The Borthers Karamazov

When does it get good?
Also why does every character have to have like 3 different names? Why are all the footnotes in the back of the book instead of at the bottom or top of the relevant page? Is this supposed to be the book equivalent of a casual filter?

Other urls found in this thread:

commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
youtu.be/H2ykytca6Y8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Stick with comic books, you're out of your element.

I don't read comic books
I just finished The Stranger before starting this one, and I enjoyed it, but it took a while to really pick up and I'm assuming this one is the same. If Brothers Kamarazov is an enticing tale from the very first page, then I must be retarded.

>Is this supposed to be the book equivalent of a casual filter?

Not even close, this is intro. Not trying to make reading books sound more difficult than it is, but this is a rather simple read. Is it your first Russian?

>get an 800 page Russian novel.
>expect it to "pick up" soon.

it doesn't get good

Books I & II introduces the characters
The actual story begins Book III onwards

Dude spoilers!

sorry
it doesn't get good

>Is it your first Russian
Yeah, I only recently got back into books and figured I'd give the famous ones a read.
It's not that I'm disliking the book, it's just that it seems kind of aimless so far.

>Why are all the footnotes in the back of the book instead of at the bottom or top of the relevant page?
This is pretty common. It's actually probably more common to have it set up in this way than the way you want.

In Russian, there are multiple ways to refer to people. We might know Lenin as Vladimir Ilyich, but his wife would have called him Volodya. It doesn't take that much effort to keep track of names, although sometimes they don't sound very similar.

(con't)
The forms get more and more familiar. "Lenin" is what most people would call him, while "Vladimir Ilyich" would be used by close friends and "Volodya" by close family (it's the diminutive form, so it's essentially a pet name archetype for "Vladimir").

It gets good on book 3, when the younger son and his church adventures ends. And my edition (not english) has the footnotes on the bottom of the page. Also

>not keeping a little cheat paper with the names of the characters, their variations, nicknames and who they are

Is this the first russian book you read?

These novels you have mentioned, they are not there for the plot. They are more philosophical in nature and talk about the human condition. The psyche, heart and soul, and struggle. not there for story.

I'm currently reading the MacAndrew translation and I honestly think it's one of the best books I've read, but I really enjoy Russian lit.
Don't introduce yourself to the Russians with one of the most critically acclaimed works and expect to experience it the same way those who acclaimed it experienced it. I don't know why you guys a always start at the top and then start threads about how you hate it. That's a stupid thing to do.
For the Russians, start with Fathers and Sons, Death of Ivan, Crime and Punishment, Master and Margarita, good and accessible works. Then take on the doorstoppers.

This. Philosophical and the beginning of psychology. Dialogue heavy.

I mean it's your first Russian novel and you decided to start with an 800 page one, what did you expect? You should read "Crime and Punishment" or "Notes From the Underground" first, those get into the action quicker (well "Notes" doesn't exactly have action, but at least it's short) so you won't be so bored because you're not used to the style.

Also: commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/

I'm not even done with it yet, but I'd say book 5 is where it started to click for me. Ivan and Alyosha's discussion at the restaurant was probably my favorite part so far.

>Is this supposed to be the book equivalent of a casual filter?
Yes and dubs confirm your illiteracy. Better off yourself until it's too late.

>Defending Garnett
Unforgivable.

Professor Dreyfus has a good podcast on this book that will help. He explains the names. He gives context and places it within the history of nihilism in art. Take a listen. And remember to reread the part about the second coming of Jesus. The book is one of the best in the history of novels, but lacks the prose and plot modern readers are comfortable with, so it becomes better when you learn the historical context, learn the philosophy. Grab Turgev's Father and Sons if you're going to give up on this. That'd probably be more your style, I'm guessing.

Let me guess, you're gonna push P&V instead.

any translation is better than garnett lol

Silly OP, if you want to read an accessible, easy introduction to F.D., read The Idiot :^) I guarantee you, you won't be bamboozled!

How hard is it to understand that Alexei = Alyosha? Don't bother reading a book if you have a highschool reading comprehension.

Oho, good one, my lad. But he better reads Demons, it's the easiest one!

>tfw he doesn' know that p&v themselves consider garnett to be the most precise translator

youtu.be/H2ykytca6Y8
1:03:56

You're retarded, but for a completely different reason. I suggest you stick to Stephen King, John Green, and Clive Cussler.

>just getting into literature
>used to read nothing but shitty koontz books in high school
>fast forward 5 years later, ordered a bunch of books
>first one i read was Crime and Punishment translated by Oliver Ready(my first russian book)
I absolutely loved it, OP. The copy i had, had end notes at the back, a very nice introduction and list of character names in the front of the book.
I also got memed in by Peterson, i bought Gulag Archipelago, going to read that soon. I think the copy i got is the abridged one, but i got all three volumes on my computer i'll double check later.

on topic of russian novels, what should I read next? Not necessarily Dostoevsky although i really enjoyed C&P

Fathers and Sons is similar to C&P but more mature and restrained. Turgenev is the better writer but Dostoyevsky is the better novelist

Lol get a load of this guy.

Fathers and Sons is melodramatic and corny as fuck. C&P overcome its melodrama because it has dialogical characters that transcend the 'bookness' of the text, whereas TURDgenevev's glorified novella is entirely monologic wherein its plot and characters revolve around a reductive representation of nihilism vs slavophilism, and nothing more.

I am part of the way through the book as well and it's ok but not compelling.

It's just a sponge that absorbs tonnes of pseudo intellectual over theorisers who pretend that every single sentence is some incredible work of philosophical and psychological genius.

there's nothing insightful, it's just a load of petty digs and arguments condensed in to book form.

I also dislike the dishonesty behind the praise. If a book today was released serially or if this book itself was released today, it would not be praised so heavily and 99.9 % of lit would not give a shit. I only mention that because people say you have to love every single sentence or else you're stupid.

I used to feel the same way about the book, until I read Bakhtin.

>he doesn't prefer turgenev to dostoevsky
the abject melodrama at every turn of the page in crime and punishment is sickeningly sweet in comparison to the subtlety extant in father's and sons. i genuinely think you should return to the texts if you haven't in some time, and compare them in kind. there are untelegraphed moments in fathers and sons, that turn you from despising the nihilist Bazarov, into being deeply sympathetic for someone who simply has a glaring character flaw. in crime and punishment there is nothing that isn't obvious from ten chapters before in the development of the novel, and the incessant melodrama rears its nearly absurd head with every flip of the page. don't get me wrong, i love dostoevsky's work, but turgenev is a master. Sketches from a Hunter's Album makes this succinctly clear. Dostoevsky is an entry into the more fabulous russian authors, gogol, turgenev, and chekhov. the rest are ultimately inferior.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Dostoevsky studies is alive and kicking, having been placed at the apex of Russian authors alongside Pushkin (who you've omitted). Not much thought is given to Turgenev these days because readers and critics have come to realise that his works are rather inferior to the infinitely complex and open works of the true Russian master, Fyodor Dostoevsky.

If you are not in the most painful depressive mental breakdown of your life you will not enjoy that book. I read it when my bipolar disorder started blooming and I didn't know what the fuck was going on and went NEET and was feeling physical pain in my chest 24/7. Now I'm fine and I literally can't relate to that kind of literature at all. I always reread the old monk memories from time to time, but is not the same than reading it while you are borderline suicidal.

>a drawn out argumentum ad populum
good job, friend, you have surely convinced me of nothing more than your devotion to the shepherd's crook.

Whatever, buddy. Go read recent monographs on your cherished hack writer
>oh wait there isn't any

>there is not any

Tolstoy is good to read after Dosto. Lermontov and Gogol are also essential. After you've read a lot of the Russian canon, definitely check out Bely's Petersburg.

master and margarita

Just stick with it. You'll get used to the character names and get in the rhythm of it. It also goes back and forth between convoluted filler (which is pretty enjoyable once you're into the book) and greatest thing you've ever read in your life. If you don't have the discipline to read one of the best books ever written that's probably a sign you should keep reading because clearly there's something wrong with you.

>Americans

This. Petersburg is basically the Russian Ulysses. Also, I highly recommend the White Guard by Bulgakov, it's fantastic

I read 200 pages of that book, it's trash.

>DUDE FAITH IS ITS OWN REWARD LMAO

nah

My God, someone with taste!

Me.

I'm on page 200 right now and "faith is its own reward" has not been stated or even implied a single time.

>i read 200 pages
heh. i remember when i was a total fucking pleb.

dont waste your time with brothers karamazov. its nice and a well developed book etc. but it doesnt bring you much. instead read notes from underground and crime and punishment. you can find the main ideas of karamazov in notes from underground