The Brothers Karamazov seemed bizarrely overrated, particularly compared to Dostoevsky's other work...

The Brothers Karamazov seemed bizarrely overrated, particularly compared to Dostoevsky's other work. For the first two Parts it was very powerful, but Part III was relatively dull and Part IV was almost completely stagnant and uninventive.

The introductory character portraits were fantastic, but the character development, with the exception of Dmitri, was pretty much nonexistent. The writing also becomes painfully didactic whenever socialist characters speak (Rakitin, Krasotkin).

The first couple acts were filled with excellent scenes: Father Zosima blessing the peasant women, Ivan's poem about the grand inquisitor and his arguments against Christianity, Alyosha's conversation with Snegiryov, the meeting with Zosima at the beginning of the novel, Fyodor Pavlovich talking about how he abused Alyosha and Ivan's mother, and several others. In the last couple acts there are only two or three episodes on par with any of these.

At first Alyosha is a very distinct, interesting character, but in the last two acts he becomes an errand boy whose personality has limited bearing on his interactions. Illyusha's disease is, for the most part, tactlessly sentimental, and Krasotkin's ideological salvation is perhaps understandable because he's 13 and thirsty for respect, but still pathetically lazy in terms of set up and writing. Ivan barely shows up in the second half of the book, his meetings with the crippled girl are unexplained, and he ends up in a completely unresolved state, without really even being ideologically confronted by other characters. The meeting between Ivan and the devil was very disappointing, too. Katya is a cunt.

Also, the prosecutor's speech is practically 25 pages of recap. Defense attorney's speech was excellent, and was the highlight of the fourth Act in my opinion, but it was a pain to get to.

It was also thematically unfocused, and basically was a package of a bunch of Dostoevsky's reactionary ideas that didn't come together cohesively or unify in any sense, much like the subplots different characters had.

All things considered, Crime and Punishment was much, much better.

Even Fyodor himself admits he gets long winded here and there, so its ok to hate some parts

>yet ANOTHER pleb thinking that he's "too good" for literature without actually understanding it
Nice "youtube movie review" level analysis you fucking idiot. I actually laughed at "character development." I'd just like to remind you that it's not that Dostoevsky isn't good enough for you, you're not good enough for Dostoevsky.
>muh muh subjective opinion!!!
yeah yeah, kill yourself

That was a very well reasoned defense of the novel. I'm certain that you like the book on its own merits and not because it's considered a masterpiece, and you could defend it if you chose to do so.

...

It's probably the best piece of media I have ever consumed and am better because of it. I do say that the prosecutors speech was a fuckin grind.

Why did Dostoevsky describe Kalganov with such detail? I related a lot to the description, but he was completely irrelevant to the plot.

I loved every bit of it, including the entire trial. Ivan meeting the devil was one of the best parts of the entire novel.

There are two kinds of Dostoevsky readers: those who read for the plot (and a bit for the prose), and those who read for the spiritual and emotional value. Very rarely I see someone who enjoyed both Crime & Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov equally

>those who read for the spiritual and emotional value
TBK was pretty sparse on spiritual or emotional value when the focus shifted from Alyosha to Dmitri, at least in my opinion

Yes, I really liked the Dmitri parts, but I kept wondering when would Alyosha return

I quite enjoyed The Brothers Karamazov. It was my first Dostoevsky though. I thought Ivan's encounter with the devil was great.

What

I bought just the opposite. I thought Mityas trial and the resulting action was a central theme of the novel, redemption.

>overrated

Heuristic:

1. When an user claims a book is overrated, read the book.

2. When an user claims a book is underrated, do not read the book.

Many critical readers think that Dmitri is the main character and hero of the novel offering the most spiritual and emotional value.

Mitya's later chapters are the most spiritual and emotional (and the best ones ) senpai what are you talking about?

>mfw I found out Dostoevsky was planning on writing a sequel for Brothers Karamazov

That makes sense.

Even if it had more of a central theme I thought it was far less emotional and interesting. The love triangle wasn't emotional because Katya was a fairly obnoxious character, Dmitri's development comes about with very limited input from any other character (he has a dream and is changed), and there's a lot more boring filler and tangential content. The prosecutor's speech at the very least was painful, and I'm not sure how anybody could reasonably defend it.

Which specific episodes do you have in mind? I thought Dmitri's speech to Alyosha about being guilty for the prisoner's was powerful, but other than that I didn't find anything very memorable.

Redemption through suffering, universal sin and vicarious atonement

>that gif
2spooky

Feels like the devil himself turning to look at you.

When is he planning to publish it?

Not for a while probably. He recently had a meltdown on twitter and told his fans to stop bugging him. Besides the tv show is better anyway.

This was my first Dusty, where should I go from here?

>unquestionably worshipping things simply because they're famous
fuckin pleb

back in time and read his other works first. But I guess Crime and Punishment or Notes From the Underground.

Bump because honestly I put more effort into this than most people put into their threads

I ripped out and burned the part about that stupid fucking monk.

what did you like so much about C&P?
C&P is my favorite Dostoyevsky, one of my favorite novels period, but I haven't read BK yet. I was under the impression that BK was similar to C&P but longer and with more depth, characters, and themes

That's harder to say in particular because it's been four years since I've read it.

It didn't have a significant drop in quality and there weren't as many grindy portions, most importantly. Raskolnikov's neuroticism led to a lot of very memorable scenes, like when he talks about his deceased wife, or several of his walks. The novel was also much more thematically focused. I also remember being paralyzed when the investigator sprung the certain accusation on Raskolnikov. I'm surprised more people don't talk about Svidrigailov. He was a good character, and his story arc wound up almost in parallel with Raskolnikov's.

I will grant The Brothers Karamazov had more moving imagery, but I don't think it makes up for the unfocused, meandering narrative, character's who fade in and out of relevance or even personality, and long winded filler.

I don't know if any of this is too coherent but I'm very tired and need to sleep

I agree about the prosecutor's speech. I guess the author really wanted to drive home the point of just how much of a blow hard this man was. How he finally gets his moment of oration and respect and fucks it up by going on and on so that anybody that could have been caring, just wants him to shut up.

>Many critical readers think
Appeal to authority harder

>mfw i had to look up the plot of the grand inquisitor because i forgot it.

What's wrong with my memory?