The Monk, the Rationalist, the Parricide.
A review/ summary of the book "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Author: Fyodor Dostoevsky
Genre: Fiction, Theology, Philosophy, Suspense
The Brothers Karamazov
Introduction
In any list of classic novels and literature, you will find this book. And it is for good reason. The book deserves to be up there in the greats. Although it is a long read, I find it to be well worth the time and energy.
I was recommended this book by a couple of my friends, and I will gladly take more recommendations from them. For now, Russian literature has captured my interest, and I see myself reading more of it in the time that is to come.
Summary
The book deals with three brothers as suggested by the title, and the murder of their father. The book is an excellent depiction of heated conflict between kin concerning love and lovers. There are fiery confrontations between characters and the drama is excellent.
By the end of the book, it turns into a courtroom drama. A battle of wits and slippery arguments which is thoroughly enjoyable.
The book in three sentences
1. If there is no God, then everything is permitted.
2. One can fall in love and still hate
3. You cannot expect morality from a person with an empty stomach
Highlights and notes
The book is very well written and has a lot of quotable passages. Here are some of the ones that I liked a lot
Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving of one's life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.
"Whoever steps on the lowest step will surely step on the highest."
"So one had better not step at all."
Indeed, people speak sometimes about the 'animal' cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could be so cruel as man, so artfully, so artistically cruel. A tiger simply gnaws and tears, that is all he can do. It would never occur to him to nail people by their ears overnight, even if he were able to do it.
Oh, we love to live among people and to inform these people at once of everything, even our most infernal and dangerous ideas; we like sharing with people, and, who knows why, we demand immediately, on the spot, that these people respond to us at once with the fullest sympathy, enter into all our cares and concerns, nod in agreement with us, and never cross our humor. Otherwise we will get angry and wreck the whole tavern.
Thoughts, Concepts, and Takeaways
There is a lot to dissect in the book. Two chapters right in the heart of the book are filled with juicy arguments and thought-provoking material. These chapters are named "Rebellion" and "The Grand Inquisitor". "The Grand Inquisitor" has also been published independently, and is a good read in itself. The chapters deal with the argument of God and why even if God exists, it makes sense to respectfully return him your ticket to heaven.
Apart from the material itself, in the footnotes, we can find written
Si Dieu n'existant pas, ill faudrait l'inventer
This is a quote from Voltaire that translates to "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented". This thought is further expanded on in the aforementioned chapters. It makes sense in the context of the quote "If there is no God, then everything is permitted". Basically, in the mind of the criminal, death is the ultimate escape from the judicial system. As in, humans cannot bring someone to justice posthumously. Taking this to be an escape, one might be tempted to escape the judicial system knowing that if they are not caught and tried, they are effectively.
To curb this thought process, one must believe in the existence of a higher being or the immortality of the soul. In doing so, one believes in the fact that no crime goes unpunished and that they will be brought to justice some time or the other. Making it so that if there is no God, it is irrational to have a moral compass, making everything permitted by extension.
Another idea that is put out by the author is that killing a criminal only satiates our moral sense. Nothing more. And to illustrate it, the author gives us the story of a tyrant who kills a child in front of their mother. The question raised by the author now is, will killing the tyrant bring any justice to anyone? Also, given that the victim is no more, is it our place to decide what the victim would have felt as justice? Does someone in proxy hold any authority in the matter of the victim at all?
In "The Grand Inquisitor" the character of the Inquisitor has also put forward ideas that question our sense of morality and justice. In the chapter (which is a monologue) the inquisitor poses one major question. Is it even right to expect morality from a person who has not had a full stomach? Can a person with no sense of security as to where their next meal will come from be held responsible morally for their actions in that state?
The answer turns out to be no and for a simple reason. It is beyond the nature of a human to choose morality over security.
This idea is also similar to a quote by Shah Rukh Khan, which goes like
Don't become a philosopher before you become rich.
Analysis of the style of the author
Dostoevsky is known to be a master of the inner workings of a character. The man never leaves more to be desired in his writing. In the masterclass that the book is, one can get to have a deep look into every character. This effect is achieved by the fact that every character gets a rich backstory and the worldbuilding is excellent. The more you read the book, the better you understand the characters. This familiarity of the characters then comes into the picture when they do something out of character which goes on to say volumes about the circumstances and the internal tensions that they are facing. Dostoevsky uses a lot of techniques to reveal his characters. These include the usage of
Literary quotations
Confession
Dialogue
Split inner dialogue
Group conversation, and
Revelation of some past incident
The author makes it so that we spend some time with a character, see them go through life, and understand what is going on. We then rewind some time back and then live through the same time but through a different character in a different place. This makes it so that we get many perspectives on the entire series of events that are going on simultaneously.
Also, foreshadowing is a good chunk of the book. There isn't much that can be said in this department without spoiling the book, but almost everything in the book can be seen in the foreshadowing that is perfectly placed throughout the book.
Coming to the use of the patterns and symbols. Every detail seems to be significant when you analyze it. Chekhov would be kinda proud (I am not sure if scene building would please him, but okay). But the setting, the scene, the positions, the dynamics, the props, everything seems to be meticulously planned out. Not many things feel out of place. And the things that do feel out of place, seem to be justified later.
The courtroom scene is also worth analyzing in itself. Despite building the case throughout the book, Dostoevsky provides an equal and balanced argument when it comes to the courtroom. And even though there is a temptation to use gimmicks and chicanery while writing courtroom scenes, he avoids it for the most part. The debate that goes on in the courtroom is as balanced as one could make it, which adds to the enjoyment of the trial.
Dostoevsky took a good three-year period to write the book, and it shows. He makes it count. The attention to detail, the textbook structure, and the writing, all lend the book to be an excellent reading experience. All this does not make him immune from criticism though. The main criticism of the book is the length and the pacing. Although I understand that the book can't be any shorter than it is, the pacing could be a bit faster in the first half of the book. This is not to say that the pacing hurts the book or does not fulfill a purpose. The deliberate slowness makes the reader sit and absorb the information which comes in handy later in the book. So even though it makes for a fuller experience, the slowness may take one with little will out of the book.
Conclusion and rating
When people say that this is a tough read, I will have to agree with them. But they are the same people who will agree that the book is well deserving of its position on the lists of critics and readers. This is the longest book that I have read to date, but I would still recommend it to anyone willing to sit through it all. Overall, I would give this book 4.5/5. Recommend reading it at least once if you can.
I've been looking to get into Dostoevsky for quite a while now. This convinced me to finally get started! Great article, good insights into his writing style, just what I was looking for.