The Brothers Karamazov (Modern Library) Hardcover – January 23, 1996

One hardly needs to praise this acclaimed novel. But after my third reading I am in awe. The novel works in two entirely different ways, which are nevertheless intertwined. On one hand it is a great story. On the other hand it is a profound meditation. (Interestingly I recently watched two film versions -- the American/Hollywood (1958) and the Russian (1969) -- that divide on just this point. Both are excellent movies, I feel, but the American one works strictly as a great romance and crime drama, while the Russian one is truer to the philosophical concerns.)The reason Dostoevsky had for writing this novel, besides his continual need to support himself and his family, and his passion for writing, was to convey the idea that (what he considered) the innate faith of the Russian people in God, immortality, and Christ is essential to living morally. (In “real life” Dostoevsky was fanatical about this, to the point of viewing Russian Orthodoxy – the tsar included -- as key to the salvation of the whole world. He might very well have been a Putin supporter, despite his otherwise agapic and socialist leanings.)This idea is embodied by Alyosha Karamazov, one of the brothers and a Christ-like figure of universal loving, and also his spiritual mentor, Father Zosima. The idea is also embodied in the brother Ivan (and his own acolyte, the brother Smerdyakov), albeit in its negative manifestation, since he accepts the implication – that without God, everything is permissible, including crime – but, opposite to Alyosha, rejects God.The fourth brother, Dmitri, embodies the idea as well, but in his case – perhaps the most typically human -- God “wins” but always with a struggle. With Alyosha godliness is simply natural. Ivan also struggles, but in him God’s victory is only intermittent because Ivan’s reason and compassion find the evil in the world to be in absolute conflict with the conception of a good and all-powerful God. (Smerdyakov is the extreme God-rejector, Alyosha’s pure opposite.) Thus faith alone (and even contrary to reason), as Alyosha possesses with passion (but also Dmitri, if only by Russian instinct), could give God a clear victory.Dostoevsky does not shy away from this implication. That is one thing that makes this novel great: It challenges the believer so effectively that many readers will side with Ivan’s impassioned argument for atheism. And also for this reason, the story (and character) aspect of the novel is crucial; indeed, Dostoevsky believed that it was the answer to Ivan’s argument, which otherwise could not be defeated by rational argument.The reader will have to judge how successfully the events and characters of the novel refute atheism. I myself think that Dostoevsky’s position doesn’t make sense even in its own terms. Consider that for everything to be “permitted,” there would still need to be an authority that permits; but if God does not exist, who would there be to permit anything? So crime would not be permitted, no more than it would be prohibited if there were no God (according to the theodic logic).Be that as it may, the story and characters stand on their own merits, it seems to me. And here again the novel is a great one. As an aspiring novelist myself, I am in awe of the many amazing personalities and ingenious intricacies of plot that Dostoevsky introduces in this mammoth book. How he was able to maintain the cohesion despite facing publishing deadlines for installments, usual for his day, is beyond my comprehension. (He failed to do this in previous novels. This one was his greatest and final triumph. He died shortly after completion … with a second volume tantalizingly forming in his mind.)

I avoided this my whole life. Everyone talks about it as an existential philosophy as fiction. Deep dark angst. I wasn't prepared for how fun it is to read.

What the hell kind of ending was that?!Dostoyevsky, I love you, I really do...and I loved The Brothers Karamazov; but the ending, the ending...how depressing.I expected so much more. The story was interesting; yes, it was long winded at times, but it was very interesting. I thought I would read about Mitya's escape from prison. Or, read about how he was actually guilty...or actually not guilty. Instead, I read about a poor elementary school boys passing.Dostoyevsky. I understand that this was your last novel. Your "swan song" so to speak, and i understand that you were facing your mortality so the novel was very philisophilical, but to end it like that. With PANCAKES! PANCAKES, DOSTOYEVSKY! PANCAKES!My dear, Dostoyevsky. I do not want to break up with you over an ending of a book. I implore you, if I ever meet you in the heavens, to tell me if Mitya was actually the murderer of his father or not. But, I guess, that is what you want. To leave your readers hanging by a thread FOREVER. What power you must have. How you must be laughing at all of us!Just you wait! I will seek you out in the heavens and ask you all my questions. You are not free!

Dostoevsky drew the character of Ivan Karamazov with a glance at his own tempestuous mind and heart. The author of the myth of the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan poses the question of theodicy in its most striking form.Unlike Leibniz or Voltaire, Vanya is not content with an abstract or fictional argument about God’s goodness. No, he has been clipping newspaper headlines for years detailing the cruelest deaths suffered by children. It is not difficult for the contemporary reader to empathize. For me, they were reminiscent of the torture of my own relatives in Nazi camps.However, Dostoevsky’s particular interest in theodicy was driven more by living in an era when the idea of a good life was opening up for the mass of humanity. The serfs were being freed in his native Russia, diseases were being eradicated and the benefits of modern technology were allowing even the working class the enjoyments of leisure.The question becomes, what of those left behind? Of those who undergo horrible suffering at the hands of an uncaring nature or from the evils of their fellow men? It is only in a world where many are living the good life that such a juxtaposition can even be made.And Ivan obsesses over it. He will not accept a God who allows such suffering by the innocent; unable to drive their cries from his ears he descends into madness.The only rational solution for Dostoevsky is that suffering will be redeemed by incalculable bliss. That the sufferings of this world are not to be compared with what is in store in the next. Two thousand years ago, Jesus expressed the same answer in his parable of Dives and Lazarus.In this way, The Brothers Karamazov runs parallel to Crime and Punishment. In that work, Dostoevsky explored whether a human being can live happily and sanely while ignoring moral law. Here he tests whether a human being can be sane while simultaneously acknowledging the suffering of the innocent and not believing in a deity.Of course, Dostoevsky’s solution is one we might not accept. One can ignore suffering and focus on the privileges enjoyed by most in Western cultures. That is always a safe alternative to maintaining one’s sanity.At least, these paths are how I read the curious fate of Ivan Karamazov. He raises not so much a question but a phenomena that the modern world, for all its achievements, cannot answer. Dostoevsky’s characters continue to resonate and provoke some hundred and fifty years after his passing.

Great novel from a great author exploring and explaining the complexities of the human condition. The insights Dostoevsky had back then are as relevant if not more so now.