The Brother's Karamazov is generally considered among the best books ever written by mere mortals, and in my opinion it is well deserved of the distinction. Being unacquainted with Russian (and perhaps Russia generally), and with an author as idiomatic as Dostoevsky I can't overstress the importance of a decent translation. Mine is the recent translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, which in fact won the PEN/Book-of-the-Month Club translation prize in 1991. Having read a couple books by him before, I can note that Dostoevsky can be idiomatic, colloquial, and perhaps even redundant in places. Take for example this line from the author's introduction:
"Being at a loss to resolve these questions, I am resolved to leave them without any resolution."
Certain translators will cringe at that sort of thing, feeling it their duty to make Dostoevsky more palatable to our modern sense of grammar by busting out the thesaurus and shaving off seemingly redundant clauses. The problem with this, however, is that there is a sort of gait of thought that Dostoevsky had well developed by this, the last book of his career. The spacing of the active elements of the thought are given almost a rhythm, I find. As a poet uses syllables, so does Dostoevsky use thought. And all that elegance can be cut to ribbons by translators who feel it their duty to protect the reader from how the book was actually written. This is a problem that Pevear and Volokhonsky are thankfully not afflicted with. These two also provide a highly informative introduction and footnotes that provide fluid descriptions, not only of the contents of the book but the context of Dostoevsky's life.
At any rate, The Brothers Karamazov is a book that is almost too big to describe, but the story is largely about (unsurprisingly) the brothers Karamazov. I shirk from describing any of them with mere adjectives because of the sheer depth of the characters, it would be about as insulting as if one starting running around applying epithets to one's friends and neighbors.
Article comments
1 - Thomas
"Bravo" for an excellent critique of Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov.
You are right to focus on Alyosha. Although Dmitri may symbolize Russian passion, and Ivan may represent the scientific and analytical mind, Alyosha is truly the heart and soul of the novel--and the primary message that Dostoevsky attempts to convey. While Ivan declares that he will "respectfully return my ticket," Alyosha sprinkles hope for the future of the young boys who enthusiastically respond "Hurrah for Karamazov!"
Also, you did not fall into the trap that typically ensnares myopic critics: to be fooled into thinking that the bulk of the novel is nothing more than padding, and that only "The Grand Inquisitor" is worth reading. Dostoevsky does vilify the Church with the same ferocity as Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple. Nevertheless, he clearly argues that the primary responsibility, and the main spiritual battleground, can be found in each and every individual soul.
At the risk of being as redundant as Dostoevsky, "Hurrah for Karamazov!"
2 - Ezra Steelman
Well thank you for a positive reveiw of my first review on blogcritics. I actually found the chapter where Vanka talks to the devil to be more interesting than the grand inquisitor. I mean, bashing catholicism isn't anything new (protestants have been doing it for centuries), but the idea of an atheist being tempted to believe in God by the devil is rather fascinating (even if it was a hallucination).
Also, I'm a firm believer of taking a book as a whole, without trying to vivisect or demythologize it. To quote Dostoevsky, "since it is already written, let it stand."
3 - Matt Valentine
Nice review. I just finished reading The Brothers Karamazov for the first time about five minutes ago and was very impressed with it. I didn't expect the novel to be so epic, and had been feeling a little insecure about my inability to summarize the story to my wife until I read your review and really related to it. It is quite difficult to 'vivisect', as it were, and much better to let it flow over you as a whole. What confidence Dostoevsky has as a writer to tell the story while having an unknown narrator abbreviate and skip over portions of the events, as well as give away huge portions of the plot hundreds of pages in advance. Amazing.
4 - Igor
This excellent review is worth reading again, an uncommon pleasure at BlogCritics.
5 - Ezra Steelman
Thanks to everyone for their positive comments! (an uncommon pleasure on the internet!)
Dostoevsky was at his peak popularity when he wrote the Brother's K, so it's interesting to see what a person will write when they don't have to worry about putting bread on the table.
Very interesting person, very interesting books. Over the years he's unwittingly become a standard to which I hold pretty much any modern author.