The Brothers Karamzov

The Brothers Karamzov
By Fyodor Dostoevsky

I read this book because the Bama is reading it and I thought I’d read it along with her. Also my past reading and life’s experience made it easy to pick up another Russian book. So first I provide my paradigm before the book and will conclude with my reaction.

As I got back in to that familiar Dostoevsky writing style I was quickly reminded of my comparative observation of people from that part of the world. The inner personal core of Russians and as much as the Finns would hate to admit exists an overwhelming propensity for self-examination that comes out in their conversation albeit in different ways. Finns are very cautious and careful in what they say and therefore do not say much at first. Russians automatically think you don’t trust them. This character comes out in an early scene in a monastery where the “elder” merely responds with an antidote “just don’t lie to your self”. In background summary, if having read other Dostoevsky books prior to my spending time in both Helsinki and St. Petersburg biased my observation; is a question mark only resolved by honest confessions with those people? In my conversations they honestly admit that they think, perhaps a little too much, before they speak. Quite the opposite is present here in America, in my opinion. What I found most rewarding was my direct conversation on the subject enabled all parties to recognize the differences in personalities and be at peace with it. A better understanding of each other was our reward. So with this as my paradigm I read the book and provide my following reaction.

Dostoevsky does not deviate from his established writing style in his character introduction, in this I understand from The Bama to be his last book. The main characters consist of three brothers, Ivan, Dimitri, and Alexi. All are sons of the buffoon Fyodor Pavlovich. Ivan is well studied, Dimitri is not, and Alexi is partially studied and well vested in his faith. Dostoevsky early on makes a point that education has no relative bearing on who is his perceived hero may be. Early on you can see the question marks and human drama lines being laid out in battle for God, or truth to keep the atheist on board. In describing Alexi, also called Alyosha, you find a realist. But to rationalize his faith, Dostoevsky writes “In a realist faith is not born from miracles, but miracles from faith.” Which brings up my age-old observation, “you see what you want to see”; no matter what side of any argument you are on.

The Karamzov family came with a reputation of living life to its fullest with a reckless abandoned to wholesomeness and integrity towards another’s well being. This manifested itself from the father and yet through three brothers in different ways. Alexi had a strong belief in God. Life in the monastery had taught him that man is guilty before all people on behalf of all and for all human sins. In recognizing this Alexi sees not that man has committed a crime but that his nature leaves him capable of sinning, which renders the ultimate hallmark of faith in God’s forgiveness. Ivan’s educated man left him with the ability to accept God from a perspective that the concept was likely an invention of man. He could not accept Gods world because his scientific mind could not fathom the parallel mind of Euclidian and those opposite minds of faith ever coming together. This exception leaves the reader with a third alternative, which is a notion that parallel arguments could exist harmoniously without conflict as was discovered in this book. He would sum up with a question: How could the notion of the necessity of God creep in the head of such a wild and wicked animal as man? Dimitri appears, like his father, to be a scoundrel full of enough deceit and selfishness to propel the Karamzov reputation to new lows (highs).¥

As a murder mystery unfolds through elaborate character introduction the reader begins to understand there is going to be a murder but does not know who will be murdered or whom the murderer would be. As the author blends his storyline into his message early on he brings up as he had in other books the question of the times in 1850’s to 80’s Russia. There existed the over arching argument of church and state; and later in the book science verses God. By the time his characters present their sides there are actually four positions. There is the argument of a separate church and state. There is the argument a cooperative Church and State. There is the argument where the Church evolves to a State. And finally there is the argument where a State evolves to a Church. In the end social values seam to be the common goal where the four arguments end up being the means. However there is one fundamental difference. Under the Church ideals, the individual must live with his conscience, whereas under the State ideals the individual can abdicate all his responsibilities (conscience) to the State. Dostoevsky does a nice job drawing parallels between the dichotomy in a family and that of a society.

Dostoevsky also uses many other characters to examine the conscious of man as he struggles with the concept of God. Is God an invention of man? Does the invention serve a good purpose? Can science properly dispense of the virtues derived from the concept of God? What would science do without a moral compass? Early in the book Dostoevsky puts forth a concept that we are all capable of “sin” then he develops a notion that when one places himself in another’s shoes or in his words “moves over and allows the other” it become easy to understand the concept of tolerance amongst the differences of opinion. He does this to build a notion of repentance as part of the tolerance/forgiveness equation.

After the murder has taken place and the day before the suspect is brought to trial; he who had never recognized the concept of God or the ability to allow vanity to give way to tolerance and forgiveness, he finds the ability to repent. But I’ll leave it to you to discover where is repentance lay. The crime suspect, as he discovers the higher virtue in man there is a conscience or self-determination to do what is right in his mind. But now then he must grapple with a proposition put forth that he escapes from prison and flee to America. It leaves the question; does one “carry the cross” for the sin of man or if he does how heavy should that cross be, or when does he drop it?


Dostoevsky correlates God and conscience, such that to search your conscience you are appealing to the God within you for answers; that enigma that vexes your heart against your mind. He also correlates religion as a conscience for a country, giving religion the role of the mind and country the role of the heart. This comes as both the prosecution and defense attorneys present their summations and appeal to the psychology of conscience while they each present two different views of the same man. They then appeal to the heart of society, that of ‘Mother Russia” to make a social statement to the world as to what kind of people they are. There is a significant difference in the arguments where the prosecution tactic suggests that the village raises the child and forms the man, whereas the defense holds a course where the family (father/parent) forms the man. It is ironic that the same strategy was used to produce two different tactical outcomes…or as Dostoevsky says two ends to the same stick.

This book will stir your conscience with every page you endure. If you pull your moral compass out of your pocket, you’d find the needle spinning. The book is a long in detailed content and thought; Dostoesky’s and the readers thought. With regard to God, in the context of this book; God is. What ever your position on God may be, the concept of God lay in your conscience. Dostoevsky provides numerous characters, main and supporting, where their conscience is examined and it is my guess that there is a piece of every character in every reader. My favorite character is Ivan’s devil. Therein is a conversation Ivan has with his devil (in a dream that is real to Ivan and can be correlated to the many dreams in the Bible) that is similar to Kahlil Gibrans famous passage on the devil. In essence the devil is passively going along with the God program to keep the polarity of consciousness going. And what drives this debate is fear…what happens to your soul when you die. When getting on a plane we always want to make sure of its destination. It seems that a lot of people “get religion” (their conscience talking to them) when facing death.

My noteworthy phrase in this book comes near the end, again, where Dostoevsky writes in a chapter labeled Adulterer of Thought that “with a conscience there must come repentance”. This is a Christian thought at least, says Dostoevsky through his defense attorney. So with repentance there must be forgiveness. And with forgiveness there must be love, the building blocks of a peaceful society starting with the individual. I provide this as an example of the seeds of thought planted within the mind of the reader. While he makes a social case that religion and social identity (neighborhood/Nationhood) collaborate in the assembly of these blocks; it takes 776 pages of Dostoevsky detail to paint a “Rembrandt in Words” to bring the message home. What becomes very apparent is that whether religion or a government social police (ie Islam and atheist countries like China), social man must institutionalize the conscience of good behavior and chart the course of right –v- wrong. Man is corruptible when given that power over society. But when an individual holds that same power over himself alone, he becomes and expression of God where loving thy neighbor is the moral code.

In my reaction to the book as it is intertwined with current events in my life while reading it: I found it interesting that in 1880, long before Hollywood, Russians perceived America to be the “home of vanity”. Is vanity a word thrown out by those “have-nots” who despise those who “have”? Is this contempt that is found on a world stage really about religion or is it about jealousy? And what is it that one “has” or “does not have” that prompts the jealous behavior in people? Or is it just that we speak to too freely about ourselves with out regard to others? (a manifestation of a vain person) Dostoevsky provides an under current of thought on this subject where as even when he the author puts forward the accusation that Americans are vain, while many of his Russian characters are also vain (base, equally capable of the same crime). To give credit to Dostoevsky he puts forward all sides of a difficult topic in such a way allowing readers a debate of the issues in third person using any character desired as a character of merit. His critique of America sets such an example.

Therefore you can debate the book and not divulge your own personal views, leaving room for tolerance towards one another simply out of ignorance, if you need to, or love if you choose to. I encourage all to read the book as it may help you discover within yourself the capability to speak on difficult topics of great meaning while respectfully tolerating the views of others. It is my hopes that from this review any follow on dialogue are allowed to stand respectfully as it represents the full complexion of our family. Full expression begets the building blocks of love.

In your conscience state (God state) remember this Unity prayer

The light of God surrounds us
The love of God enfolds us
The power of God protects us
The presence of God watches over us
Where ever we are God is

Thanx Fyodor for your sage words
Thank-you Bama for your encouragement to read the book, it belongs in a Unity bookstore.

Happy Birthday Bama

Merry Christmas to All