My thoughts on the classic Russian novel “The Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Some elements of the book that are relevant to the plot are mentioned below.

When I started reading classical literature a while ago, I wanted to do so in a reflective way and not just for pure entertainment. I want to understand a little more about how great stories and characters are created. However, I am less concerned with the content itself (i.e., I am not going to give an analysis from my German class here) and more with how storytelling, writing as a craft, and characters work. Therefore, the following serves primarily as a reflection on what I have read and what particularly interested me.

Plot

Basically, it is the story of a father and his three sons. The father, who is perceived by everyone, including himself, as a buffoon (an archaic word for a compulsive joker), is murdered in his house in the course of the story. Due to the background story, the eldest brother is accused of the crime. This is followed by a hearing of evidence and a trial. This ends in the conviction of the brother, who did not commit the crime. The murder was committed by one of the father’s servants, who later reveals this to one of the brothers. However, the servant commits suicide before this version of events can be confirmed. The story ends with the eldest brother in prison, but planning to escape from captivity together with the middle brother.

Another exciting aspect is that, as a reader, you are sometimes unsure about what exactly happened. For example, the actual murder is not described chronologically in the course of the plot, but is reconstructed in the aftermath from stories and the court hearing. Thus, it only becomes clear to the reader over time what exactly happened and why characters draw certain conclusions.

Language

For a rather old work (ca. 1880), the language is surprisingly easy to understand. Especially as an audiobook. Even though words are rarely used that are no longer found in current usage (such as the aforementioned “Possenreißer”), the general language is easy to understand. Unlike some German-speaking authors, Dostoyevsky does not get carried away with multiple layers of direct speech. When direct speech does occur, it always has unique characteristics that only appear in the speaker, but even here the language never becomes incomprehensible.

It is remarkable how the inner world of the characters is described in a way that is understandable to every reader. While other works seem to suggest that the wording itself constitutes the artistry of the literary work, in this work it is clearly the content and form as a whole. This makes it particularly enjoyable for people like me, who still cringe at the thought of school literature.

Characters & Psychology

Dostoyevsky has the ability to express the emotional world of his characters in a way that is profound, stirring, and emotional on the one hand, but also simple and understandable for the reader on the other. Through other media, we are used to experiencing actors’ innermost feelings through their gestures, facial expressions, and body language without them having to say a word. Of course, this is not possible in a novel. Nevertheless, the author manages to captivate the reader with his excessive portrayal of feelings and emotions, without building up any particular suspense through the actual plot.

The individual characters are very distinctive, but always remain understandable. Nowhere is there any black-and-white coloring; Dostoyevsky takes pains to extract each character’s motivation and show it to the reader in a comprehensible way.

What remains?

I think it is unnecessary to quote Thomas Mann or Nietzsche on Dostoyevsky’s works here. But it suggests that he has a remarkable talent for creating powerful texts that move many people.

Interestingly, passages such as the myth of the Grand Inquisitor have now completely slipped my mind. Perhaps this is because the focus here is clearly on the myth and its (philosophical) significance, rather than on what it does to the characters.

Personally, I probably won’t remember the story itself very well. I feel like I’ve already forgotten half of it. But the characters he has created and how impressively they are presented to the reader are quite different. There are scenes with the father in which the reader feels as uncomfortable as the three Karamazov sons. There are scenes in which you feel Dimitri’s admiration for Grushenka. For me personally, it’s not because I can empathize with the characters, but because they are so authentic in their actions, behavior, and contradictions that you believe them.

Dostoyevsky writes about people who experience a story, rather than a story driven primarily by characters.