plevin

Believe it or not, I picked this up after I read it was the first lady's favorite book. I've always meant to read Dostoyevski and I decided that by reading this one I'd also learn a little about what makes Mrs. Bush tick. I'm listening to it on audio. I've made it through the first two sections (12 tapes each) and some day I'll check out the third. It's as much philosophical discussion as story; that's what takes so long. Theres not that many characters, and not much that really happens considering how long I've been reading. The philosophical themes that resonate the most strongly are family (especially father/son relationships), death, and religion. I think the most interesting part so far is where the naughty brother is talking to the pious brother and he tells him a story within a story in which Jesus comes back to earth and is executed by the church leaders who DO recognize him but think they're doing a better job without him. I think it's fascinating how Dostoyevski put his criticism of the church in the mouth of the disreputable brother and even then he tells it as something he doesn't necessarily agree with. This whole section has nothing to do with the plot, by the way. I wish the reader of the audio book didn't have such an irritatingly nasal voice, especially when he's speaking the lines of the corrupt characters. UPDATE: The last third of the book is probably the best. It's entirely taken up with the trial of Dmitri for his father's murder. The prosecutor and defender's summaries pull together the enormous amount of information in the first part of the book. Fascinating how Dostoyevski has made both arguments so convincing. Brilliant depiction of the same event from two different points of view. Even knowing the truth (it's never a secret from the reader who killed old Karamazov) I felt swayed by the lawyer's case. One weakness in this book: the narrator. The narrator occasionally addresses the reader directly, as if he were a real character. So who is he? He uses "we" to include himself among the townspeople fascinated by the trial. So how does he know so much? Many of the scenes are recounted as if from an omniscient point of view, and then others from the narrator's presumably limited point of view. This discrepancy bugged me.

2022-11-14 16:23