In the introduction to Notes From the Underground (introduction by and translated by Pevear & Volokhonsky) Dostoevsky says that the Russian censors allowed him to abuse the entirety of Russian society, but when he tried to explain the need of religion in the human soul they cut it out. To me it seems that Alyosha is the embodiment of this principal he was not allowed to explicitly state. Perhaps that people need something to look up to. They need a carved snake on a pole to look for when live ones bite. Speculation.
It's also the sort of novel that doesn't dissect well. In order to convey the correct sense or feeling or reason for an action or statement, I would pretty much have to drag you back to chapter one and work my way up. I will revise that to say that it doesn't vivisect well, because The Brothers Karamazov is as close to a living inanimate object as I have ever seen.
Today's art is an onion. If this piques your curiosity, please look up "Dostoevky's parable of the onion."
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.