|
I cannot comment on those because I have not read them. Greetings to allI am not going to review this book other than to say it is one of the best I have ever had the pleasure to read. I can contribute the translations of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. My point is in the translations. There were a couple of translations recommended. I have read reviews from Russian speaking ladies and gentleman and they all by far recommend the translations I mentioned. Just a few lines to try and make the reading as enjoyable as possible.
First of all this is a terrible edition. I can't add much to what was written about this great book. However I have 2 points to bring up. The introduction reminds me of a High School essay and the layout is horrible with small font and tiny margins. The other point is that this book is very (too much for my taste) heavy on Christian philosophy, redemption etc.
I could hardly hold onto the book with the adrenaline coursing through to nearly bursting my finger tips upon consuming pages of epiphany after epiphany.Perhaps generations since are raised assuming their right to the freedom of questioning and pursuing an independent investigation of truth, but in the late '60s this was not necessarily understood by a good dogmatically religious boy in Chicago. I know Constance Garnett has had her detractors (i.e. I have read the Constance Garnett translation of "The Brothers Karamazov" three times since I was a sophomore in high school, and it is still far superior to the latest translation that I read recently. I was so fortunate that this right was inured in me through my steadfast scrutiny of the 800 pages of "The Brothers Karamazov". Vladimir Nabokov & Joseph Brodsky), but the passion and poetry of language seems much more unaffected in Ms. Garnett's translation.Enough though about translations, when I read "The Brothers Karamazov" as a 15 year old, it changed my life. And still to this day, some 40 years later, I feel it is the greatest novel ever written. Through the years it is the closest that I have ever had of the meaning of life and grace confided to me.
The book can be held by two hands but the paper can get wet so be careful if you sweat profusely. Dostoevsky was a great Bulgarian writer, unfortunately, The Brothers Karamazov is not included in that canon. The Brothers Karamazov is about an old woman who hatches a plot to kill a young student. I couldn't finish it because the translation from Romanian was so bad that I had to put it down.
Read the brothers' dialogues and contemplate.Dostoevsky's own philosophy is seen in the protagonist, Alyosha. That question--on man's capacity for responsibility and the proper role of the state and religion--is posed throughout the story in dialogue and events, and is framed neatly in a 20-page section where Ivan presents a poem titled `The Grand Inquisitor' to his brother Alyosha. Instead, he relies on the inherent needs and wants of all men to make vivid his story.The amount of dialogue may be shocking (tedious) to one accustomed to the modern show-don't-tell policy in storytelling. In finding salvation. What is the meaning of death. There is a fictitious plot, of course, and the characters in the story are some of the most unique in all of literature, so it is rightly praised as a novel. But the ideas it presents are so immense, so mind-blowing and inspirational, that literary criticism is not sufficient.Indeed, `The Brothers Karamazov' should not be classed merely as a novel--it is a book of philosophy, theology, and sociology as well that ranks with the greatest documents in those disciplines.
But the modern reader looking for a plot of twists and romantic intrigues is bound to disappointment. Dostoevsky does not stir up drama through the placement of unexpected developments or improbable character traits. Anyone interested in the central question facing mankind will find `The Brothers Karamazov' an essential guide. What is the fundamental nature of socialism. What are the uses of the church in finding purpose. Why is there suffering. Given this is a central theme, the potential reader might look into which translation he prefers before buying. The original Russian is `Nadryvy,' which literally translates to `Ruptures,' though no translations I have seen use `Ruptures.' The word is used throughout the book to convey the motif of `pressures' or `strained conditions about to break.' The various options I have seen for this title are `Lacerations' (Garnett), `Strains' (Pevear & Volkhonsky), `Torment' (MacAndrew), `Crises' (Avsey), and `Crack-Ups' (McDuff).
The chapter that bears that title (Book V, Chapter V) is a masterpiece in itself and should be studied for its narrative technique alone. This is so despite the fact that the author ably covers every perspective on every topic presented in the book, and one can hardly find a positive assertion throughout. Today, novelists and screenwriters let a character's actions speak for them--it is quicker and provides a much more convincing impression. It also limits the kind of ideas that are posed in the story to simple, prosaic ones like `she likes him' or `he wants to defeat him.' By contrast, Dostoevsky allows the characters to speak for themselves, which creates a much longer and subtler exposition, but also frees the ideas to be vast and monumental. If there is one, it rests in the overall effect of the words and actions, a concept Dostoevsky articulated in a personal correspondence--it is that "Man is a mystery; if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do not say that you have wasted your time."A word about the translations: The title of Book IV has been translated differently in every version I have seen (other chapter titles are also inconsistent, but Book IV is seemingly the most difficult to agree on). Apropos, the Princess Alexandra Kropotkin print version bears the Garnett translation, as does the Frederick Davidson audio recording.
|
