I love this book so much. If anyone here attempts to read I’ll only say this much - the second quarter of the book (25% to 50%) can be a bit of a slog, but after that it becomes hard to put down. The sense of urgency in the story won’t allow you to.
This book is also notable for me in that I fundamentally disagree with one of the author’s main idea - that humans need religion as a source of morality. At least, that’s how I interpreted Ivan’s fate - he went mad trying to make sense of the world without God, purely through a rational lens. This disagreement with the author doesn’t matter to me though, because the book is a work of art. That much was clear to me, even as I was turning the pages for the first time. The vitality and detail of each of the characters, especially Dmitri - only a great artist could do that.
I also wonder how Dostoevsky would have felt, if he had written his book 150 years later. While our world was far from perfect, it is far from the universal misery of Tsarist Russia, where serfs starved to death. I feel like you can’t make sense of life in those circumstances with religion explaining why there’s so much pain in the world, so I understand where he was coming from. But would he still have felt the same even if life was substantially better for most people?
Lastly, if anyone can explain to me - why do they call Agrafena Alexandrovna Grushenka? Is this a standard nickname for Agrafena, like Alyosha is for Alexei? I feel like everyone in the novel just took the name for granted, like it was normal to call someone a little pear.
> This book is also notable for me in that I fundamentally disagree with one of the author’s main idea - that humans need religion as a source of morality.
I think in Dostoyevsky's world it's not just religion that is necessary but specifically God: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". Which is a different question, e.g. I agree with you on the part where one can get by without God, but I also think that religion is necessary in a sense that any set of beliefs complex enough to guide you through life is indistinguishable from one.
> Lastly, if anyone can explain to me - why do they call Agrafena Alexandrovna Grushenka? Is this a standard nickname for Agrafena, like Alyosha is for Alexei? I feel like everyone in the novel just took the name for granted, like it was normal to call someone a little pear.
Apparently so, it's hard to tell for sure because the name had completely fallen out of fashion. I was about to write you that I never met anyone who come by that name, however I started reading about it and was quite surprised to learn that Grunya is another short name for Agrafena and one of my great-grandmothers had that name. Never heard anyone call her Grushenka though.
I see where Dostoevsky was coming from. God and religion helped him process the grief of losing his little boy. I cannot possibly speak about how I’d process grief like that.
I feel like I have a set of principles that boils down to “treat people how you would want to be treated”. But those principles don’t cover situations like the one Dostoevsky or his characters found themselves in.
This is a fundamentally gentler world than the one he lived in. Maybe in this world we can rely on the State preventing situations where “Everything is permitted”, as Ivan was worried about. Maybe people aren’t as desperate as the people were in Tsarist Russia. They’re not exposed to as much violence, and so don’t feel compelled to commit that themselves.
I don't think that the State can somehow solve or sidestep the morality problem. The laws of the state are the consequence of beliefs and culture of the citizens (or the elites), not the other way round. Everyone needs to be able tell good from evil in their daily lives, this process can be partly codified in laws but then neither the laws cover it all nor do they work if people don't believe in law.
In that sense very little had changed since Dostoyevsky's time. Or since Homer's time for that matter.
I see where you’re coming from - the state is just the will of the people.
From my perspective, the State’s capacity to enforce the will of the people has improved dramatically. People both then and now would have wanted no indentured servitude, no starvation, better healthcare, safety from violence and so on.
But governments can actually deliver on most of those to a reasonable degree now. In that sense “everything is permitted” is limited by what the state will allow you to get away with. Is murder permitted? Yeah, but you’re probably getting caught. Is littering permitted? Same. We don’t need a belief in God to prevent people from committing crimes against their fellows. Less violence, less starvation, fewer children dying.
People haven’t become better, but the world has become gentler. Whether a person believes “everything is permitted” or not, there’s a lot less permitted now than back then. A simple morality of “I’ll follow the laws of society”, which you have to do anyway, is probably good enough to make a stable society.
On some level, this makes the Brothers Karamazov feel a bit less timeless. It feels like those difficult questions Ivan was grappling with aren’t eternal, just a problem of the circumstances he was living in. If he lived in 2025 he’d probably just be an atheist and he wouldn’t lose his mind over it. It doesn’t matter to me thought, the book is still a masterpiece.
Thank you for discussing this with me. This book is a bit niche so I can’t remember the last time I got to discuss it with someone.
The edition of Crime and Punishment that I read had an appendix with a detailed character listing mapping characters to their nicknames (and giving an overview of their relationships also I think): I was so grateful for that.
I am bad at tracking things like character's surnames already when books call people by different names, I probably wouldn't have been able to enjoy the book as much as I did without this help.
I like Dostoyevsky and enjoyed many of his books but the Brothers in my opinion is just badly written: long and self-repetitive. It has moments of clarity and beauty like the The Grand Inquisitor novel or the discussion in the monastery, and ideas in the book are compelling but boy it's an ordeal to get to them. So my advice: if you want try Dostoyevsky please don't start with "the masterpiece", pick any other book of his. Crime and Punishment, the Idiot or short novels like The Gambler are a good start. You can get to the Brothers later if you chose to.
Another thought I had been having when reading the book was that Dostoyevsky uses insanity and especially insanity caused by stress way too often, it's a major plot device in his books while it's so rare in real life. However now I observe many of my friends (especially single ones) slowly going insane in various ways and I don't anymore think that it's rare. I guess mental health becomes scarce as you get older just like the physical health, just didn't expect this to manifest itself around the age of 35.
I left the Brothers to the last, after loving Dostoyevsky especially as a young person - his shorter books really speaks to the youth sense of rebellion while questioning that - and eventually I tried the Brothers several times, the last being this year on a very long car trip as an audio book. I just couldn't.. It's obtuse and the storytelling gets in the way. I stopped listening and succumbed instead to reading various reviews and summaries to get the gist of it. So thanks for your comment, and everyone else's here - I now understand a bit better the parts I skipped.
Funny to see this pop up as I’m reading this book for the first time currently. I’m about half way through and have enjoyed the story so far. The writing is often frantic and sometimes exhausting to read, but it certainly keeps one’s interest. I’ve been surprised to find the social commentary so resonant with life today. I’ll wait to read this review until I’ve finished the book.
It's hard to imagine anything like this making it to publication today. "Ghoulish rigamarole," I've heard it called, that'd be written off as crankish.
On the other hand, a lot more books are published now. There are a lot of books, especially in the genre of experimental literature, that are stranger and more difficult than this. I'd classify Infinite Jest or any of the Irving Welsh books as more ghoulish and harder to read, and those are almost mainstream compared to some things.
Popularity is another matter, but then literary fiction has never been popular, almost by definition, compared to genres: romance, mystery, etc.
In my opinion the author of this article makes the same error as Nietzsche did. Seeing it as a book about psychology that revolves around theological themes, when it is a book about theology that revolves around psychological themes.
What I find quite problematic is how it fully inverts what the Grand Inquisitor is about through its oversimplification. Its not an indictment of Christ, it’s about an indictment of Christ, but in fact it‘s Christ who is exposing the institutional church , how Ivan views it, with the only thing it ironically doesnt ‘t expect of him: a deeply Christian act
Alyosha is quite literally introduced as the hero of the novel, so saying his presence pales in comparison to Dimitry and Ivan is kind of weak. I‘d agree that his spectacle pales in comparison to his brothers, but his presence not at all.
> Seeing it as a book about psychology that revolves around theological themes, when it is a book about theology that revolves around psychological themes.
I don't think Dostoevsky's Christianity is genuine. It feels about as genuine as Hegel's Christianity. To both of them it's just a convenient prop where their actual ideas take center stage
Every nihilist main character that he writes follows this pattern where they do something really bad, then destroy themselves as some kind of act of penance. This is the only way that conversion happens in his books. But in this case, it's obviously just a way of processing guilt (and reenacting the author's trauma from near execution most likely)
Maybe I'm psychologizing religion too much, but I don't think religious belief is genuine if it's rooted in some kind of (obvious) psychological trauma
The one thing that stands out in Dostoevsky is the psychological depth of the characters, especially in Demons
That is very interesting to read as I view him as very genuinely Christian. I would not agree with your description of the nihlist characters.
I see it that mostly the (self)destructive acts are earlier nihilist actions and only then after facing and having accepted the consequences, the repentance emerges like in Crime and Punishment. The ones that stay nihilistic and don’t repent at all still face destruction.
I tend to agree with bayareapsycho that Dostoyevsky doesn't feel genuinely christian. In his books God is derived out of ultimate necessity, it's the only sane way to survive. If you follow that line of thought you can come to a conclusion that if God didn't exist people would have to invent him. And if that's the case then maybe they DID invent him after all. It's just that it doesn't matter.
Dostoyevsky himself never goes that far in his books but I feel that the direction is set pretty clearly. It could be that I'm reading my thoughts into his works though.
So what counts as a genuine Christian in your view?
I can agree with that his books often suggest that God is the only sane way to survive, but I don‘t agree that this reduces him to only a useful necessity.
Ironically the conclusion you are making aligns very closely with what the Grand Inquisitor is preaching to Christ. And as the Grand Inquisitor is Ivan’s story, and not a plot in the book, I feel like Dostoyevsky is tackling that exact topic very prominently in the book on multiple levels. Especially through the response of the kiss.
> So what counts as a genuine Christian in your view?
I assumed that among other things it requires just accepting that God exists whether we need him or not. The practicality of having God around seems off to me, but in the end I'm not a genuine Christian myself so it's hard to judge.
I love this book so much. If anyone here attempts to read I’ll only say this much - the second quarter of the book (25% to 50%) can be a bit of a slog, but after that it becomes hard to put down. The sense of urgency in the story won’t allow you to.
This book is also notable for me in that I fundamentally disagree with one of the author’s main idea - that humans need religion as a source of morality. At least, that’s how I interpreted Ivan’s fate - he went mad trying to make sense of the world without God, purely through a rational lens. This disagreement with the author doesn’t matter to me though, because the book is a work of art. That much was clear to me, even as I was turning the pages for the first time. The vitality and detail of each of the characters, especially Dmitri - only a great artist could do that.
I also wonder how Dostoevsky would have felt, if he had written his book 150 years later. While our world was far from perfect, it is far from the universal misery of Tsarist Russia, where serfs starved to death. I feel like you can’t make sense of life in those circumstances with religion explaining why there’s so much pain in the world, so I understand where he was coming from. But would he still have felt the same even if life was substantially better for most people?
Lastly, if anyone can explain to me - why do they call Agrafena Alexandrovna Grushenka? Is this a standard nickname for Agrafena, like Alyosha is for Alexei? I feel like everyone in the novel just took the name for granted, like it was normal to call someone a little pear.
> This book is also notable for me in that I fundamentally disagree with one of the author’s main idea - that humans need religion as a source of morality.
I think in Dostoyevsky's world it's not just religion that is necessary but specifically God: "If there is no God, everything is permitted". Which is a different question, e.g. I agree with you on the part where one can get by without God, but I also think that religion is necessary in a sense that any set of beliefs complex enough to guide you through life is indistinguishable from one.
> Lastly, if anyone can explain to me - why do they call Agrafena Alexandrovna Grushenka? Is this a standard nickname for Agrafena, like Alyosha is for Alexei? I feel like everyone in the novel just took the name for granted, like it was normal to call someone a little pear.
Apparently so, it's hard to tell for sure because the name had completely fallen out of fashion. I was about to write you that I never met anyone who come by that name, however I started reading about it and was quite surprised to learn that Grunya is another short name for Agrafena and one of my great-grandmothers had that name. Never heard anyone call her Grushenka though.
I see where Dostoevsky was coming from. God and religion helped him process the grief of losing his little boy. I cannot possibly speak about how I’d process grief like that.
I feel like I have a set of principles that boils down to “treat people how you would want to be treated”. But those principles don’t cover situations like the one Dostoevsky or his characters found themselves in.
This is a fundamentally gentler world than the one he lived in. Maybe in this world we can rely on the State preventing situations where “Everything is permitted”, as Ivan was worried about. Maybe people aren’t as desperate as the people were in Tsarist Russia. They’re not exposed to as much violence, and so don’t feel compelled to commit that themselves.
I don't think that the State can somehow solve or sidestep the morality problem. The laws of the state are the consequence of beliefs and culture of the citizens (or the elites), not the other way round. Everyone needs to be able tell good from evil in their daily lives, this process can be partly codified in laws but then neither the laws cover it all nor do they work if people don't believe in law.
In that sense very little had changed since Dostoyevsky's time. Or since Homer's time for that matter.
I see where you’re coming from - the state is just the will of the people.
From my perspective, the State’s capacity to enforce the will of the people has improved dramatically. People both then and now would have wanted no indentured servitude, no starvation, better healthcare, safety from violence and so on.
But governments can actually deliver on most of those to a reasonable degree now. In that sense “everything is permitted” is limited by what the state will allow you to get away with. Is murder permitted? Yeah, but you’re probably getting caught. Is littering permitted? Same. We don’t need a belief in God to prevent people from committing crimes against their fellows. Less violence, less starvation, fewer children dying.
People haven’t become better, but the world has become gentler. Whether a person believes “everything is permitted” or not, there’s a lot less permitted now than back then. A simple morality of “I’ll follow the laws of society”, which you have to do anyway, is probably good enough to make a stable society.
On some level, this makes the Brothers Karamazov feel a bit less timeless. It feels like those difficult questions Ivan was grappling with aren’t eternal, just a problem of the circumstances he was living in. If he lived in 2025 he’d probably just be an atheist and he wouldn’t lose his mind over it. It doesn’t matter to me thought, the book is still a masterpiece.
Thank you for discussing this with me. This book is a bit niche so I can’t remember the last time I got to discuss it with someone.
The edition of Crime and Punishment that I read had an appendix with a detailed character listing mapping characters to their nicknames (and giving an overview of their relationships also I think): I was so grateful for that.
I am bad at tracking things like character's surnames already when books call people by different names, I probably wouldn't have been able to enjoy the book as much as I did without this help.
I like Dostoyevsky and enjoyed many of his books but the Brothers in my opinion is just badly written: long and self-repetitive. It has moments of clarity and beauty like the The Grand Inquisitor novel or the discussion in the monastery, and ideas in the book are compelling but boy it's an ordeal to get to them. So my advice: if you want try Dostoyevsky please don't start with "the masterpiece", pick any other book of his. Crime and Punishment, the Idiot or short novels like The Gambler are a good start. You can get to the Brothers later if you chose to.
Another thought I had been having when reading the book was that Dostoyevsky uses insanity and especially insanity caused by stress way too often, it's a major plot device in his books while it's so rare in real life. However now I observe many of my friends (especially single ones) slowly going insane in various ways and I don't anymore think that it's rare. I guess mental health becomes scarce as you get older just like the physical health, just didn't expect this to manifest itself around the age of 35.
I left the Brothers to the last, after loving Dostoyevsky especially as a young person - his shorter books really speaks to the youth sense of rebellion while questioning that - and eventually I tried the Brothers several times, the last being this year on a very long car trip as an audio book. I just couldn't.. It's obtuse and the storytelling gets in the way. I stopped listening and succumbed instead to reading various reviews and summaries to get the gist of it. So thanks for your comment, and everyone else's here - I now understand a bit better the parts I skipped.
Is there a good film or TV production available?
I gave up after reading 20% . Felt like it wasn't getting anywhere. Then I read the summary. Didn't get the point of it either. Maybe it's just me
Funny to see this pop up as I’m reading this book for the first time currently. I’m about half way through and have enjoyed the story so far. The writing is often frantic and sometimes exhausting to read, but it certainly keeps one’s interest. I’ve been surprised to find the social commentary so resonant with life today. I’ll wait to read this review until I’ve finished the book.
Free to download from Standard Ebooks for anyone interested: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/the-brot...
It's hard to imagine anything like this making it to publication today. "Ghoulish rigamarole," I've heard it called, that'd be written off as crankish.
On the other hand, a lot more books are published now. There are a lot of books, especially in the genre of experimental literature, that are stranger and more difficult than this. I'd classify Infinite Jest or any of the Irving Welsh books as more ghoulish and harder to read, and those are almost mainstream compared to some things.
Popularity is another matter, but then literary fiction has never been popular, almost by definition, compared to genres: romance, mystery, etc.
https://archive.is/0fvla
In my opinion the author of this article makes the same error as Nietzsche did. Seeing it as a book about psychology that revolves around theological themes, when it is a book about theology that revolves around psychological themes.
What I find quite problematic is how it fully inverts what the Grand Inquisitor is about through its oversimplification. Its not an indictment of Christ, it’s about an indictment of Christ, but in fact it‘s Christ who is exposing the institutional church , how Ivan views it, with the only thing it ironically doesnt ‘t expect of him: a deeply Christian act
Alyosha is quite literally introduced as the hero of the novel, so saying his presence pales in comparison to Dimitry and Ivan is kind of weak. I‘d agree that his spectacle pales in comparison to his brothers, but his presence not at all.
> Seeing it as a book about psychology that revolves around theological themes, when it is a book about theology that revolves around psychological themes.
I don't think Dostoevsky's Christianity is genuine. It feels about as genuine as Hegel's Christianity. To both of them it's just a convenient prop where their actual ideas take center stage
Every nihilist main character that he writes follows this pattern where they do something really bad, then destroy themselves as some kind of act of penance. This is the only way that conversion happens in his books. But in this case, it's obviously just a way of processing guilt (and reenacting the author's trauma from near execution most likely)
Maybe I'm psychologizing religion too much, but I don't think religious belief is genuine if it's rooted in some kind of (obvious) psychological trauma
The one thing that stands out in Dostoevsky is the psychological depth of the characters, especially in Demons
That is very interesting to read as I view him as very genuinely Christian. I would not agree with your description of the nihlist characters. I see it that mostly the (self)destructive acts are earlier nihilist actions and only then after facing and having accepted the consequences, the repentance emerges like in Crime and Punishment. The ones that stay nihilistic and don’t repent at all still face destruction.
I tend to agree with bayareapsycho that Dostoyevsky doesn't feel genuinely christian. In his books God is derived out of ultimate necessity, it's the only sane way to survive. If you follow that line of thought you can come to a conclusion that if God didn't exist people would have to invent him. And if that's the case then maybe they DID invent him after all. It's just that it doesn't matter.
Dostoyevsky himself never goes that far in his books but I feel that the direction is set pretty clearly. It could be that I'm reading my thoughts into his works though.
So what counts as a genuine Christian in your view?
I can agree with that his books often suggest that God is the only sane way to survive, but I don‘t agree that this reduces him to only a useful necessity.
Ironically the conclusion you are making aligns very closely with what the Grand Inquisitor is preaching to Christ. And as the Grand Inquisitor is Ivan’s story, and not a plot in the book, I feel like Dostoyevsky is tackling that exact topic very prominently in the book on multiple levels. Especially through the response of the kiss.
> So what counts as a genuine Christian in your view?
I assumed that among other things it requires just accepting that God exists whether we need him or not. The practicality of having God around seems off to me, but in the end I'm not a genuine Christian myself so it's hard to judge.
There is a special place in hell for people who share locked articles.
In this case it suffices to disable javascript. The article loads in full and the paywall is generated on the client side.
Or reader mode + refresh.