Anyone interested in the central question facing mankind will find `The Brothers Karamazov' an essential guide. That question--on man's capacity for responsibility and the proper role of the state and religion--is posed throughout the story in dialogue and events, and is framed neatly in a 20-page section where Ivan presents a poem titled `The Grand Inquisitor' to his brother Alyosha. The chapter that bears that title (Book V, Chapter V) is a masterpiece in itself and should be studied for its narrative technique alone. But the ideas it presents are so immense, so mind-blowing and inspirational, that literary criticism is not sufficient.

Indeed, `The Brothers Karamazov' should not be classed merely as a novel--it is a book of philosophy, theology, and sociology as well that ranks with the greatest documents in those disciplines. There is a fictitious plot, of course, and the characters in the story are some of the most unique in all of literature, so it is rightly praised as a novel. But the modern reader looking for a plot of twists and romantic intrigues is bound to disappointment. Dostoevsky does not stir up drama through the placement of unexpected developments or improbable character traits. Instead, he relies on the inherent needs and wants of all men to make vivid his story.

The amount of dialogue may be shocking (tedious) to one accustomed to the modern show-don't-tell policy in storytelling. Today, novelists and screenwriters let a character's actions speak for them--it is quicker and provides a much more convincing impression. It also limits the kind of ideas that are posed in the story to simple, prosaic ones like `she likes him' or `he wants to defeat him.' By contrast, Dostoevsky allows the characters to speak for themselves, which creates a much longer and subtler exposition, but also frees the ideas to be vast and monumental.

What is the fundamental nature of socialism? What are the uses of the church in finding purpose? In finding salvation? Why is there suffering? What is the meaning of death? Read the brothers' dialogues and contemplate.

Dostoevsky's own philosophy is seen in the protagonist, Alyosha. This is so despite the fact that the author ably covers every perspective on every topic presented in the book, and one can hardly find a positive assertion throughout. If there is one, it rests in the overall effect of the words and actions, a concept Dostoevsky articulated in a personal correspondence--it is that "Man is a mystery; if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do not say that you have wasted your time."

A word about the translations: The title of Book IV has been translated differently in every version I have seen (other chapter titles are also inconsistent, but Book IV is seemingly the most difficult to agree on). The original Russian is `Nadryvy,' which literally translates to `Ruptures,' though no translations I have seen use `Ruptures.' The word is used throughout the book to convey the motif of `pressures' or `strained conditions about to break.' The various options I have seen for this title are `Lacerations' (Garnett), `Strains' (Pevear & Volkhonsky), `Torment' (MacAndrew), `Crises' (Avsey), and `Crack-Ups' (McDuff). Given this is a central theme, the potential reader might look into which translation he prefers before buying. Apropos, the Princess Alexandra Kropotkin print version bears the Garnett translation, as does the Frederick Davidson audio recording.

Yeah you've got to read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov

Yes I know its long (indeed, it was intended to be the first book of a trilogy) and the names can be hard (Smerdyakov, Kolya Krossotkin) and characters can have more than one name (Dmitri, Mitya)

But just stick with me here. The books incredibly moving. You finish reading it, it knocks you over like a pile of bricks. POW!

I've read the book twice. Its a long one, make no mistake. HUGE. Books like this can be used as doorstops, stop up the winter draft


Not to give anything away, but the book is the story of a family. The father is a rather nasty piece of work, and you won't care what happens to him. "Why is such a man alive?" one of the character asks early on, and noone really cares for him except Alexey (more often called Alyosha)

Not to give away the plot, but there are sons of the lecher and all of them are vividly drawn. You have the young novice Alyosha, brother to Ivan (they share the same mother). You have the illegitimate son, and the intellectual. To write about the relationship between those two would be a sin, suffice it to say that terrible thoughts will find someone to act upon (Raskolnikov in Crime & Punishment is similar - fixated on an idea)

I was saying the book was powerful. This is so. So many high points! In his letters Dostoyevsky wrote of the book having its climax - in 2 different points!

He was referring to the Zossima narrative and the Pro & Contra chapters, but its all strong

Pro & Contra is probably the most famous section of the novel: Ivan and his Alyosha relax with one another over a meal, and talk. And argue (although Alyosha for the most part listens)

To tell more would be unfair, Alyosha loves his brother Ivan, but has to call what his brother suggests Rebellion, and the relation between the 2 will become even more sundered

You get vivid characters (even the minor characters, like the dreamer and the nihilist Rakitin are well drawn). A powerful plot (a character is murdered, and thats all I'll say about that). You get deep intense conversations about God and the devil (and Ivan returning his "ticket" as a matter of course, since its the suffering of children he cannot abide)

So powerful its beyond words. And this was just going to be the first of a TRILOGY. Amazing

Every now and then I read a book that I believe should be on every Christian thinker's bookshelf. Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov is one such book. It is not an exaggeration to say that The Brothers Karamazov might possibly be one of the greatest novels of all time.

Warning: Plot spoilers follow...

Dostoevsky's description of the tragic Karamazov brothers and the murder of their father provokes questions about God's sovereignty, the place of suffering in our world, human depravity, and redemption through pain.

I have decided not to give a description of this book's storyline. There are many places where one can find the story. I will say that there are sections of this book where the theological questions are so profound and well-treated that the reader feels he must read them several times to fully feel their force.

The Brothers Karamazov is a long book (almost 800 pages). Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation is, undoubtedly, the easiest to read in English, but even the good translation cannot overcome some of the slow-moving moments where the novel labors in details. Many Karamazov fans (and I am one of them) love the extra details, as the information helps to better form each of the unforgettable characters.

Who, after reading this book, can forget Fyodor Karamazov, the wicked and sensual father? Or Ivan, the cold rationalist son who has abandoned his belief in God? Or Dmitri, the well-intentioned son who is held captive to his own base desires? And of course, Alyosha, the good son who trusts in God but is powerless to stop the murder of his father? And these are just the Karamazovs. Dostoevsky's descriptions of Katerina, Grushenka, Father Zosima and Smerdyakov are just as compelling.

The Brothers Karamazov is not for the faint of heart. It is, at times, difficult to read. At other times, its story is captivating. And, as always in Dostoevsky's works, the depth of thought behind the philosophical questioning is what makes the book stand out. If you have time to read and you love classic literature, buy the book and read it all. If you don't have time, but would like a taste, I suggest you at least read "The Grand Inquisitor" chapter.

Great book --compelling and one of Dostoyevsky's best. The conversation between Christ and the Grand Inquisitor is a passage for all human kind.

With this book, Dostoevsky makes a brilliant social critique spanning over religion, family, social caste, and existential thought. His characters are passionate and real. His observations are apt and moving.

I found the beauty of this work to be that I appreciate its darkness and let it depress me only because it is timeless and relevant still.

At the beginning of my freshman year at college, a girl told me to read this book, it would 'change my life'. She wouldn't elaborate further. Now that I've read it, maybe I shouldn't either.

Read it.

Odd, its one of the most painful books I have ever read, it left me a wreck when I finished it.

But its...comforting. Not in the story, in my own life. That won't make any sense till you read the book. (And every synopsis/interpretation on the web misses the whole meaning completely.)

Take it as the last testament of a man who bounced from Christian to Socialist and back, "tormented by everlasting sin and injustice--both of one's own, and the world's" (quote from character in BK). "Thirsting for belief" and simultaneously very much "I will be a child of this age--a man of unbelief--till the lid of my coffin closes", and asking 'the parable of the prodigal son' to be read to him as he died.

The story is like life in general...beautiful and then ghastly, painful, loads of hatred and love twisted and not so twisted.

It hasn't got any pat answers, beautiful explanations for tormenting questions, or happy endings. But its...comforting. Read it.

________________________________

Actually, I couldn't stop crying for awhile after I finished The Brothers Karamazov. It was weird, it hurt so much, and yet it felt so true, like real life is like that. And then I felt this love welling up inside that didn't leave for awhile. Its like TBK hurt so much and at the same time gave this love inside and felt so true that the book was devastating and painful and comforting all at once.

This book will probably give you these common symptoms of many readers of the books. Namely:

1. took 3 weeks to recover from one of the books and become a functioning member of society again. Couldn't talk about the books with other people during that time, because it felt so intensely personal.
2. wanted to change your life after recovering from TBK.
3. shortly after recovering from TBK, found oneself choking up about the meanings of things too heavy for words.



******spoilers ahead****************
It says so much about life, and it is so true. Especially what it says about shame, hatred, strained virtue (Katya), torment, injustice, hope, and love. At the end of the book, I was bawling so hard because it felt so real. This sounds weird, but the book is so comforting precisely because parts of it are so painful and raw like life. I felt like it was saying: yes, there is so much wrongness, there is so much pain and defeat and death, and we have the choice to rage against earthly injustice like Ivan, or like Mitya and Alyosha, put all our hope in that inexplicable love that rushes into our heart at the darkest moment....to put our hope in it, and to love and forgive. Oh dear, I'm slaughtering it, this post doesn't do it justice at all.

In my opinion Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" is a seismic event in world literature because it puts God at the center of the discussion during a highly secular time, it is a tremendous piece of existential-psychology, and the characters are so unforgetable. Plus, it is a great murder mystery with several surprises and unforgetable scences. This is a must read!

When first in Russian business, I was told to read "Brothers Karamazov" to understand the Russian. As always, there are three sides to the Russian coin and this masterpiece reflects this fact about this land of 1000 years. The chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" is to me one of the greatest tracts in the world's literature and reflects on organized religion as well as a Russia about to implode. Absolutely essential.

Frederick R. Andresen, Author of "Walking on Ice, An American Businessman in Russia."Walking on Ice: An American Businessman in Russia

A truly wonderful piece of fiction.

Dostoevsky's (1821-1881) classic work was written towards the end of his life (between 1879-1880). It is a tale of a dysfunctional Russian middle class family; the story follows significant events in the lives of the father (Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov) and his three sons (Dmitri, Ivan and Alexei).

Although the first half of the story is slow to develop it is well written and easy to follow (maybe this is a trait of this era of Russian writers, I found Tolstoy's 'Anna Karenina' had the same qualities.) The latter half of the book was, in my opinion, much more dynamic and interesting to read.

The translation of the work, by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, from Russian to English, is well done; subjectively, to me, it seemed to captivate many of the subtleties and nuances that I can only assume Dostoevsky wished to bring forth in his novel.

However be forewarned, reading this novel is a true labor of love and a definitive exercise in perseverance. The book is 779 pages long and 'dense' with regards to the number of words per page. Some paragraphs go on for pages; some sentences can be difficult to follow because they are exceedingly long and punctuated with many commas. Also, Dostoevsky at times, uses his novel to expound (often, at some length) upon a few of his philosophical theories regarding such opposing forces as life/death, good/evil, and the existence (or not) of God.

Conclusion:
Many consider this one of the finest books ever written, and it may be so; this is obviously a very subjective opinion. I really enjoyed the book, especially the second half (beginning with Dmitri's tale). However, if your not an avid fan of Russian literature or if your simply reading it for pleasure then this book requires a degree of dedication to finish. But make no mistake about it, the quality is there, and if the story tweaks your fancy you'll be well rewarded by reading Dostoevsky's final masterpiece.

R.Nicholson

"The Brothers Karamazov" left me speechless. It definitely merits a second reading because there is SO much to absorb here. Dostoevsky presents a perfect mix of philosophy, religion, social issues and a page-turner of a plot. This is one of the best books I've ever read. Highly recommended. The translation, by the way, is fantastic and I will read all of my Russian literature by this amazing team of writers.

I've read The Brothers Karamazov in an least four translations now, and this is an absolutely delicious translation, the very best. Pevear and Volokhonsky bring great, suggestive depth, and great subtlety to the English text of this very great Russian novel.

I found this the most thought provoking novel I have ever read, Dostoevsky writes on so many levels.

First off The Brothers Karamazov is wildly entertaining and engaging, the characters jump off the page at you then lure you in. It can be laugh out loud funny at times and quite moving at others.

Secondly and maybe more importantly I found it to be a very spiritual book. Elder Zosima is one of the greatest characters I have ever had the pleasure to read, so enlightening. But there is much to be taken from all the characters, their strengths and weaknesses and how these characteristics intertwine with one another.

A must read, I cannot wait to read it again, I know there is so much I missed on the first time through. Though maybe I will try a different translation I read the Andrew MacAndrew translation but was reserching the book and found a site witch took a paragraph out of the book and compared three of the different translations, I was amazed how different each was. I must say from that comparison MacAndrews seemed to be the most straight forward, the most 'modern english' of them all, but maybe lacking in the poetic sense (which was probably good for a first read, at least in my case).

So I would ask you fellow reviewers to note the translation that was read, it does seem quite important.

I am among the reviewers who has only read this translation and is not familiar with the Russian language, or much Russian history for that matter. Even with my limited perspective I found this translation both engaging and thought-provoking.

Dostoevsky's detailed style is arguably drawn-out, but reveals itself to be worthwhile and even necessary as the story unfolds into a rich exploration of human nature. I found myself relating to the characters with such depth as to have feelings indistinguishable from those for real people. The journey became cumbersome through the first half of the book and then accelerated with new vigor as the second half burst forth into the story for which the character development and setting had been so painstakingly laid out. The religious and moral questions offered are what I consider to be the most fulfilling narrative, exploring ideas that transcend time and culture and speak to all who look deep into the heart of their existence. Read this book- it has all the components of great literature. This truly is a great literary achievement.

Some literary works are so sweeping in their vision, so penetrating in their understanding of the human condition and its psychology, so inexhaustible with respect to their spiritual insight that a reviewer feels quite small as he turns the last page and turns to comment.

Such is Dostoevsky's THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. The three siblings, products of the unrestrained loins of the hapless Fyodor Karamazov spend most of the pages alloted to them walking their ever diverging paths and become more and more unlike each other. Then, in a hundred or so pages, Dostoevsky all but forces us to see how alike they are. How alike we are, whether under the Russian sun or some other.

Just under a thousand pages prove incapable of wearying the discerning reader of this Russian masterpiece. Each chapter brings a new twist or at least a new glimpse into how passionate and calculating we are capable of becoming, all at the same time.

Along the way, one discovers the author's uncanny predictive ability to glimpse the direction in which his Russia would go when it had loosed itself of the spiritual conviction that for centuries had held the vastness of it intact.

Dostoevsky deserves the over-used adjective 'incomparable'. This work alone achieves that.

This is Dostoevsky's greatest work, and one of the greatest novels ever written. I would rate it superior to his Crime and Punishment which is also considered a masterpiece of psychological fiction. It is quite long, but once you get involved it grabs you by the heart and mind, and won't let you go. I am not one to read various translations of a single novel, but I can't imagine a better translation than the Pevear/Volokhonsky one.

The Brothers Karamazov is at times humorous and ironic, but it is mostly a wrenching exploration of the human psyche, as symbolically portrayed by 3 siblings, each personifying unique qualities of that psyche. There are many elements to this story..a family saga, a love triangle, a whodunit murder mystery, a courtroom drama..all peopled by unforgettable characters. It says profound things about pure faith and organized religion, selfishness and generosity, love and hate, loyalty and morality, jealousy and forgiveness, justice and compassion. It will make you laugh and cry, and best of all, ponder the important questions that life poses. If read carefully, The Brothers Karamazov will alter your thought processes, and you will be a more enlightened individual for having read it. I can go on and on extolling this book, but mere words cannot do it justice. It should be required reading.

This is Dostoevsky's greatest work, and one of the greatest novels ever written. It is long, but once you get involved it grabs you by the throat and won't let you go. I am not one to read various translations of a single novel, but I can't see a better translation than the Pevear/Volokhonsky one.
The Brothers Karamazov is at times humorous and ironic, but it is mostly a wrenching exploration of the human psyche, as symbolically portrayed by 3 siblings, each personifying unique qualities of that psyche. There are many elements to this story..a family saga, a love triangle, a whodunit murder mystery, a courtroom drama..all peopled by unforgettable characters. It says profound things about pure faith and organized religion, selfishness and generosity, love and hate, loyalty and morality, jealousy and forgiveness, justice and compassion. It will make you laugh and cry and best of all think. It will alter your thought processes, and you will be better for having read it.

I strongly, unhesitatingly recommend this remarkable novel to all readers who take literary art seriously. There is no 19th century novel more powerful or important. And this translation, though not as poetically strong as the Garnett translation, has more depth of detail than it or any other. Yet I give this novel only four stars rather than five. Please let me explain why. If you take Dostoyevsky seriously, please try to understand what my position is. Though I am going to make some critical comments about this novel, my intention is in no way to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for Dostoyevsky's work, but rather to assist the thinking about it.

Dostoyevsky is an intoxicating artist. Few writers can approach the almost hallucinatory power of his evocations and the depth of his probing. I have never met anyone who takes art seriously who denies this, but this fact can have a misleading side as well as a enlightening one. What I mean is that Dostoyevsky's works are not just artistic creations, they are also agenda-motivated philosophical dissertations and as such their validity is much more questionable. The Brothers Karamazov is as powerful as a waking dream as an artistic creation, but philosophically, though sometimes very powerful, is often also quite ambiguous and even at times lame, though it presents itself as philosophically quite clear and strong throughout. And part of what makes all this confusing and difficult to sort out is that these weak philosophical aspects are often coupled with extremely powerful artistic aspects. This is seen best in the polar-opposite coupling of Ivan and Alyosha.

Ivan is the novel's central philosophical problem (doubt) personified and Alyosha is the novel's philosophical solution (faith) personified. The finally telling, but unintended, irony here is that as artistic creations the problem (Ivan) is much more powerful and resonating than the solution (Alyosha) and Dostoyevsky's means of making Ivan capitulate to Alyosha in the end, and thereby pass on to him all his own enormous energy, is merely a shabby philosophical trick that is performed in a context of great artistic power. Ivan's conversion to Alyosha's Russian Orthodox Christian belief is one of the least convincing things in the entire book, but Dostoyevsky has made of the agnostic Ivan such a deep and forceful character that when he converts the reader may not notice on what flimsy grounds he has done so. At one point Ivan becomes ill and has hallucinations of what he later decides was the Devil who seems to be a personification of all of Ivan's own worst characteristics, or perhaps the source of them. The whole experience is very powerfully presented by Dostoyevsky as art, but Ivan's too simple conclusion after this profoundly ambiguous experience that there must be a God since now he knows (?) that there is a Devil is a travesty of the most difficult points of the whole good and evil problem. Dostoyevsky simply rearranges the scenery without any real justification so he can bring on Alyosha in the end as the hero. And it is obvious that our faithful hero is a mere adolescent who has not yet faced any real personal crisis as Ivan and Dimitri have. And for Dostoyevsky to bend the crises of both Ivan and Dimtri so that they point directly and simply at Alyosha and then put all the weight of this profound novel on Alyosha's slender adolescent shoulders is ludicrous. And yet one cannot question the astonishing power of the novel. But one can question the validity of Dostoyevsky's blanket solution of Russian Orthodox faith which Dostoyevsky himself did not actually adopt which is why the Russian church has never openly championed Dostoyevsky. No. Though the novel is unquestionably great and powerful art, its conclusion with its "Russian Christ" agenda is not valid, and the mystery of Ivan remains profound and unsolved.

There are a few moments in every serious reader's life where you simply have to sit back and accept the overwhelming magnitude and power of a great work of literature. For me, reading the latest translation of Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamozov' proved to be once such occasion. This novel is so wonderful and profound that it almost transcends the expectations of art itself. For this novel is such a combination of forceful elements. It is a story of betrayal, of faith, of love, it is a murder mystery, a courtroom drama, a love triangle, a story of loss and redemption, and all at the same time. Reading the Brother's K is like crawling through the crevices of a divinely inspired mind, a mind that had the creative force and faith in his own vision to craft this massive and great work. We are given unforgettable sequences such as the Grand Inquisitor, the prosecution, and the profound and deeply moving conclusion with Alyosha at the funeral. I found that Dostoevsky's characters gave off a a vivid luminosity that I have not experienced in other works of fiction, nor was I prepared to digest the deep and profound contradictions of the characters. This is a supreme achievement, and this translation will probably become the standard translation of what might be the greatest novel ever written.

The Grand Inquisitor chapter is one of the most important passages in literature. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor's critique of humanity is one of the most insightful and powerful critiques ever written. Eric Fromm revisits these and similar ideas in his Escape from Freedom. This novel is full of insights and shows Dostoevsky not only to be a great novel but also great thinker. Readers of this novel will encounter a multitude of ideas. This novel covers the philosophy of religion, psychology, faith, freedom, nihilism, existentialism, and many, many other topics. This is a novel that I expect to return to many times in the future. Highly recommended!!

A good book is entertaining. A great book makes you think. An incredible book causes you to reflect on life. This book will make you look inside yourself and possibly even cause you to make some changes to your life. I cannot overstate how amazing this book is. Yes, it is dense and not for the casual reader. Yes, there is a 70-page speech near the end. Yes, it is a translation and therefore subject to some clumsiness. But this book is rich beyond any other work of fiction I have ever read. It is a beautiful, gripping expression of Dostoevsky's own spiritual journey (if you don't know much about Dostoevsky, I recommend reading some about his life before beginning this novel; a good starting point is wikipedia.org/wiki/Dostoevsky). This book made me introspective about my role as a member of the human family. Aside from the Bible, no other book has touched and moved me so.

A good book is entertaining. A great book makes you think. An incredible book causes you to reflect on life. This book will make you look inside yourself and possibly even cause you to make some changes to your life. I cannot overstate how amazing this book is. Yes, it is dense and not for the casual reader. Yes, there is a 70-page speech near the end. Yes, it is a translation and therefore subject to some clumsiness. But this book is rich beyond any other work of fiction I have ever read. It is a beautiful, gripping expression of Dostoevsky's own spiritual journey. This book made me introspective about my role as a member of the human family. Aside from the Bible, no other book has touched and moved me so.

The Brothers Karamazov is considered one of the great literary works for good reason. It's a great literary work. If you read for simple escape, be warned - this book will lock you up and interrogate.

Like Melville, Dostoyevski is one of the few novelists that have held up for me as I have moved into my mature years. Partly it's because of the mature themes that he himself treats, and also because Dostoyevski is just a great storyteller. Dostoyevski is a writer of universal themes that continue to resonate today.

By the way, neuroscientists now suspect now that Dostoyevski had a type of temporal lobe epilepsy--the pleasant kind that results in ecstatic visions--not other unpleasant sorts such as the type that produces uncontrollable rage. This might explain some of Dostoyevski's writings, and the implications of this are still being researched. It will be especially interesting to see what scholars come up with in regard to his most famous work, The Brothers Karamazov.

I'd read this before but this particular copy is for my nephew who asked for it as a gift.

There is absolutely no way to summarize the key concepts and themes in this novel, so I wont even try. (I wish other reviewers would do the same...) That said this novel is definitely worth reading. I originally read the old Constance Garnett translation by Signet Classic and bought this new translation to re-read the book. (Your going to re-read this novel) I actually prefer the old translation. There's a certain lyrical flow that's missed when you try to translate the exact 'word-for-word' phrases instead of looking at the over-all meaning. For example:

There's an aphorism in Part III which in the Garnett translation is written as:

"Any man of sense will always come back to reason in time, but, if love does not gain the upper hand in a youth's heart at such an exeptional moment, when will it?

Where-as in this translation it goes:

"I am glad that at such a moment my young man turned out to be not so reasonable; the time will come for an intelligent man to be reasonable, but if at such an exceptional moment there is no love to be found in a young man's heart, then when will it come?

Its obviously much more rigid and forced. There are other instances too. Like when Fyodor Pavlovich adds to the 3,000 rouble note he offers to Grushenka, "To my little chicken." Its much more comic then the new versions, My chicky. Or something to that matter. These ofcoarse are mere trifles, but it's the detail that Dostoevsky always focused on. Details are what make or break a novel. I'm still waiting for a perfect tranlation of The Brothers. Maybe I should learn Russian? Until then, this will have to do!

1. Ivan is the only character who is worth reading. The rest of them are either completely insane, or squishy nothings (Alyosha).

2. Aside from a handful of GREAT chapters, there is soooooo much nonsense filler. It's not a perfect work of art a la Tolstoy.

3. Read Garnett. Don't be sucked into the Pevear/Volokhonsky marketing machine.

I've got to say, Pevear and Volokhonsky have done a tremendous job with this (and the rest of the Dostoevsky library) translation!

Someone once said that all you need to know about life is in The Brothers Karamazov. The story is far from simple and delves deeply into the mind of its characters, so that the result is it can be both great literature, studied for its complex inner workings, and as a novel to be enjoyed for its plot twists and suspense. The story centers around three very different brothers and their father who is a wealthy but leacherous old man. The characters are dawn fantastically with sometimes exagerated or cartoonish elements, but always real and believable as people with deep desires and motives that are struggling for some kind of change in themselves but also a change in their circumstances. While trying not to give anything away, I can only say that the experience of reading the book, watching the characters develop, is as exciting as the plot, which moves steadily for and 800 some odd page book. It is no surprise that this book was translated into English and has become one of the most popular Russian novels translated into English.

The translators made sure that the novel was easy to read in English. If you have ever known Russians or know anything about the Russian language you should recognize that it is no easy task to make Russian grammar flow smoothly in English. It is the best Dostoevsky translation I have read yet.

I read this book for a summer reading assingment for my AP English class and i was extremely impressed. I'm not one that usually reads 800 page books because usually i get bored with assigned readings. This was most definitely not the case with this book. There was constant action and mystery. There was not a time where i just did not feel like reading it. I would recommend this book to anyone who has ever read Fyodor Dostoevski or has considered it.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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 Richard 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.

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

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 reluctantly 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. I highly recommend it.

My Titles:
Shadow Fields
Snooker Glen

By Robert Tanner

Dostoevsky attention to detail shows when the reader is introduced to Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his three sons show their true colors. Fyodor being money hunger womanizer, with the darkest of hearts. With every inhuman act leading up to his down fall make the reader feel that more numb when the act is done. The only question left unanswered is, "who did it?"

Each brother has his own life to live, but in that life the pain their father forced upon them at ages so young is a big part of their personalities. Dmitri is the oldest brother with a king of shyness about him, where as his half brother Ivan is almost as rational a thinker as their father. Last is the youngest brother who shows a child like innocents in everything he does. The last thing the reader must confront is that on their own the brothers are all different from their father, but when broth together as one they make something interesting. Don't take my word for it, just read this book for your self.

...and there is no shortage of lunatics and deviants in this book! Here, Dostoyevsky has expertly shared the tale of a much-demented father and his multiple ("probably" four, all total) sons, both claimed and un-claimed.

Some readers will say that the father is a natural sick-o and some will point out that he's mentally ill, brain-ravaged by alcohol. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but the story is mostly about how life for the boys (young men) is essentially and frequently trashed by this scoundrel of a father, even subsequent to his murder... yes, we do get the opportunity to savor that great satisfaction but that fact, having now been revealed, is not really a spoiler, nor is it by any means the end of the story. In fact, the story pretty much spring-boards and feeds off the death of the father. Up until that point in the book, we are simply, (and sometimes humorously, in a dark sense), regaled with the father's madness and the appurtenant widespread misery that his heinous behavior yields for both his offsping and on society in general, not excluding the local religious leadership.

The work is bulging with ethical issues (typical Dostoyevsky, really), but they certainly do not cloud the story line in the slightest.

If you enjoy rampant madness, intermittent justice, and fine literature, this is the book for you. My favorite character is Smerdyakov and the new reader will see why, since I have this wierd love of mad (but devious) book characters.

If you are mentally wrestling between either reading this particular work, or, "Crime and Punishment," solely on the issue of "fun readability," this is the pick of the two. However the latter IS also a magnificent literary achievement and a classic example of Dostoyevsky's excellent Russian literature.

A fine read for all young adults, but especially for young men. Unfortunately, if you wind up like I did, you won't get around to reading it until you're 50 or so, and will, thus, not fully benefit from the many life lessons which are conveyed in this magnificent work of world literature.

I've read two other translations and this one is like the difference between lightning bugs and lightning. Nobody comes close. It takes a few pages to get into: I suggest starting when you can read at least the first fifty at one time. Then once you're in there, you're in there, and maybe your life will change. There are no answers here, only some of the smartest questions you'll ever run across. Don't be surprised if you're tempted to set the thing on fire at least four times before you finish. Is there higher praise than that?

While I have not yet had a chance to actually read the book (because of other reading obligations with grad school), the book itself appears to be in good condition.

First off, I love this book - it's one of the best books ever, hands down. I just take issue with everyone neglecting David Magarshack's masterful, colorful, nuanced translations. Why does everyone look upon the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations as the second coming? Possibly because Constance Garnett had, apparently, a monopoly on Dostoevsky translations heretofore. But, although Garnett may have done it first, Magarshack did it better.

One other reviewer cited P/V's translation of the first paragraph, citing the word "muddleheaded" as a glorious coup & shining example of all that we can glean from the P/V. However, Magarshack did this in the 1950's and captured all of the humor, pathos & philosophy - and did it far better. I've read their translation of The Idiot & I found it pretentious. The only difference I see betweent P/V & Magarshack is that P/V use bigger words, to less effect. The whole tone of the novel is different from Magarshack's far more accessible work.

If you haven't read The Brothers Karamazov yet, I envy you, because you have the experience of reading of what's possibly the greatest novel ever written still ahead of you. This is a true masterpiece that somehow conveys through five or six main characters a flash of everything that his hard and unfair in life, while still leaving you with the feeling that it's worth living with all your might; that, like Prince Myshkin says in another Dostoevsky novel, maybe beauty really will save the world. And if you haven't read ANY Dostoevsky yet, please consider starting with another novel, like, say, Crime and Punishment (where most people start and a very good beginning), or The Idiot (in some ways as beautiful as BK, but more manageable in scale). You'll be glad you got your sea legs in Dostoevsky's dense, sad, zany and chaotic world beforehand, so you could have total enjoyment of this book, the very finest work of a true genius.

I adored this book. It was the most inspiring thing I have read in ten years. You do have to be persistent to get throught the first few hundred pages but it starts building momentum like an avalanche. Incredibly affecting. You will not regret the hours you devote to it

The Brothers Karamazov is easily one of the greatest books ever written. Unlike Crime and Punishment--which I also love--the Brothers Karamazov is more plot-drive and more easily digested. A large book, it is nonetheless full of great writing, intense philosophical debate, and beautifully-crafted chapters. 'The Grand Inquisitor' is the most haunting and powerfully-written chapter I have read in any book.

If you abhor Dostoevsky's writing style, or his insisting Christian existentialism, then I wouldn't recommend this eight-hundred page behemoth. If you weren't enamoured with Crime and Punishment, but did not hate it, I believe the Brothers Karamazov can bring you to the side of people who adore Dostoevsky.

Dostoevsky did not convert me with this book, but he cemented himself in my mind as the greatest novelist.

One of the best, clearly. I agree with a lot of the 5 star reviewers before me. This book is a classic because of its many facets. Not only is it a nice historical snapshot, which I always find it a bonus in awesome books like these, but it also presents a very interesting moral/religious dilemma. It seems that the world these characters live in has lost touch with what morality is-they just go through the motions without understanding their actions or the reasons for their actions. Indeed, it is very easy to be complacent and only the protagonist of the book seems to understand that the path his brothers are on is a dangerous one. Also, I have to praise the excellent translation-classic Russian flavor. Don't read it if you expect a light summer read-it's very broad in scope and you have to pay attention to the details to fully understand the great torment and psychological imbalance of some of the characters.

This doesn't have the demonically possessed intensity of Crime and Punishment but still impressive. My favorite part was the Illyusha subplot. I actually shed some tears over this! (But I'm still all man).

But WOW! I just finished this book today and I'm EXHAUSTED. I feel like I took an 800 page tour through a mental hospital. Everyone is completely crazy--except Alyosha. Especially the womenfolk. Grushenka can't decide if she wants to be a gold digger--but in the meantime why not shack up with a dirty, mean old merchant?--or the caretaker of misunderstood bad boys with no money--unless the old man is offed.

And then we have Katerina Ivanova. Wow. If Grushenka is a dominatrix, Katya would want you to spank her. Hard. Everything she does--and none of it makes sense--she explains by saying, "I wanted to hurt myself". She and Ivan are the perfect match--both are in love with misery. If they got married, I'm sure they played a lot of Nine Inch Nails at their wedding. Oh, and Madame Kholakhov? And Lise---who enjoys cutting herself for kicks on a Saturday night? And "The Shrieker"? I need a drink.

Then there is our favorite spoiled frat boy, Mitya. We've all met guys like him before. I'm always seeing people and thinking, "That guy is just begging to get framed for murder by his scheming bastard brother / lackey who will then commit suicide and erase any evidence that could help him".

I wonder if Mitya ever made to America. I think he would have fit right in here.

This Russian classic by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) combines a compelling mystery with philosophy and intense character studies. This story concerns the killing of Mr. Karamazov, a hedonistic and unsympathetic man. The suspects are his sons, each of whom represents a different type of personality. Dimitri is spoiled and given to instinctive desires, while Ivan is coldly intellectual and atheistic. Alyosha is the most likeable, a caring young man of strong religious faith, while half-brother Smerdyakov is cunning and suffers from epilepsy (as did the author). As the story unfolds readers learn what happened, see each character develop, and get a strong dose of the author's philosophy. Perhaps the novel's strongest part involves Ivan's critique of religion and fevered conversation with the devil - yet the eventual winner seems to be Alyosha and his enduring faith. Dostoevsky suggests that faith in God (and the Orthodox Church) is the only path to a moral life. Also, his intense Russian nationalism and repeated slurs against Jews and Poles may put off some readers.

Dostoyevsky wrote powerful prose that keeps many readers on edge even after the translation into English. Some readers may want to consult Cliffs Notes after reading this novel to "get it," while others may dislike the author's questionable views. Still, this compelling mystery is well worth reading.

I don't speak Russian, nor do I have access to the original Russian text. My only point of comparison is the Constance Garnett translation we all grew up with. I purchased this version based on the glowing recommendations that it rendered Garnett obsolete, that without being aware of it, I was actually reading "Garnett" rather than "Dostoyevsky."

All translators must find a balance between literal meaning and clear expression, when these conflict with each other. I can only assume that the differences between Pevear/Volokhonsky and Garnett are due to choosing the literal meaning of certain words and phrases. Where these clash with my vivid memory of Garnett's translation, even after many years, I cannot help but wonder where the improvement lies.

Captain Snegiryov, referred to as the "wisp of tow" in Garnett, is a "whiskbroom" here. This corrects an archaism at the expense of poetry. The chapter "Strains," probably the actual title in Russian, was "Lacerations" in Garnett, a much more vivid image. Father Ferapont discusses, in Garnett, the difference between the "Holy Spirit" and the "Holy Ghost," terms familiar to all English speakers; here, "Holy Ghost" is rendered "Holispirit." What on earth is a "Holispirit?" I can only guess that in the original, the two terms were spelled nearly identically, occasioning this rendition. Finally, in Garnett's version of the meeting with Father Zossima, Fyodor Karamazov's quotation of "Blessed be the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck" is phrased slightly differently here, without the same impact.

The power and brilliance of the original work is still apparent; these are only minor issues. Nevertheless, they are annoying and detract in some small way from the entire experience of the novel. On the positive side, Dostoyevsky's references to issues of the day, which the modern reader would not be familiar with, are explained in the copious footnotes.

I love this translation. I would recommend anyone wanting to ready Dostoevsky, to get this volume.