that were given at the University of California at Berkley by Hubert Dreyfus; the class is called "Existentialism in Literature and Film," can be downloaded for free and discusses the Brothers Karamazov over 11 lectures (each lecture is over an hour long so it is rather involved but I have enjoyed it nonetheless). I would highly recommend this novel for those who are interested in Dostoevsky's writings (although I might recommend starting with Crime and Punishment first), those who are interested in existential philosophy, or those who simply enjoy reading classic novels.
A Glittering Masterpiece May 25, 2007
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
Much has been written about The Brothers Karamazov, one of the world's greatest novels, and over the years this seminal work has earned glowing endorsements from literati, physicists and psychologists alike. So rather than jump into the fray with a critique of Dostoevsky's craft, I'd rather offer observations: reasons why this novel, and Dostoevsky's work more generally, is relevant to readers today.
A far cry from the dark, brooding slog through existentialist muck that some have labelled it, this book simmers with life force and humor. In the tradition of Don Quixote and Pushkin's Tales of Belkin, Dostoevsky fires his first salvo in the author's note, where he skewers the radical intelligentsia of his day with a delightful parody of himself. This subtle artistic technique ridicules the author, but in doing so, cunningly suggests the author's targets are, even more so, quite dim. Dostoevsky proceeds to suggest they may not get the point, but perhaps should make the effort. And so on. As the action progresses, Dostoevsky presents us with a venal father, a love rival who is also his son, a tortured intellect, bullies galore, a glum half-brother, women on the make, and a swirling tale of lust and murder; as if that's not enough, we get the grim death of a beloved priest. These characters are archetypes, yes, but as I read this novel I have the distinct impression they live and breathe, too. This, in turn, made Dostoevsky's ideas even more powerful. In aggregate, we are presented with Russia of the 1870s: a nation heading, full force, toward violent revolution, and as Dostoevsky instinctively knew, only spiritual enlightenment -- a focus beyond the human self and into the absurd -- will save it.
As a brilliant examination of the human condition, the novel is also universal and timeless. Dostoevsky influenced Freud, as the latter admitted, as well as generations of existentialists. What strikes me about Dostoevsky's art, as much as anything else, is the way he depicts people amidst sudden doubts and reversals, or better yet, as agents of forces beyond their control who act against their own self-interest. Examples of such depictions include Grushenka's sudden amity toward Alyosha after vowing to corrupt him, and Mitenka's impulsive confession. In Dostoevsky's daring vision, the unconscious mind drives us in ways we can scarely imagine.
Suffering plays a key role in the novel, too, but unlike tenets of post-modernist thinking, Dostoevsky's notion of suffering requires salvation through powers that transcends the human spirit. Humankind cannot save itself from its own condition, he says, but all is not lost. That is, the human soul is not doomed, but limited, and the soul, trapped in a flawed shell on an elusive quest for bliss, seeks out likeness of itself, rather than triumph over it. Humanity seeks community with mankind, but ultimately, with God. Perhaps this struggle can be over, therefore, before it begins. In the novel, the readers sees what happens when humans set out on their own missions of self-salvation: the villain Fyodor Pavolvich subconsciously does everything in his power to rip his family asunder, seeking the extraordinary life, yet on another level, he's clawing for love he can never achieve through action alone. Such is the folly of reason when employed to obtain something that exists beyond the material world. In Alyosha, Dostoevsky presents a counterweight to Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov's self-destruction, and this culminates in the most optimistic vision of the entire book: that after death's suffering we can be together again. This message is both personal and political. Atheism, combined with human emotion and corruption, Dostoevsky suggests, often leads to violence, and in such a world, rationality can quickly turn to rationalization. Russia, in its attempt to find the perfect formula of happiness, was in fact sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and Dostoevsky's remedy for this was grace, not reason.
I'm struck by the relevance of Dostoevsky's work in the context of contemporary political economy, which is so often evaluated in terms of quantitative, rather than subjective, concerns. Such is the legacy of positivism, which Dostoevsky railed against, at least insofar as science is twisted and distorted by human desires. In the wrong hands, technology is as dangerous as mankind's wildest imagination, and ideas, per se, lead only to dead ends. As in Russia of the 1870s, many people today measure happiness with numbers and formulas. If GDP is going up, we must all be happier; if we redistribute things "just so," even at the cost of human suffering, overall the world will be a better place. These simplistic arguments have been the subsoil of globalism and, ironically, were equally important to fascist and communist utopians of the 20th century.
A similar thread of Dostoevsky's novel is found in today's multiculturalism, which is, as practiced today, a two-sided argument. On one side, there is the idea that all peoples and nations should merge into one, whereby all bases for future conflict will be swept away. Dostoevsky might ask us, if he were alive today, how we plan to get there. By consensus? Or by force? And in either case, at what cost? On the flip side of the multicultural coin, there sits the idea of all cultures and peoples living together without a definable nation, yet maintaining separate identities. All are not merged into one at all. The two sides of multiculturalism are reminiscent of the intellectual labyrinth that tormented Vanechka; they don't add up, because they are incompatible at the nth degree. As a utopian model, then, multiculturalism, as it's practiced today, should collapse upon itself, not least because the implementation of this ideal is despoiled by human corruption.
Dostoevsky was writing about this realm beyond human ideas and understanding, and he was speaking to Russians, in the living and breathing sense, rather than to Russia -- emphatically a nation of people, not a nation of ideas. The latter definition would be dangerous, for if Russia were an idea, then literally anything, no matter how despotic, could be done to serve it. But if a nation is, in a most basic element, a community of people, not an abstraction of them, then one must constantly ask how a given policy will affect the welfare of the body politic. This problem of nationhood, so central to Dostoevsky's Slavophilic sentiments, is arguably the most burning issue in the United States today.
This is a superlative novel and the translation is excellent. Highly recommended.
My Titles
Shadow Fields
Snooker Glen
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
