The Brothers Karamazov

Author: Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Published: 1880

Favourite Quotation: Perhaps Dmitry’s summary:

‘Evil-doing must not only be lawful, but even recognised as the most necessary and most intelligent way out of the situation every atheist finds himself in.’

or Smerdyakov’s frequent refrain:

‘It’s always interesting to talk to a clever man’

drive the story however my pick would be Dmitry:

‘I am tormented by the question of God… What if Rakitin is right, and he is an artificial idea dreamed up by mankind? Then, if he does not exist, man is the boss of the earth, of creation. Magnificent! Only will he be virtuous without God?… For whom will he love then, whom will man love? To whom will he render gratitude, to whom will he sing his hymn?’

I feel very inadequate to review this book having neither studied philosophy or literature and simply Googling it will uncover lots of very detailed reviews and analysis, but here goes at a layman’s take at Dostoyevsky.

After reading countless recommendations about this book and frequently encountering statements like ‘supreme achievement in world literature’ I decided to give it a go.

This book is long! The translation I read is 1000 pages, and it’s not a page turner either, its beauty is in the ideas it is wrestling with and not the action so although I heartily recommend it, reading The Brothers Karamazov is a big undertaking. However, I would qualify that with saying it’s rarely slow. This is not a 300 page novel filled out with waffle and I found myself always wanting to keep reading. The only bit I did try and read through as quick as possible was the account of Elder Zosima’s life and theology.

The story follows several months in the lives of the Karamazov family, Fyodor the amoral, hedonistic father and his sons Dmitry the emotional scoundrel, Ivan the atheist intellectual, and Aleksey the spiritual peacemaker, with the distant figure of Symerdyakov, Fyodor’s man-servant and probable illegitimate son, always in the background. At this point it might sound like the characters are stereotypes but this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Revolving around a pair of love-triangles the action follows Fyodor and Dmitry who both fall madly infatuated with Grushenka, a woman who though not a prostitute is certainly of ill-repute. And, Ivan who falls in love with Katerina who meanwhile is betrothed to Dmitry.  Amongst all this Aleksey, through whose perspective most of the narrative is told, desperately attempts to heal the broken relationships in his family.

I do wonder if this book could qualify for the record of the longest introduction of any novel, with the key event mentioned in the first sentence of the blurb, the brutal murder and robbery of Fyodor, not taking place until approximately 600 pages into the novel.

So what distinguishes this book from the host of other novels centring on murder and infatuation? Primarily it is the characters, they discuss at length their views, feelings and motivations. Ivan’s monologue on the problem of suffering and his ‘Grand Inquisitor’ parable are masterpieces. Dmitry’s rant (I use that word not in a derogatory way but simply because it’s a good way to describe how Dmitry talks) on the existence of God, as well as the defence counsel’s closing speech to the jury are also excellent. In a different manner, the funeral of the child Ilyushencka is heart-breaking with the tragic description of the desolation of his father.

The portrayal of the characters is certainly what struck me most in this book, particular Ivan and Symerdyakov. I was amazed how Dostoyevsky manages to make the reader begin to question Ivan’s sanity from the start, even through, and perhaps because of, his ‘logical’ arguments on atheism and usually restrained behaviour. And Symerdyakov, well I don’t want to say to much, but he really is the clever man.

One question which remains in my mind, especially after the final chapter, is that I don’t know is how exactly Dostoyevsky is portraying Aleksey. A simple reading might suggest he is a Russian messiah and Dostoyevsky’s hope for the future, but based on the introduction I don’t know if there is some deeper criticism or sarcasm going on there.

Dostoyevsky is probing, in this book, our ability to live consistently with a chosen worldview, so we see deep conflict at the heart of the major characters: Ivan’s attempts to reconcile his atheism with love and virtue, Dmitry’s wrestle between passion and faithfulness and Aleksey’s struggle between his Karamazovian lust and monastical purity. Perhaps only Symerdyakov manages to live out his worldview with single-mindedness.

In conclusion, I think I’ll take a stab at summarizing what I think the main theme is that Dostoyevsky is dealing with is: given that we are programmed to love and worship something, what is worthy of our worship? Fyodor and Symerdyakov choose themselves, Ivan tries to choose reason and fails, Dmitry chooses God or perhaps Grushenka, it’s hard to know, and Aleksey outwardly chooses God but in reality I think he is worshiping his view of Russia and a Christless moralism. Ultimately no character has the answer, although there is much commendable about God argued in this book, no character seems to have a clear view of Christ, why He came and what He died and rose for, so ultimately even those who presume to be Christians abandon the God of the Bible for gods of their own making. This book is a challenge for us all to ask ourselves, not what just do we say we hold dear, but what do our lives demonstrate we worship.

P.S. One crazy theory of mine is that although Ivan’s devil is a figment of his imagination, Rakitin is actually the real thing. I think he is personally orchestrating the attempted downfall of the whole Karamazov family!