What do you think?
Rate this book
The Brothers Karamazov #1-2
亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮
亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 (亘賴 乇賵爻蹖: 袘褉邪褌褜褟 袣邪褉邪屑邪蟹芯胁褘) 乇賲丕賳蹖 丕夭 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵賮爻讴蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴贁 卮賴蹖乇 乇賵爻蹖 丕爻鬲. 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 倬丕賵乇賯蹖 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 鄹郯鈥撣臂港粉� 丿乇 賳卮乇蹖賴 倬蹖丕賲鈥屫①堌� 乇賵爻蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿. 诏賵蹖丕 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿賴 賯爻賲鬲 丕賵賱 丕夭 蹖讴 賲噩賲賵毓賴 爻賴鈥屭з嗁� 亘丕卮丿 丕賲丕 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 趩賴丕乇 賲丕賴 亘毓丿 丕夭 倬丕蹖丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇诏匕卮鬲.
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屫й� 毓噩蹖亘 賵 卮乇丨 賳丨賵賴贁 丕乇鬲亘丕胤蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖賳 賮卅賵丿賵乇 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 倬蹖乇賲乇丿 賮丕爻丿丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 賲鬲賲賵賱 亘丕 爻賴 倬爻乇卮 亘賴 賳丕賲鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賲蹖鬲乇蹖貙 丕蹖賵丕賳 賵 丌賱蹖賵卮丕 賵 倬爻乇 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓卮 亘賴 賳丕賲 丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 乇賲丕賳蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴鈥屫焚堌� 毓賲蹖賯蹖 丿乇 丨賵夭賴贁 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 賵噩賵丿 禺丿丕貙 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賵 丕禺賱丕賯蹖丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 丕夭 夭賲丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 鬲賵爻胤 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 賵 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丌賱亘乇鬲 丕蹖賳卮鬲蹖賳貙 夭蹖诏賲賵賳丿 賮乇賵蹖丿貙 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 賴丕蹖丿诏乇貙 讴賵乇鬲 賵賳诏丕鬲貙 賱賵丿賵蹖诏 賵蹖鬲诏賳卮鬲丕蹖賳 賵 倬丕倬 亘賳丿蹖讴鬲 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨爻蹖賳 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫ж池� 賵 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇賴丕 丿乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴鈥屫ж池�.
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 禺丕賳賵丕丿賴鈥屫й� 毓噩蹖亘 賵 卮乇丨 賳丨賵賴贁 丕乇鬲亘丕胤蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘蹖賳 賮卅賵丿賵乇 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 倬蹖乇賲乇丿 賮丕爻丿丕賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 賲鬲賲賵賱 亘丕 爻賴 倬爻乇卮 亘賴 賳丕賲鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賲蹖鬲乇蹖貙 丕蹖賵丕賳 賵 丌賱蹖賵卮丕 賵 倬爻乇 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓卮 亘賴 賳丕賲 丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿. 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 乇賲丕賳蹖 賮賱爻賮蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴鈥屫焚堌� 毓賲蹖賯蹖 丿乇 丨賵夭賴贁 丕賱賴蹖丕鬲 賵 賵噩賵丿 禺丿丕貙 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 賵 丕禺賱丕賯蹖丕鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 丕夭 夭賲丕賳 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 鬲賵爻胤 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳 賵 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳 賴賲丕賳賳丿 丌賱亘乇鬲 丕蹖賳卮鬲蹖賳貙 夭蹖诏賲賵賳丿 賮乇賵蹖丿貙 賲丕乇鬲蹖賳 賴丕蹖丿诏乇貙 讴賵乇鬲 賵賳诏丕鬲貙 賱賵丿賵蹖诏 賵蹖鬲诏賳卮鬲丕蹖賳 賵 倬丕倬 亘賳丿蹖讴鬲 卮丕賳夭丿賴賲 賲賵乇丿 鬲丨爻蹖賳 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥屫ж池� 賵 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇賴丕 丿乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴鈥屫ж池�.
852 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1880
66.6k people are currently reading
730k people want to read
About the author
Fyodor Dostoevsky
3,090听books65.9k听followers
肖褢写芯褉 袦懈褏邪泄谢芯胁懈褔 袛芯褋褌芯械胁褋泻懈泄
(Russian)
Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .
Many literary critics rate him of the greatest of world literature and consider multiple highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He also well acts as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: 肖褢写芯褉 袦懈褏邪泄谢芯胁懈褔 袛芯褋褌芯械胁褋泻懈泄) (see also Fiodor Dosto茂evski)
Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .
Many literary critics rate him of the greatest of world literature and consider multiple highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He also well acts as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: 肖褢写芯褉 袦懈褏邪泄谢芯胁懈褔 袛芯褋褌芯械胁褋泻懈泄) (see also Fiodor Dosto茂evski)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 21,922 reviews
August 10, 2019
If you like your books to move in a linear fashion this book is not for you. It hops around and attention must be paid or you will find yourself flipping back a few pages to reestablish the thread of the story. I took this on a plane flight, crazy right? Not exactly the normal "light" reading I take on flights. It was a stroke of genius. I absolutely fell under the thrall of Dostoyevky's prose. (Thank you to my fellow travelers who didn't feel the need to chat with the guy who obviously is so frilling bored he has resorted to reading a Russian novel.) I zipped through three hundred pages like it was butter and found myself absolutely captivated by the evolving drama of the Brothers Karamazov, the women that drive them crazy, and the father that brings to mind the words justifiable homicide.
I have to give a plug to these Everyman's Library editions. A 776 page novel that feels like a 300 page novel. Despite the smaller size, the print size is still easily readable. I will certainly be picking up more of these editions especially the Russian novels that are translated by the magical duo of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.
Translators Volokhonsky and Pevear
One of my complaints, when I was in college, and liked to torture myself with the largest most incomprehensible Russian books I could find, was that the nicknames and diminutives of various Russian names increased my frustration level and decreased my ability to comprehend the plots. I certainly spent too much time scratching my head and reading feverishly to see if I could figure out from the interactions of the characters if Vanky was actually Ivan or Boris or Uncle Vashy. I did not have that issue with this book. Despite a plot that skipped around I did not experience the confusion that has marred my memories of other Russian novels.
This is the story of the Karamazov family. The father Fyodor and his four sons. There are three legitimate sons Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha, but I believe that Smerdyakov is also an illegitimate son, though not confirmed by the author given the tendencies of Fyodor to hop on anything in a skirt I would say chances are pretty good that the boy is a Karamazov.
The recklessness at which Fyodor lived his life is really the basis of the plot. The motivations of the other characters all revolve around reactions to the careless and insensitive behavior of the father. Dostoyevsky wrote a description of Fyodor that still gives me a shiver every time I read it.
"Fyodor's physiognomy by that time presented something that testified acutely to the characteristics and essence of his whole life. Besides the long, fleshy bags under his eternally insolent, suspicious, and leering little eyes, besides the multitude of deep wrinkles on his fat little face, a big Adam's apple, fleshy and oblong like a purse, hung below his sharp chin, giving him a sort of repulsively sensual appearance. Add to that a long, carnivorous mouth with plump lips, behind which could be seen the little stumps of black, almost decayed teeth. He sprayed saliva whenever he spoke."
Fyodor is a skirt chaser and since he is rich he can afford to throw these opulent parties that evolve/devolve into orgies with the local women. Given the description above I can only speculate that gallons and gallons of good vodka must be in play to achieve this end. Problems mount as he falls in love/lust with a young beauty of dubious morals named Grushenka.
His oldest son Dmitri is also in love with this young woman and as they both vie for her hand the tension between the Karamazov's ratchets up to dangerous levels. Dmitri while pursuing this dangerous siren throws over Katerina, a girl that he owes 3,000 rubles. After Fyodor is murdered (It was similar to waiting around for someone to kill J.R.)those same rubles become central to the subsequent trial to convict Dmitri of the murder. The murderer is revealed to the reader and as the trial advances the tension increases as we begin to wonder just how the truth will be revealed.
There are subplots with Father Zosima and his life before becoming a monk. Alyosha, the youngest son, was studying to be a monk under Zosima's tutelage, but becomes embroiled in the power struggles of the family and leaves the monastery to seek a life in the real world. Alyosha also becomes involved with the care of a dying child named, Ilyusha who is in the book to illustrate the heavy burden that the seemingly inconsequential actions of people can leave on others. The book explores that theme extensively.
It was fascinating to watch the ripple effects of each character's actions as the chapters advance. Every time I picked this book up I had to read large chunks because it simply would not let me go. The reactions and high drama created by the smallest spark of contention in the characters kept the pages turning and as new information snapped into place I found my pulse quickening as my brain sprang ahead trying to guess where Dostoyevsky was taking me next.
I worked with a young woman years ago that said that I reminded her of one of the Karamazov brothers. Because of the diverse personalities of the brothers, and the fact that I can see a little of myself in each brother I'm still left with the grand mystery as to which brother she was referring too. It serves me right for waiting so long to read this beautiful book.
If you wish to see all my most recent book and movie reviews check out
December 23, 2018
I'm writing this review as I read. Frankly, I'm astounded by how good this is and how compelling I'm finding it. Astounded? Why should that be? This is a classic, after all. True, but it breaks just about every "rule" of fiction. The plot so far is virtually nonexistent: three brothers get together with their wastrel father and all sorts of dysfunction, including an odd love triangle involving the father and the eldest son, are revealed. The brothers aren't particular close to each other, and really not much happens except that they meet at a monastery, where the youngest son lives, for an audience with a holy man who's dying, and then they go their separate ways, except that they have kind of random meetings with each other and with the woman involved in the love triangle, and there's a vague sense of foreboding that something will happen to the father. And the characters? Not really the kinds of characters we're used to in contemporary fiction. These are characters who struggle with all kinds of philosophical issues and enjoy nothing more than debating them at length with each other. Sounds boring? Well, it's not. Not at all.
By the way, I'm reading the Ignet Avsey translation based on Kris's recommendation, and it's wonderful so far!
***
One of the things I find so fascinating about this book is how it can be both one of the most dark and cynical works I've read, and one of the most overtly spiritual and soulful. This is a true testament to Dostoyevsky's range, to how effortlessly he "contains multitudes" in this masterful work.
***
[Alert: Some Spoilers to Follow]
One of the most cynical passages I've read so far is about how, following the holy man's death, his fellow monks are all shocked when his corpse begins to smell. Because of course if he'd been a true holy man, they figured, his corpse wouldn't have smelled at all, so the fact that it started smelling makes them all begin to question whether he'd really been what they'd imagined. Soon several of them begin to remember times when he'd been shockingly and suspiciously less-than-holy, and then the pile-on really begins, as the monks begin competing to disavow him the most, with only a couple of his friends holding onto his good memory, but even they are cowed into silence by the general gleeful animosity. Oh, this Dostoyevsky really knows how to plumb all that's dark and pathetic about human nature.
***
After about page 500, the plot really picks up. We have murder, a mad dash to a woman, heavy drinking, protestations of love, and the police moving in. After the languid plotting of the opening sections, I'm almost breathless!
***
The use of the narrator here is so interesting. We have a nameless figure who lives in the place where the events take place recounting the story almost as if recounting a legend. At the same time, we get the characters' most intimate thoughts and long speeches that the narrator could not possibly have known first-hand. It all adds to the notion that this may be more the narrator's own tall tale than any faithful recitation of history--which of course is true, because it's a novel, but the way the artificial nature of the story gets highlighted makes me think it's another example of Dostroyevsky's cynicism at work.
***
All signs point to Dmitry as the perpetrator, but the way he protests his innocence just makes you want to believe him! He's having a hard time of it, though. The prosecutor and magistrate conduct a long interview of him, and the evidence is damning.
Interestingly, after Dmitry is taken away, the scene shifts radically, revisiting the young boys we'd briefly met earlier. What is Dostroyevsky doing here? In the figure of Kolya, a 13 year-old prankster wunderkind, he seems to be pointing out the limits of rationalism, the way it can be abused to wow those with slightly less knowledge and how it can ultimately come off as a big joke.
***
Now things have become complicated. Who's really guilty of this crime? We know who "did it" because he tells Ivan, but then he blames Ivan himself for his athiesm--for influencing him by the notion that nothing we do matters anyway.
***
At the beginning of the trial, we see Dostoyevsky's biting and cynical nature reassert itself, as he describes the spectacle that the event has become--the people who've traveled from far away to witness it, drawn by their desire to see the two female rivals for Dmitry and Dmitry himself, who's especially attractive to the ladies because of his reputation as a "ladies' man." The proceedings themselves seem secondary to the spectacle and the sport.
***
The trial itself is a fascinating deconstruction of Dmitry's character--how that character can be everything the prosecutor says, and yet at the same time, it's everything his defense counsel says too. We're given to long speeches about the character that are fascinating psychological studies (the lawyers themselves debate about this newfangled science of psychology--how plastic it is, how it can be used to justify and explain anything). You can see Dostoyevsky working on multiple levels here, showing multiple sides of his character that don't quite cohere, and that's exactly the point, that people are complex and inconsistent and constantly at war with themselves, so what does "character" mean? What does "a" character mean in a novel?
And just when it looks like the defense will carry the day....
***
The coda is a plan for escape and the funeral of a young boy, and yet it end on a curiously uplifting note, a statement of faith and everlasting remembrance--and a change, for the better, in many of the other young boys, united as they are in love of the lost boy, who thus becomes an almost Christian martyr, the one whose death brings love to all his friends.
And so Dostoyevsky brings to a close his massive masterpiece, and so I end these little scribbles.
By the way, I'm reading the Ignet Avsey translation based on Kris's recommendation, and it's wonderful so far!
***
One of the things I find so fascinating about this book is how it can be both one of the most dark and cynical works I've read, and one of the most overtly spiritual and soulful. This is a true testament to Dostoyevsky's range, to how effortlessly he "contains multitudes" in this masterful work.
***
[Alert: Some Spoilers to Follow]
One of the most cynical passages I've read so far is about how, following the holy man's death, his fellow monks are all shocked when his corpse begins to smell. Because of course if he'd been a true holy man, they figured, his corpse wouldn't have smelled at all, so the fact that it started smelling makes them all begin to question whether he'd really been what they'd imagined. Soon several of them begin to remember times when he'd been shockingly and suspiciously less-than-holy, and then the pile-on really begins, as the monks begin competing to disavow him the most, with only a couple of his friends holding onto his good memory, but even they are cowed into silence by the general gleeful animosity. Oh, this Dostoyevsky really knows how to plumb all that's dark and pathetic about human nature.
***
After about page 500, the plot really picks up. We have murder, a mad dash to a woman, heavy drinking, protestations of love, and the police moving in. After the languid plotting of the opening sections, I'm almost breathless!
***
The use of the narrator here is so interesting. We have a nameless figure who lives in the place where the events take place recounting the story almost as if recounting a legend. At the same time, we get the characters' most intimate thoughts and long speeches that the narrator could not possibly have known first-hand. It all adds to the notion that this may be more the narrator's own tall tale than any faithful recitation of history--which of course is true, because it's a novel, but the way the artificial nature of the story gets highlighted makes me think it's another example of Dostroyevsky's cynicism at work.
***
All signs point to Dmitry as the perpetrator, but the way he protests his innocence just makes you want to believe him! He's having a hard time of it, though. The prosecutor and magistrate conduct a long interview of him, and the evidence is damning.
Interestingly, after Dmitry is taken away, the scene shifts radically, revisiting the young boys we'd briefly met earlier. What is Dostroyevsky doing here? In the figure of Kolya, a 13 year-old prankster wunderkind, he seems to be pointing out the limits of rationalism, the way it can be abused to wow those with slightly less knowledge and how it can ultimately come off as a big joke.
***
Now things have become complicated. Who's really guilty of this crime? We know who "did it" because he tells Ivan, but then he blames Ivan himself for his athiesm--for influencing him by the notion that nothing we do matters anyway.
***
At the beginning of the trial, we see Dostoyevsky's biting and cynical nature reassert itself, as he describes the spectacle that the event has become--the people who've traveled from far away to witness it, drawn by their desire to see the two female rivals for Dmitry and Dmitry himself, who's especially attractive to the ladies because of his reputation as a "ladies' man." The proceedings themselves seem secondary to the spectacle and the sport.
***
The trial itself is a fascinating deconstruction of Dmitry's character--how that character can be everything the prosecutor says, and yet at the same time, it's everything his defense counsel says too. We're given to long speeches about the character that are fascinating psychological studies (the lawyers themselves debate about this newfangled science of psychology--how plastic it is, how it can be used to justify and explain anything). You can see Dostoyevsky working on multiple levels here, showing multiple sides of his character that don't quite cohere, and that's exactly the point, that people are complex and inconsistent and constantly at war with themselves, so what does "character" mean? What does "a" character mean in a novel?
And just when it looks like the defense will carry the day....
***
The coda is a plan for escape and the funeral of a young boy, and yet it end on a curiously uplifting note, a statement of faith and everlasting remembrance--and a change, for the better, in many of the other young boys, united as they are in love of the lost boy, who thus becomes an almost Christian martyr, the one whose death brings love to all his friends.
And so Dostoyevsky brings to a close his massive masterpiece, and so I end these little scribbles.
September 7, 2008
If there was still any doubt, let me confirm that this actually is the greatest book ever written. But be warned that you need to set aside a solid month to get through it. And it's not light reading--this is a dense work of philosophy disguised as a simple murder mystery. But it's well worth the effort. It tackles the fundamental question of human existence--how best to live one's life--in a truly engaging way. Dostoevsky created 3 brothers (Ivan, Alexei, and Dmitri) with opposite answers to this fundamental question, and set them loose in the world to see what would happen. A testament to Dostoevsky's genius is he didn't know how the book would evolve when he started writing. As a consequence, the book really isn't about the plot at all, but about how these brothers evolve and deal with their struggles based on their differing world views.
Dostoevsky articulates, better than anyone, how human beings really are what I would call "walking contradictions". Perhaps all of our struggles in life boil down to the reality that we desire contradictory things, simultaneously. If you like your novels with good character development, this is the masterwork. Dostoevsky's characters are more real, more human, than any other. At different points along the way, you will identify with them, sympathize with them, curse them, agonize over them, celebrate them. You will be moved.
Reading this book was a deeply personal experience for me, because I saw myself in one of the characters, and I didn't like what I saw. My worldview, in fact my entire direction in life, shifted as a result of this experience. I can't guarantee the same results for you, but you owe it to yourself to set aside the time, someday, for the Brothers Karamazov.
Be sure to read the Pevear Volokhonsky translation.
Dostoevsky articulates, better than anyone, how human beings really are what I would call "walking contradictions". Perhaps all of our struggles in life boil down to the reality that we desire contradictory things, simultaneously. If you like your novels with good character development, this is the masterwork. Dostoevsky's characters are more real, more human, than any other. At different points along the way, you will identify with them, sympathize with them, curse them, agonize over them, celebrate them. You will be moved.
Reading this book was a deeply personal experience for me, because I saw myself in one of the characters, and I didn't like what I saw. My worldview, in fact my entire direction in life, shifted as a result of this experience. I can't guarantee the same results for you, but you owe it to yourself to set aside the time, someday, for the Brothers Karamazov.
Be sure to read the Pevear Volokhonsky translation.
August 19, 2020
The Brothers Karamazov is the greatest novel鈥� The Brothers Karamazov is the greatest grotesque novel. And I鈥檓 afraid my interpretations of it will hardly be very popular.
What is God? What is man? And what are their relationships?
In his deepest novel Fyodor Dostoyevsky created the whole gallery of human types 鈥� both male and female 鈥� that later will define as 鈥楾he Hollow Men鈥�
Fyodor Karamazov, the father was a swine, a hungry greedy hog that would devour everything and everybody on its way and nothing, bar death, would stop him.
Dmitri Karamazov is a parrot, a popinjay 鈥� the poseur who admires nothing but his own reflection.
Ivan Karamazov is a peacock proud of his iridescent tail 鈥� he cares about nothing but his empty and fruitless ideas.
Alyosha Karamazov is a frightened calf, a cat鈥檚 paw 鈥� an infantile whipping boy created to serve the others and to be used.
Smerdyakov is a rat 鈥� he hides in darkness but he hates the entire world and he is capable of any meanness.
Man is one鈥檚 own enemy鈥� By living one unavoidably destroys oneself and the others.
What is God? What is man? And what are their relationships?
鈥淵ou see, I close my eyes and think: if everyone has faith, where does it come from? And then they say that it all came originally from fear of the awesome phenomena of nature, and that there is nothing to it at all. What? I think, all my life I鈥檝e believed, then I die, and suddenly there鈥檚 nothing, and only 鈥榖urdock will grow on my grave,鈥� as I read in one writer? It鈥檚 terrible! What, what will give me back my faith?鈥�
In his deepest novel Fyodor Dostoyevsky created the whole gallery of human types 鈥� both male and female 鈥� that later will define as 鈥楾he Hollow Men鈥�
鈥淰anity! Ivan does not have God. He has his idea. Not on my scale. But he鈥檚 silent. I think he鈥檚 a freemason. I asked him 鈥� he鈥檚 silent. I hoped to drink from the waters of his source 鈥� he鈥檚 silent. Only once did he say something.鈥�
鈥淲hat did he say?鈥� Alyosha picked up hastily.
鈥淚 said to him: 鈥楾hen everything is permitted, in that case?鈥� He frowned: 鈥楩yodor Pavlovich, our papa, was a little pig,鈥� he said, 鈥榖ut his thinking was right.鈥� That鈥檚 what he came back with.鈥�
Fyodor Karamazov, the father was a swine, a hungry greedy hog that would devour everything and everybody on its way and nothing, bar death, would stop him.
鈥淥h, we love to live among people and to inform these people at once of everything, even our most infernal and dangerous ideas; we like sharing with people, and, who knows why, we demand immediately, on the spot, that these people respond to us at once with the fullest sympathy, enter into all our cares and concerns, nod in agreement with us, and never cross our humor.鈥�
Dmitri Karamazov is a parrot, a popinjay 鈥� the poseur who admires nothing but his own reflection.
鈥淏ut Ivan loves nobody, Ivan is not one of us; people like Ivan are not our people, my friend, they鈥檙e a puff of dust鈥� The wind blows, and the dust is gone鈥︹€�
Ivan Karamazov is a peacock proud of his iridescent tail 鈥� he cares about nothing but his empty and fruitless ideas.
His heart trembled as he entered the elder鈥檚 cell: Why, why had he left? Why had the elder sent him 鈥渋nto the world鈥�? Here was quiet, here was holiness, and there 鈥� confusion, and a darkness in which one immediately got lost and went astray鈥�
Alyosha Karamazov is a frightened calf, a cat鈥檚 paw 鈥� an infantile whipping boy created to serve the others and to be used.
鈥hile the sun, moon, and stars might be an interesting subject, for Smerdyakov it was of completely third-rate importance, and that he was after something quite different. Be it one way or the other, in any event a boundless vanity began to appear and betray itself, an injured vanity besides.
Smerdyakov is a rat 鈥� he hides in darkness but he hates the entire world and he is capable of any meanness.
Man is one鈥檚 own enemy鈥� By living one unavoidably destroys oneself and the others.
June 7, 2024
"Reading Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov is comparable to pushing a beautiful grand piano up a very steep hill."
鈥�Kevin Ansbro
Why, oh why, in a world filled with endless opportunities to enjoy oneself, did I think it was a good idea to embark on a 19th-century book that's almost the size of an electric toaster?
I have friends, I have a wife, I have a life. Heck, I even have one of those home television sets that you so often hear about鈥�
The Brothers Karamazov is by no means a galloping read. It is a whale of a novel that requires the reader to drop anchor and bob about on Fyodor's ocean of esteemed eloquence for as long as it takes. It was a slog at times and I'm ashamed to say that I almost jumped ship on a few occasions.
Dostoevsky threw everything but the kitchen sink at this, his magnum opus. He plucks random details from the alcoves of his mind and scatters them like confetti, and there are more characters here than you could wave a stick at. His imagery is vivid without being overdone, the writing is tight and beautifully paced.
The story focuses on Fyodor Karamazov, a boorish and wicked father, and his three dissimilar sons. Collectively, the eponymous brothers are perhaps designed to represent all of us. Philosophical and theological discussions abound; the existence of God, morality and freedom of choice are the author's themes of choice.
I certainly have no complaints about the writing, which is rich and expressive. Any quibbles I have say more about me as an easily-distracted reader than they do about Dostoevsky's incontestable skill as a writer. I dare say the novel would be a godsend to a bookworm who has chosen to live off-grid for a month. I don't know how long it took Dostoevsky to complete this, but his writing hand must surely have resembled a sloth's claw by the time he'd finished it!
Does The Brothers Karamazov harbour a captivating story to rival the likes of Great Expectations or Les Mis茅rables?
I think not.
Is this venerated novel worthy of the widespread admiration it receives?
Absolutely.
鈥�Kevin Ansbro
Why, oh why, in a world filled with endless opportunities to enjoy oneself, did I think it was a good idea to embark on a 19th-century book that's almost the size of an electric toaster?
I have friends, I have a wife, I have a life. Heck, I even have one of those home television sets that you so often hear about鈥�
The Brothers Karamazov is by no means a galloping read. It is a whale of a novel that requires the reader to drop anchor and bob about on Fyodor's ocean of esteemed eloquence for as long as it takes. It was a slog at times and I'm ashamed to say that I almost jumped ship on a few occasions.
Dostoevsky threw everything but the kitchen sink at this, his magnum opus. He plucks random details from the alcoves of his mind and scatters them like confetti, and there are more characters here than you could wave a stick at. His imagery is vivid without being overdone, the writing is tight and beautifully paced.
The story focuses on Fyodor Karamazov, a boorish and wicked father, and his three dissimilar sons. Collectively, the eponymous brothers are perhaps designed to represent all of us. Philosophical and theological discussions abound; the existence of God, morality and freedom of choice are the author's themes of choice.
I certainly have no complaints about the writing, which is rich and expressive. Any quibbles I have say more about me as an easily-distracted reader than they do about Dostoevsky's incontestable skill as a writer. I dare say the novel would be a godsend to a bookworm who has chosen to live off-grid for a month. I don't know how long it took Dostoevsky to complete this, but his writing hand must surely have resembled a sloth's claw by the time he'd finished it!
Does The Brothers Karamazov harbour a captivating story to rival the likes of Great Expectations or Les Mis茅rables?
I think not.
Is this venerated novel worthy of the widespread admiration it receives?
Absolutely.
July 30, 2021
(Book 837 From 1001 Books) - 袘褉邪褌褜褟 袣邪褉邪屑邪蟹芯胁褘 = Bratia Karamazovy = The Karamazov brothers鈥�, Fyodor Dostoevsky
Abstract: The Brothers Karamazov is a passionate philosophical novel set in 19th century of Russia that enters deeply into the ethical debates of God, free will, and morality. It is a spiritual drama of moral struggles concerning faith, doubt, and reason, set against a modernizing Russia.
Characters: Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov, Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova, Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Father Zosima, the Elder, Ilyusha, Nikolai Krassotkin.
亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 - 賮卅賵丿賵乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖貨 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲蹖賴丕 (氐賮蹖 毓賱蹖卮丕賴貙 丕賲蹖乇 讴亘蹖乇貙 賳丕賴蹖丿貙 賳诏丕乇爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 爻賲蹖乇貙 賴賲卮賴乇蹖) 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 乇賵爻蹖賴貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩賲 賲丕賴 爻倬鬲丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱 2002賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲卮賮賯鈥屬囐呚з嗃屫� 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 氐賮蹖 毓賱蹖卮丕賴貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 1335貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲: 970氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳 丿賵: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 氐丕賱丨 丨爻蹖賳蹖貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳蹖賱賵賮乇貙 1367貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳丕賴蹖丿貙 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 1376貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1108氐貙 卮丕亘讴 丿賵乇賴 96462050701貙 9646205062貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 乇賵爻蹖賴 - 爻丿賴 19賲
毓賳賵丕賳 爻賴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 乇丕賲蹖賳 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳诏丕乇爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1390貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 854氐貙 卮丕亘讴 丿賵乇賴 9786001900532貙 噩賱丿蹖讴 9786001900518貙 噩賱丿丿賵: 9786001900525
毓賳賵丕賳 趩賴丕乇: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 鬲乇噩賲賴: 丕爻賲丕毓蹖賱 賯賴乇賲丕賳蹖颅倬賵乇(卮賲爻 禺賵蹖)貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 爻賲蹖乇貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1391貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1543氐貙 卮丕亘讴: 噩賱丿蹖讴 9789642201860貙 噩賱丿丿賵 9789642201874
毓賳賵丕賳 倬賳噩: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 倬乇賵蹖夭 卮賴丿蹖貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲噩蹖丿貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1391貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1090氐貙 趩丕倬 賴賮鬲賲 1398貨卮丕亘讴 9789644531040貨
毓賳賵丕賳 卮卮: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 丕丨賲丿 毓賱蹖賯賱蹖丕賳貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲乇讴夭貙 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 1398貙 丿乇 854氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9789642132423貨
毓賳賵丕賳 賴賮鬲: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賱丕丿賳 賲丿蹖乇貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌爻賵貙 丿乇 1112氐
毓賳賵丕賳 賴卮鬲: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賴丕賳蹖賴 趩賵倬丕賳蹖貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賮乇丕乇賵蹖貨 丿乇 920氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳 賳賴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 讴賵鬲丕賴 卮丿賴貙 鬲乇噩賲賴: 丨爻賳 夭賲丕賳蹖貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賲卮賴乇蹖貙 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 1391貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲: 61氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9789642412013
丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 芦丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇貙 亘氐賵乇鬲 倬丕賵乇賯蹖貙 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 1879賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 爻丕賱 1880賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丿乇 賳卮乇蹖賴 蹖 芦倬蹖丕賲鈥� 丌賵乇 乇賵爻蹖禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 诏賵蹖丕 賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿賴貙 蹖讴 賲噩賲賵毓賴 爻賴 诏丕賳賴 亘丕卮丿貙 丕賲丕 趩賴丕乇 賲丕賴 倬爻 丕夭 趩丕倬 讴鬲丕亘貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕夭 丿乇 丕蹖賳 爻乇丕蹖 夭賲蹖賳貙 亘賴 丌爻賲丕賳賴丕 乇賮鬲賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 丌賳 爻乇丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 卮鬲丕賮鬲賳丿貨 芦賮卅賵丿賵乇 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮禄貨 倬蹖乇賲乇丿蹖 賮丕爻丿貙 賵 倬賵賱丿丕乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 爻賴 倬爻乇 禺賵蹖卮貨 亘賴 賳丕賲賴丕蹖 芦賲蹖鬲蹖丕禄貙 芦丕蹖賵丕賳禄 賵 芦丌賱蹖賵卮丕禄貙 賵 倬爻乇 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓 丕卮 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮禄貨 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲丕乇賴 卮诏賮鬲蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳貙 賵 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇丕賳 乇丕 亘乇丕賳诏蹖禺鬲賴貙 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 讴賮 夭丿賳貙 賵 丌賮乇蹖賳 诏賵蹖蹖 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 禺賵丿 賳蹖夭貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲賴丕蹖 賴賲蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 賵 诏丕賴 賳賯卮 乇丕賵蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕貙 賲蹖倬匕蹖乇賳丿貨 賴乇 趩賴丕乇 倬爻乇貙 丕夭 倬丿乇 禺賵蹖卮 亘蹖夭丕乇 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 芦賲蹖鬲蹖丕禄 丕賮爻乇 丕爻鬲 賵 夭賵丿乇賳噩貨 芦丕蹖賵丕賳禄 鬲丨氐蹖賱讴乇丿賴 賵 亘丿亘蹖賳 賵 爻乇丿 賲夭丕噩貙 賵 芦丌賱蹖賵卮丕禄 賯賴乇賲丕賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 氐賵賲毓賴貙 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 芦倬丿乇 夭賵爻蹖賲丕禄貙 亘丕 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 芦丕賵乇鬲賵丿讴爻禄 倬乇賵乇卮 蹖丕賮鬲賴貙 賵 卮禺氐蹖鬲蹖 丿賵爻鬲丿丕卮鬲賳蹖 丿丕乇丿貨 賵 芦丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮禄貙 賳賵讴乇 禺丕賳賴貙 賵 賮丕爻丿 賵 亘丿賯賱亘 丕爻鬲貨 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 趩賴丕乇 亘乇丕丿乇 亘丕 賴賲 丕爻鬲.貨 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 26/05/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 07/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Abstract: The Brothers Karamazov is a passionate philosophical novel set in 19th century of Russia that enters deeply into the ethical debates of God, free will, and morality. It is a spiritual drama of moral struggles concerning faith, doubt, and reason, set against a modernizing Russia.
Characters: Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov, Pavel Smerdyakov, Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova, Katerina Ivanovna Verkhovtseva, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, Father Zosima, the Elder, Ilyusha, Nikolai Krassotkin.
亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 - 賮卅賵丿賵乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖貨 丕賳鬲卮丕乇丕鬲蹖賴丕 (氐賮蹖 毓賱蹖卮丕賴貙 丕賲蹖乇 讴亘蹖乇貙 賳丕賴蹖丿貙 賳诏丕乇爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 爻賲蹖乇貙 賴賲卮賴乇蹖) 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 乇賵爻蹖賴貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 倬賳噩賲 賲丕賴 爻倬鬲丕賲亘乇 爻丕賱 2002賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳 蹖讴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲卮賮賯鈥屬囐呚з嗃屫� 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 氐賮蹖 毓賱蹖卮丕賴貙 丕賲蹖乇讴亘蹖乇貙 1335貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲: 970氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳 丿賵: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 氐丕賱丨 丨爻蹖賳蹖貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳蹖賱賵賮乇貙 1367貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳丕賴蹖丿貙 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 1376貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1108氐貙 卮丕亘讴 丿賵乇賴 96462050701貙 9646205062貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 乇賵爻蹖賴 - 爻丿賴 19賲
毓賳賵丕賳 爻賴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲 乇丕賲蹖賳 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳诏丕乇爻鬲丕賳 讴鬲丕亘貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1390貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 854氐貙 卮丕亘讴 丿賵乇賴 9786001900532貙 噩賱丿蹖讴 9786001900518貙 噩賱丿丿賵: 9786001900525
毓賳賵丕賳 趩賴丕乇: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 鬲乇噩賲賴: 丕爻賲丕毓蹖賱 賯賴乇賲丕賳蹖颅倬賵乇(卮賲爻 禺賵蹖)貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 爻賲蹖乇貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1391貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1543氐貙 卮丕亘讴: 噩賱丿蹖讴 9789642201860貙 噩賱丿丿賵 9789642201874
毓賳賵丕賳 倬賳噩: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 倬乇賵蹖夭 卮賴丿蹖貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲噩蹖丿貙 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲 1391貙 丿乇 丿賵 噩賱丿貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲 1090氐貙 趩丕倬 賴賮鬲賲 1398貨卮丕亘讴 9789644531040貨
毓賳賵丕賳 卮卮: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 丕丨賲丿 毓賱蹖賯賱蹖丕賳貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲乇讴夭貙 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 1398貙 丿乇 854氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9789642132423貨
毓賳賵丕賳 賴賮鬲: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賱丕丿賳 賲丿蹖乇貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌爻賵貙 丿乇 1112氐
毓賳賵丕賳 賴卮鬲: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賴丕賳蹖賴 趩賵倬丕賳蹖貨 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賮乇丕乇賵蹖貨 丿乇 920氐貨
毓賳賵丕賳 賳賴: 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 讴賵鬲丕賴 卮丿賴貙 鬲乇噩賲賴: 丨爻賳 夭賲丕賳蹖貙 賳卮乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賲卮賴乇蹖貙 趩丕倬 賳賴賲 1391貙 鬲毓丿丕丿 氐賮丨丕鬲: 61氐貙 卮丕亘讴 9789642412013
丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 芦丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 亘丕乇貙 亘氐賵乇鬲 倬丕賵乇賯蹖貙 丿乇 爻丕賱鈥屬囏й� 1879賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 爻丕賱 1880賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 丿乇 賳卮乇蹖賴 蹖 芦倬蹖丕賲鈥� 丌賵乇 乇賵爻蹖禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿貨 诏賵蹖丕 賯乇丕乇 亘賵丿賴貙 蹖讴 賲噩賲賵毓賴 爻賴 诏丕賳賴 亘丕卮丿貙 丕賲丕 趩賴丕乇 賲丕賴 倬爻 丕夭 趩丕倬 讴鬲丕亘貙 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丕夭 丿乇 丕蹖賳 爻乇丕蹖 夭賲蹖賳貙 亘賴 丌爻賲丕賳賴丕 乇賮鬲賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 丌賳 爻乇丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 卮鬲丕賮鬲賳丿貨 芦賮卅賵丿賵乇 讴丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮禄貨 倬蹖乇賲乇丿蹖 賮丕爻丿貙 賵 倬賵賱丿丕乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 爻賴 倬爻乇 禺賵蹖卮貨 亘賴 賳丕賲賴丕蹖 芦賲蹖鬲蹖丕禄貙 芦丕蹖賵丕賳禄 賵 芦丌賱蹖賵卮丕禄貙 賵 倬爻乇 賳丕賲卮乇賵毓 丕卮 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮禄貨 讴鬲丕亘 賴賲丕乇賴 卮诏賮鬲蹖 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳貙 賵 亘夭乇诏賵丕乇丕賳 乇丕 亘乇丕賳诏蹖禺鬲賴貙 賵 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 亘賴 讴賮 夭丿賳貙 賵 丌賮乇蹖賳 诏賵蹖蹖 賵丕丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 禺賵丿 賳蹖夭貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 卮禺氐蹖鬲賴丕蹖 賴賲蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 賵 诏丕賴 賳賯卮 乇丕賵蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 乇丕貙 賲蹖倬匕蹖乇賳丿貨 賴乇 趩賴丕乇 倬爻乇貙 丕夭 倬丿乇 禺賵蹖卮 亘蹖夭丕乇 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 芦賲蹖鬲蹖丕禄 丕賮爻乇 丕爻鬲 賵 夭賵丿乇賳噩貨 芦丕蹖賵丕賳禄 鬲丨氐蹖賱讴乇丿賴 賵 亘丿亘蹖賳 賵 爻乇丿 賲夭丕噩貙 賵 芦丌賱蹖賵卮丕禄 賯賴乇賲丕賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 氐賵賲毓賴貙 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 芦倬丿乇 夭賵爻蹖賲丕禄貙 亘丕 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 芦丕賵乇鬲賵丿讴爻禄 倬乇賵乇卮 蹖丕賮鬲賴貙 賵 卮禺氐蹖鬲蹖 丿賵爻鬲丿丕卮鬲賳蹖 丿丕乇丿貨 賵 芦丕爻賲乇丿蹖丕讴賵賮禄貙 賳賵讴乇 禺丕賳賴貙 賵 賮丕爻丿 賵 亘丿賯賱亘 丕爻鬲貨 賲丕噩乇丕蹖 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 丕蹖賳 趩賴丕乇 亘乇丕丿乇 亘丕 賴賲 丕爻鬲.貨 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 26/05/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 07/05/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
October 15, 2018
鈥淗urrah for Karamazov!鈥�
Those are the concluding words of this bombastic brick of a book. I am more than willing to chime in, to cheer for the brothers Karamazov who finally, finally made me give in to the genius of Dostoevsky fully, without anger, without resentment and fight, after a year of grappling with his earlier novels.
This is doubtless his magnum opus, the shining lead star in a brilliant cosmos. There are many similarities to his earlier novels, and his characters fight with the same inner demons as the predecessors. And yet, there is something milder, more soothing in the Brothers Karamazov, there is mature perfection in this novel.
Yes, Smerdyakov is an underprivileged, hateful sufferer, but he is not lost to compassion and care in the same way as the nihilistic man writing his .
And Dimitri is rash and bold and full of contradictions, but he is not as confused as Raskolnikov, he does not impose the dogma of suffering in the sense of on his family and community. He has a plan for living, not for suffering.
Ivan is a brooding intellectual, but he is not stone-cold like Stavrogin in . His conflicted heart and intellect are connected to the world.
Alyosha, thank goodness, is a sweet and innocent character, but nothing like the awful Christlike idiot Myshkin from . He knows how to live and interact, and he is willing to step away from rigid prejudices and principles to comfort the ones he loves.
What about the women? Grushenka is not destroyed by the love of several men like Nastasya, and even Katerina Ivanovna is given a complex, divided soul, not just a shallow platform for men to use at their convenience and throw away when they have made their point. She has her own points to make.
Why do the Brothers Karamazov work so well?
I believe Dostoyevsky made the decision to paint a family just like it is, with all the contradictory emotions and actions, and all the mood swings and difficult situations. He had already established his religious and political ideas in earlier works, and he could afford to let the characters be what they naturally were, without judging them from the standpoint of history and society. Thus he could be the storyteller he naturally was, without any agenda but love for the story he told.
The plot is both simple and complex: Be careful what you wish for, it might come true!
As the three (or four) brothers and the women they love in different ways and fashions face the murder of the old patriarchal buffoon, all of them have to come to terms with the painful reality of loving and hating at the same time.
A bad parent is still a parent, and a dead parent still has power over the lives of his offspring. The 鈥淜aramazov character鈥�, much cited throughout the novel, becomes a synonym for any human being in his or her dealings with that complicated microcosm called family:
鈥淎nd why? Because he was of the broad Karamazov character - that鈥檚 just what I am leading up to - capable of combining the most incongruous contradictions, and capable of the greatest heights and of the greatest depths.鈥�
Because Dostoyevsky dares to let go of his mission to prove that Russian nationalism and Christian orthodoxie are at the centre of the meaning of life, he actually makes a case for both in a much more convincing way than he ever could with his more concept- and idea-driven earlier works. The humour in the unforgettable scenes with the 鈥渦nspeakable conduct鈥� of the stinking Father Zossima are so much better than the pseudo-Christian rants of Myshkin, and the intellectual understanding of the dangers of community worship in the story of the Grand Inquisitor is as true now as it was back then, showing the way to the core of both religious and political extremism:
鈥淭his craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they鈥檝e slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another: Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods.鈥� And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same.鈥�
So what is the redeeming feature of the Karamazovs then? Why do I feel like shouting, over and over:
鈥淗urrah for Karamazov!鈥�
They love each other. They really do, in a crooked, angry way, in a distorted, strange way. But they do. They love each other despite being completely different in their approach to life, and they support each other鈥檚 right to life, love and happiness. In the end, they help each other make the best of a muddle (and that is the best any family can do: help each other deal with the blows that families tend to inflict on themselves!).
Exile in a place worse than Siberia (Oh, America, what a delightful irony Dimitri鈥檚 words are!) is manageable if you make peace with your loved ones. And the final pages leave me bowing to the beauty of the insight that man and woman can love each other in so many different ways, and that love is not exclusive, but inclusive.
Dostoyevsky! You wrote the perfect novel. Hurrah!
Those are the concluding words of this bombastic brick of a book. I am more than willing to chime in, to cheer for the brothers Karamazov who finally, finally made me give in to the genius of Dostoevsky fully, without anger, without resentment and fight, after a year of grappling with his earlier novels.
This is doubtless his magnum opus, the shining lead star in a brilliant cosmos. There are many similarities to his earlier novels, and his characters fight with the same inner demons as the predecessors. And yet, there is something milder, more soothing in the Brothers Karamazov, there is mature perfection in this novel.
Yes, Smerdyakov is an underprivileged, hateful sufferer, but he is not lost to compassion and care in the same way as the nihilistic man writing his .
And Dimitri is rash and bold and full of contradictions, but he is not as confused as Raskolnikov, he does not impose the dogma of suffering in the sense of on his family and community. He has a plan for living, not for suffering.
Ivan is a brooding intellectual, but he is not stone-cold like Stavrogin in . His conflicted heart and intellect are connected to the world.
Alyosha, thank goodness, is a sweet and innocent character, but nothing like the awful Christlike idiot Myshkin from . He knows how to live and interact, and he is willing to step away from rigid prejudices and principles to comfort the ones he loves.
What about the women? Grushenka is not destroyed by the love of several men like Nastasya, and even Katerina Ivanovna is given a complex, divided soul, not just a shallow platform for men to use at their convenience and throw away when they have made their point. She has her own points to make.
Why do the Brothers Karamazov work so well?
I believe Dostoyevsky made the decision to paint a family just like it is, with all the contradictory emotions and actions, and all the mood swings and difficult situations. He had already established his religious and political ideas in earlier works, and he could afford to let the characters be what they naturally were, without judging them from the standpoint of history and society. Thus he could be the storyteller he naturally was, without any agenda but love for the story he told.
The plot is both simple and complex: Be careful what you wish for, it might come true!
As the three (or four) brothers and the women they love in different ways and fashions face the murder of the old patriarchal buffoon, all of them have to come to terms with the painful reality of loving and hating at the same time.
A bad parent is still a parent, and a dead parent still has power over the lives of his offspring. The 鈥淜aramazov character鈥�, much cited throughout the novel, becomes a synonym for any human being in his or her dealings with that complicated microcosm called family:
鈥淎nd why? Because he was of the broad Karamazov character - that鈥檚 just what I am leading up to - capable of combining the most incongruous contradictions, and capable of the greatest heights and of the greatest depths.鈥�
Because Dostoyevsky dares to let go of his mission to prove that Russian nationalism and Christian orthodoxie are at the centre of the meaning of life, he actually makes a case for both in a much more convincing way than he ever could with his more concept- and idea-driven earlier works. The humour in the unforgettable scenes with the 鈥渦nspeakable conduct鈥� of the stinking Father Zossima are so much better than the pseudo-Christian rants of Myshkin, and the intellectual understanding of the dangers of community worship in the story of the Grand Inquisitor is as true now as it was back then, showing the way to the core of both religious and political extremism:
鈥淭his craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they鈥檝e slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another: Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods.鈥� And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same.鈥�
So what is the redeeming feature of the Karamazovs then? Why do I feel like shouting, over and over:
鈥淗urrah for Karamazov!鈥�
They love each other. They really do, in a crooked, angry way, in a distorted, strange way. But they do. They love each other despite being completely different in their approach to life, and they support each other鈥檚 right to life, love and happiness. In the end, they help each other make the best of a muddle (and that is the best any family can do: help each other deal with the blows that families tend to inflict on themselves!).
Exile in a place worse than Siberia (Oh, America, what a delightful irony Dimitri鈥檚 words are!) is manageable if you make peace with your loved ones. And the final pages leave me bowing to the beauty of the insight that man and woman can love each other in so many different ways, and that love is not exclusive, but inclusive.
Dostoyevsky! You wrote the perfect novel. Hurrah!
August 19, 2020
In 1929 Freud wrote that The Brothers Karamazov was 鈥渢he most magnificent novel ever written鈥�. Well, it鈥檚 possible he had not got round to reading Ulysses yet (copies were hard to get until 1934) and of course he never did get the opportunity to read the work of Dan Brown or J K Rowling, but even so, this gives you the idea of this novel鈥檚 impact on the brains of its readers.
A SUMMARY OF THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV
The major themes are
Comedy
Tragedy
Psychology
Politics
Theology
Life
Death
Drinking
Borrowing money
THIS NOVEL IS A SHAPESHIFTING BEAST
For chapters at a time this novel is about children. For most of the last half this novel is like a Richard Price police procedural (Clockers, Freedomland, Lush Life) and also like a great courtroom drama with verbatim closing speeches. Elsewhere it鈥檚 a detailed debate about monastic life and the intricacies of the Christian message. The rest of the time it鈥檚 an intense psychodrama between seven or eight major characters. In one chapter (鈥淎n Ailing Little Foot鈥�) Dosto prefigures Molly Bloom鈥檚 stream of conscious. Got to say, this guy Dosto was not a one trick pony, not by a country mile.
SOME POINTS ABOUT 19TH CENTURY RUSSIA
Only peasants and servants work, leaving the rest of the people time to talk a lot
People are really ill quite often. This might be connected to the high alcohol consumption or the poor medical facilities
It is clear that the concept of interrupting someone had not yet been introduced into Russia at this point. So everyone is able to spout forth about anything they like, rambling on with multiple digressions for ten pages, and none of the other people in the room will say 鈥渙y, shut it, sunshine, we鈥檝e heard enough from you, let somebody else have a go鈥�. No one will say this. Eventually the speaker collapses to the floor from lack of oxygen and the next character will launch into their ten page rant.
THE NARRATOR IS A MAJOR CHARACTER
He is a bumbling old fart who lives in the little town where all this happens. He says he has gone round talking to people to get all this story straight. He continually says things like
The details I do not know 鈥� I have heard only that鈥�
I myself have not read the will
This arrival [of Ivan] which was so fateful and which was to serve as the origin of so many consequences for me long afterwards, the rest of my life, almost鈥�
And on P 573 he says
Today鈥檚 item in the newspaper Rumours was entitled 鈥淔rom Skotoprigonyevsk鈥� (alas, that is the name of our town, I have been concealing it all this time).
THERE ARE ZINGERS
You probably thought Dosto was a bit gloomy but this is often a comic novel, yes really. For instance Dmitri says
Who doesn鈥檛 wish for his father鈥檚 death ? 鈥veryone wants his father dead
And the narrator himself comes out with
The two were some sort of enemies in love with each other
And Ivan says stuff like
When I think of what I would do to the man who first invented God! Stringing him up on the bitter asp would be too good for him.
THERE IS A MACGUFFIN
There is an amount of 3000 roubles that Dmitri borrows from his current squeeze, and readers had better get used to the phrase 3000 roubles popping up about three times on every other page of this 900 page novel. Because you see, totally co-incidentally, the dead father was robbed of this exact sum also. It can get slightly tiresome, I admit that. We never hear the last of it.
SOME BLURB WRITERS SHOULD BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY BLURB ANY MORE
The blurb on the back of my Penguin copy says
The murder of brutal landowner Fyodor Karamazov changes the lives of his sons blah blah blah
This is likely to get readers all het up and their anticipation of a juicy whodunnit may turn to irritation because the murder doesn鈥檛 happen until page 508. This is not Dosto鈥檚 fault.
ALL KARAMAZOV BROTHERS RATED
4. Alexei
a.k.a. Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka
This is the holy joe, novice monk, all round too good to be true guy, but he doesn鈥檛 seem to have much vim, zip, pazzaz or get up and go about him. You wouldn鈥檛 want to be stuck in a lift with him. Not good boyfriend material.
3. Dmitri (a.k.a. Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri)
This is the roister-doistering swaggering loudmouth uber-romantic aggravating jerk who because of his ability to drink ox-stunning amounts of hard liquor and then do the Argentinian tango or the Viennese waltz at the drop of a samovar is a wow with the ladies but you better be expecting to pay for his exhausting company because he never has a bean. Except that on the two occasions he does have a bean (3000 beans!) you will have the best time ever! Definitely not good boyfriend material.
2. Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov (aka the lackey)
The unacknowledged bastard of Big Daddy Fyodor who is kept around as a skivvy and although he has brains because he鈥檚 epileptic and an unacknowledged bastard is never given any education and therefore becomes an autodidact with a full tank of bloodcurdling homicidal suppressed rage. He鈥檚 completely boring until he starts talking then whooahhhhh. Really not good boyfriend material.
1. Ivan (a.k.a. Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka)
Obvious star of the show, the full-on atheist and progressive thinker 鈥� he鈥檚 given two entire chapters of brilliant ranting against religion 鈥� Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor and every time he slams into the room and starts sneering the quality of the conversation is going to increase. Also probably not good boyfriend material.
NICE BIT OF DOSTO META HUMOUR
Dmitri gets to make a good joke :
Eh gentlemen, why pick on such little things : how, when and why, and precisely this much money and not that much, and all that claptrap鈥� if you keep on, it鈥檒l take you three volumes and an epilogue to cram it all in.
A SUMMARY OF THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV
The major themes are
Comedy
Tragedy
Psychology
Politics
Theology
Life
Death
Drinking
Borrowing money
THIS NOVEL IS A SHAPESHIFTING BEAST
For chapters at a time this novel is about children. For most of the last half this novel is like a Richard Price police procedural (Clockers, Freedomland, Lush Life) and also like a great courtroom drama with verbatim closing speeches. Elsewhere it鈥檚 a detailed debate about monastic life and the intricacies of the Christian message. The rest of the time it鈥檚 an intense psychodrama between seven or eight major characters. In one chapter (鈥淎n Ailing Little Foot鈥�) Dosto prefigures Molly Bloom鈥檚 stream of conscious. Got to say, this guy Dosto was not a one trick pony, not by a country mile.
SOME POINTS ABOUT 19TH CENTURY RUSSIA
Only peasants and servants work, leaving the rest of the people time to talk a lot
People are really ill quite often. This might be connected to the high alcohol consumption or the poor medical facilities
It is clear that the concept of interrupting someone had not yet been introduced into Russia at this point. So everyone is able to spout forth about anything they like, rambling on with multiple digressions for ten pages, and none of the other people in the room will say 鈥渙y, shut it, sunshine, we鈥檝e heard enough from you, let somebody else have a go鈥�. No one will say this. Eventually the speaker collapses to the floor from lack of oxygen and the next character will launch into their ten page rant.
THE NARRATOR IS A MAJOR CHARACTER
He is a bumbling old fart who lives in the little town where all this happens. He says he has gone round talking to people to get all this story straight. He continually says things like
The details I do not know 鈥� I have heard only that鈥�
I myself have not read the will
This arrival [of Ivan] which was so fateful and which was to serve as the origin of so many consequences for me long afterwards, the rest of my life, almost鈥�
And on P 573 he says
Today鈥檚 item in the newspaper Rumours was entitled 鈥淔rom Skotoprigonyevsk鈥� (alas, that is the name of our town, I have been concealing it all this time).
THERE ARE ZINGERS
You probably thought Dosto was a bit gloomy but this is often a comic novel, yes really. For instance Dmitri says
Who doesn鈥檛 wish for his father鈥檚 death ? 鈥veryone wants his father dead
And the narrator himself comes out with
The two were some sort of enemies in love with each other
And Ivan says stuff like
When I think of what I would do to the man who first invented God! Stringing him up on the bitter asp would be too good for him.
THERE IS A MACGUFFIN
There is an amount of 3000 roubles that Dmitri borrows from his current squeeze, and readers had better get used to the phrase 3000 roubles popping up about three times on every other page of this 900 page novel. Because you see, totally co-incidentally, the dead father was robbed of this exact sum also. It can get slightly tiresome, I admit that. We never hear the last of it.
SOME BLURB WRITERS SHOULD BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY BLURB ANY MORE
The blurb on the back of my Penguin copy says
The murder of brutal landowner Fyodor Karamazov changes the lives of his sons blah blah blah
This is likely to get readers all het up and their anticipation of a juicy whodunnit may turn to irritation because the murder doesn鈥檛 happen until page 508. This is not Dosto鈥檚 fault.
ALL KARAMAZOV BROTHERS RATED
4. Alexei
a.k.a. Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshenka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka
This is the holy joe, novice monk, all round too good to be true guy, but he doesn鈥檛 seem to have much vim, zip, pazzaz or get up and go about him. You wouldn鈥檛 want to be stuck in a lift with him. Not good boyfriend material.
3. Dmitri (a.k.a. Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri)
This is the roister-doistering swaggering loudmouth uber-romantic aggravating jerk who because of his ability to drink ox-stunning amounts of hard liquor and then do the Argentinian tango or the Viennese waltz at the drop of a samovar is a wow with the ladies but you better be expecting to pay for his exhausting company because he never has a bean. Except that on the two occasions he does have a bean (3000 beans!) you will have the best time ever! Definitely not good boyfriend material.
2. Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov (aka the lackey)
The unacknowledged bastard of Big Daddy Fyodor who is kept around as a skivvy and although he has brains because he鈥檚 epileptic and an unacknowledged bastard is never given any education and therefore becomes an autodidact with a full tank of bloodcurdling homicidal suppressed rage. He鈥檚 completely boring until he starts talking then whooahhhhh. Really not good boyfriend material.
1. Ivan (a.k.a. Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka)
Obvious star of the show, the full-on atheist and progressive thinker 鈥� he鈥檚 given two entire chapters of brilliant ranting against religion 鈥� Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor and every time he slams into the room and starts sneering the quality of the conversation is going to increase. Also probably not good boyfriend material.
NICE BIT OF DOSTO META HUMOUR
Dmitri gets to make a good joke :
Eh gentlemen, why pick on such little things : how, when and why, and precisely this much money and not that much, and all that claptrap鈥� if you keep on, it鈥檒l take you three volumes and an epilogue to cram it all in.
Read
June 16, 2023Still processing鈥︷煈€
April 29, 2008
Contrary to widespread rumor, this is a far from bleak book. While every character has his or her own misery, and it all takes place in a place called something like "cattle-roundup-ville", the moments of religious ecstasy and moral clarity are heartbreaking in their frequency - it's hard not to wish that one had such bizarre events going on around one in order to prompt such lofty oratory.
The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich but notoriously lecherous father, Fyodor. All four brothers were raised by others, Fyodor having essentially ignored them until others removed them from his care. In the beginning of the book, Alyosha is in the monastery, studying under a famous elder name Father Zosima; Dmitri has just left the army and stolen a large sum of money from a government official's daughter, who he has also apparently seduced, all while pursuing a lawsuit against Fyodor for his inheritance and canoodling with his own father's intended, the local seductress Grushenka; Ivan, the intellectual in the family, has just returned from (I think) Petersburg. Dmitri is violent and impulsive, referring to himself as an "insect," and gets into fistfights with Fyodor several times. Smerdyakov works for Fyodor as a lackey, having gone to France to learn to cook at some point in the past. It's unimaginably more complicated and digressive than all this, and just trying to follow this crucial sum of three thousand rubles through the story is almost impossible. But anyway, Fyodor is killed and much of the book hinges on which brother killed him and why.
When I first read this book in high school, my teacher (who was a devout Catholic, a red-faced drunk who wore sunglasses to class, and the most enthusiastic reader of Russian literature imaginable) asked everyone who their favorite brother was. Was it Ivan, the tortured skeptic? Dmitri, the "scoundrel" who tortures himself for every wrong he commits but can't help committing more? Or Alyosha, the saintly one who always knows the right thing to say? (Certainly Smerdyakov is no one's favorite.) At the time I went with Ivan - I was in high school, after all, and his atheism and pessimism were revolutionary to me.
But now Ivan seems rather selfish and callow, and I can't help siding with Dmitri, the one Dostoevsky uses almost as a case history of conscience. Like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky gives his characters all the space to talk like gods, clearing pages upon pages for their reasoning and dialog. Dmitri fumbles with Voltaire and is clearly not overly literate, but in some ways that's apropos, because his main problem is the constant internal conflict between his desires and his ethics which is only partly resolved when he chooses to become responsible for not only what he does, but also what he wants.
The most famous passage in the book, Ivan's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, is, to me, far less interesting than Zosima's meditations on the conflict between justice and the collective good. The elder Zosima is a kind of Christian socialist who grapples with the typical mid-19th century Russian issues of how to build a equitable society without the extremes of coercion that the Tsar used to turn to, while also ensuring public morality and avoiding the kind of massacres that characterized the French Revolution (an event that seems to have been even more traumatizing for Russians than it was to the French due to the enormous cultural influence France had there at the time.) Zosima's answer is unworkable and in some ways naiive, but the discussion is well worth it, moreso than Ivan's somewhat simplistic dualism of Christ vs. the Inquisitor. Dostoevsky was a cultural conservative in the sense that he was constantly renewing his commitment to the obligations imposed on Russians by the Orthodox Church. At the same time, he was committed to the pursuit of joy through kindness and community and a kind of interpersonal fair dealing in a way that transcends his political concerns and is inspiring to see articulated in the lives of people who are as confused as the rest of us.
It's a huge, messy book, but so worth the effort. It took me about three months to read carefully, though my reading has been flagging lately, as well. I read this while listening to Hubert Dreyfus's accompanying lectures at Stanford on existentialism and this book which are available on iTunes U, and even when I felt his readings overreached, it was a good way to reread a tough and subtle work like this.
The story involves Ivan, Dmitri, Alyosha, and Smerdyakov, four brothers with a rich but notoriously lecherous father, Fyodor. All four brothers were raised by others, Fyodor having essentially ignored them until others removed them from his care. In the beginning of the book, Alyosha is in the monastery, studying under a famous elder name Father Zosima; Dmitri has just left the army and stolen a large sum of money from a government official's daughter, who he has also apparently seduced, all while pursuing a lawsuit against Fyodor for his inheritance and canoodling with his own father's intended, the local seductress Grushenka; Ivan, the intellectual in the family, has just returned from (I think) Petersburg. Dmitri is violent and impulsive, referring to himself as an "insect," and gets into fistfights with Fyodor several times. Smerdyakov works for Fyodor as a lackey, having gone to France to learn to cook at some point in the past. It's unimaginably more complicated and digressive than all this, and just trying to follow this crucial sum of three thousand rubles through the story is almost impossible. But anyway, Fyodor is killed and much of the book hinges on which brother killed him and why.
When I first read this book in high school, my teacher (who was a devout Catholic, a red-faced drunk who wore sunglasses to class, and the most enthusiastic reader of Russian literature imaginable) asked everyone who their favorite brother was. Was it Ivan, the tortured skeptic? Dmitri, the "scoundrel" who tortures himself for every wrong he commits but can't help committing more? Or Alyosha, the saintly one who always knows the right thing to say? (Certainly Smerdyakov is no one's favorite.) At the time I went with Ivan - I was in high school, after all, and his atheism and pessimism were revolutionary to me.
But now Ivan seems rather selfish and callow, and I can't help siding with Dmitri, the one Dostoevsky uses almost as a case history of conscience. Like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky gives his characters all the space to talk like gods, clearing pages upon pages for their reasoning and dialog. Dmitri fumbles with Voltaire and is clearly not overly literate, but in some ways that's apropos, because his main problem is the constant internal conflict between his desires and his ethics which is only partly resolved when he chooses to become responsible for not only what he does, but also what he wants.
The most famous passage in the book, Ivan's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, is, to me, far less interesting than Zosima's meditations on the conflict between justice and the collective good. The elder Zosima is a kind of Christian socialist who grapples with the typical mid-19th century Russian issues of how to build a equitable society without the extremes of coercion that the Tsar used to turn to, while also ensuring public morality and avoiding the kind of massacres that characterized the French Revolution (an event that seems to have been even more traumatizing for Russians than it was to the French due to the enormous cultural influence France had there at the time.) Zosima's answer is unworkable and in some ways naiive, but the discussion is well worth it, moreso than Ivan's somewhat simplistic dualism of Christ vs. the Inquisitor. Dostoevsky was a cultural conservative in the sense that he was constantly renewing his commitment to the obligations imposed on Russians by the Orthodox Church. At the same time, he was committed to the pursuit of joy through kindness and community and a kind of interpersonal fair dealing in a way that transcends his political concerns and is inspiring to see articulated in the lives of people who are as confused as the rest of us.
It's a huge, messy book, but so worth the effort. It took me about three months to read carefully, though my reading has been flagging lately, as well. I read this while listening to Hubert Dreyfus's accompanying lectures at Stanford on existentialism and this book which are available on iTunes U, and even when I felt his readings overreached, it was a good way to reread a tough and subtle work like this.
February 18, 2021
It's not hard to understand Nabokov's objections to Dostoevsky. It's his scruffiness as a novelist Nabokov with his literary sartorial elegance would have objected to. For example, his gun-ho attitude towards unnecessary repetition. And also his occasional lapses at organising his material for maximum dramatic effect, most evident in the construction of the trial. Nabokov was much more of a literary dandy than Dostoevsky, much more self-conscious, much more vigilant in his attention to detail, more subtle and ingenious in his artistry. But Dostoevsky was more courageous and pioneering psychologically. More intimate with the dark and unearthed side of the human condition. Nabokov was always looking for the laugh; Dostoevsky was more drawn to the accelerated heartbeat, the rush of blood to the head.
Dostoevsky's closest ally as a novelist is probably Emily Bronte. I thought while reading this that it's literature's greatest tragedy that Emily never got to write another novel. It's almost a complete mystery what she might have come up with. Like Emily, he dramatizes in the outer world the illicit promptings of the shadow self. Like Emily, he knows only a thin layer of cerebral paint shields us all from violence and horror. Like Emily, he's not the least interested in life's civilised arrangements, the house and garden existence. And they both mirror Shakespeare in this regard. Characters nakedly put the entirety of their being into every dramatic moment. Character is always fate.
The brothers are simplistically split into single imperatives of the human psyche: Alyosha is spirit/innocence, Mitya is sensuality and Ivan is intellect. Each of the brothers allow D to enter a different milieu of society. Aloysha surrounds himself with children and monks; Mitya with loose women and dissolute men; Ivan with progressive thinkers. You might say the three brothers combined are presented as an everyman. As always with D, his women, though relegated to background roles (historically accurate you'd have to say for the most part), are fascinating creations. This was especially evident to me as I was reading Michael Chabon at the same time whose women as a rule tend to be kind of perfunctory and less than vivid or nuanced or compelling as dramatic presences, often having no independent life outside their relationships with their men. D's women on the other hand blaze with frustrated independent aspiration.
I marvelled at the idiosyncrasies of my memory while reading this. Though I've read it twice my memory withheld all the central plot coordinates, yet I could recall various scenes as vividly as if they were a part of my own life. Made me think of Proust whose narrator seems to remember what we consider incidental details of his life rather than the big picture landmarks. There's clearly a lot of truth in this perspective.
I read a professional review of this which put forward the idea that Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky. I'd say this is utter baloney. For starters, the novel always benefits from his presence. He provides warmth and empathy. And then his narratives are often the most compelling - his flirtatious relationship with Lize or with the dying boy or with Zosima the elder for example.
Dostoevsky's closest ally as a novelist is probably Emily Bronte. I thought while reading this that it's literature's greatest tragedy that Emily never got to write another novel. It's almost a complete mystery what she might have come up with. Like Emily, he dramatizes in the outer world the illicit promptings of the shadow self. Like Emily, he knows only a thin layer of cerebral paint shields us all from violence and horror. Like Emily, he's not the least interested in life's civilised arrangements, the house and garden existence. And they both mirror Shakespeare in this regard. Characters nakedly put the entirety of their being into every dramatic moment. Character is always fate.
The brothers are simplistically split into single imperatives of the human psyche: Alyosha is spirit/innocence, Mitya is sensuality and Ivan is intellect. Each of the brothers allow D to enter a different milieu of society. Aloysha surrounds himself with children and monks; Mitya with loose women and dissolute men; Ivan with progressive thinkers. You might say the three brothers combined are presented as an everyman. As always with D, his women, though relegated to background roles (historically accurate you'd have to say for the most part), are fascinating creations. This was especially evident to me as I was reading Michael Chabon at the same time whose women as a rule tend to be kind of perfunctory and less than vivid or nuanced or compelling as dramatic presences, often having no independent life outside their relationships with their men. D's women on the other hand blaze with frustrated independent aspiration.
I marvelled at the idiosyncrasies of my memory while reading this. Though I've read it twice my memory withheld all the central plot coordinates, yet I could recall various scenes as vividly as if they were a part of my own life. Made me think of Proust whose narrator seems to remember what we consider incidental details of his life rather than the big picture landmarks. There's clearly a lot of truth in this perspective.
I read a professional review of this which put forward the idea that Aloysha didn't interest Dostoevsky. I'd say this is utter baloney. For starters, the novel always benefits from his presence. He provides warmth and empathy. And then his narratives are often the most compelling - his flirtatious relationship with Lize or with the dying boy or with Zosima the elder for example.
October 23, 2024
Cartea pe care a luat-o cu sine Lev Nikolaevici Tolstoi c卯nd a fugit de-acas膬, 卯n 28 octombrie 1910 dup膬 stilul vechi. Cartea despre care autorul spunea c膬 e numai o introducere 卯n biografia lui Alexei = Alio葯a Karamazov 葯i c膬 va avea negre葯it o continuare. Din p膬cate, Dostoievski n-a apucat s膬-葯i duc膬 g卯ndul la cap膬t. A murit peste c卯teva luni. Pentru nota de fa葲膬, am ales un singur episod, din finalul c膬r葲ii.
V膬 mai aminti葲i? Dup膬 ce l-au petrecut pe Iliu葯a la groap膬, copiii se opresc 卯n jurul lui Alio葯a Karamazov 葯i-l 卯ntreab膬 dac膬 exist膬 cu adev膬rat 脦nvierea. Iar Aleo葯a r膬spunde c膬 exist膬 negre葯it 葯i adaug膬, 鈥瀋u 卯nsufle葲ire, de葯i z卯mbind鈥�, c膬 atunci vor avea prilejul s膬-葯i povesteasc膬 鈥瀡eseli 葯i ferici葲i鈥� tot ce au f膬cut 卯n via葲a de acum. Unul dintre copii (Kolea Krasotkin) exclam膬: 鈥濾ai, ce frumos va fi!鈥�.
Tensiunea romanului se risipe葯te tocmai prin acest sf卯r葯it senin, iar cititorul poate exclama la r卯ndu-i, c卯nd 卯nchide romanul lui Dostoievski: 鈥濩u siguran葲膬, va fi foarte frumos!鈥�.
P. S. M膬 卯ntreb 葯i v膬 卯ntreb: unde afirm膬 Ivan Karamazov ilustra fraz膬, citat膬 de teologii cei mai iste葲i, 鈥濪ac膬 Dumnezeu nu exist膬, totul este permis鈥�? Eu unul n-am g膬sit-o sub forma asta 卯n carte...
V膬 mai aminti葲i? Dup膬 ce l-au petrecut pe Iliu葯a la groap膬, copiii se opresc 卯n jurul lui Alio葯a Karamazov 葯i-l 卯ntreab膬 dac膬 exist膬 cu adev膬rat 脦nvierea. Iar Aleo葯a r膬spunde c膬 exist膬 negre葯it 葯i adaug膬, 鈥瀋u 卯nsufle葲ire, de葯i z卯mbind鈥�, c膬 atunci vor avea prilejul s膬-葯i povesteasc膬 鈥瀡eseli 葯i ferici葲i鈥� tot ce au f膬cut 卯n via葲a de acum. Unul dintre copii (Kolea Krasotkin) exclam膬: 鈥濾ai, ce frumos va fi!鈥�.
Tensiunea romanului se risipe葯te tocmai prin acest sf卯r葯it senin, iar cititorul poate exclama la r卯ndu-i, c卯nd 卯nchide romanul lui Dostoievski: 鈥濩u siguran葲膬, va fi foarte frumos!鈥�.
P. S. M膬 卯ntreb 葯i v膬 卯ntreb: unde afirm膬 Ivan Karamazov ilustra fraz膬, citat膬 de teologii cei mai iste葲i, 鈥濪ac膬 Dumnezeu nu exist膬, totul este permis鈥�? Eu unul n-am g膬sit-o sub forma asta 卯n carte...
November 12, 2018
鈥淭he Brothers Karamazov鈥� has intrigued me for years. I have always been aware of the fact that it is one of the greatest novels ever written so I know I have to read it eventually. Finally, after reading it, I think I get why this is considered great literature-- and though I can't exactly say that I loved it, I admit that I don鈥檛 regret reading it.
The plot revolves around the murder of perhaps one of the most despicable characters ever created, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, the father of the Karamazov brothers. This detail about the book only skims the surface because this only serves as the basic architecture for Dostoevsky's philosophy. This novel isn't so much a story as: a lengthy dissertation on human nature; the issues of Dostoyevsky's day; detailed personality profiles; and digressions on every subject the author wanted to pursue, including free will, the existence of God, moral responsibility, and truth.
It's a high-minded novel full of weighty intellectual themes and Dostoevsky鈥檚 skill is unquestionable. 鈥淭he Grand Inquisitor鈥� is a supremely strange chapter , and one of the most unique things I鈥檝e read in literature. The courtroom drama at the end of the novel, would be very hard to match in modern fiction.
And of the family鈥攚hat a family! Each figure in this household (?) embodies conflicting phases of the author鈥檚 great ideas: Fyodor Karamazov, the father, is a sensualist of the lowest type imaginable; Dmitri inherits his father鈥檚 passions but is tempered by periods of misgiving; Ivan is a materialist and a cynic. He changes his mind after a severe illness, and his materialistic belief is replaced by intense spiritual curiosity; Alyosha is an idealist, lovable and loving. Dostoevsky鈥檚 discordant elements are effectively conveyed in his human characterizations.
That said, 鈥淭he Brothers Karamazov鈥� still didn鈥檛 impress me as much as I expected it to. The story started out painfully slow. In my opinion, a great novel shouldn't require readers to force themselves to stay awake for more than 1/4 of the book in order to become acquainted with initially uninteresting characters. As with the rest of the book, there were many points where Dostoevsky seemed to descend into meaningless details that, to me, did nothing to advance the plot, atmosphere, or characterization.
I feel that the author is disconnected from his audience, and he doesn't seem to care. This comes to a point where I think Dostoevsky frequently loses himself in the meshes of his own word spinning. The book goes off too many tangents and is densely verbose.
I found pages of extraordinary depth and poignancy but they are few and far in between. I find it hard to connect with any of the characters since their personalities are diluted by the manic and morbidly intense verbal flow. Half the book was one of the Karamazovs talking on and on, uninterrupted to an audience as silent and passive as the reader. I frequently spaced out and have to backtrack. I eventually found myself reading this book in a grim desire to finish it and be done, rather than out of a sense of enjoyment.
I admired author's insights into human nature, but all too often, he seemed to make grand proclamations arbitrarily that have little evidence behind them. As if by declaring them with confidence he somehow made them true beyond question. And for whatever unaccountable reason, his preoccupations landed like a relic in my own life. My feelings can be aptly described by Rosewater鈥檚 words in Kurt Vonnegut鈥檚 鈥淪laughterhouse Five鈥�:
鈥淭here is one other book, that can teach you everything you need to know about life... it's The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but that's not enough anymore.鈥�
I still think it鈥檚 worth the read, and there is always something to be earned from reading the books of great authors who influenced other great authors. And besides, no matter what my opinion is, Ol鈥� Dusty is still going strong!
The plot revolves around the murder of perhaps one of the most despicable characters ever created, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, the father of the Karamazov brothers. This detail about the book only skims the surface because this only serves as the basic architecture for Dostoevsky's philosophy. This novel isn't so much a story as: a lengthy dissertation on human nature; the issues of Dostoyevsky's day; detailed personality profiles; and digressions on every subject the author wanted to pursue, including free will, the existence of God, moral responsibility, and truth.
It's a high-minded novel full of weighty intellectual themes and Dostoevsky鈥檚 skill is unquestionable. 鈥淭he Grand Inquisitor鈥� is a supremely strange chapter , and one of the most unique things I鈥檝e read in literature. The courtroom drama at the end of the novel, would be very hard to match in modern fiction.
And of the family鈥攚hat a family! Each figure in this household (?) embodies conflicting phases of the author鈥檚 great ideas: Fyodor Karamazov, the father, is a sensualist of the lowest type imaginable; Dmitri inherits his father鈥檚 passions but is tempered by periods of misgiving; Ivan is a materialist and a cynic. He changes his mind after a severe illness, and his materialistic belief is replaced by intense spiritual curiosity; Alyosha is an idealist, lovable and loving. Dostoevsky鈥檚 discordant elements are effectively conveyed in his human characterizations.
That said, 鈥淭he Brothers Karamazov鈥� still didn鈥檛 impress me as much as I expected it to. The story started out painfully slow. In my opinion, a great novel shouldn't require readers to force themselves to stay awake for more than 1/4 of the book in order to become acquainted with initially uninteresting characters. As with the rest of the book, there were many points where Dostoevsky seemed to descend into meaningless details that, to me, did nothing to advance the plot, atmosphere, or characterization.
I feel that the author is disconnected from his audience, and he doesn't seem to care. This comes to a point where I think Dostoevsky frequently loses himself in the meshes of his own word spinning. The book goes off too many tangents and is densely verbose.
I found pages of extraordinary depth and poignancy but they are few and far in between. I find it hard to connect with any of the characters since their personalities are diluted by the manic and morbidly intense verbal flow. Half the book was one of the Karamazovs talking on and on, uninterrupted to an audience as silent and passive as the reader. I frequently spaced out and have to backtrack. I eventually found myself reading this book in a grim desire to finish it and be done, rather than out of a sense of enjoyment.
I admired author's insights into human nature, but all too often, he seemed to make grand proclamations arbitrarily that have little evidence behind them. As if by declaring them with confidence he somehow made them true beyond question. And for whatever unaccountable reason, his preoccupations landed like a relic in my own life. My feelings can be aptly described by Rosewater鈥檚 words in Kurt Vonnegut鈥檚 鈥淪laughterhouse Five鈥�:
鈥淭here is one other book, that can teach you everything you need to know about life... it's The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, but that's not enough anymore.鈥�
I still think it鈥檚 worth the read, and there is always something to be earned from reading the books of great authors who influenced other great authors. And besides, no matter what my opinion is, Ol鈥� Dusty is still going strong!
March 26, 2025
The Karamazov Brothers is a challenging novel to review because of its complex nature. Thus my review of the novel is based on my interpretation of the novel, and that in turn is based on limited knowledge of Dostoevsky and the political, social, and religious climate of Russia at the time of his writing this novel. I want to establish this fact at the outset because I believe that this novel is capable of producing different interpretations.
Readers and critics have claimed that The Karamazov Brothers is the best work of Dostoyevsky. After having read many Dostoeveskian novels, I also agree with the universal acclaim. The book in my opinion is a complete work in every aspect: in writing, storytelling, and character and plot development. It is not an easy task to write a lengthy novel that could engage readers' interest and attention but to a master like Dostoevsky, this is not a challenge.
The book is both a crime story and a philosophical debate on religion. In my first reading, I treated the two strands as separate and disconnected from each other. On my second reading, I realized how wrong I had been. There is a closer and inseparable connection between these two threads of the novel, for the crime is at the heart of the religious debate.
Dostoevsky was disturbed by the growing atheism in Russian society, especially in the Russian youth. The newly emerging intellectuals questioned the existence of God and they rejected the claim that HE is the almighty creator of all beings. They couldn't reconcile the idea of suffering with God's creation of beings. There is a part in the story where Ivan Karamazov (the atheist) questions why God created children to suffer as they did, from parental abuse, poverty, sicknesses, etc. But to Dostoevsky, the suffering IS the way to reach God. For the Russian atheists, the Christian principles were a necessary tool to establish some organized social order and no more. They rejected the moral responsibility the religion imposed on men. This is where "everything is permissible" is established. But it is a dangerous idea that permits the committing of crimes. And in the novel, a crime as horrific as patricide is committed because "everything is permissible".
Dostoevsky's religious views play a dominant role in the novel. He was also a non-believer at one point in his life. But his life in the Siberian prison considerably changed his perspective. Dostoevsky who returned from the prison was a believer. However, his belief didn't come within the purview of the Russian Orthodox Church Of course. He accepted the existence of God but believed in a relationship between God and man without the mediation of the Church. His faith was the active practice of love through which God's message could be spread. This is the role of Alyosha Karamazov, Dostoevsky's proclaimed hero.
Alyosha Karamazov may be the proclaimed hero of Dostoevsky, but to me, Ivan is also a hero. I loved them both. They are the two major opposing characters in the story. They both are sensitive and have character. Ivan realizes at a greater cost that his atheist views are destructive to society and that they permit horrible crimes. This knowledge horrifies him and he suffers a nervous breakdown. Although Ivan's reform is not stated, Dostoevsky has hinted this at the end.
Dostoevsky is a brilliant storyteller. Through his masterly storytelling, he invests the readers in the novel. I felt like a part of their community all through the read. Dostoyevsky's beautiful and heartfelt writing absorbed me into the world of Karamazov.
Needless to say The Karamazov Brothers is the sort of book that will become a part of the reader for life. That is the true quality of a masterpiece. It is a blessing to come across in one's reading life such a magnificent work of literature. I feel so privileged.
More of my reviews can be found at
Readers and critics have claimed that The Karamazov Brothers is the best work of Dostoyevsky. After having read many Dostoeveskian novels, I also agree with the universal acclaim. The book in my opinion is a complete work in every aspect: in writing, storytelling, and character and plot development. It is not an easy task to write a lengthy novel that could engage readers' interest and attention but to a master like Dostoevsky, this is not a challenge.
The book is both a crime story and a philosophical debate on religion. In my first reading, I treated the two strands as separate and disconnected from each other. On my second reading, I realized how wrong I had been. There is a closer and inseparable connection between these two threads of the novel, for the crime is at the heart of the religious debate.
Dostoevsky was disturbed by the growing atheism in Russian society, especially in the Russian youth. The newly emerging intellectuals questioned the existence of God and they rejected the claim that HE is the almighty creator of all beings. They couldn't reconcile the idea of suffering with God's creation of beings. There is a part in the story where Ivan Karamazov (the atheist) questions why God created children to suffer as they did, from parental abuse, poverty, sicknesses, etc. But to Dostoevsky, the suffering IS the way to reach God. For the Russian atheists, the Christian principles were a necessary tool to establish some organized social order and no more. They rejected the moral responsibility the religion imposed on men. This is where "everything is permissible" is established. But it is a dangerous idea that permits the committing of crimes. And in the novel, a crime as horrific as patricide is committed because "everything is permissible".
Dostoevsky's religious views play a dominant role in the novel. He was also a non-believer at one point in his life. But his life in the Siberian prison considerably changed his perspective. Dostoevsky who returned from the prison was a believer. However, his belief didn't come within the purview of the Russian Orthodox Church Of course. He accepted the existence of God but believed in a relationship between God and man without the mediation of the Church. His faith was the active practice of love through which God's message could be spread. This is the role of Alyosha Karamazov, Dostoevsky's proclaimed hero.
Alyosha Karamazov may be the proclaimed hero of Dostoevsky, but to me, Ivan is also a hero. I loved them both. They are the two major opposing characters in the story. They both are sensitive and have character. Ivan realizes at a greater cost that his atheist views are destructive to society and that they permit horrible crimes. This knowledge horrifies him and he suffers a nervous breakdown. Although Ivan's reform is not stated, Dostoevsky has hinted this at the end.
Dostoevsky is a brilliant storyteller. Through his masterly storytelling, he invests the readers in the novel. I felt like a part of their community all through the read. Dostoyevsky's beautiful and heartfelt writing absorbed me into the world of Karamazov.
Needless to say The Karamazov Brothers is the sort of book that will become a part of the reader for life. That is the true quality of a masterpiece. It is a blessing to come across in one's reading life such a magnificent work of literature. I feel so privileged.
More of my reviews can be found at
January 27, 2025
鈥淎bove all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.鈥�
~~~
This was my introduction to Russian Literature at the age of 14. I remember buying this at a flea market one weekend for $0.50 ~~ in hardback, & feeling very adult since I would be reading a Russian Novel. Dostoyevsky started a love affair with Russian literature that exists to this day. Oh, and as for the novel, it's one of the best I鈥檝e ever read.
~~~
This was my introduction to Russian Literature at the age of 14. I remember buying this at a flea market one weekend for $0.50 ~~ in hardback, & feeling very adult since I would be reading a Russian Novel. Dostoyevsky started a love affair with Russian literature that exists to this day. Oh, and as for the novel, it's one of the best I鈥檝e ever read.
June 17, 2019
Above all, avoid lies, all lies, especially the lie to yourself. Keep watch on your own lie and examine it every hour, every minute. And avoid contempt, both of others and of yourself: what seems bad to you in yourself is purified by the very fact that you have noticed it in yourself. And avoid fear, though fear is simply the consequence of every lie. (57)
Family. You cannot pick. You are either happy to be around them or you are stuck with them. You can choose your friends, a pet, you can choose between a blueberry muffin and a chocolate chip one, but you cannot choose your family. The combination of genetics and the social environment is simply fascinating. For example, take this ordinary Russian family. An ambitious, lascivious, ridiculous father who enjoyed alcohol in any form; a son who, at first, seemed to be the image of his father; a second son, vain and intellectual with even more questionable moral reactions; the youngest son with the kindness of a saint and the troubled soul of a common man and another weak, disturbing young man who never counted as a son. This book contains the story of every family in the world. Their struggles, their fears, their doubts, the decisions that reflect the highest and most degrading aspects of human nature.
鈥淭here is a force that will endure everything,鈥� said Ivan, this time with a cold smirk.
鈥淲hat force?鈥�
鈥淭he Karamazov force ... the force of the Karamazov baseness.鈥�
鈥淭o drown in depravity, to stifle your soul with corruption, is that it?鈥� (210)
This book contains centuries of human history. It is a major treatise on philosophy and religion. And yes, there is a lot of religion here, but even me, a person who is struggling with a lack of faith and a deep ocean of doubts and fear, can still be interested and dazzled by all this. (Unless we are talking about the "monk book". There were a couple of good things but, in general, it was the only part of the book that made me want to take a really long nap. I must admit it, in the spirit of full disclosure. And my previous naive defense about how 鈥渆ven鈥� me could be interested? Yes, forget it, I know I am haunted by uncertainty and, therefore, obsessed with knowledge, no matter how limited I can be.)
鈥淐an it be that you really hold this conviction about the consequences of the exhaustion of men鈥檚 faith in the immortality of their souls?鈥� the elder suddenly asked Ivan Fyodorovich.
鈥淵es, it was my contention. There is no virtue if there is no immortality.鈥�
鈥淵ou are blessed if you believe so, or else most unhappy!鈥�
...
鈥淢aybe you鈥檙e right... ! But still, I wasn't quite joking either ... ,鈥� Ivan Fyodorovich suddenly and strangely confessed鈥攂y the way, with a quick blush.
鈥淵ou weren't quite joking, that is true. This idea is not yet resolved in your heart and torments it. But a martyr, too, sometimes likes to toy with his despair, also from despair, as it were. For the time being you, too, are toying, out of despair, with your magazine articles and drawing-room discussions, without believing in your own dialectics and smirking at them with your heart aching inside you ... The question is not resolved in you, and there lies your great grief, for it urgently demands resolution...鈥� (66)
A sharp observation written using such an exquisite language. You should become accustomed to that. Once you reach Book V, you will found yourself overwhelmed by the author's mesmerizing erudition.
If you're expecting an explosive plot with lots of things going on at the same time, weird twists and vampires, fights and dragons, magic and flying dogs, then this book is not for you. There is a plot, of course, but the excellence of this book lies on the writing. Dostoyevsky's trademark is his gifted ability to describe human nature using the most poignantly elegant prose known to man. His insightful points of view on almost every subject that affects all humanity are written with admirable lyricism and precision. Reading this particular writer can be rather demanding. You have to be prepared. You have to become habituated to the idea that your soul might absorb the despairing and sometimes playful beauty of his writing. And once that happens, you won't be able to forget him. Dostoyevsky has the power to defeat oblivion. He personifies an unwelcome light that illuminates every dark nook of our minds. He makes us think about what we like to see in ourselves and what we choose to hide.
Jealousy! 鈥淥thello is not jealous, he is trustful鈥�... A truly jealous man is not like that. It is impossible to imagine all the shame and moral degradation a jealous man can tolerate without the least remorse. And it is not that they are all trite and dirty souls. On the contrary, it is possible to have a lofty heart, to love purely, to be full of self-sacrifice, and at the same time to hide under tables, to bribe the meanest people, and live with the nastiest filth of spying and eavesdropping... And one may ask what is the good of a love that must constantly be spied on, and what is the worth of a love that needs to be guarded so intensely? (293)
Besides briefly discussing the plot, I can only add I don't have favorite characters. They all annoyed me or disgusted me in the same contradictory way. But I do understand them, most of the times. I loved the dialogues鈥攖he amazing reflections while they are deciding to act against everything that is good; they know what they are about to do is wrong but they can't help it; it's in their blood鈥攖he profound remarks of our narrator and the fact that Dostoyevsky, one more time, allowed me to enter inside his characters' minds. He shares the complexity of all of them. And I'm enchanted by this man's ability to make everything beautiful, even while describing the darkest aspects of humanity, which leads me to another point.
I love reading other people's thoughts on the books I like. A certain opinion I read a while ago was about how Dostoyevsky seems to be a vicious misogynist because of the way he wrote about Smerdyakov's mother, 鈥淪tinking Lizaveta.鈥� I try not to make out of every word written by the author, a reflection of the person he or she really is. Crime writers don't usually murder every human they find. Mystery writers don't always think that somebody's butler is up to something. In that sense, an author who writes about how a woman is mistreated by a certain part of society doesn't necessarily mean he's a vicious misogynist. He was being honest, he was displaying truth. Poor women and men were often treated like less than a human - that hasn't changed that much. Dostoyevsky described it too vividly.*
...people speak sometimes about the 鈥榓nimal鈥� cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to animals, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel. (193)
In conclusion, as I said before, this book contains the history of the world. A deluge of misery and wisdom waiting for the reader. The way of representing the Russian soul is the way all souls should be represented; it transcends any geographical boundary, any limitation of time. We all have many sides of the Karamazovs' nature in us. We all have demons tormenting our good judgment. We all know what we should do and, sometimes, we simply can't do it. I can't justify everything but we are humans. I want to understand, I need to. We are susceptible to failure. To negligence. To vileness, dishonesty and many other abhorrent things. Once mistakes are made, only the most fortunate ones are able to find a path toward redemption. In this book, in this Russia which portrays the world of all times, some did. And some had to endure the bitter punishments that the choices in their lives have brought upon them.
鈥業 love mankind,鈥� he said, 鈥榖ut I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons... (56)
Too human. We all hear the sounds of a ravenous solitude echoing in the dark depths of our beings; they often make us act by instinct, forgetting that we have been blessed鈥攐r doomed鈥攚ith reason. Moreover, they make us forget to feel love. And that, indeed, is a faithful depiction of what hell must feel like. A hell to which we will soon arrive by repeating to ourselves: everything is permitted .
May 05, 14-Update June 17, 19
*Just another reader's opinion.
** Also on
September 29, 2016
"La cuesti贸n principal que se tratar谩 en todas las partes de este libro es la misma que me ha hecho sufrir consciente o inconscientemente: la existencia de Dios."
Esta frase resume toda la epopeya karamazoviana que Fi贸dor Dostoievski encarara a final de su vida en esta obra literaria monumental y que le llevara tres a帽os de apretada y sufrida elaboraci贸n. Dostoievski, que hab铆a tenido una vida plena de emociones iba a culminar su propia carrera con un libro perfecto, m谩s all谩 de que ten铆a pensado elaborar una segunda parte del mismo que se iba a llamar 鈥淟os ni帽os鈥�, aunque la muerte lo alcanzar铆a a los 59 a帽os y para posicionarlo merecidamente en el sitio de uno de los m谩s grandes escritores de toda la literatura universal.
鈥淟os Hermanos Karamazov鈥� comenz贸 a ser publicado por cap铆tulos en 鈥淓l Mensajero Ruso鈥� y editado definitivamente como libro en noviembre 1880, un a帽o antes de su deceso, cerrando con lazos de oro su brillante carrera literaria.
No hay forma alguna de abstraerse de semejante tour-de-force literario que implica leer Los Hermanos Karamazov y es evidente que Dostoievski puso absolutamente todos sus conocimientos, vivencias, alegr铆as, tristezas, creencias, miedos y esperanzas en esta obra descomunal. Usualmente, al rememorar los m谩s grandes libros que nos dio la literatura rusa nos vienen primero a la cabeza 鈥淟a Guerra y la Paz鈥� y 鈥淎nna Karenina", ambos de Lev Tolst贸i y es precisamente a este 煤ltimo al que Dostoievski calificaba 鈥渦na obra de arte perfecta.鈥� Personalmente, me es indispensable agregar a estos dos libros antes citados, 茅ste libro que estoy rese帽ando junto con 鈥淐rimen y Castigo鈥� y adem谩s sumar铆a a esa lista otros cl谩sicos como 鈥淎lmas Muertas鈥� de Nik贸lai G贸gol o 鈥淓ugenio Oneguin鈥� de Alexandr Pushkin, esa especie de semidi贸s que representaba el padre de las letras rusas para Dostoievski.
Es imposible despegar a Los Hermanos Karamazov de la resonancia que tuvo en la sociedad rusa de la 茅poca, tan convulsionada ya a esas alturas de la dinast铆a zarista que iba en declive a partir de 1870. Gran parte del pensamiento ruso comenzaba a cambiar, incluso hab铆an aparecido sendos grupos revolucionarios nihilistas que estallaban contra el sistema sus ideas de rebeld铆a y caos. Esto es algo que Dostoievski anticipara en su libro 鈥淟os Demonios鈥� de 1872 a trav茅s de personajes como Piotr Verjovenski, Nik贸lai Stravroguin o Alex茅i Kirilov. El nihilismo, mezclado con altas dosis de ate铆smo fervoroso y convulsi贸n social entre los j贸venes de la 茅poca tarde o temprano ir铆a a desembocar en una verdadera revoluci贸n que explotar铆a literalmente en 1917 con la ca铆da del imperio zarista para dar luz (u oscuridad) a otro per铆odo que Rusia conocer铆a a partir del siglo XX.
Considero que en general, la idea que mantuvo presente Dostoievski en 鈥淟os Hermanos Karamazov鈥� fue la de incluir absolutamente todos los aspectos de los que se compon铆a la sociedad rusa, aquella que hab铆a defendido Pushkin y que hab铆an infectado los 鈥渙ccidentalistas鈥� con Turgu茅niev a la cabeza, intentando europeizar las ra铆ces de un pueblo que nunca pudo congeniar con las ideas de Europa. Esto hizo que la literatura y los intelectuales de la 茅poca giraran a aspectos e ideales que nunca hab铆an pasado por la mente y los corazones de los rusos. A mi entender, fue muy importante la ac茅rrima defensa que autores como Dostoievski o Tolstoi hicieron de la cultura rusa ante el avance de ideas que chocaban contra la realidad que atravesaba Rusia y que este pa铆s en cierta manera no aceptaba.
Dostoievski sab铆a que pod铆a incluir todos los elementos posibles en la elaboraci贸n del nudo argumental en su libro y que adem谩s, pod铆a contar con todos los estratos sociales de su amada Rusia. Es asombroso descubrir que en este libro nos encontraremos con cinco (no tres) personalidades distintas, a saber, la del padre Fi贸dor P谩vlovich Karamazov, sus hijos Alex茅i 鈥淎li贸sha鈥� Fiodor贸vich, Iv谩n Fiodor贸vich, Dmitri 鈥淢itia鈥� Fiodor贸vich y la de Pavel 鈥淪merdiakov鈥�, el lacayo e hijo no reconocido de Fi贸dor Karamazov. A su vez, aparecer谩n otros personajes claves para la historia como lo son Katerina Ivanovna, Agrafievna 鈥淕rushenka鈥� Aleks谩ndrovna, el St谩rets Z贸sima, Lisaveta Smerdi谩shaia, Ippolit Kirilovich, el peque帽o Illiusha, 鈥淜olia鈥� Krasotkin, Rakitin y tantos otros.
No voy a hacer un estudio de perfil psicol贸gico de los tres hermanos, puesto que de eso se encarga magistralmente el autor durante toda su obra, pero s铆 puedo dar unas leves pinceladas de cada uno de ellos y de otros personajes que son los m谩s importantes durante la lectura de este libro.
En el caso del padre, Fi贸dor P谩vlovich Karamazov, podemos encontrarnos r谩pidamente con un ser fr铆o, d茅spota, desamorado, que nunca quiso hacerse cargo de sus hijos (鈥渃uanto m谩s lejos, mejor, que los cuide el criado Gr铆gori). Sumamente borracho y d茅spota y con una avaricia devoradora que har铆a poner colorado al personaje de Moli猫re y al padre de Eug猫nie Grandet. Se cree que este personaje tiene una conexi贸n directa con el propio padre de Dostoievski, quien fuera supuestamente asesinado por sus siervos debido a su crueldad sin medida, algo que Dostoievski siempre recordaba de su infancia. Probablemente todo esto haya influido en la creaci贸n de este personaje tan importante en la novela.
鈥淓n el cielo Dios, en la patria el Zar, en la casa el Padre鈥�, reza un tratado espiritual de la 茅poca del zar Iv谩n "el terrible鈥� y pone en el candelero el tema de lo que la figura de padre representa para nosotros a trav茅s de la historia por la cuesti贸n del parricidio que luego se transformar谩 durante el juicio en el eje de las exposiciones del fiscal Ippolit Kiril贸vich y del c茅lebre abogado defensor Fetiuk贸vich.
Iv谩n Fiodor贸vich Karamazov es compasivo al principio del libro, mantiene firme sus ideales y su particular visi贸n acerca de la duda sobre la existencia o no de Dios: 鈥漇i Dios no existe, todo est谩 permitido鈥�, posee un profundo existencialismo y una alta filosof铆a. Pero este hombre comenzar谩 a tener un desmoronamiento mental que desdibujar谩 lo que al principio del libro vemos de 茅l.
Hay dos cap铆tulos esenciales en el libro que involucran a Iv谩n y que hasta se pueden leer como libros separados y son 鈥淓l Gran Inquisidor鈥� y 鈥淓l Diablo. La pesadilla de Iv谩n Karamazov鈥�. Sobre el primero pueden leer mi rese帽a aqu铆 en goodreads y no voy a explayarme porque habla por s铆 misma. Es aqu铆 donde toma fuerza la frase de Dostoievski sobre la existencia o no de Dios. Y vaya que ten铆a forma de plantearla鈥�
Para ello, Dostoievski nos prepara en el cap铆tulo previo al Inquisidor, llamado 鈥淩ebeli贸n鈥�, ese en donde expone el planteo moral y religioso y sobre lo destructivo de la injusticia y crueldad de los hombres, es acaloradamente expuesto en esa charla con Ali贸sha.
La pesadilla de Iv谩n y el Diablo es sencillamente de antolog铆a. Dostoievski, en este encuentro casi real que sufre Iv谩n nos recuerda al desdoblamiento que sufriera otro atormentado h茅roe dostoievskiano, el se帽or Goliadkin de su segunda novela, 鈥淓l Doble鈥�. Esa declaraci贸n de principios que realiza el Diablo solamente puede salir de una pluma tan genial como la de este escritor y no tiene nada que envidiarle ni a Dante, ni al Mefist贸feles del Fausto de Goethe ni al Lucifer de Milton y es imposible que Mija铆l Bulg谩kov no se haya maravillado con este cap铆tulo. Me arriesgar铆a a decir que lo ley贸 como inspiraci贸n para su Voland en 鈥淓l Maestro y Margarita鈥�.
Ali贸sha Karamazov es junto con su hermano Dmitri quien domina gran parte del espacio del libro y ambos los m谩s importantes, en primer lugar por su relaci贸n directa con su protector espiritual, el St谩rets Z贸sima, pero adem谩s porque es el propio Dostoievski quien comienza a contar la historia 鈥滱l comenzar la historia de mi h茅roe, Alex茅i Fiodor贸vich Karamazov鈥︹€� y aqu铆 nuevamente una implicancia autobiogr谩fica del autor, puesto que en Ali贸sha Dostoievski le rinde homenaje a su hijo fallecido, que tambi茅n se llamaba Alex茅i. Dostoievski lo llama "mi h茅roe".
Hay se帽ales de que Dostoievski busc贸 delinear en 茅l la figura de Cristo que no tuvo la solidez que pretend铆a para el Pr铆ncipe Mishkin. Sus car谩cter reflexivo, su humildad y el "poner constantemente la otra mejilla", su intento de ayudar al pr贸jimo, su f茅rrea creencia en Dios y en las actitudes cristianas m谩s solidarias son sus cualidades m谩s sobresalientes. Su amor incondicional con sus hermanos (especialmente con Dmitri) lo posicionar谩n en el ser m谩s espiritual de esta familia tan particular.
Hay episodios en el libro en el que aprendemos sobre lo maravilloso que es 鈥渟er humano鈥�, puesto que las experiencias que atraviesa Ali贸sha son edificantes: todo lo que tiene que ver con el St谩rets Z贸sima lo marcar谩n a fuego, su an茅cdota con Snieguiriov, el padre de Iliusha, la especial y fraternal relaci贸n con este ni帽o enfermo, los di谩logos con sus hermanos, interceder con Katia Ivanovna y Grushenka para llegar a soluciones dentro del caos que se desata a mitad del libro, son algunos de los ejemplos de la importancia que este personaje posee.
En tercer lugar, nos encontramos con Dmitri Karamazov, de una vida disoluta, es pendenciero, impulsivo y desenfrenado y vive siempre con grandes deudas de dinero producto de su hedonismo desmesurado. Un ser sin control que despilfarra dinero mientras reniega de la herencia que su padre no le concede. Su violenta enemistad con Fi贸dor Karamazov lo llevar谩 a vivir las escenas m谩s dif铆ciles y desgarradoras del libro. Su personalidad no lo ayuda, su impulsividad de caballo desbocado lo har谩 caer en lo m谩s bajo y degradante que le har谩 auto proclamarse 鈥渋nfame鈥�. El mundo se le volver谩 en contra y conocer谩 el sufrimiento, la desesperaci贸n y el pecado. Deambular谩 entre Grushenka y Katerina Ivanovna, a quien el propio Dostoievski defin铆a como "Una criatura que no vive, sino que se pasa la vida cavilando". Tendr谩 las ideas m谩s radicales, esas que se le atravesaran alguna vez a Rodion Rask贸lnikov y fermentar谩n la idea de matar en su cabeza. Porque no queda otra soluci贸n a su problema que matar. Algunas de las mejores frases del libro le pertenecen a 茅l. Son contundentes, maravillosas y ejemplificadoras, aunque procedan del personaje m谩s pol茅mico del libro: "Yo creo que si el Diablo no existe y es entonces el hombre el que lo cre贸, lo cre贸 a su imagen y semejanza.鈥�
El caso de Sm茅rdiakov es clave para el desarrollo de la historia. Su participaci贸n en el crimen es vital, demasiado crucial e importante. Es un ser con cierto rencor en su coraz贸n por su condici贸n de lacayo cuando sostiene que podr铆a haber sido un Karamazov. Sabemos que el hijo bastardo de Fi贸dor P谩vlovich es totalmente taimado y sumiso a su padrastro. Sus cruces con Mitia o Iv谩n ser谩n tremendos y en ellos se desentra帽ar谩 el nudo de la intriga que nos ofrece el autor.
Por 煤ltimo, nos encontramos con el m谩s importante de todos: Fi贸dor Mij谩ilovich Dostoievski.
Se preguntar谩n por qu茅 sostengo esto: yo siempre he estado de acuerdo con el te贸rico Mija铆l Bajt铆n acerca de que Dostoievski es el inventor de la novela polif贸nica, que se hace un costado, casi desaparece como autor y deja a sus personajes la exposici贸n de sus ideas como estandarte para que todas ellas armen como engranajes el motor de la historia principal.
En este libro he podido descubrir otro Dostoievski. Un autor que decidi贸 meterse de lleno en la ficci贸n desde lo real a partir de lo experimentado en su vida y transformado en ense帽anza para todos nosotros. Este autor maravilloso, 煤nico e irrepetible que agradezco a Dios haber conocido me ense帽贸 sobre la vida como si fuera mi propio padre.
Dostoievski es el St谩rets Z贸sima, por sus lecciones espirituales en oposici贸n al ate铆smo reinante en esa 茅poca y que se extienden hasta nuestros d铆as siguiendo el camino de Cristo como 煤nica fuente de fe: 鈥漇贸lo es necesaria una semilla diminuta: arr贸jala al alma simple del hombre y no morir谩, va a vivir en su alma toda la vida, va a ocultarse en 茅l en medio de las tinieblas, en medio del hedor de sus pecados, como un punto luminoso, como una gran advertencia鈥�.
Dostoievski puede transformarse en un f茅rreo fiscal acusador devenido en Ippolit Kiril贸vich, quien me har谩 reflexionar acerca del crimen y de todo el castigo que ello me puede causar. La exposici贸n que hace durante el juicio es contundente, pero tambi茅n se pone las investiduras Fetiuk贸vich, el abogado defensor de la injusticia. 脡l defender谩 a capa y espada la inocencia de su cliente y nos reconfortar谩 el hecho de saber que nos custodiar谩 hasta el final, hasta que llegue la verdad.
Y Dostoievski tambi茅n puede personificar al Diablo con una versatilidad inusitada para dar su propia versi贸n de los hechos ante un alucinado Iv谩n: 鈥濃€淧ero Dios m铆o, yo ni siquiera pretendo compararme contigo en inteligencia. Mefist贸feles, al aparec茅rsele a Fausto, testimoni贸 sobre s铆 mismo que 茅l quiere el mal pero s贸lo hace el bien. Bueno, como a 茅l le parezca. Yo, al contrario, quiz谩s sea la 煤nica persona en toda la naturaleza que ama la verdad y desea sinceramente el bien.鈥�
Hay tambi茅n en el libro otra frase que define con exactitud a los hermanos Karamazov y la dice el fiscal Kiril贸vich:
鈥滵os abismos, se帽ores, 隆recuerden la naturaleza karamazoviana de mezclar todos los puestos posibles y contemplar a la vez ambos abismos, el abismo sobre nosotros, el abismo de los ideales superiores y el abismo debajo de nosotros, el abismo de la m谩s baja y f茅tida ca铆da!鈥�
Su 煤ltimo libro, su obra cumbre es a la vez el 煤ltimo libro que me faltaba leer de 茅l. Puedo levantar la cabeza, mirar hacia atr谩s y decir orgulloso que he le铆do toda su obra, que he aprendido y que soy otro a partir de 茅l. Este no es un libro sobre la vida de tres hermanos y un padre.
Es un libro sobre la vida misma.
Esta frase resume toda la epopeya karamazoviana que Fi贸dor Dostoievski encarara a final de su vida en esta obra literaria monumental y que le llevara tres a帽os de apretada y sufrida elaboraci贸n. Dostoievski, que hab铆a tenido una vida plena de emociones iba a culminar su propia carrera con un libro perfecto, m谩s all谩 de que ten铆a pensado elaborar una segunda parte del mismo que se iba a llamar 鈥淟os ni帽os鈥�, aunque la muerte lo alcanzar铆a a los 59 a帽os y para posicionarlo merecidamente en el sitio de uno de los m谩s grandes escritores de toda la literatura universal.
鈥淟os Hermanos Karamazov鈥� comenz贸 a ser publicado por cap铆tulos en 鈥淓l Mensajero Ruso鈥� y editado definitivamente como libro en noviembre 1880, un a帽o antes de su deceso, cerrando con lazos de oro su brillante carrera literaria.
No hay forma alguna de abstraerse de semejante tour-de-force literario que implica leer Los Hermanos Karamazov y es evidente que Dostoievski puso absolutamente todos sus conocimientos, vivencias, alegr铆as, tristezas, creencias, miedos y esperanzas en esta obra descomunal. Usualmente, al rememorar los m谩s grandes libros que nos dio la literatura rusa nos vienen primero a la cabeza 鈥淟a Guerra y la Paz鈥� y 鈥淎nna Karenina", ambos de Lev Tolst贸i y es precisamente a este 煤ltimo al que Dostoievski calificaba 鈥渦na obra de arte perfecta.鈥� Personalmente, me es indispensable agregar a estos dos libros antes citados, 茅ste libro que estoy rese帽ando junto con 鈥淐rimen y Castigo鈥� y adem谩s sumar铆a a esa lista otros cl谩sicos como 鈥淎lmas Muertas鈥� de Nik贸lai G贸gol o 鈥淓ugenio Oneguin鈥� de Alexandr Pushkin, esa especie de semidi贸s que representaba el padre de las letras rusas para Dostoievski.
Es imposible despegar a Los Hermanos Karamazov de la resonancia que tuvo en la sociedad rusa de la 茅poca, tan convulsionada ya a esas alturas de la dinast铆a zarista que iba en declive a partir de 1870. Gran parte del pensamiento ruso comenzaba a cambiar, incluso hab铆an aparecido sendos grupos revolucionarios nihilistas que estallaban contra el sistema sus ideas de rebeld铆a y caos. Esto es algo que Dostoievski anticipara en su libro 鈥淟os Demonios鈥� de 1872 a trav茅s de personajes como Piotr Verjovenski, Nik贸lai Stravroguin o Alex茅i Kirilov. El nihilismo, mezclado con altas dosis de ate铆smo fervoroso y convulsi贸n social entre los j贸venes de la 茅poca tarde o temprano ir铆a a desembocar en una verdadera revoluci贸n que explotar铆a literalmente en 1917 con la ca铆da del imperio zarista para dar luz (u oscuridad) a otro per铆odo que Rusia conocer铆a a partir del siglo XX.
Considero que en general, la idea que mantuvo presente Dostoievski en 鈥淟os Hermanos Karamazov鈥� fue la de incluir absolutamente todos los aspectos de los que se compon铆a la sociedad rusa, aquella que hab铆a defendido Pushkin y que hab铆an infectado los 鈥渙ccidentalistas鈥� con Turgu茅niev a la cabeza, intentando europeizar las ra铆ces de un pueblo que nunca pudo congeniar con las ideas de Europa. Esto hizo que la literatura y los intelectuales de la 茅poca giraran a aspectos e ideales que nunca hab铆an pasado por la mente y los corazones de los rusos. A mi entender, fue muy importante la ac茅rrima defensa que autores como Dostoievski o Tolstoi hicieron de la cultura rusa ante el avance de ideas que chocaban contra la realidad que atravesaba Rusia y que este pa铆s en cierta manera no aceptaba.
Dostoievski sab铆a que pod铆a incluir todos los elementos posibles en la elaboraci贸n del nudo argumental en su libro y que adem谩s, pod铆a contar con todos los estratos sociales de su amada Rusia. Es asombroso descubrir que en este libro nos encontraremos con cinco (no tres) personalidades distintas, a saber, la del padre Fi贸dor P谩vlovich Karamazov, sus hijos Alex茅i 鈥淎li贸sha鈥� Fiodor贸vich, Iv谩n Fiodor贸vich, Dmitri 鈥淢itia鈥� Fiodor贸vich y la de Pavel 鈥淪merdiakov鈥�, el lacayo e hijo no reconocido de Fi贸dor Karamazov. A su vez, aparecer谩n otros personajes claves para la historia como lo son Katerina Ivanovna, Agrafievna 鈥淕rushenka鈥� Aleks谩ndrovna, el St谩rets Z贸sima, Lisaveta Smerdi谩shaia, Ippolit Kirilovich, el peque帽o Illiusha, 鈥淜olia鈥� Krasotkin, Rakitin y tantos otros.
No voy a hacer un estudio de perfil psicol贸gico de los tres hermanos, puesto que de eso se encarga magistralmente el autor durante toda su obra, pero s铆 puedo dar unas leves pinceladas de cada uno de ellos y de otros personajes que son los m谩s importantes durante la lectura de este libro.
En el caso del padre, Fi贸dor P谩vlovich Karamazov, podemos encontrarnos r谩pidamente con un ser fr铆o, d茅spota, desamorado, que nunca quiso hacerse cargo de sus hijos (鈥渃uanto m谩s lejos, mejor, que los cuide el criado Gr铆gori). Sumamente borracho y d茅spota y con una avaricia devoradora que har铆a poner colorado al personaje de Moli猫re y al padre de Eug猫nie Grandet. Se cree que este personaje tiene una conexi贸n directa con el propio padre de Dostoievski, quien fuera supuestamente asesinado por sus siervos debido a su crueldad sin medida, algo que Dostoievski siempre recordaba de su infancia. Probablemente todo esto haya influido en la creaci贸n de este personaje tan importante en la novela.
鈥淓n el cielo Dios, en la patria el Zar, en la casa el Padre鈥�, reza un tratado espiritual de la 茅poca del zar Iv谩n "el terrible鈥� y pone en el candelero el tema de lo que la figura de padre representa para nosotros a trav茅s de la historia por la cuesti贸n del parricidio que luego se transformar谩 durante el juicio en el eje de las exposiciones del fiscal Ippolit Kiril贸vich y del c茅lebre abogado defensor Fetiuk贸vich.
Iv谩n Fiodor贸vich Karamazov es compasivo al principio del libro, mantiene firme sus ideales y su particular visi贸n acerca de la duda sobre la existencia o no de Dios: 鈥漇i Dios no existe, todo est谩 permitido鈥�, posee un profundo existencialismo y una alta filosof铆a. Pero este hombre comenzar谩 a tener un desmoronamiento mental que desdibujar谩 lo que al principio del libro vemos de 茅l.
Hay dos cap铆tulos esenciales en el libro que involucran a Iv谩n y que hasta se pueden leer como libros separados y son 鈥淓l Gran Inquisidor鈥� y 鈥淓l Diablo. La pesadilla de Iv谩n Karamazov鈥�. Sobre el primero pueden leer mi rese帽a aqu铆 en goodreads y no voy a explayarme porque habla por s铆 misma. Es aqu铆 donde toma fuerza la frase de Dostoievski sobre la existencia o no de Dios. Y vaya que ten铆a forma de plantearla鈥�
Para ello, Dostoievski nos prepara en el cap铆tulo previo al Inquisidor, llamado 鈥淩ebeli贸n鈥�, ese en donde expone el planteo moral y religioso y sobre lo destructivo de la injusticia y crueldad de los hombres, es acaloradamente expuesto en esa charla con Ali贸sha.
La pesadilla de Iv谩n y el Diablo es sencillamente de antolog铆a. Dostoievski, en este encuentro casi real que sufre Iv谩n nos recuerda al desdoblamiento que sufriera otro atormentado h茅roe dostoievskiano, el se帽or Goliadkin de su segunda novela, 鈥淓l Doble鈥�. Esa declaraci贸n de principios que realiza el Diablo solamente puede salir de una pluma tan genial como la de este escritor y no tiene nada que envidiarle ni a Dante, ni al Mefist贸feles del Fausto de Goethe ni al Lucifer de Milton y es imposible que Mija铆l Bulg谩kov no se haya maravillado con este cap铆tulo. Me arriesgar铆a a decir que lo ley贸 como inspiraci贸n para su Voland en 鈥淓l Maestro y Margarita鈥�.
Ali贸sha Karamazov es junto con su hermano Dmitri quien domina gran parte del espacio del libro y ambos los m谩s importantes, en primer lugar por su relaci贸n directa con su protector espiritual, el St谩rets Z贸sima, pero adem谩s porque es el propio Dostoievski quien comienza a contar la historia 鈥滱l comenzar la historia de mi h茅roe, Alex茅i Fiodor贸vich Karamazov鈥︹€� y aqu铆 nuevamente una implicancia autobiogr谩fica del autor, puesto que en Ali贸sha Dostoievski le rinde homenaje a su hijo fallecido, que tambi茅n se llamaba Alex茅i. Dostoievski lo llama "mi h茅roe".
Hay se帽ales de que Dostoievski busc贸 delinear en 茅l la figura de Cristo que no tuvo la solidez que pretend铆a para el Pr铆ncipe Mishkin. Sus car谩cter reflexivo, su humildad y el "poner constantemente la otra mejilla", su intento de ayudar al pr贸jimo, su f茅rrea creencia en Dios y en las actitudes cristianas m谩s solidarias son sus cualidades m谩s sobresalientes. Su amor incondicional con sus hermanos (especialmente con Dmitri) lo posicionar谩n en el ser m谩s espiritual de esta familia tan particular.
Hay episodios en el libro en el que aprendemos sobre lo maravilloso que es 鈥渟er humano鈥�, puesto que las experiencias que atraviesa Ali贸sha son edificantes: todo lo que tiene que ver con el St谩rets Z贸sima lo marcar谩n a fuego, su an茅cdota con Snieguiriov, el padre de Iliusha, la especial y fraternal relaci贸n con este ni帽o enfermo, los di谩logos con sus hermanos, interceder con Katia Ivanovna y Grushenka para llegar a soluciones dentro del caos que se desata a mitad del libro, son algunos de los ejemplos de la importancia que este personaje posee.
En tercer lugar, nos encontramos con Dmitri Karamazov, de una vida disoluta, es pendenciero, impulsivo y desenfrenado y vive siempre con grandes deudas de dinero producto de su hedonismo desmesurado. Un ser sin control que despilfarra dinero mientras reniega de la herencia que su padre no le concede. Su violenta enemistad con Fi贸dor Karamazov lo llevar谩 a vivir las escenas m谩s dif铆ciles y desgarradoras del libro. Su personalidad no lo ayuda, su impulsividad de caballo desbocado lo har谩 caer en lo m谩s bajo y degradante que le har谩 auto proclamarse 鈥渋nfame鈥�. El mundo se le volver谩 en contra y conocer谩 el sufrimiento, la desesperaci贸n y el pecado. Deambular谩 entre Grushenka y Katerina Ivanovna, a quien el propio Dostoievski defin铆a como "Una criatura que no vive, sino que se pasa la vida cavilando". Tendr谩 las ideas m谩s radicales, esas que se le atravesaran alguna vez a Rodion Rask贸lnikov y fermentar谩n la idea de matar en su cabeza. Porque no queda otra soluci贸n a su problema que matar. Algunas de las mejores frases del libro le pertenecen a 茅l. Son contundentes, maravillosas y ejemplificadoras, aunque procedan del personaje m谩s pol茅mico del libro: "Yo creo que si el Diablo no existe y es entonces el hombre el que lo cre贸, lo cre贸 a su imagen y semejanza.鈥�
El caso de Sm茅rdiakov es clave para el desarrollo de la historia. Su participaci贸n en el crimen es vital, demasiado crucial e importante. Es un ser con cierto rencor en su coraz贸n por su condici贸n de lacayo cuando sostiene que podr铆a haber sido un Karamazov. Sabemos que el hijo bastardo de Fi贸dor P谩vlovich es totalmente taimado y sumiso a su padrastro. Sus cruces con Mitia o Iv谩n ser谩n tremendos y en ellos se desentra帽ar谩 el nudo de la intriga que nos ofrece el autor.
Por 煤ltimo, nos encontramos con el m谩s importante de todos: Fi贸dor Mij谩ilovich Dostoievski.
Se preguntar谩n por qu茅 sostengo esto: yo siempre he estado de acuerdo con el te贸rico Mija铆l Bajt铆n acerca de que Dostoievski es el inventor de la novela polif贸nica, que se hace un costado, casi desaparece como autor y deja a sus personajes la exposici贸n de sus ideas como estandarte para que todas ellas armen como engranajes el motor de la historia principal.
En este libro he podido descubrir otro Dostoievski. Un autor que decidi贸 meterse de lleno en la ficci贸n desde lo real a partir de lo experimentado en su vida y transformado en ense帽anza para todos nosotros. Este autor maravilloso, 煤nico e irrepetible que agradezco a Dios haber conocido me ense帽贸 sobre la vida como si fuera mi propio padre.
Dostoievski es el St谩rets Z贸sima, por sus lecciones espirituales en oposici贸n al ate铆smo reinante en esa 茅poca y que se extienden hasta nuestros d铆as siguiendo el camino de Cristo como 煤nica fuente de fe: 鈥漇贸lo es necesaria una semilla diminuta: arr贸jala al alma simple del hombre y no morir谩, va a vivir en su alma toda la vida, va a ocultarse en 茅l en medio de las tinieblas, en medio del hedor de sus pecados, como un punto luminoso, como una gran advertencia鈥�.
Dostoievski puede transformarse en un f茅rreo fiscal acusador devenido en Ippolit Kiril贸vich, quien me har谩 reflexionar acerca del crimen y de todo el castigo que ello me puede causar. La exposici贸n que hace durante el juicio es contundente, pero tambi茅n se pone las investiduras Fetiuk贸vich, el abogado defensor de la injusticia. 脡l defender谩 a capa y espada la inocencia de su cliente y nos reconfortar谩 el hecho de saber que nos custodiar谩 hasta el final, hasta que llegue la verdad.
Y Dostoievski tambi茅n puede personificar al Diablo con una versatilidad inusitada para dar su propia versi贸n de los hechos ante un alucinado Iv谩n: 鈥濃€淧ero Dios m铆o, yo ni siquiera pretendo compararme contigo en inteligencia. Mefist贸feles, al aparec茅rsele a Fausto, testimoni贸 sobre s铆 mismo que 茅l quiere el mal pero s贸lo hace el bien. Bueno, como a 茅l le parezca. Yo, al contrario, quiz谩s sea la 煤nica persona en toda la naturaleza que ama la verdad y desea sinceramente el bien.鈥�
Hay tambi茅n en el libro otra frase que define con exactitud a los hermanos Karamazov y la dice el fiscal Kiril贸vich:
鈥滵os abismos, se帽ores, 隆recuerden la naturaleza karamazoviana de mezclar todos los puestos posibles y contemplar a la vez ambos abismos, el abismo sobre nosotros, el abismo de los ideales superiores y el abismo debajo de nosotros, el abismo de la m谩s baja y f茅tida ca铆da!鈥�
Su 煤ltimo libro, su obra cumbre es a la vez el 煤ltimo libro que me faltaba leer de 茅l. Puedo levantar la cabeza, mirar hacia atr谩s y decir orgulloso que he le铆do toda su obra, que he aprendido y que soy otro a partir de 茅l. Este no es un libro sobre la vida de tres hermanos y un padre.
Es un libro sobre la vida misma.
May 25, 2017
I finished reading this book at precisely 0205 hours today. The night still lay majestically over the impending dawn, and in its blackened stillness, swayed the echoes of this imperious book. The walls of my room, at once, turned into a fortress for Dostoevsky鈥檚 army of thoughts, and I, right in the middle of it, found myself besieged with its diverse, haphazard but mighty blizzard.
I am no stranger to this rambling Russian鈥檚 precocious visions and forbearance and yet, and yet, this work, swells much beyond even his own creator and spills over鈥�. well, almost, everything.
A maniacal land-owner is murdered and one of his three sons is the prime suspect. Thus, ensues a murder trial and in its fold, fall hopelessly and completely, the lives of all the three brothers 鈥� the brothers Karamazov.
A life, when spans a trajectory both long and substantial, ends up writing a will that is both personal and universal. A notebook of reflections, a source of knowledge, an oasis of love and a mirror of perpetuity. And may I dare say that for D, this might well be a biography, which he, in his quintessential mercurial satire, chose to write himself, under the garb of fiction.
Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha present the very tenets on which life gets lived, or even more, passed on. The impulsive and emotional Dmitri, the calculative and intelligent Ivan and the na茂ve and spiritual Alyosha represent the microcosm of a society which wagers war on the name of religion, status, power, values and ideals. And D takes each of these causes and drills, and drills, and drills even more, their various interpretations.
Religion, and church, take centre stage for a good 350 pages of this work. Amid homilies and confessions, monasteries and surrender, is pushed disturbing ideals that can rock one鈥檚 faith.
Philosophising, as he does with such ease and amiability, isn鈥檛 without unleashing a thundering dose of dichotomies. He steals the mirror from my room and turns it towards me: 'Oh, so you believe in the good? How nice! But, well, then, how come the devil lurks in the dark corners of your room? No? You don鈥檛 agree with me? Oh where does all the cursing and ill-will spring from that you aim, with such precise ferocity, towards the people you don鈥檛 quite find to your liking? From where does all the impiety and malice, that you secretly drink with panache, emerge from leaving you intoxicated for hours, if not days?' Sheepishly, I dig the chalk a little deeper into the board, and think.
And while I grope to find answers to his questions, I cheat and fall back on his treatise for hints, and insights.
But, make no mistake; D turns the mirror on himself too and takes digs on his own character, because, after all, what life have we lived if we didn鈥檛 learn to laugh at ourselves? Laugh, yes; ah yes! There is plenty of humor ingrained, albeit surreptitiously, in this dense text and works like a lovely whiff of cardamom wafting over a cup of strong tea.
But do ask these questions. Do take the plunge into this deep sea of psychology and philosophy. Do feel the thuds of paradoxes and dualities on your soul. Do allow the unknown elements of orthodoxy and modernism to pucker your skin. Do allow some blood to trickle. Do allow some scars to heal. Because
---
I am no stranger to this rambling Russian鈥檚 precocious visions and forbearance and yet, and yet, this work, swells much beyond even his own creator and spills over鈥�. well, almost, everything.
A maniacal land-owner is murdered and one of his three sons is the prime suspect. Thus, ensues a murder trial and in its fold, fall hopelessly and completely, the lives of all the three brothers 鈥� the brothers Karamazov.
A life, when spans a trajectory both long and substantial, ends up writing a will that is both personal and universal. A notebook of reflections, a source of knowledge, an oasis of love and a mirror of perpetuity. And may I dare say that for D, this might well be a biography, which he, in his quintessential mercurial satire, chose to write himself, under the garb of fiction.
Dmitri, Ivan and Alyosha present the very tenets on which life gets lived, or even more, passed on. The impulsive and emotional Dmitri, the calculative and intelligent Ivan and the na茂ve and spiritual Alyosha represent the microcosm of a society which wagers war on the name of religion, status, power, values and ideals. And D takes each of these causes and drills, and drills, and drills even more, their various interpretations.
Religion, and church, take centre stage for a good 350 pages of this work. Amid homilies and confessions, monasteries and surrender, is pushed disturbing ideals that can rock one鈥檚 faith.
If you are surrounded by spiteful and callous people who do not want to listen to you, fall down before them and ask for their forgiveness, for the guilt is yours too, that they do not want to listen to you. And if you cannot speak with the embittered, serve them silently and in humility, never losing hope. And if everyone abandons you and drives you out by force, then, when, you are left alone fall down on the earth and kiss it and water it with your tears, and the earth will bring forth fruit from your tears, even though no one has seen or heard you in your solitude.Aye, aye, I hear you, D and while some of it makes so much sense to my theist heart, some of it look outright suicidal. But why again, am I tempted to always, measure the righteousness, even lesser, the likeability, of my action from the perspective of my audience? Why make an ideal on a bed that doesn鈥檛 smell of my skin? I go to the board and think.
Philosophising, as he does with such ease and amiability, isn鈥檛 without unleashing a thundering dose of dichotomies. He steals the mirror from my room and turns it towards me: 'Oh, so you believe in the good? How nice! But, well, then, how come the devil lurks in the dark corners of your room? No? You don鈥檛 agree with me? Oh where does all the cursing and ill-will spring from that you aim, with such precise ferocity, towards the people you don鈥檛 quite find to your liking? From where does all the impiety and malice, that you secretly drink with panache, emerge from leaving you intoxicated for hours, if not days?' Sheepishly, I dig the chalk a little deeper into the board, and think.
And while I grope to find answers to his questions, I cheat and fall back on his treatise for hints, and insights.
You know, Lise, it鈥檚 terribly difficult for an offended man when everyone suddenly starts looking like his benefactor.Why might a fallen man, a beggar, still keep a flame of dignity burning in his heart? Why might a harangued father, drive away his heirs from money, while spending his whole life hoarding for them? Why might a pauper, throw away his last penny on trifles, despite carrying a clear picture of his imminent doom in his eyes? Why might a pure heart, deliberately dirty his soul with pungent secrets, knowing there were no ways to erase them? Because deep down, what bind us, irrespective of our backgrounds, are the same threads: love, jealousy, ambition, hatred, revenge, repentance. In various forms, they dwell in us, and drive us, to give their formless matter, shape in different people, in different ways, at different places and in different times. I write a few words on the board and pause to ponder.
But, make no mistake; D turns the mirror on himself too and takes digs on his own character, because, after all, what life have we lived if we didn鈥檛 learn to laugh at ourselves? Laugh, yes; ah yes! There is plenty of humor ingrained, albeit surreptitiously, in this dense text and works like a lovely whiff of cardamom wafting over a cup of strong tea.
Ivan Fyodorovich, my most respectful son, allow me to order you to follow me!There, I made a smiley on the board. I dropped the chalk and wondered: what created so much debate (and furore perhaps) when this book was first published in the 19th century? And then, I realized 鈥� even without my knowledge, my fingers had imparted two horns to the smiley鈥檚 rotund face. Yes, now that image surely needs to be questioned.
But do ask these questions. Do take the plunge into this deep sea of psychology and philosophy. Do feel the thuds of paradoxes and dualities on your soul. Do allow the unknown elements of orthodoxy and modernism to pucker your skin. Do allow some blood to trickle. Do allow some scars to heal. Because
No, gentlemen of the jury, they have their Hamlets, but so far we have only Karamazovs!鈥�That鈥檚 what!
---
November 24, 2015
Con qualche licenza poetica, da piccolo demone quale io sono, rigorosamente in disordine (鈥渁mate il disordine?鈥�).
Un personaggio ha un minimo di sei nomi.
Tutti odiano Fedor Pavlovic. Hanno ragione.
Tremila rubli.
Pasticcio di pesce (quasi sempre freddo).
Il sangue dei Karamazov porta sfiga.
鈥淎nche in te che sei un angelo vive questo insetto e suscita nel tuo sangue delle tempeste鈥�.
L鈥檈redit脿 va sudata.
Caccia i tremila rubli o succede un bordello.
Gente ubriaca.
Jurodivyj.
Dio esiste. Forse.
Dio non esiste.
E Ges霉?
E allora i bambini?
鈥淭utto 猫 permesso鈥�. Con la coscienza degli altri.
Questo 猫 figlio di quale delle trentotto madri?
"Una belva non pu貌 esser mai crudele come un uomo, cos矛 raffinatamente, cos矛 artisticamente crudele". Vero.
Lo starec fa miracoli.
Inchini.
Lo starec dice cose sulla sua vita (leggermente peso ma ok).
Lo starec fa puzza, Alesa 猫 turbato.
Il classico momento: 鈥渕o鈥� chi 猫 questo?鈥� (problema manifestatosi gi脿 da pagina 30).
Il calvario di un鈥檃nima. Tribolazione prima (e poi a seguire).
Smerdjakov suona le serenate (secondo me, 猫 innamorato di Ivan).
Il grande inquisitore. Resistete.
Ivan 猫 intelligente e laconico. Non ha preso dal padre.
Grusenka urla (Grusenka 猫 diminuitivo di Agrafena, per qualche motivo鈥�).
La febbre nervosa.
鈥溍� libero un uomo simile?鈥�. Non 猫 una domanda.
I tremila rubli.
La febbre cerebrale.
I cinquemila rubli.
La crisi isterica.
Rubli.
Malattie varie (tra cui alcune paralisi).
I lavori in miniera.
Grusenka, sei tu? O 猫 il vento?
I segnali alla porta. Fedor, c鈥檋ai un鈥檈t脿, sei ridicolo. Mi pari Berlusconi, mi pari.
Maniaci, ossessionati, indemoniati. Insomma, la gente non si sente tanto bene.
Non ha cacciato i tremila rubli e succede il bordello.
Tutti si credono Sherlok Holmes.
Katja o Grusa? Ambarabaciccicocc貌.
L鈥檃ttacco epilettico di tre giorni. L鈥檃libi di topo gigio.
Bambini si tirano sassi. Anche loro con problemi comportamentali.
Tutti a casa della signora Chochlakova, festa a sbarco.
In provincia le porte degli appartamenti sempre aperte, open bar, tutta notte.
L鈥檜nica porta chiusa 猫 quella che vede Grigorij (mortaccitua).
鈥淒etestava le tenerezze vitelline鈥�. In compenso amava molto i binari.
鈥淰ile, vile, vile!鈥�.
Dimitrij, che cazzo fai, buon鈥檃nima? (buono sempre).
Dannata coscienza.
I due abissi. Sopra e sotto. Senza scampo.
"I rettili si divorano a vicenda".
Dio esiste. Oppure no.
Ges霉 c鈥檈ntra, comunque.
M鈥檃ma o non m鈥檃ma?
鈥淗o scoperto il mio caro Alesa in flagrante gesuitismo鈥�.
Ve l鈥檃vevo detto che Ges霉 c鈥檈ntrava.
鈥淣on sei tu che l鈥檋ai ucciso鈥�.
Dire a cani e porci di volersi macchiare di parricidio.
鈥淣on sono colpevole del sangue di mio padre鈥� (mo鈥� 猫 tardi).
鈥淐redi che io l鈥檃bbia ucciso?鈥� (eri tu quello che gridava 鈥渁l lupo, al lupo鈥�).
Scrivere lettere ad ex amanti incazzate confessando di voler uccidere il proprio padre (bravo).
鈥淣on sei tu che l鈥檋ai ucciso鈥�.
Ho stato io.
Un uomo nuovo.
"Disperazione e pentimento sono due cose completamente diverse". Vero.
Rakitin 猫 un po鈥� Alfonso Signorini.
Lise, lo Xanax l鈥檋ai provato?
Il processo. (Sar脿 doloroso).
I tremila rubli.
I millecinquecento rubli.
Testimoni esagitati.
Testimoni ubriachi.
Bordello in aula.
In fondo tutti vogliamo uccidere il pap脿, non c鈥櫭� bisogno di prendersela tanto.
Perry Mason.
鈥淎vete la testa a posto?鈥�. 鈥淐erto che ce l鈥檋o a posto鈥d 猫 una testa ignobile鈥�.
I lavori in Siberia (immancabili).
Ancora rubli.
鈥淐he tu mi perdoni o no, resterai per tutta la vita nella mia anima come una piaga鈥�. E questo 猫 certo, Katja.
L鈥橝merica (ma che c鈥檃nnamo a f脿 in ameriga? poi che famo? siamo russi fino al midollo)
Si 猫 trovato il cane mangiachiodi?
Ammaestrare il cane.
Umiliati, offesi e trascinati per la barba.
Funerali e grossi lacrimoni.
I bambini sono innocenti.
"C'猫 Dio, s矛 o no?".
Ho voluto fare caciara. La verit脿 猫 che questo romanzo 猫 tutto. Fede, Libert脿, coscienza, invidia, disgusto, desiderio, fratellanza, vizio, amore, Mistero, Bene, Male, Assoluto, Altro.
Un personaggio ha un minimo di sei nomi.
Tutti odiano Fedor Pavlovic. Hanno ragione.
Tremila rubli.
Pasticcio di pesce (quasi sempre freddo).
Il sangue dei Karamazov porta sfiga.
鈥淎nche in te che sei un angelo vive questo insetto e suscita nel tuo sangue delle tempeste鈥�.
L鈥檈redit脿 va sudata.
Caccia i tremila rubli o succede un bordello.
Gente ubriaca.
Jurodivyj.
Dio esiste. Forse.
Dio non esiste.
E Ges霉?
E allora i bambini?
鈥淭utto 猫 permesso鈥�. Con la coscienza degli altri.
Questo 猫 figlio di quale delle trentotto madri?
"Una belva non pu貌 esser mai crudele come un uomo, cos矛 raffinatamente, cos矛 artisticamente crudele". Vero.
Lo starec fa miracoli.
Inchini.
Lo starec dice cose sulla sua vita (leggermente peso ma ok).
Lo starec fa puzza, Alesa 猫 turbato.
Il classico momento: 鈥渕o鈥� chi 猫 questo?鈥� (problema manifestatosi gi脿 da pagina 30).
Il calvario di un鈥檃nima. Tribolazione prima (e poi a seguire).
Smerdjakov suona le serenate (secondo me, 猫 innamorato di Ivan).
Il grande inquisitore. Resistete.
Ivan 猫 intelligente e laconico. Non ha preso dal padre.
Grusenka urla (Grusenka 猫 diminuitivo di Agrafena, per qualche motivo鈥�).
La febbre nervosa.
鈥溍� libero un uomo simile?鈥�. Non 猫 una domanda.
I tremila rubli.
La febbre cerebrale.
I cinquemila rubli.
La crisi isterica.
Rubli.
Malattie varie (tra cui alcune paralisi).
I lavori in miniera.
Grusenka, sei tu? O 猫 il vento?
I segnali alla porta. Fedor, c鈥檋ai un鈥檈t脿, sei ridicolo. Mi pari Berlusconi, mi pari.
Maniaci, ossessionati, indemoniati. Insomma, la gente non si sente tanto bene.
Non ha cacciato i tremila rubli e succede il bordello.
Tutti si credono Sherlok Holmes.
Katja o Grusa? Ambarabaciccicocc貌.
L鈥檃ttacco epilettico di tre giorni. L鈥檃libi di topo gigio.
Bambini si tirano sassi. Anche loro con problemi comportamentali.
Tutti a casa della signora Chochlakova, festa a sbarco.
In provincia le porte degli appartamenti sempre aperte, open bar, tutta notte.
L鈥檜nica porta chiusa 猫 quella che vede Grigorij (mortaccitua).
鈥淒etestava le tenerezze vitelline鈥�. In compenso amava molto i binari.
鈥淰ile, vile, vile!鈥�.
Dimitrij, che cazzo fai, buon鈥檃nima? (buono sempre).
Dannata coscienza.
I due abissi. Sopra e sotto. Senza scampo.
"I rettili si divorano a vicenda".
Dio esiste. Oppure no.
Ges霉 c鈥檈ntra, comunque.
M鈥檃ma o non m鈥檃ma?
鈥淗o scoperto il mio caro Alesa in flagrante gesuitismo鈥�.
Ve l鈥檃vevo detto che Ges霉 c鈥檈ntrava.
鈥淣on sei tu che l鈥檋ai ucciso鈥�.
Dire a cani e porci di volersi macchiare di parricidio.
鈥淣on sono colpevole del sangue di mio padre鈥� (mo鈥� 猫 tardi).
鈥淐redi che io l鈥檃bbia ucciso?鈥� (eri tu quello che gridava 鈥渁l lupo, al lupo鈥�).
Scrivere lettere ad ex amanti incazzate confessando di voler uccidere il proprio padre (bravo).
鈥淣on sei tu che l鈥檋ai ucciso鈥�.
Ho stato io.
Un uomo nuovo.
"Disperazione e pentimento sono due cose completamente diverse". Vero.
Rakitin 猫 un po鈥� Alfonso Signorini.
Lise, lo Xanax l鈥檋ai provato?
Il processo. (Sar脿 doloroso).
I tremila rubli.
I millecinquecento rubli.
Testimoni esagitati.
Testimoni ubriachi.
Bordello in aula.
In fondo tutti vogliamo uccidere il pap脿, non c鈥櫭� bisogno di prendersela tanto.
Perry Mason.
鈥淎vete la testa a posto?鈥�. 鈥淐erto che ce l鈥檋o a posto鈥d 猫 una testa ignobile鈥�.
I lavori in Siberia (immancabili).
Ancora rubli.
鈥淐he tu mi perdoni o no, resterai per tutta la vita nella mia anima come una piaga鈥�. E questo 猫 certo, Katja.
L鈥橝merica (ma che c鈥檃nnamo a f脿 in ameriga? poi che famo? siamo russi fino al midollo)
Si 猫 trovato il cane mangiachiodi?
Ammaestrare il cane.
Umiliati, offesi e trascinati per la barba.
Funerali e grossi lacrimoni.
I bambini sono innocenti.
"C'猫 Dio, s矛 o no?".
Ho voluto fare caciara. La verit脿 猫 che questo romanzo 猫 tutto. Fede, Libert脿, coscienza, invidia, disgusto, desiderio, fratellanza, vizio, amore, Mistero, Bene, Male, Assoluto, Altro.
April 21, 2021
I have read this book three or four times in both English and French translations. In English, grab the Volonhovsky one. I cannot even begin to describe how awesome this book is. If for no other reason than Ivan's two chapters and especially for the Grand Inquisitor, this book is clearly in the upper reaches of the greatest literature ever written in any language. The range of personalities, emotions, and reactions of the various characters - all so fully developed and realistic in that specific Dostoyevsky way - makes the plot move along so very quickly. One's sympathies shift as we vilify Fyodor and idolise Aliosha at first but then we start to feel a bit sorry for Fyodor and resent Aliosha's na茂vet茅 as we learn about Misha and Ivan...
There is just so much in this novel to love. This is one of those desert-island books without which the human race would be poorer.
Also highly recommended is Joseph Frank's excellent biography of Dostoyevski if you wish to understand why this book was his last and his greatest.
Ivan's chapters about unbaptized children and The Grand Inquisitor are among the greatest chapters I have ever read, absolutely spell-binding and critical for today's world of "alternative facts" and disdain of objectivity.
Just finished this again, but in audio format. Always so exhilarating!
There is just so much in this novel to love. This is one of those desert-island books without which the human race would be poorer.
Also highly recommended is Joseph Frank's excellent biography of Dostoyevski if you wish to understand why this book was his last and his greatest.
Ivan's chapters about unbaptized children and The Grand Inquisitor are among the greatest chapters I have ever read, absolutely spell-binding and critical for today's world of "alternative facts" and disdain of objectivity.
Just finished this again, but in audio format. Always so exhilarating!
Want to read
December 15, 2018Sometimes I feel like modern covers have gone too far.
October 16, 2022
兀賻賮賻乇賻兀賻賷賿鬲賻 賲賻賳賽 丕鬲賻賾禺賻匕賻 廿賽賱賻侔賴賻賴購 賴賻賵賻丕賴購 賵賻兀賻囟賻賱賻賾賴購 丕賱賱賻賾賴購 毓賻賱賻賶侔 毓賽賱賿賲賺 賵賻禺賻鬲賻賲賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 爻賻賲賿毓賽賴賽 賵賻賯賻賱賿亘賽賴賽 賵賻噩賻毓賻賱賻 毓賻賱賻賶侔 亘賻氐賻乇賽賴賽 睾賽卮賻丕賵賻丞賸 賮賻賲賻賳 賷賻賴賿丿賽賷賴賽 賲賽賳 亘賻毓賿丿賽 丕賱賱賻賾賴賽 蹥 兀賻賮賻賱賻丕 鬲賻匕賻賰賻賾乇購賵賳賻 (23) 賵賻賯賻丕賱購賵丕 賲賻丕 賴賽賷賻 廿賽賱賻賾丕 丨賻賷賻丕鬲購賳賻丕 丕賱丿購賾賳賿賷賻丕 賳賻賲購賵鬲購 賵賻賳賻丨賿賷賻丕 賵賻賲賻丕 賷購賴賿賱賽賰購賳賻丕 廿賽賱賻賾丕 丕賱丿賻賾賴賿乇購 蹥 賵賻賲賻丕 賱賻賴購賲 亘賽匕賻侔賱賽賰賻 賲賽賳賿 毓賽賱賿賲賺 蹡 廿賽賳賿 賴購賲賿 廿賽賱賻賾丕 賷賻馗購賳購賾賵賳賻 (24)爻賵乇丞 丕賱噩丕孬賷丞
丕賱兀亘 丕賱賲丐賲賳 亘丕賱賲丕丿賷丞 丕賱匕賷 賱賷爻 賱賴 丨馗丕 賲賳 丕賱兀亘賵丞 廿賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賱賴 乇夭賯賴 亘丕賱賵賱丿 賵 賱賷爻 賱賴 丨馗 賲賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 廿賱丕 卮賴賵丕鬲 丿賳爻鬲賴 賵 丿賳爻鬲 賲賳 賷禺丕賱胤賴賲 兀賲丕 丕賱兀亘賳丕亍 賮賯丿 丕賳賯爻賲賵丕 廿賱賶 孬賱丕孬丞 賳賲丕匕噩 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賲賳 丕賱禺丕乇噩 賲鬲胤丕亘賯丞 賲賳 丕賱丿丕禺賱 賵 賱丕 毓噩亘 賮賷 匕賱賰 賮賯丿 賰丕賳 丿賷爻鬲賷賵賮爻賰賷 賷氐賵乇 賱賳丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 亘賰賱 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲賴
鈥溫з勜з嗀池з� 賲鬲賶 噩丨丿 丕賱賲毓噩夭丞 兀爻乇毓 賷噩丨丿 丕賱乇亘. 賱兀賳 馗賲兀賴 賴賵 廿賱賶 丕賱毓噩丕卅亘 賱丕 廿賱賶 丕賱乇亘. 賵廿賳賴 賱賰賵賳賴 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賷丨賷丕 亘睾賷乇 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 爻賷禺賱賯 賴賵 亘賳賮爻賴 賲毓噩夭丕鬲 兀賯賵賶 . 賮賴賵賶 . 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 賲鬲賲乇丿丕 賰丕賮乇丕 賲賱丨丿丕 . 廿賱賶 禺乇丕賮丕鬲 爻禺賷賮丞 . 鬲賳胤賱賷 毓賱賷賴 兀亘丕胤賷賱 丕賱爻丨乇丞 賵禺夭毓亘賱丕鬲賴賲.賴賱 丌賮丞 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱睾亘丕亍 兀賲 兀賳賴 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 亘毓賷賳賴丕責
丕賳賰 賱賲 鬲賳夭賱 毓賳 丕賱氐賱賷亘 丨賷賳 丿毓丕賰 丕賱噩賲賴賵乇廿賱賶 匕賱賰 氐丕卅丨丕 "丕賳夭賱 毓賳 丕賱氐賱賷亘 賮賳氐丿賯 兀賳賰 兀賳鬲" . 丕賳賰 賱賲 鬲賳夭賱 賱兀賳賰 賱賲 鬲卮兀 兀賳 鬲爻鬲毓亘丿 丕賱亘卮乇 亘丕賱賲毓噩夭丞. 賵丕賳賲丕 兀乇丿鬲 兀賳 賷噩賷丐賵丕 廿賱賷賰 亘丿丕賮毓 丕賱丕賷賲丕賳 . 賱丕 亘丿丕賮毓 丕賱毓噩丕卅亘. 賰賳鬲 鬲乇賷丿 兀賳 賷賴亘賵丕 廿賱賷賰 賲丨亘鬲賴賲 兀丨乇丕乇丕 賱丕 兀賳 賷賳氐丕毓賵丕 廿賱賷賰 毓亘賷丿丕 兀匕賴賱鬲賴賲 賯賵鬲賰.鈥�
鈥溬呚� 兀賰孬乇 丕賱卮乇賮丕亍 毓賳 睾亘丕賵丞..鈥�賱賯丿 胤丕賱 卮乇丨 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賮賷 毓丿丞 賲噩賱丿丕鬲 鬲噩丕賵夭鬲 丕賱丌賱丕賮 賲賳匕 亘丿亍 丕賱禺賱賷賯丞 賵 賱丕 夭丕賱鬲 丕賱賰賱賲丞 鬲噩乇賷 賵 爻鬲噩乇賷 兀亘丿 丕賱丿賴乇 賵 賴匕丕 賴賵 丕賱睾亘丕亍 亘毓賷賳賴 兀賳 賳爻賲毓 賵 賱丕 賳毓賷 賵 兀賳 賳毓賷丕 亘賲丕 賳爻賲毓.
鈥溬勜Ｙ� 丕賱賲乇亍 賷賰賵賳 兀賯乇亘 廿賱賶 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丨賷賳 賷賰賵賳 睾亘賷賻賾丕賸. 廿賳 丕賱睾亘丕亍 賷賲囟賷 賳丨賵 丕賱賴丿賮 乇兀爻丕賸. 丕賱睾亘丕亍 亘爻丕胤丞 賵廿賷噩丕夭. 兀賲丕 丕賱匕賰丕亍 賮賲賰乇 賵賲禺丕鬲賱丞. 廿賳 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱匕賰賷 賮丕噩乇賹 賮丕爻丿. 兀賲丕 丕賱睾亘丕亍 賮賲爻鬲賯賷賲 卮乇賷賮. 賱賯丿 卮乇丨鬲 賱賰 賷兀爻賷. 賵毓賱賶 賯丿乇 賲丕 賷賰賵賳 丕賱卮乇丨 睾亘賷丕賸 賷賰賵賳 丕賱兀賲乇 兀賮囟賱 賮賷 賳馗乇賷.鈥�賵 賲賳匕 兀賳 賷氐胤丿賲 賵毓賷賳丕 亘丕賱禺賱賯 丕賱兀賵賱 賮賱丕 賳噩丿 廿噩丕亘丞 賷賯鬲賳毓 亘賴丕 毓賯賱賳丕 丕賱氐睾賷乇 賱丕 賳噩丿 丨賷賳卅匕 廿賱丕 丨賱丕 賲賳 丕孬賳賷賳 賱丕 孬丕賱孬 賱賴賲丕 .. 廿賲丕 丕賱鬲爻賱賷賲 丕賱鬲丕賲 賵 賵囟毓 睾賱丕賱丞 毓賱賶 丕賱毓賯賱 鬲賲賳毓賴 賲賳 胤乇賯 賴匕丕 丕賱亘丕亘 賲乇丞 兀禺乇賶 賵 廿賲丕 亘匕乇丞 丕賱鬲賲乇丿 賵 丕賱卮賰 丕賱鬲賷 爻鬲賳賲賵丕 廿賱賶 兀賳 鬲亘鬲賱毓賰 兀賵 鬲匕亘賱 丨鬲賶 鬲匕乇賵賴丕 丕賱乇賷丕丨
廿賳 丕賱乇亘 賯丿 禺賱賯 丕賱囟賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱兀賵賱. 賵賮賷 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱乇丕亘毓 禺賱賯 丕賱卮賲爻 賵丕賱賯賲乇 賵丕賱賳噩賵賲. 賮賲賳 兀賷賳 噩丕亍 丕賱囟賷丕亍 廿匕賳 賮賷 丕賱賷賵賲 丕賱兀賵賱 .鈥�賵 賱兀賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷 賱賲 賷亘禺爻 兀賷 卮禺氐賷丞 丨賯賴丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱丿乇丕賲賷 丕賱賲亘賴乇 賮賯丿 賰丕賳 賱賰賱 賳氐賷亘 賲賳 丕賱賰賮乇 賵 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賮賷 賰賱 賲乇丨賱丞 賲賳 賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
" 廿賳賳賷 賱丕 兀賯亘賱購 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賻毓賱賶 賳丨賵賽 賲丕 禺賱賯賴購 丕賱賱賴. 賵賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賲賵丕賮賯丞 毓賱賶 賯亘賵賱賴賽 乇睾賲賻 毓賱賲賷 亘賵噩賵丿賴. 賱爻鬲購 兀乇賮囟 丕賱賱賴. . . 丕賮賴賲賳賷 噩賷丿賸丕. . . 賵廿賳賲丕 兀賳丕 兀乇賮囟購 丕賱毓丕賱賲賻 丕賱匕賷 禺賱賯賴購 賵賱丕 兀爻鬲胤賷毓購 丕賱賲賵丕賮賯丞賻 毓賱賶 賯賻亘賵賱賴".丕賱廿亘賳 丕賱兀氐睾乇 亘胤賱 丕賱賯氐丞 賵 賲丨賵乇賴丕 賷鬲乇丿丿 賲賱賷丕 亘賷賳 丕賱卮賰 賵 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵 賱賰賳賴 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 廿賱丕 丕賱丨亘 丕賱匕賷 賷賯賵丿賴 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賱賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱乇亘
兀賱丕 賮丕毓賱賲 兀賳 丕賱爻禺丕賮丕鬲 賱丕夭賲丞 賱賵噩賵丿 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 丕賳 丕賱賰賵賳 賷賯賵賲 毓賱賶 爻禺丕賮丕鬲 亘丿賵賳賴丕 賯丿 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 卮賷亍 賵 賯丿 賱丕 賷丨丿孬 卮賷亍.
賳丨賳 賳毓賱賲 賲丕 賳毓賱賲.
賱爻鬲 兀賮賴賲 卮賷卅丕 賵 賱賯丿 兀氐亘丨鬲 丕賱兀賳 賱丕 兀乇賷丿 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 卮賷卅丕. 兀乇賷丿 兀賳 兀賰鬲賮賷 亘丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賵 兀賳 兀賯鬲氐乇 毓賱賷賴丕. 賱賯丿 賯乇乇鬲 賲賳匕 夭賲賳 胤賵賷賱 兀賱丕 兀丨丕賵賱 鬲兀賵賷賱賴丕. 賮賱賵 丨丕賵賱鬲 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 廿匕丕 賱卮賵賴鬲 丕賱賵賯丕卅毓 賮賵乇丕. 賵 兀賳丕 兀丨乇氐 毓賱賶 兀賳 兀亘賯賶 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 賱丕 兀禺乇噩 賲賳賴.
廿賳賳賶 賱丕 兀毓乇賮 丕賱丨賱 賱賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱卮乇. 賵 賱賰賳賳賶 兀毓乇賮 丕賱丨亘兀賲丕 丕賱兀賵爻胤 賮賯丿 丕爻鬲賴賵鬲賴 丕賱卮賷丕胤賷賳 賮賷 丕賱兀乇囟 丨鬲賶 賴賵鬲 亘賴 賲賳 丕賱爻賲丕亍 丕賱爻丕亘毓丞 賵 賱賷爻 亘毓丿 丕賱爻賯賵胤 賲賳 氐賱丕丨
鈥溫з� 賲丕 賲賳 卮卅 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷噩亘乇 丕賱亘卮乇 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷丨亘賵丕 兀賯乇丕賳賴賲. 賵 丕賳賴 賲丕 賲賳 賯丕賳賵賳 胤亘賷毓賷 賷賮乇囟 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 丕賳 賷丨亘 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞. 賮丕匕丕 賰丕賳 賯丿 賵噩丿 賵 賲丕 賷夭丕賱 賷賵噩丿 毓賱賶 賴匕丞 丕賱丕乇囟 卮卅 賲賳 丕賱丨亘 賮賱賷爻 賲乇丿 匕賱賰 丕賱賶 賯丕賳賵賳 胤亘賷毓賷 亘賱 丕賱賶 爻亘亘 賵丕丨丿 賴賵 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賳賴賲 禺丕賱丿賵賳. 丕賳 賴匕丕 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 賴賵 賮賷 丕賱丕爻丕爻 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱賰賱 賯丕賳賵賳 丕禺賱丕賯賷 胤亘賷毓賷. 賮丕匕丕 賮賯丿鬲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘丕賱禺賱賵丿 賮爻乇毓丕賳 賲丕 爻鬲睾賷囟 賰賱 賷賳丕亘賷毓 丕賱丨亘 亘賱 賵 爻乇毓丕賳 賲丕 爻賷賮賯丿 丕賱亘卮乇 賰賱 賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 賲賵丕氐賱丞 丨賷丕鬲賴賲 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 丕賰孬乇 賲賳 匕賱賰 丕賳賴 賱賳 賷亘賯賶 賴賳丕賱賰 卮卅 賷毓丿 賲賳丕賮賷丕 賱賱丕禺賱丕賯 賵 爻賷賰賵賳 賰賱 卮卅 賲亘丕丨丕. 丨鬲賶 丕賰賱 賱丨賵賲 丕賱亘卮乇.鈥�丕賱廿亘賳 丕賱兀賰亘乇 賰丕賳 賲孬丕賱丕 賱賱卮賴賵丞 丕賱賲噩爻丿丞 賰兀亘賷賴 賵 賱賰賳賴 賲毓 匕賱賰 氐賯賱鬲賴 丕賱兀賱丕賲 賵 丕賰鬲賵賶 亘賳丕乇 丕賱丨亘
鈥溬娯� 乇亘! 丕賯亘賱賳賷 乇睾賲 丨胤鬲賷. 賵賱賰賳 賱丕 鬲丨賰賲 毓賱賷賾. 丕賱賱賴賲 丕爻賲丨 賱賷 兀賳 兀噩賷亍 廿賱賷賰 丿賵賳 兀賳 兀賲孬賱 兀賲丕賲 賲丨賰賲鬲賰... 賱丕 鬲丨賰賲 毓賱賷賾. 賲丕 丿賲鬲 賯丿 丨賰賲鬲 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賷 亘賳賮爻賷.... 賱丕 鬲丨賰賲 毓賱賷賾. 賱兀賳賳賷 兀丨亘賰 賷丕 乇亘! 丕賱賱賴賲 廿賳賳賷 禺亘賷孬 丿賳賷亍. 賵賱賰賳賷 兀丨亘賰. 賵丨鬲賶 賮賷 丕賱噩丨賷賲. 廿匕丕 兀賳鬲 兀乇爻賱鬲賳賷 廿賱賶 丕賱噩丨賷賲. 爻兀馗賱 兀丨亘賰. 賵爻兀馗賱 兀賴鬲賮 賱賰 亘丨亘賷 廿賱賶 丕賱兀亘丿. 賵賱賰賳 丿毓 賱賷 兀賳 兀丨亘 丨亘賷 丕賱兀乇囟賷 丨鬲賶 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞.. 廿爻賲丨 賱賷 兀賳 丕馗賱 兀丨亘. 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丿賳賷丕. 禺賲爻 爻丕毓丕鬲 兀禺乇賶. 廿賱賶 兀賳 鬲胤賱毓 卮賲爻賰 丕賱丿丕賮卅丞.. 廿賳賳賷 兀丨亘 賲賱賰丞 賯賱亘賷. 賵賱丕 兀賲賱賰 兀賳 兀賲鬲賳毓 毓賳 丨亘賴丕. 丕賱賱賴賲 廿賳賰 鬲乇丕賳賷 賰賱賷 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賱丨馗丞. 爻賵賮 兀賴乇毓 廿賱賷賴丕. 賮兀乇鬲賲賷 毓賳丿 賯丿賲賷賴丕. 賵兀賯賵賱 賱賴丕: 賱賯丿 賰賳鬲 毓賱賶 丨賯 丨賷賳 賳亘匕鬲賷賳賷. 賵丿丕毓丕.. 廿賳爻賷 囟丨賷鬲賰. 賵賱丕 鬲丿毓賷 賱匕賰乇丕賷 兀賳 鬲毓匕亘賰 賷賵賲丕鈥�兀賲丕 丕賱兀亘 賮賴賵 丕賱卮賷胤丕賳 賳賮爻賴 賵 賱丕 卮賰
兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 丕匕丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 丕賱卮賷胤丕賳 賲賵噩賵丿丕賸 . 賵 丕匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賯丿 禺賱賯賴. 賮賱丕 卮賰 賮賷 丕賳 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賯丿 禺賱賯賴 毓賱賶 氐賵乇鬲賴 賴賵.賷氐賴乇 丿賷爻鬲賷賵賮爻賰賷 賰賱 鬲賱賰 丕賱卮禺氐賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲孬賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱乇賵爻賷 賮賷 賯賲丞 鬲賳丕賯囟丕鬲賴 賮賷 賲賳鬲氐賮 賵 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓 毓卮乇 賲丨丕賵賱丕 丕賱亘丨孬 毓賳 胤賵賯 丕賱賳噩丕丞 賮賷 丕賱丌賱丕賲 丕賱鬲賷 爻鬲鬲賵賱丿 毓賳賴丕 丕賱賱匕丞 賵 丕賱睾賮乇丕賳 賷賵賲丕 賲丕
鈥溬娯� 兀賳 賳毓賱賳 亘睾賷乇 鬲乇丿丿 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賷賰賮賷 丕賱賲乇亍 兀賳 賷賳爻賱 賳爻賱丕 丨鬲賶 賷賰賵賳 兀亘丕 鈥� 賵廿賳賲丕 賷賳亘睾賷 賱賴 兀賳 賷爻鬲丨賯 卮乇賮 賴匕丕 丕賱丕爻賲 . 兀賳丕 兀毓賱賲 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 乇兀賷丕 賲禺鬲賱賮丕 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱乇兀賷 . 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 賮賴賲丕 丌禺乇 賱賲毓賳賶 賰賱賲丞 丕賱兀亘 . 賴賵 兀賳 兀亘賷 賷馗賱 兀亘賷 賵賱賵 賰丕賳 卮賷胤丕賳丕 乇噩賷賲丕 賵賲噩乇賲丕 毓丕鬲賷丕 賮賷 丨賯 兀賵賱丕丿賴 賵匕賱賰 賷丕 爻丕丿鬲賷 賱賲噩乇丿 兀賳賴 兀賵噩丿賳賷
!!鈥�
丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賴賳丕 賮賷 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賷賵賱丿 賲賳 丕賱丌賱丕賲 賵 賱賷爻 賲賳 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 賴賵 賷鬲兀乇噩丨 丿丕卅賲丕 賰亘賳丿賵賱 丕賱爻丕毓丞 賵 丕賳 賱賲 賷賰賳 亘賳賮爻 丕賱丕賳鬲馗丕賲
鈥溫з勜①勜з� 兀賳賵丕毓 : 賮賴賳丕賰 丌賱丕賲 鬲禺賮囟 賯賷賲鬲賳丕 兀賵 鬲賳賯氐 賯丿乇賳丕 . 賰丕賱噩賵毓 賲孬賱丕 . 賮丕賱賳丕爻 鬲丨亘 兀賳 鬲氐丿賯賳丕 賮賷 賲丕 賷鬲毓賱賯 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丌賱丕賲 . 賱賷噩毓賱賵丕 賲賳 兀賳賮爻賴賲 賲丨爻賳賷賳 廿賱賷賳丕 亘毓丿 匕賱賰. 兀賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀賱賲 兀乇賮毓 賲賳 賴匕丕 丿乇噩丞 兀賵 丿乇噩鬲賷賳 . 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 兀賱賲丕 賳丨鬲賲賱賴 賮賷 丕賱賳囟丕賱 賲賳 丕噩賱 賮賰乇丞 賲孬賱丕 . 賮廿賳 丕賱賳丕爻 賷乇賮囟賵賳 兀賳 賷氐丿賯賵賴. 亘丕爻鬲孬賳丕亍 賯賱丞 賯賱賷賱丞. 賵賴賲 賱丕 賷氐丿賯賵賳賴 賱兀賳賴賲 丨賷賳 賳馗乇賵丕 廿賱賶 氐丕丨亘賴 乇兀賵丕 兀賳 乇兀爻賴 賱賷爻 匕賱賰 丕賱乇兀爻 丕賱匕賷 賱丕亘丿 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賮賷 賳馗乇賴賲 乇兀爻 賲賳 賷鬲兀賱賲 賮賷 爻亘賷賱 賯囟賷丞 乇賮賷毓丞 鬲賱賰 丕賱乇賮毓丞 賰賱賴丕. 賵賴賲 毓賳丿卅匕 賷兀亘賵賳 兀賳 賷鬲毓丕胤賮賵丕 賲毓賴 兀賷 鬲毓丕胤賮. 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賮賷 賲賵賯賮賴賲 賴匕丕 卮賷亍 賲賳 乇賵丨 丕賱卮乇 毓賱賶 賰賱 丨丕賱鈥�丕賱亘卮乇 賷丨亘賵賳 丕賱噩乇賷賲丞. 噩賲賷毓 丕賱亘卮乇 賷丨亘賵賳 丕賱噩乇賷賲丞. 賷丨亘賵賳賴丕 丿丕卅賲丕 賱丕 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱爻丕毓丕鬲 賮丨爻亘. 賵 賰兀賳 賴賳丕賰 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 毓丕賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賱賶 丕賱賰匕亘 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱兀賲乇. 賲丕 賲賳 兀丨丿 賷丨亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 氐丕丿賯丕 賲禺賱氐丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱兀賲乇. 賴賲 噩賲賷毓丕 賷丐賰丿賵賳 兀賳賴賲 賷賰乇賴賵賳 丕賱卮乇. 賲毓 兀賳賴賲 賷丨亘賵賳賴 賮賷 賯乇丕乇丞 兀賳賮爻賴賲.
鈥溬堎勝冑� 賰賷賮 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賮丕囟賱丕賸 亘丿賵賳 丕賱賱賴 責. 廿賱賶 賲賳 爻賷賳丿賮毓..鈥�賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 鬲兀鬲賷 賵氐賷丞 廿賱賷賵卮丕 賱賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 賵丿丕毓賴賲 丕賱兀禺賷乇 賵 賰兀賳賴丕 賰丕賳鬲 賵氐賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨 賱賱丨賵丕乇賷賷賳 賮賷 賲賵毓馗丞 丕賱噩亘賱 賵 賰兀賳 丿賷爻鬲賷賵賮爻賰賷 賷賯賵賱 兀賳 賰賱 賲賳丕 亘丿丕禺賱賴 賲爻賷丨 賵 卮賷胤丕賳 賷鬲氐丕乇毓丕賳. 賳毓賲 賲爻賷丨 賵 卮賷胤丕賳 賵 賱賷爻 賲賱丕賰 賵 卮賷胤丕賳 賮丕賱賲爻賷丨 賴賳丕 鬲噩爻賷丿 賱賰賱 賲丕 賮賷 丕賱賲賱丕賰 賵 丕賱廿賱賴 賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲賳 賲毓丕賳 賵 丕賷丨丕亍丕鬲. 賰賲丕 鬲兀鬲賷 鬲賵亘丞 賲賷鬲賷丕 賮賷 丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賵 賰兀賳賴丕 丕賱兀賲賱 賮賷 丕賱禺乇賵噩 賲賳 丕賱賳賮賯 丕賱鬲賷 毓賱賯鬲 賮賷賴 乇賵爻賷丕 丌賲丕丿丕 胤賵賷賱丞
賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳賳賷 兀賳 兀毓賷卮 鬲丨鬲 丕賱兀乇囟 亘丿賵賳 丕賱賱賴責 賵 丨賷賳 爻賷胤乇丿 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱賱賴 賲賳 毓賱賶 爻胤丨 丕賱兀乇囟 爻賳賴鬲丿賷 賳丨賳 廿賱賷賴 賮賷 噩賵賮 丕賱兀乇囟 賵 賳乇鬲丿 廿賱賷賴. 丕賳 丕賱爻噩賷賳 丕賱賲丨賰賵賲 亘丕賱兀卮睾丕賱 丕賱卮丕賯丞 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賷丨賷丕 亘丿賵賳 丕賱賱賴. 賵 賴賵 兀毓噩夭 毓賳 匕賱賰 賲賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱丨乇 丕賱胤賱賷賯. 賮賲賳 睾賷丕賴亘 丕賱賱賷賱 爻賳睾賳賷 賳丨賳 丕賱賱匕賷賳 賳毓賷卮 鬲丨鬲 丕賱兀乇囟. 爻賳睾賳賷 賳卮賷丿丕 丨夭賷賳丕 賷賲噩丿 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賷賳亘賵毓 丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 賵 丕賱囟賷丕亍. 鬲亘丕乇賰 丕賱乇亘. 賵 鬲亘丕乇賰 賮乇丨賴. 廿賳賳賷 兀丨亘 丕賱賱賴.
October 26, 2020
螒未蔚位蠁慰委 螝伪蟻伪渭维味慰蠁: 畏 蟿苇位蔚喂伪 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未委伪.
螆谓伪 苇蟻纬慰 蔚蠀蟽蠀谓蔚委未畏蟿畏蟼 渭蔚纬伪位慰蠁蠀螑伪蟼, 伪蟺慰魏慰蟻蠉蠁蠅蟽畏, 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿萎 蠅蟼 蔚蟺委蟿蔚蠀纬渭伪 蟽蟿畏谓 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎 蟺伪蟻维未慰蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟽蟿伪 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏维 蟺蟻蠈蟽蠅蟺伪.
螚 蟺伪蟿蟻委未伪 蠈位蠅谓 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 尾蟻委蟽魏蔚蟿伪喂 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蟽蟿畏谓 魏伪蟻未喂维 伪蠀蟿蠋谓 蟿蠅谓 渭蔚纬维位蠅谓 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未喂蠋谓.
韦蟻慰渭维味蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蔚纬伪位蔚委慰 蟺慰蠀 魏蟻蠉尾蔚蟿伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽鈥櫸毕呄勏� 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰. 螠喂伪 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 蠉蠁伪谓蟽畏 蟺慰位蠀蟺位慰魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼 魏伪蟿伪魏位蠉味蔚喂 蟺位萎蟻蠅蟼 蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 蔚尉苇位喂尉畏蟼.
螚 伪位位畏位蔚蟺委未蟻伪蟽畏 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿蠈蟽慰 伪蟺位萎 魏伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎 蟽伪谓 谓伪 蟽蠀渭渭蔚蟿苇蠂蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺位慰魏萎 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼 蟺伪蟻苇伪 渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂伪 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬畏渭苇谓慰蠀蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蠁胃维谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 伪蟺慰 魏维蟺慰喂慰 蟽畏渭蔚委慰 魏伪喂 渭蔚蟿维 谓伪 胃蔚蠅蟻蔚委蟿伪喂 伪蠀蟿慰谓蠈畏蟿慰 蟺蠅蟼 蔚委蟽伪喂 渭苇蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼.
螒蠀蟿蠈 尾苇尾伪喂伪 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿蠈蟽慰 蔚蠉魏慰位慰 蠈蟽慰 伪魏慰蠉纬蔚蟿伪喂. 螣 螡蟿蠈蟽蟿慰 蟽蔚 蟺蔚蟿维蔚喂 蟽蔚 伪蟺蟻慰蟽渭苇蟿蟻畏蟿伪 尾维胃畏 渭蔚 蟿畏 纬蟻伪蠁萎 蟿慰蠀, 蠈蟽慰 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委蟼 谓伪 伪蟺慰蟽蟿伪蟽喂慰蟺慰喂畏胃蔚委蟼 蠅蟼 伪谓蟿喂魏蔚喂渭蔚谓喂魏蠈蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼, 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蟽苇位喂未伪 蟿畏 蟽蔚位委未伪 蟽蔚 魏伪蟿伪魏伪委蔚喂 渭喂伪 伪蠂谓喂蟽蟿萎 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏萎 蟿蔚位蔚喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蟽蔚 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 维蠁蠅谓慰 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿维蟺位畏魏蟿慰.
螤蠅蟼 渭蟺蠈蟻蔚蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼 慰 渭蠉蟽蟿畏蟼 谓伪 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂慰 尾维胃慰蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰, 蟺蠅蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠉蟻纬畏蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 慰渭慰蟻蠁喂维 纬蔚渭维蟿畏 魏伪蟻未喂伪魏苇蟼 胃蟻伪蠉蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 慰未蠀谓畏蟻苇蟼 喂未苇蔚蟼.
螕伪谓蟿味蠋谓蔚蟽伪喂 伪蟺慰 渭喂伪 未蠀蟽蟿蠀蠂喂蟽渭苇谓畏 纬慰畏蟿蔚委伪 魏伪喂 纬委谓蔚蟽伪喂 苇蟻渭伪喂慰 蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟿维蟽蔚蠅谓 蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 蟿蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委伪 蟽蔚位委未伪.
螁蟺蔚喂蟻蔚蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼 苇谓喂蠅蟽伪 蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位蠅 维渭蔚蟽伪 谓伪 蔚蟺苇渭尾蠅 蟽蟿伪 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪. 螡伪 尾慰畏胃萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蟺伪蟻畏纬慰蟻萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蠁喂位萎蟽蠅 蟺伪喂未喂魏维 未伪魏蟻蠀蟽渭苇谓伪 渭维纬慰蠀位伪, 谓伪 蔚渭蟺蠈未喂蟽蠅 蟿慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰 魏伪喂 蟿慰 蟽蟺伪蟻伪纬渭蠈, 谓伪 蠁蠅谓维尉蠅 慰蟻纬喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蟿畏谓 伪位萎胃蔚喂伪, 谓伪 蟺蔚蟿维尉蠅 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿慰 魏蔚谓蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟿喂蟼 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿喂魏维 畏位委胃喂蔚蟼, 蠂伪渭苇谓蔚蟼 伪蟻喂蟽蟿慰魏蟻伪蟿喂魏苇蟼 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰魏伪位慰蠉蟽伪谓 蟺蠈谓慰, 谓伪 味蔚蟽蟿维谓蠅 蠄蠀蠂苇蟼, 谓伪 蠂伪渭慰纬蔚位维蟽蠅 未喂蠋蠂谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 蟿畏 胃位委蠄畏, 谓伪 蟺蟻慰蔚喂未慰蟺慰喂萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蟽蠀渭蠁蠅谓萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 伪纬魏伪位喂维蟽蠅 蟿畏谓 伪蟺蠈纬谓蠅蟽畏 魏伪喂 谓伪 未喂蠋尉蠅 蟿畏谓 伪蟺蔚位蟺喂蟽委伪. 螁蟺蔚喂蟻蔚蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼.
韦蠈蟽慰 蟺慰位蠉 蟺慰蠀 魏慰蠀蟻维蟽蟿畏魏伪, 魏伪喂 蠅蟼 伪谓萎渭蟺慰蟻畏 渭蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维 蟽蟿伪 蟿蔚魏蟿伪喂谓蠈渭蔚谓伪 伪蟺位蠋蟼 苇魏位伪喂纬伪 萎 纬蔚位慰蠉蟽伪, 渭蔚 蟿慰 渭伪蠉蟻慰 味慰蠁蔚蟻蠈 蠂喂慰蠀渭慰蟻, 蔚魏 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蟻慰蟺萎蟼.
螣 渭蔚纬伪位蠉蟿蔚蟻慰蟼 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蠄蠀蠂蠋谓 蠈位蠅谓 蟿蠅谓 蔚蟺慰蠂蠋谓 慰 螡蟿蠈蟽蟿慰, 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 苇谓伪 苇蟻纬慰 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼, 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏萎蟼, 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂慰位慰纬喂魏萎蟼, 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 胃蔚蠆魏萎蟼 蟽魏苇蠄畏蟼, 蟿慰 慰蟺慰委慰 蟿伪蠀蟿委味蔚蟿伪喂 蠅蟼 伪位畏胃苇蟼 蟽蔚 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼 魏伪喂 位伪慰蠉蟼 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪蟼 魏位委渭伪魏伪蟼.
螣喂 伪未蔚位蠁慰委 螝伪蟻伪渭维味慰蠁 蔚委谓伪喂 慰 蟺蠀蟻萎谓伪蟼 蟺慰位位蠋谓 喂蟽蟿慰蟻喂蠋谓. 螣蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 蔚蟺喂尾位畏蟿喂魏蠈 苇蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽伪蟻蠋谓蔚喂 伪位萎胃蔚喂蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蠄苇渭渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏蟼 渭慰委蟻伪蟼. 螒蟺慰魏伪位蠉蟺蟿蔚喂, 蔚尉畏纬蔚委, 渭蔚蟿蟻喂维味蔚喂, 蟺蔚蟻喂蟺位伪谓喂苇蟿伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿畏 味慰蠁蔚蟻萎 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 伪谓蟿伪谓伪魏位维蔚喂 蟿伪 伪喂蠋谓喂伪 伪谓伪蟺维谓蟿畏蟿伪 蔚蟻蠅蟿萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼.
螚 蟺委蟽蟿畏 魏蠀蟻喂伪蟻蠂蔚委 魏伪喂 维蟻蠂蔚喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿畏谓 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪, 蟺慰蟿苇 蠈渭蠅蟼 蠅蟼 未蠈纬渭伪 蟺维谓蟿伪 蠅蟼 伪蟺伪谓蟿慰蠂萎 蟽蟿畏谓 未蠀蟽蟿蠀蠂委伪 蟿畏蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀.
螘谓蠈蟼 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟿苇位蔚喂慰蟼. 螖蔚谓 胃伪 纬委谓蔚喂 蟺慰蟿苇. 螘谓蠈蟼 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 蠂蠅蟻喂蟼 胃蔚蠈 未蔚谓 苇蠂蔚喂 蠈蟻喂伪 魏伪喂 蠁蟻伪纬渭慰蠉蟼 未蔚谓 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委蟽蔚喂 谓伪 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蔚蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 慰 胃蔚蠈蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿慰谓 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰 蠈蟺蠅蟼 魏伪喂 慰 未喂维尾慰位慰蟼.
螆蟿蟽喂 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂. 螆蟿蟽喂 胃伪 魏蟻伪蟿畏胃慰蠉谓 慰喂 蟽蠀渭蟺伪谓蟿喂魏苇蟼 喂蟽慰蟻蟻慰蟺委蔚蟼. 螌蟿伪谓 魏位蔚委谓蔚喂蟼 蟿畏谓 蟺蠈蟻蟿伪 蟽蟿畏 蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎 谓慰渭慰蟿苇位蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪位慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 魏伪魏慰蠉 蠅蟼 伪渭维纬伪位渭伪 蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟽畏蟼 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 伪蠀蟿萎 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 胃伪 渭蟺蔚喂 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻维胃蠀蟻慰 渭蔚 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 慰蟻渭萎 魏伪喂 慰蟻纬萎.
螒蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠀蟻纬畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎 畏 蟽蟿喂蠂慰渭蠀胃委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟽伪蟿伪谓维 渭蔚 苇谓伪谓 伪蟺慰 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪未蔚位蠁慰蠉蟼, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蔚蟺委蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 畏 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 渭苇纬伪 喂蔚蟻慰蔚尉蔚蟿伪蟽蟿萎 蟺慰蠀 魏伪委蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蠀蟻维 蟿慰谓 围蟻喂蟽蟿蠈 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟽蠋蟽蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 尾维蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿畏蟼 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪蟼.
螚 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟺慰蠀 魏蠀蟻喂伪蟻蠂蔚委 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟺位慰蠆魏萎.
螆谓伪蟼 维尉蔚蟽蟿慰蟼, 伪未委蟽蟿伪魏蟿慰蟼, 蠂伪渭苇谓慰蟼 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 蟿慰蠀 纬伪喂慰魏蟿萎渭慰谓伪蟼 蔚魏蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺蔚委 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟿蟻喂魏萎 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻伪 螝伪蟻伪渭维味慰蠁.
螣喂 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 纬喂慰委 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺慰 未蠀慰 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 纬维渭慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 慰喂 蠀蟺畏蟻苇蟿蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位慰蠉谓 蟿慰谓 魏慰蟻渭蠈 蟿慰蠀 慰喂魏慰纬蔚谓蔚喂伪魏慰蠉 未蟻维渭伪蟿慰蟼.
螝位慰蟺萎. 桅蠈谓慰蟼. 螖喂魏萎.
螘尉蔚位委蟽蟽蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟻纬维 魏伪喂 尾伪蟽伪谓喂蟽蟿喂魏维 畏 蔚尉喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏蟽畏 蟺慰位位蠋谓 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿蠅谓 蟺慰蠀 伪蟺蔚喂魏慰谓委味慰蠀谓 蠈位畏 蟿畏 蠂伪渭苇蟻蟺蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 渭蔚纬伪位慰蠄蠀蠂委伪 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺委谓蠅谓 蟽蠀谓伪喂蟽胃畏渭维蟿蠅谓 魏伪喂 魏喂谓萎蟿蟻蠅谓.
螤慰位位慰委 未蔚蠀蟿蔚蟻蔚蠉慰谓蟿蔚蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏蟻委谓慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺伪蟻伪委蟿畏蟿慰喂 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭伪蟼 未蠅胃慰蠉谓 蟽蔚 喂蟽维蟻喂胃渭蔚蟼 未蠈蟽蔚喂蟼 畏 味萎位蔚喂伪, 畏 伪纬维蟺畏, 慰 蟺蠈谓慰蟼, 畏 伪蟺伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺喂维, 畏 蠁蟿蠋蠂蔚喂伪, 慰喂 伪蟻蟻蠋蟽蟿蔚喂蔚蟼,慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰蟼,蟿慰 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏蠈 蟺维胃慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏喂谓蔚委 蟿伪 谓萎渭伪蟿伪 魏伪喂 畏 蔚蠀位慰纬委伪 蟿畏蟼 尾伪胃蠉蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 魏伪蟿伪谓蠈畏蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠀谓伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀.
韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪, 蔚委谓伪喂 慰 委未喂慰蟼 慰 螡蟿慰蟽蟿慰纬喂苇蠁蟽魏喂, 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼, 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 尾喂尾位委慰. 螕蠉蟻蠅 蟿慰蠀 慰蟻纬喂蟽渭苇谓蔚蟼 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻蔚蟼 慰蠀蟻位喂维味慰蠀谓, 魏位慰蟿蟽慰蠉谓, 蟽魏苇蠁蟿慰谓蟿伪喂 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚蠉蠂慰谓蟿伪喂.
螣 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿慰蟺慰喂蔚委 苇谓伪谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏蠈 维胃位慰. 螒谓 蔚委谓伪喂 渭维蟿伪喂慰蟼 萎 蔚蟺喂蟿蠀蠂畏渭苇谓慰蟼 未蔚谓 魏蟻委胃畏魏蔚 伪魏蠈渭畏. 螖蔚谓 谓慰渭委味蠅 蟺蠅蟼 胃伪 伪尉喂慰位慰纬畏胃蔚委 蟺慰蟿苇. 螖蔚谓 蠀蟺维蟻蠂慰蠀谓 魏蟻喂蟿萎蟻喂伪.
螒谓蔚尾伪委谓蔚喂 -纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪蟼- 蟿畏谓 蟺位伪纬喂维 蔚谓蠈蟼 蟺伪谓蠉蠄畏位慰蠀 伪蟺蠈魏蟻畏渭谓慰蠀 尾慰蠀谓慰蠉. 螒蟺慰 魏维蟿蠅 畏 纬萎喂谓畏 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰蟼, 蟺维谓蠅, 蟽蟿伪 未蠀蟽胃蔚蠋蟻畏蟿伪 蠉蠄畏, 畏 慰蠀蟻维谓喂伪 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰蟼, 蔚魏蔚委 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪蟺谓苇蔚喂 慰 螛蔚蠈蟼. 螤蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委 谓伪 伪谓伪蟻蟻喂蠂畏胃蔚委 纬喂伪 谓伪 蠁蟿维蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰蟻蠀蠁萎, 谓伪 未蔚喂 蟿慰谓 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪 魏伪喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 蟺维谓蠅 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈谓 蟿伪 蠈谓蔚喂蟻伪 蟿慰蠀 纬喂伪 渭喂伪 蟺喂慰 未委魏伪喂畏 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪.
螢伪蠁谓喂魏维 纬位喂蟽蟿蟻维蔚喂 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟿蟻蔚位萎 蟺蟿蠋蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 未喂维尾慰位慰 魏伪喂 尾蠀胃委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 纬萎喂谓畏 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰. 螖蔚谓 伪蟺蔚位蟺委味蔚蟿伪喂. 螕蔚渭维蟿慰蟼 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓萎 蔚谓苇蟻纬蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 伪谓伪蟻蠂委伪 伪蟻蠂委味蔚喂 蟺维位喂
-纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪蟼-蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟻蟻委蠂畏蟽畏 蟺蟻慰蟼 蟿慰谓 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 蟿伪 蟺蔚喂 蠈位伪, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 蟺喂蟽蟿苇蠄蔚喂, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 伪魏慰蠉蟽蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟿慰蠀 胃蔚慰蠉.
螝维胃蔚 蠁慰蟻维 蟺慰蠀 蟺苇蠁蟿蔚喂 渭蠀蔚委蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 苇谓伪谓 渭蠀蟽蟿喂魏喂蟽渭蠈 魏伪喂 蠄维蠂谓蔚喂 谓伪 尾蟻蔚喂 伪蟺伪谓蟿萎蟽蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿慰谓 蟺蠈谓慰 蟿慰蠀 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀. 危蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠁蔚喂, 谓伪 渭伪蟼 蟺伪委蟻谓蔚喂 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿萎 蟿畏 蟽喂蟽蠉蠁蔚喂伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪. 螤伪纬喂未蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 蠈位伪 蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 魏伪喂 蟿伪 位维胃畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏谓 伪谓维尾伪蟽畏 魏伪喂 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 渭蔚喂蟼, 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 魏维蟺慰蠀 蠂维谓慰蠀渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚位蟺委未伪, 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 畏 伪蟺慰纬慰萎蟿蔚蠀蟽畏.
螣 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 魏慰蠀蟻维味蔚蟿伪喂, 慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 纬蔚渭维蟿慰蟼 蔚谓苇蟻纬蔚喂伪 慰未畏纬蔚委蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰未喂慰蟻纬维谓蠅蟽畏, 渭伪 未蔚谓 蟽蟿伪渭伪蟿维蔚喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠁蔚喂 魏伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 伪魏蟻喂尾蠋蟼 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠉蟿慰 伪尉蔚蠂伪蟽蟿慰.
螌谓蟿伪蟼 伪蟺慰未喂慰蟻纬伪谓蠅渭苇谓慰蟼 未蔚谓 蟺伪蠉蔚喂 谓伪 蠂蟿委味蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺苇谓伪 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺蠈尾伪胃蟻伪 魏伪喂 渭委伪 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂伪 渭蔚蟿伪蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎, 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎, 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏萎 蠀蟺蠈-未慰渭萎 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蟿伪胃蔚委 慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼.
螌蟽慰 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 委未喂慰, 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓维尾伪蟽畏 ,胃苇位蔚喂 蟺维蟽畏 胃蠀蟽委伪 谓伪 魏蟻蔚渭维蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿慰谓 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾伪蟿喂魏蠈 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪 蟿伪 魏维未蟻伪 蟿畏蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚蟺慰喂胃萎蟽蔚蠅谓 蟿慰蠀. 螒魏蠀蟻蠋谓蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺委蟽蟿畏 蠈蟿伪谓 畏 蟽蠅蟿畏蟻委伪 蟿畏蟼 蠄蠀蠂萎蟼 未苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪魏蟻伪委伪 魏伪喂 维未喂魏畏 蟿伪位伪喂蟺蠅蟻委伪 蟿蠅谓 蟺伪喂未喂蠋谓 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 伪未蠉谓伪渭蠅谓, 蠈渭蠅蟼 未蔚谓 蔚蟺喂魏蟻慰蟿蔚委 蟿畏谓 伪胃蔚螑伪.
危蔚 蠈位慰 蟿慰 苇蟻纬慰 蟿慰蠀 螡蟿慰蟽蟿慰纬喂苇蠁蟽魏喂 蔚蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿蔚委 蔚尉伪喂蟻蔚蟿喂魏萎 蟿萎蟻畏蟽畏 伪谓伪位慰纬喂蠋谓.
螚 蟺委蟽蟿畏, 畏 未慰蠀位蔚委伪, 畏 伪胃蔚螑伪, 畏 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻委伪, 畏 蟺蟻伪蠈蟿畏蟿伪, 蟿伪 伪蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 苇谓蟽蟿喂魏蟿伪 魏伪喂 慰喂 蟺伪蟻慰蟻渭萎蟽蔚喂蟼 蟽蠀纬魏蟻慰蠉慰谓蟿伪喂.
螚 蟺伪蟻伪蟺位维谓畏蟽畏 伪谓慰委纬蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺蠈蟻蟿伪 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蠁喂维位蟿蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂 畏 位慰纬喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蟿慰 谓蠈畏渭伪. 螌位伪 蟿伪 蟺位维蟽渭伪蟿伪 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 伪蟺慰 蟿伪 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓伪 蠈谓蟿伪 纬谓蠅蟻委味慰蠀谓 蟿慰 渭慰谓慰蟺维蟿喂 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 伪魏慰位慰蠀胃萎蟽慰蠀谓.
危蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蠀蟼 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀 蠀蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蠂蠉蔚喂 畏 未萎位蠅蟽畏 蟺委蟽蟿畏蟼, 畏 蠀蟺蠈蟽蠂蔚蟽畏 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚纬伪位慰蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂伪蟼.
螘蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿蔚委 渭喂伪 蠈渭慰蟻蠁畏 蔚魏蟽蟿伪蟿喂魏萎 伪蟿渭蠈蟽蠁伪喂蟻伪 蔚位蟺委未伪蟼, 蠈渭蠅蟼 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 纬谓蠋渭畏 渭慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚尉伪位蔚委蠁蔚蟿伪喂 畏 伪渭蠁喂尾慰位委伪, 畏 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未委伪, 畏 蔚喂蟻蠅谓蔚委伪 魏伪喂 畏 伪渭蠁喂胃蠀渭委伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委味慰蠀谓 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 慰蟻蠈蟽畏渭慰 蟿畏蟼 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪蟼 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪蟼.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
*螘委蟿蔚 未喂伪尾维蟽伪蟿蔚 蠈蟽伪 苇纬蟻伪蠄伪,蔚委蟿蔚 蠈蠂喂, 位委纬畏 蟽畏渭伪蟽委伪 苇蠂蔚喂.
馃煢馃煪馃煡猬涳笍鉁★笍
螖螜螒螔螒危韦螘 韦螣. 螒违韦螣 螘螜螡螒螜 螒螤螒巍螒螜韦螚韦螒 螣违危螜惟螖螘危.
螆谓伪 苇蟻纬慰 蔚蠀蟽蠀谓蔚委未畏蟿畏蟼 渭蔚纬伪位慰蠁蠀螑伪蟼, 伪蟺慰魏慰蟻蠉蠁蠅蟽畏, 未喂伪魏蟻喂蟿萎 蠅蟼 蔚蟺委蟿蔚蠀纬渭伪 蟽蟿畏谓 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎 蟺伪蟻维未慰蟽畏 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟽蟿伪 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏维 蟺蟻蠈蟽蠅蟺伪.
螚 蟺伪蟿蟻委未伪 蠈位蠅谓 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺蠅谓 尾蟻委蟽魏蔚蟿伪喂 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蟽蟿畏谓 魏伪蟻未喂维 伪蠀蟿蠋谓 蟿蠅谓 渭蔚纬维位蠅谓 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未喂蠋谓.
韦蟻慰渭维味蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蔚纬伪位蔚委慰 蟺慰蠀 魏蟻蠉尾蔚蟿伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽鈥櫸毕呄勏� 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰. 螠喂伪 蠁伪谓蟿伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 蠉蠁伪谓蟽畏 蟺慰位蠀蟺位慰魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼 魏伪蟿伪魏位蠉味蔚喂 蟺位萎蟻蠅蟼 蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 蔚尉苇位喂尉畏蟼.
螚 伪位位畏位蔚蟺委未蟻伪蟽畏 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿蠈蟽慰 伪蟺位萎 魏伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎 蟽伪谓 谓伪 蟽蠀渭渭蔚蟿苇蠂蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺位慰魏萎 蟿畏蟼 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪蟼 蟺伪蟻苇伪 渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂伪 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬畏渭苇谓慰蠀蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蠁胃维谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 伪蟺慰 魏维蟺慰喂慰 蟽畏渭蔚委慰 魏伪喂 渭蔚蟿维 谓伪 胃蔚蠅蟻蔚委蟿伪喂 伪蠀蟿慰谓蠈畏蟿慰 蟺蠅蟼 蔚委蟽伪喂 渭苇蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼.
螒蠀蟿蠈 尾苇尾伪喂伪 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 蟿蠈蟽慰 蔚蠉魏慰位慰 蠈蟽慰 伪魏慰蠉纬蔚蟿伪喂. 螣 螡蟿蠈蟽蟿慰 蟽蔚 蟺蔚蟿维蔚喂 蟽蔚 伪蟺蟻慰蟽渭苇蟿蟻畏蟿伪 尾维胃畏 渭蔚 蟿畏 纬蟻伪蠁萎 蟿慰蠀, 蠈蟽慰 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委蟼 谓伪 伪蟺慰蟽蟿伪蟽喂慰蟺慰喂畏胃蔚委蟼 蠅蟼 伪谓蟿喂魏蔚喂渭蔚谓喂魏蠈蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼, 蟿蠈蟽慰 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 蟽苇位喂未伪 蟿畏 蟽蔚位委未伪 蟽蔚 魏伪蟿伪魏伪委蔚喂 渭喂伪 伪蠂谓喂蟽蟿萎 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓喂魏萎 蟿蔚位蔚喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蟽蔚 伪蠁萎谓蔚喂 维蠁蠅谓慰 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿维蟺位畏魏蟿慰.
螤蠅蟼 渭蟺蠈蟻蔚蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼 慰 渭蠉蟽蟿畏蟼 谓伪 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂慰 尾维胃慰蟼 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰, 蟺蠅蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠉蟻纬畏蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 慰渭慰蟻蠁喂维 纬蔚渭维蟿畏 魏伪蟻未喂伪魏苇蟼 胃蟻伪蠉蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 慰未蠀谓畏蟻苇蟼 喂未苇蔚蟼.
螕伪谓蟿味蠋谓蔚蟽伪喂 伪蟺慰 渭喂伪 未蠀蟽蟿蠀蠂喂蟽渭苇谓畏 纬慰畏蟿蔚委伪 魏伪喂 纬委谓蔚蟽伪喂 苇蟻渭伪喂慰 蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟿维蟽蔚蠅谓 蠅蟼 蟿畏谓 蟿蔚位蔚蠀蟿伪委伪 蟽蔚位委未伪.
螁蟺蔚喂蟻蔚蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼 苇谓喂蠅蟽伪 蟺蠅蟼 胃苇位蠅 维渭蔚蟽伪 谓伪 蔚蟺苇渭尾蠅 蟽蟿伪 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿伪. 螡伪 尾慰畏胃萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蟺伪蟻畏纬慰蟻萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蠁喂位萎蟽蠅 蟺伪喂未喂魏维 未伪魏蟻蠀蟽渭苇谓伪 渭维纬慰蠀位伪, 谓伪 蔚渭蟺蠈未喂蟽蠅 蟿慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰 魏伪喂 蟿慰 蟽蟺伪蟻伪纬渭蠈, 谓伪 蠁蠅谓维尉蠅 慰蟻纬喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蟿畏谓 伪位萎胃蔚喂伪, 谓伪 蟺蔚蟿维尉蠅 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿慰 魏蔚谓蠈 蟿慰蠀蟼 蟿喂蟼 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿喂魏维 畏位委胃喂蔚蟼, 蠂伪渭苇谓蔚蟼 伪蟻喂蟽蟿慰魏蟻伪蟿喂魏苇蟼 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰魏伪位慰蠉蟽伪谓 蟺蠈谓慰, 谓伪 味蔚蟽蟿维谓蠅 蠄蠀蠂苇蟼, 谓伪 蠂伪渭慰纬蔚位维蟽蠅 未喂蠋蠂谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 蟿畏 胃位委蠄畏, 谓伪 蟺蟻慰蔚喂未慰蟺慰喂萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 蟽蠀渭蠁蠅谓萎蟽蠅, 谓伪 伪纬魏伪位喂维蟽蠅 蟿畏谓 伪蟺蠈纬谓蠅蟽畏 魏伪喂 谓伪 未喂蠋尉蠅 蟿畏谓 伪蟺蔚位蟺喂蟽委伪. 螁蟺蔚喂蟻蔚蟼 蠁慰蟻苇蟼.
韦蠈蟽慰 蟺慰位蠉 蟺慰蠀 魏慰蠀蟻维蟽蟿畏魏伪, 魏伪喂 蠅蟼 伪谓萎渭蟺慰蟻畏 渭蟺蟻慰蟽蟿维 蟽蟿伪 蟿蔚魏蟿伪喂谓蠈渭蔚谓伪 伪蟺位蠋蟼 苇魏位伪喂纬伪 萎 纬蔚位慰蠉蟽伪, 渭蔚 蟿慰 渭伪蠉蟻慰 味慰蠁蔚蟻蠈 蠂喂慰蠀渭慰蟻, 蔚魏 蟺蔚蟻喂蟿蟻慰蟺萎蟼.
螣 渭蔚纬伪位蠉蟿蔚蟻慰蟼 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蠄蠀蠂蠋谓 蠈位蠅谓 蟿蠅谓 蔚蟺慰蠂蠋谓 慰 螡蟿蠈蟽蟿慰, 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委 苇谓伪 苇蟻纬慰 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎蟼, 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏萎蟼, 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂慰位慰纬喂魏萎蟼, 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏萎蟼 魏伪喂 胃蔚蠆魏萎蟼 蟽魏苇蠄畏蟼, 蟿慰 慰蟺慰委慰 蟿伪蠀蟿委味蔚蟿伪喂 蠅蟼 伪位畏胃苇蟼 蟽蔚 蠂蠋蟻蔚蟼 魏伪喂 位伪慰蠉蟼 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪蟼 魏位委渭伪魏伪蟼.
螣喂 伪未蔚位蠁慰委 螝伪蟻伪渭维味慰蠁 蔚委谓伪喂 慰 蟺蠀蟻萎谓伪蟼 蟺慰位位蠋谓 喂蟽蟿慰蟻喂蠋谓. 螣蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪 蔚蟺喂尾位畏蟿喂魏蠈 苇蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽伪蟻蠋谓蔚喂 伪位萎胃蔚喂蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蠄苇渭渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓畏蟼 渭慰委蟻伪蟼. 螒蟺慰魏伪位蠉蟺蟿蔚喂, 蔚尉畏纬蔚委, 渭蔚蟿蟻喂维味蔚喂, 蟺蔚蟻喂蟺位伪谓喂苇蟿伪喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿畏 味慰蠁蔚蟻萎 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 伪谓蟿伪谓伪魏位维蔚喂 蟿伪 伪喂蠋谓喂伪 伪谓伪蟺维谓蟿畏蟿伪 蔚蟻蠅蟿萎渭伪蟿伪 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼.
螚 蟺委蟽蟿畏 魏蠀蟻喂伪蟻蠂蔚委 魏伪喂 维蟻蠂蔚喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿畏谓 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪, 蟺慰蟿苇 蠈渭蠅蟼 蠅蟼 未蠈纬渭伪 蟺维谓蟿伪 蠅蟼 伪蟺伪谓蟿慰蠂萎 蟽蟿畏谓 未蠀蟽蟿蠀蠂委伪 蟿畏蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬委伪蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀.
螘谓蠈蟼 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚喂谓伪喂 蟿苇位蔚喂慰蟼. 螖蔚谓 胃伪 纬委谓蔚喂 蟺慰蟿苇. 螘谓蠈蟼 魏蠈蟽渭慰蠀 蟺慰蠀 蠂蠅蟻喂蟼 胃蔚蠈 未蔚谓 苇蠂蔚喂 蠈蟻喂伪 魏伪喂 蠁蟻伪纬渭慰蠉蟼 未蔚谓 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委蟽蔚喂 谓伪 蠀蟺维蟻蠂蔚喂 蔚蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 慰 胃蔚蠈蟼 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬蔚委蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿慰谓 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰 蠈蟺蠅蟼 魏伪喂 慰 未喂维尾慰位慰蟼.
螆蟿蟽喂 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂. 螆蟿蟽喂 胃伪 魏蟻伪蟿畏胃慰蠉谓 慰喂 蟽蠀渭蟺伪谓蟿喂魏苇蟼 喂蟽慰蟻蟻慰蟺委蔚蟼. 螌蟿伪谓 魏位蔚委谓蔚喂蟼 蟿畏谓 蟺蠈蟻蟿伪 蟽蟿畏 蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎 谓慰渭慰蟿苇位蔚喂伪 蟿慰蠀 魏伪位慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 魏伪魏慰蠉 蠅蟼 伪渭维纬伪位渭伪 蟽蠉谓胃蔚蟽畏蟼 蟿畏蟼 味蠅萎蟼 伪蠀蟿萎 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 胃伪 渭蟺蔚喂 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻维胃蠀蟻慰 渭蔚 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻畏 慰蟻渭萎 魏伪喂 慰蟻纬萎.
螒蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠀蟻纬畏渭伪蟿喂魏萎 畏 蟽蟿喂蠂慰渭蠀胃委伪 蟿慰蠀 蟽伪蟿伪谓维 渭蔚 苇谓伪谓 伪蟺慰 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪未蔚位蠁慰蠉蟼, 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蔚蟺委蟽畏蟼 魏伪喂 畏 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 渭苇纬伪 喂蔚蟻慰蔚尉蔚蟿伪蟽蟿萎 蟺慰蠀 魏伪委蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蠀蟻维 蟿慰谓 围蟻喂蟽蟿蠈 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟽蠋蟽蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠈蟿畏蟿伪 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 尾维蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 伪蟺蠈位蠀蟿畏蟼 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪蟼.
螚 喂蟽蟿慰蟻委伪 蟺慰蠀 魏蠀蟻喂伪蟻蠂蔚委 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蟺位慰蠆魏萎.
螆谓伪蟼 维尉蔚蟽蟿慰蟼, 伪未委蟽蟿伪魏蟿慰蟼, 蠂伪渭苇谓慰蟼 渭苇蟽伪 蟽蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 蟿慰蠀 纬伪喂慰魏蟿萎渭慰谓伪蟼 蔚魏蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺蔚委 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟿蟻喂魏萎 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻伪 螝伪蟻伪渭维味慰蠁.
螣喂 蟿蟻蔚喂蟼 纬喂慰委 蟿慰蠀 伪蟺慰 未蠀慰 未喂伪蠁慰蟻蔚蟿喂魏慰蠉蟼 纬维渭慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 慰喂 蠀蟺畏蟻苇蟿蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀蟼 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位慰蠉谓 蟿慰谓 魏慰蟻渭蠈 蟿慰蠀 慰喂魏慰纬蔚谓蔚喂伪魏慰蠉 未蟻维渭伪蟿慰蟼.
螝位慰蟺萎. 桅蠈谓慰蟼. 螖喂魏萎.
螘尉蔚位委蟽蟽蔚蟿伪喂 伪蟻纬维 魏伪喂 尾伪蟽伪谓喂蟽蟿喂魏维 畏 蔚尉喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏蟽畏 蟺慰位位蠋谓 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟿蠅谓 蟺慰蠀 伪蟺蔚喂魏慰谓委味慰蠀谓 蠈位畏 蟿畏 蠂伪渭苇蟻蟺蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 渭蔚纬伪位慰蠄蠀蠂委伪 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺委谓蠅谓 蟽蠀谓伪喂蟽胃畏渭维蟿蠅谓 魏伪喂 魏喂谓萎蟿蟻蠅谓.
螤慰位位慰委 未蔚蠀蟿蔚蟻蔚蠉慰谓蟿蔚蟼 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏蟻委谓慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺伪蟻伪委蟿畏蟿慰喂 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭伪蟼 未蠅胃慰蠉谓 蟽蔚 喂蟽维蟻喂胃渭蔚蟼 未蠈蟽蔚喂蟼 畏 味萎位蔚喂伪, 畏 伪纬维蟺畏, 慰 蟺蠈谓慰蟼, 畏 伪蟺伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺喂维, 畏 蠁蟿蠋蠂蔚喂伪, 慰喂 伪蟻蟻蠋蟽蟿蔚喂蔚蟼,慰 胃维谓伪蟿慰蟼,蟿慰 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏蠈 蟺维胃慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 魏喂谓蔚委 蟿伪 谓萎渭伪蟿伪 魏伪喂 畏 蔚蠀位慰纬委伪 蟿畏蟼 尾伪胃蠉蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 魏伪蟿伪谓蠈畏蟽畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠀谓伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀.
韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪, 蔚委谓伪喂 慰 委未喂慰蟼 慰 螡蟿慰蟽蟿慰纬喂苇蠁蟽魏喂, 蔚委谓伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈蟼, 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 尾喂尾位委慰. 螕蠉蟻蠅 蟿慰蠀 慰蟻纬喂蟽渭苇谓蔚蟼 蠁喂纬慰蠉蟻蔚蟼 慰蠀蟻位喂维味慰蠀谓, 魏位慰蟿蟽慰蠉谓, 蟽魏苇蠁蟿慰谓蟿伪喂 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚蠉蠂慰谓蟿伪喂.
螣 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿慰蟺慰喂蔚委 苇谓伪谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺喂魏蠈 维胃位慰. 螒谓 蔚委谓伪喂 渭维蟿伪喂慰蟼 萎 蔚蟺喂蟿蠀蠂畏渭苇谓慰蟼 未蔚谓 魏蟻委胃畏魏蔚 伪魏蠈渭畏. 螖蔚谓 谓慰渭委味蠅 蟺蠅蟼 胃伪 伪尉喂慰位慰纬畏胃蔚委 蟺慰蟿苇. 螖蔚谓 蠀蟺维蟻蠂慰蠀谓 魏蟻喂蟿萎蟻喂伪.
螒谓蔚尾伪委谓蔚喂 -纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪蟼- 蟿畏谓 蟺位伪纬喂维 蔚谓蠈蟼 蟺伪谓蠉蠄畏位慰蠀 伪蟺蠈魏蟻畏渭谓慰蠀 尾慰蠀谓慰蠉. 螒蟺慰 魏维蟿蠅 畏 纬萎喂谓畏 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰蟼, 蟺维谓蠅, 蟽蟿伪 未蠀蟽胃蔚蠋蟻畏蟿伪 蠉蠄畏, 畏 慰蠀蟻维谓喂伪 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰蟼, 蔚魏蔚委 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪蟺谓苇蔚喂 慰 螛蔚蠈蟼. 螤蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃蔚委 谓伪 伪谓伪蟻蟻喂蠂畏胃蔚委 纬喂伪 谓伪 蠁蟿维蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰蟻蠀蠁萎, 谓伪 未蔚喂 蟿慰谓 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪 魏伪喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠄蔚喂 蟺维谓蠅 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿蠈谓 蟿伪 蠈谓蔚喂蟻伪 蟿慰蠀 纬喂伪 渭喂伪 蟺喂慰 未委魏伪喂畏 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽蟿喂魏萎 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪.
螢伪蠁谓喂魏维 纬位喂蟽蟿蟻维蔚喂 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 蟿蟻蔚位萎 蟺蟿蠋蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 未喂维尾慰位慰 魏伪喂 尾蠀胃委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 纬萎喂谓畏 维尾蠀蟽蟽慰. 螖蔚谓 伪蟺蔚位蟺委味蔚蟿伪喂. 螕蔚渭维蟿慰蟼 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓萎 蔚谓苇蟻纬蔚喂伪 魏伪喂 伪谓伪蟻蠂委伪 伪蟻蠂委味蔚喂 蟺维位喂
-纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪蟼-蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟻蟻委蠂畏蟽畏 蟺蟻慰蟼 蟿慰谓 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 蟿伪 蟺蔚喂 蠈位伪, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 蟺喂蟽蟿苇蠄蔚喂, 胃苇位蔚喂 谓伪 伪魏慰蠉蟽蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪蟺谓慰萎 蟿慰蠀 胃蔚慰蠉.
螝维胃蔚 蠁慰蟻维 蟺慰蠀 蟺苇蠁蟿蔚喂 渭蠀蔚委蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 苇谓伪谓 渭蠀蟽蟿喂魏喂蟽渭蠈 魏伪喂 蠄维蠂谓蔚喂 谓伪 尾蟻蔚喂 伪蟺伪谓蟿萎蟽蔚喂蟼 蟽蟿慰谓 蟺蠈谓慰 蟿慰蠀 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺慰蠀. 危蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠁蔚喂, 谓伪 渭伪蟼 蟺伪委蟻谓蔚喂 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀 蟽蔚 伪蠀蟿萎 蟿畏 蟽喂蟽蠉蠁蔚喂伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪. 螤伪纬喂未蔚蠉蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蔚 蠈位伪 蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 魏伪喂 蟿伪 位维胃畏 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏谓 伪谓维尾伪蟽畏 魏伪喂 渭伪味委 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 渭蔚喂蟼, 蟺慰蠀 委蟽蠅蟼 魏维蟺慰蠀 蠂维谓慰蠀渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚位蟺委未伪, 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 畏 伪蟺慰纬慰萎蟿蔚蠀蟽畏.
螣 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 魏慰蠀蟻维味蔚蟿伪喂, 慰 蟽蠀纬纬蟻伪蠁苇伪蟼 纬蔚渭维蟿慰蟼 蔚谓苇蟻纬蔚喂伪 慰未畏纬蔚委蟿伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰未喂慰蟻纬维谓蠅蟽畏, 渭伪 未蔚谓 蟽蟿伪渭伪蟿维蔚喂 谓伪 纬蟻维蠁蔚喂 魏伪喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 伪魏蟻喂尾蠋蟼 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 蟿慰蠉蟿慰 伪尉蔚蠂伪蟽蟿慰.
螌谓蟿伪蟼 伪蟺慰未喂慰蟻纬伪谓蠅渭苇谓慰蟼 未蔚谓 蟺伪蠉蔚喂 谓伪 蠂蟿委味蔚喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蟺苇谓伪 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺蠈尾伪胃蟻伪 魏伪喂 渭委伪 蟿蔚蟻维蟽蟿喂伪 渭蔚蟿伪蠁蠀蟽喂魏萎, 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂伪魏萎, 蠄蠀蠂慰位慰纬喂魏萎 蠀蟺蠈-未慰渭萎 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蟿伪胃蔚委 慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼.
螌蟽慰 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 委未喂慰, 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓维尾伪蟽畏 ,胃苇位蔚喂 蟺维蟽畏 胃蠀蟽委伪 谓伪 魏蟻蔚渭维蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿慰谓 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾伪蟿喂魏蠈 慰蟻委味慰谓蟿伪 蟿伪 魏维未蟻伪 蟿畏蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪蟼 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 蟺蔚蟺慰喂胃萎蟽蔚蠅谓 蟿慰蠀. 螒魏蠀蟻蠋谓蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺委蟽蟿畏 蠈蟿伪谓 畏 蟽蠅蟿畏蟻委伪 蟿畏蟼 蠄蠀蠂萎蟼 未苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 蟿畏谓 伪魏蟻伪委伪 魏伪喂 维未喂魏畏 蟿伪位伪喂蟺蠅蟻委伪 蟿蠅谓 蟺伪喂未喂蠋谓 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 伪未蠉谓伪渭蠅谓, 蠈渭蠅蟼 未蔚谓 蔚蟺喂魏蟻慰蟿蔚委 蟿畏谓 伪胃蔚螑伪.
危蔚 蠈位慰 蟿慰 苇蟻纬慰 蟿慰蠀 螡蟿慰蟽蟿慰纬喂苇蠁蟽魏喂 蔚蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿蔚委 蔚尉伪喂蟻蔚蟿喂魏萎 蟿萎蟻畏蟽畏 伪谓伪位慰纬喂蠋谓.
螚 蟺委蟽蟿畏, 畏 未慰蠀位蔚委伪, 畏 伪胃蔚螑伪, 畏 伪未喂伪蠁慰蟻委伪, 畏 蟺蟻伪蠈蟿畏蟿伪, 蟿伪 伪蟻谓畏蟿喂魏维 苇谓蟽蟿喂魏蟿伪 魏伪喂 慰喂 蟺伪蟻慰蟻渭萎蟽蔚喂蟼 蟽蠀纬魏蟻慰蠉慰谓蟿伪喂.
螚 蟺伪蟻伪蟺位维谓畏蟽畏 伪谓慰委纬蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺蠈蟻蟿伪 蟽蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蠁喂维位蟿蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蠂维谓蔚蟿伪喂 畏 位慰纬喂魏萎 魏伪喂 蟿慰 谓蠈畏渭伪. 螌位伪 蟿伪 蟺位维蟽渭伪蟿伪 蔚魏蟿蠈蟼 伪蟺慰 蟿伪 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓伪 蠈谓蟿伪 纬谓蠅蟻委味慰蠀谓 蟿慰 渭慰谓慰蟺维蟿喂 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 伪魏慰位慰蠀胃萎蟽慰蠀谓.
危蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蠀蟼 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀 蠀蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蠂蠉蔚喂 畏 未萎位蠅蟽畏 蟺委蟽蟿畏蟼, 畏 蠀蟺蠈蟽蠂蔚蟽畏 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚纬伪位慰蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂伪蟼.
螘蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿蔚委 渭喂伪 蠈渭慰蟻蠁畏 蔚魏蟽蟿伪蟿喂魏萎 伪蟿渭蠈蟽蠁伪喂蟻伪 蔚位蟺委未伪蟼, 蠈渭蠅蟼 魏伪蟿维 蟿畏 纬谓蠋渭畏 渭慰蠀 未蔚谓 蔚尉伪位蔚委蠁蔚蟿伪喂 畏 伪渭蠁喂尾慰位委伪, 畏 蟿蟻伪纬蠅未委伪, 畏 蔚喂蟻蠅谓蔚委伪 魏伪喂 畏 伪渭蠁喂胃蠀渭委伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委味慰蠀谓 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 慰蟻蠈蟽畏渭慰 蟿畏蟼 蟺伪纬魏蠈蟽渭喂伪蟼 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪蟼.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
*螘委蟿蔚 未喂伪尾维蟽伪蟿蔚 蠈蟽伪 苇纬蟻伪蠄伪,蔚委蟿蔚 蠈蠂喂, 位委纬畏 蟽畏渭伪蟽委伪 苇蠂蔚喂.
馃煢馃煪馃煡猬涳笍鉁★笍
螖螜螒螔螒危韦螘 韦螣. 螒违韦螣 螘螜螡螒螜 螒螤螒巍螒螜韦螚韦螒 螣违危螜惟螖螘危.
February 16, 2014
On Romancing The Devil
Warning: This review might contain spoilers even outside the hidden 'spoiler alert' regions. I honestly am not capable of discriminating.
The book is not about the murder or about who did it, those things were very apparent before half the book was completed - the narrator taking special pains to spoil all suspense for his readers at the very beginning (harkening back to the days of greek drama and - according to whom, the effect of a story, even a听whodunnit, was not in epic suspense about what was going to happen next, but in those great scenes of lyrical rhetorics in which the passion and dialectic of the protagonists reached heights of eloquence. Everything was to portend pathos, not action, which was always there only as a container for the pathos, to give it form).
This was probably done so that the typical clue-seeking听aspects of a mystery does not detract his reader from听addressing听the real, the painful questions littered all across his treatise, almost with indecent abandon.
No, this story is not about the murder, or about the murderer, or about his motivations, or around the suspense surrounding his final fate. The story is about the reaction - it was all about the jury.
Many theories abound about how the Karamazov family represents Russia/humanity/all characters but the reality is that they represent individualities; while it is that terrible听faceless听jury, always addressed to and never addressed by, that represents humanity. The job of the country, the society, of the whole human race is to judge, to determine the fate of听individuals听based on the stories that they construct, literally out of thin air, out of the small pieces of a life that they can only ever observe. The best character sketches, fictional or听otherwise听can only ever be the minutest portion of a real character - but from that tiniest of slivers we build this听ambiguous听thing called 鈥榗haracter鈥�, as if such a thing can possibly exist for a creature as听fickle-minded听and forgetful of听himself听as man.
Character of a man is the greatest myth,听propagated听best by听novelists, as no story can proceed without a 鈥榗onstant鈥� man who behave with some level of听predictability听or with predictable听unpredictability, but real life is the result of adding a minimum of three more 鈥榰npredictable鈥� as adjectives to that earlier description, to come close to describing even the simplest and most boring idiot alive. But yet we construct stories, to understand, to predict, to know how to behave, we even make up stories about听ourselves听so that we may have an illusion of control over who we are - so that we do not melt into the听amorphous听protean听mass that is the rest of humanity - my story听separates听me from all of them.
I construct, therefore I am.
These are the romances that Dostoevsky听wields听his best work against and the trial is a trial of reason, of reality pitted against the overwhelming听circumstantial听evidence in听favor听of romance, of the myth of character, of individuality, of cause and effect, of there being anything predictable when such a wild variable as a human mind is part of the equation, how can such an equation be anything but 鈥榠ndeterminate鈥� (to听borrow Dostoevsky鈥檚 own expression)?
That was the grand trial, the听inquisition听of reason.
But how can the听defense听stand up in听favor听of reality without explaining to the jury (to humanity) why they see things not as they are, that they have made up a story that is perfect but is never real as no story can ever be - as no cause can听really听cause a听definite听effect when human beings are听involved? You have to tell a story to convince the jury. You have to tell a story to defend the fact that stories do not exist. A story now, about stories. Or multiple stories to show how all stories are false if only one can be allowed to be true. The only other option is that all are true,听simultaneously. By proving which you include your own story in that 鈥榮elf-consuming鈥� super-set and doom your own argument. There is the irresolvable conflict of the trial, of the story, of the novel, of life.
You cannot discredit the myth of the story without the help of a story as the jury that听judges听cannot understand, cannot comprehend any reality听outside听of a story, human beings cannot think outside their romances. They will continue to exist as prisoners to their own stories. That is why it is a comedy and not a tragedy, as no one died and no one killed and it remains akin to a听sphinx setting us a riddle which he cannot solve himself.听But,听judgment听had to be听passed听as the story was told.
One story among many.
--------
An expanded review might follow and will try to address some of the big themes of the book, enumerated below:
1) On Fatherhood - The second big theme of the book. Possibly the real theme, the above only being my own story...
2) On Crime & the Efficacy of Punishment听- On听how men will always rise to be worthy of their punishment/mercy;听On suffering and salvation and on how no judgement can be stronger, more effective or more damning/redemptive than moral self-judgement;听On how Ivan鈥檚 ecclesiastical courts eventually would have behaved - would they have behaved as predicted by him in his prose poem and let christ go, unlike the real court? So, in the end his alternate vision of Satan鈥檚 court is what was really shown by the current judicial apparitions? But in the fable who was it that really forgave the听inquisitor听or the inquisitee? And in the听overall听story too, who forgives whom in the end? Christ or Humanity, Satan or Church, Dimitri or Russia?
3) On Collateral Damage听- inflicted by the main story on side stories, on how the small side stories are over shadowed, no murdered by the main one and without any risk of conviction.
4) On the Institution of Religion- On morality and the question of the听necessity听of religion; On the basis for faith; On the implications of faith/lack of faith to the story one tells about oneself; On how took the easy way out by expanding听Dostoevsky鈥檚 story for his widely acclaimed novel; On the enormous burden of free will; On the听dependence听of men on the security of miracles that is the source of all hell and of all action.
5) On the Characters - On how Dostoevsky听took the cream of his best-conceived characters from the universe of his creation, from across all his best works to populate his magnum opus, his story about stories, to trace out their path with the ultimate illusion of realism, with the ultimate ambition and to show/realize how it should always, always fall apart; On how he reflected the whole universe in a small lake and created a novel about all novels, disproving and affirming them simultaneously, murdering its own parents in its own fulfillment; On how they might have听their听Hamlets, but we have our Karamazov's.
6) On Hope & Redemption - On how ultimately Zosima's world view trumps the cynical aspects that dominated the book; On how Zosima predicted it all at the very听beginning听and apologized to Dimitri on behalf of all mankind - 鈥榯aking everyone鈥檚 sin upon听himself鈥�, thus creating an inverted reflection of the christ figure, its image playing on both Dimitri and on Zosima for that split second and then passing on to Alyosha听until听finally projected back to Dimitri, in the ultimate paradox, where he becomes at last a christ figure and a buddha figure, exemplifying self-knowledge and听enlightenment听through true suffering; On how even the Karamazov name can be inspiring and be cause for cheers even though it represents the worst (best?) of听humanity;听On The Sermon at the Stone.
7) On听Nihilism听- On the absurdity of life and trying to explain it. But oh wait, this is what I talked of in paragraph length already.
听
听
PS. By the way, when you read this, keep your ears tuned towards the end - for somewhere in the distance you might hear the laugh of the Grand听Inquisitor听echoing faintly.
March 8, 2022
Una obra maestra, digna de su fama, pero...
En realidad 4,2
Este libro me hace enfrentar una lucha feroz y salvaje en mi interior. Una lucha entre ser despiadado, o ser comprensivo; entre ser destructivo, o ser amable; entre ser un Karamazov, o simplemente no serlo. Empiezo esta rese帽a con estas palabras porque sinceramente no ha sido f谩cil decidir el tipo de cr铆tica que realizar铆a para esta ocasi贸n. En un lado del ring, se encuentra el Steven despiadado y juzgador, que est谩 esperando la oportunidad de pulverizar con sus palabras cualquier obra que lo haya dejado insatisfecho, o que no haya disfrutado plenamente; pero, en el otro lado del ring, se encuentra el Steven prudente y positivo, que con mucha calma sabe destacar lo bueno de cada obra y logra minimizar los detalles negativos de cada historia. Generalmente esos combates se resuelven f谩cilmente con un knockout, y descifrar el resultado es solo cuesti贸n de minutos; pero, para esta ocasi贸n el combate ha estado bastante re帽ido y mucho m谩s dif铆cil ha sido tomar una decisi贸n.
Comenc茅 a leer esta obra, no solo por la popularidad del autor, sino tambi茅n porque varias obras de su autor铆a realmente me interesan, y quiero leerlas en el futuro. Mi primer, y 煤nico acercamiento a Dostoievski, hab铆a sido la lectura de un peque帽o cuento llamado El sue帽o de un hombre rid铆culo 鈥攅l cual recomiendo bastante鈥�, en el cual finalic茅 completamente satisfecho por la manera como el autor ruso logr贸 transmitir en menos de treinta p谩ginas tantas observaciones y cr铆ticas sobre la vida en general. Con esta experiencia, entonces mi cerebro, bas谩ndose en su l贸gica tom贸 apresuradamente la siguiente conclusi贸n: Si en un cuento de treinta p谩ginas has quedado tan satisfecho, 驴te imaginas, Steven, la experiencia tan incre铆ble que vivir谩s en ese libro de mil p谩ginas? Entonces me decid铆, busqu茅 un espacio, comenc茅 a leer y efectivamente me gust贸 mucho el libro. Fue una lectura con una prosa bastante destacada, que se me asemej贸 a la combinaci贸n entre Victor Hugo, por la forma como estructura su historia, y Gabriel Garc铆a M谩rquez, por la duraci贸n que pueden llegar a tener algunos p谩rrafos y la cantidad de temas diversos que se encuentran all铆. Es una prosa 鈥攊r贸nicamente鈥� f谩cil de leer, pero que en mi opini贸n personal, ralentiza en exceso la velocidad a la que transcurren los hechos descritos en el libro. Para ser completamente honesto sent铆 que en las m谩s de mil p谩ginas no sucedieron tantas situaciones como esperaba, y tambi茅n percib铆 que desde el inicio se revel贸 demasiado pronto el verdadero cl铆max del argumento. Desde los primeros cap铆tulos es f谩cil detectar el problema principal que vivir谩n los protagonistas, con la 煤nica diferencia de que desconocemos la ruta que vivir谩n para llegar hasta all铆, por lo que eso me decepcion贸 un poco. No me malinterpreten, no me ha parecido aburrido el argumento, solo que no cre铆 que esa din谩mica del principio fuera a perdurar para todas las p谩ginas, quiz谩s esperaba un secreto que m谩s adelante me sorprendiera, quiz谩s esperaba algo as铆, pero no sucedi贸. Hay ocasiones en las que un libro est谩 bien escrito, el argumento principal tambi茅n es interesante, pero en el que la velocidad y duraci贸n excesiva de algunas partes puede llegar a hacerte sentir que est谩s teniendo una lectura interminable. Los libros largos me encantan, tengo muy buenas experiencias con muchos de ellos, pero con estos mastodontes de papel me gusta sentir que cada p谩gina ha valido la pena, y con este libro no viv铆 eso. Hubo partes muy interesantes, pero no todo el tiempo.
Ahora bien, eso no significa que el libro no valga la pena. El libro tiene todos los componentes de aquel libro cl谩sico que te invita a reflexionar sobre cientos de detalles de la vida. 驴Qu茅 est谩 mal? 驴Qu茅 est谩 bien? 驴En qu茅 debemos mejorar como sociedad? Dostoievski en esta obra te deja con la sensaci贸n de que, a pesar de que han pasado varios siglos y tenemos tanta diversidad de cultura con respecto a nuestros antepasados, seguimos enfrentando dur铆simas batallas donde la protagonista es la conciencia. La conciencia te puede ayudar a sentir paz, pero tambi茅n te puede condenar de por vida, eso en caso de que nunca lleguemos a perdonarnos por nuestras malas acciones que no dese谩bamos hacer. El tema m谩s importante de esta novela, en mi opini贸n, es la conciencia, y con cada uno de los personajes de este libro, podremos notar c贸mo batallan todos los d铆as de su vida con ese silencioso 芦enemigo禄. 驴Realmente quiero hacer el bien, o simplemente quiero evitar hacer el mal? Igualmente encontramos mensajes importantes sobre la familia, respetar a los padres, el dinero, la avaricia, la capacidad de tomar decisiones, etc. Personalmente no todas sus palabras lograron sensibilizarme sobre los temas presentados, pero s铆 hubo varias que me tocaron el alma, me dejaron emotivo, y asimismo perturbado por lo presentado.
Una aclaraci贸n importante es que uno de sus protagonistas est谩 cerca de la vida religiosa, por lo que en varias partes del libro el tema principal se centra en Dios, y en la religi贸n. Para aquellos que no creen en Dios puede parecer algo molesto leer tantas p谩ginas sobre el tema, y m谩s porque se cuenta la historia de c贸mo un monje se volvi贸 predicador, pero no es una situaci贸n que perdur茅 tanto tiempo porque el tema principal del libro no es la religi贸n, solo que el autor decide enfatizar demasiado en las creencias, cultura, pensamientos, etc., de cada uno de los personajes del libro 鈥搕anto principales, como secundarios- por lo que esta parte es necesaria para comprender al personaje cuasi principal de esta historia. Digo cuasi principal porque Dostoievski en sus primeras p谩ginas afirma que lo es, pero en mi opini贸n los protagonistas son los tres hermanos Karamazov, no solo el menor, Aliosha, sino los tres. Asimismo, hay otra conversaci贸n sobre la religi贸n entre un ateo y un religioso que tambi茅n debemos leer con cuidado. Pienso que son partes que requieren leerse con comprensi贸n, sin juzgar, y teniendo muy en cuenta que el objetivo del autor es exponer la mentalidad de cada personaje, y no cambiar nuestras creencias.
Sin lugar a dudas la mejor parte ha sido el final. Es la secci贸n donde comprendes que cada historia de cada personaje s铆 val铆a la pena para algo, y que sin la debida exposici贸n de estas mini-escenas seguramente este acto final no ser铆a tan llamativo e interesante como lo es en verdad. Por un momento cre铆 que no valdr铆a la pena llegar hasta el final del libro, pero por esa secci贸n s铆 vali贸 resistir tantas y tantas horas de lectura que realic茅 por m谩s de dos meses. Les juro que si esa parte hubiera sido mala, la batalla del ring que mencion茅 al comienzo de esta rese帽a habr铆a quedado definida en menos de cinco segundos. Afortunadamente ha valido la pena llegar hasta el final, aunque si me preguntaran no volver铆a a leer este libro jam谩s. Hay miles de historias que me est谩n esperando. Solo repetir铆a aquellas que me tocan el alma en la mayor parte de sus p谩ginas, como es el caso de mi querido libro, La Historia Interminable.
Como ya se sobreentender谩 por los p谩rrafos pasados, los personajes han estado excelentemente desarrollados. No me ha parecido tan sencillo comprender a los rusos del siglo XIX, pero entre m谩s fui avanzando m谩s fui comprendiendo el modo karamazoviano como viv铆an los seres de aquella 茅poca. Principal, y naturalmente, los tres hermanos Karamazov fueron los de mejor desarrollo, aunque no por ello me inclino a elegir un personaje favorito de la obra. Todos tienen sus tonalidades de bondad y maldad, por lo que comprendo a los personajes, y comprendo sus acciones, pero no lograron inmortalizarse en mi memoria. Eso s铆, si tuviera que elegir forzosamente un personaje a destacar, entonces no elegir铆a a ning煤n Karamazov, sino al abogado Fetiuk贸vich, que me sorprendi贸 gratamente por su gran capacidad para presentar diferentes perspectivas de una misma situaci贸n; perspectivas que no hab铆amos ni remotamente tenido en cuenta.
Ya casi para terminar, debo tambi茅n reconocer que he sufrido bastante con los nombres de los personajes. Siempre he cre铆do que los nombres m谩s dif铆ciles de diferenciar son los que se encuentran en novelas asi谩ticas 鈥攅specialmente chinas鈥�, pero la verdad es que sufr铆 bastante con los nombres rusos. Todos los nombres se me parec铆an, no lograba ni siquiera memorizarlos y mucho menos pronunciarlos. Lo digo con todo el respeto posible, pero esos nombres para m铆 fueron como trabalenguas nivel imposible. Vuelvo y reitero, lo digo con todo el respeto posible. S茅 que para aquellas personas nuestros nombres tambi茅n son extra帽os. Si ofendo a alguien, no es mi intenci贸n hacerlo, en serio que lo siento mucho, solo expreso mi opini贸n.
Podr铆a seguir escribiendo muchos detalles m谩s, pero no quiero desvelar mucho de la trama, ni tampoco quiero realizar ning煤n tipo de spoiler. Como ya lo he mencionado en varias rese帽as, los spoilers no deber铆an existir, matan la trama y te la friegan.
En resumen, Los hermanos Karamazov es una obra madura, que con la exposici贸n de una familia tan peculiar, te intenta dar muchas lecciones sobre la vida en general; lecciones que pueden tocarte el alma, o bien, pueden no hacerlo, todo dependiendo de la conexi贸n que sientas con la forma de pensar del autor. Por ejemplo, pueden parecerte las reflexiones sobre la sociedad, vanas y repetitivas, pero puedes conmoverte cuando te hablan sobre la familia, sobre la maldad del hombre en el pasado, etc. No es un libro que considere apto para todas las personas, ya que depende mucho del ritmo de lectura al cual t煤 est茅s acostumbrado, pero tambi茅n debemos entender como lectores del siglo XXI, que la forma de escribir del siglo XIX y de nuestra actualidad es bastante diferente, y que no podemos esperar de un libro cl谩sico de m谩s de doscientos a帽os la intensidad que encontramos en obras actuales que han sido dise帽adas espec铆ficamente para ello. No es un cl谩sico sencillo, lo reconozco, pero tampoco es imposible de leerlo. Solo es cuesti贸n de tener paciencia, no tener expectativas, intentar conectarnos con la prosa de Dostoievski, y arriesgarnos a experimentarlo por nosotros mismos. Mi calificaci贸n de cuatro estrellas expresa claramente que este libro me ha parecido muy interesante, me atrever铆a a decir incluso que es una obra maestra, pero que honestamente no me conmocion贸 con la magnitud que esperaba, no con la magnitud como s铆 lo hizo un peque帽o cuento de treinta p谩ginas. En esta ocasi贸n, la batalla del ring ha finalizado en empate.
En realidad 4,2
Este libro me hace enfrentar una lucha feroz y salvaje en mi interior. Una lucha entre ser despiadado, o ser comprensivo; entre ser destructivo, o ser amable; entre ser un Karamazov, o simplemente no serlo. Empiezo esta rese帽a con estas palabras porque sinceramente no ha sido f谩cil decidir el tipo de cr铆tica que realizar铆a para esta ocasi贸n. En un lado del ring, se encuentra el Steven despiadado y juzgador, que est谩 esperando la oportunidad de pulverizar con sus palabras cualquier obra que lo haya dejado insatisfecho, o que no haya disfrutado plenamente; pero, en el otro lado del ring, se encuentra el Steven prudente y positivo, que con mucha calma sabe destacar lo bueno de cada obra y logra minimizar los detalles negativos de cada historia. Generalmente esos combates se resuelven f谩cilmente con un knockout, y descifrar el resultado es solo cuesti贸n de minutos; pero, para esta ocasi贸n el combate ha estado bastante re帽ido y mucho m谩s dif铆cil ha sido tomar una decisi贸n.
Comenc茅 a leer esta obra, no solo por la popularidad del autor, sino tambi茅n porque varias obras de su autor铆a realmente me interesan, y quiero leerlas en el futuro. Mi primer, y 煤nico acercamiento a Dostoievski, hab铆a sido la lectura de un peque帽o cuento llamado El sue帽o de un hombre rid铆culo 鈥攅l cual recomiendo bastante鈥�, en el cual finalic茅 completamente satisfecho por la manera como el autor ruso logr贸 transmitir en menos de treinta p谩ginas tantas observaciones y cr铆ticas sobre la vida en general. Con esta experiencia, entonces mi cerebro, bas谩ndose en su l贸gica tom贸 apresuradamente la siguiente conclusi贸n: Si en un cuento de treinta p谩ginas has quedado tan satisfecho, 驴te imaginas, Steven, la experiencia tan incre铆ble que vivir谩s en ese libro de mil p谩ginas? Entonces me decid铆, busqu茅 un espacio, comenc茅 a leer y efectivamente me gust贸 mucho el libro. Fue una lectura con una prosa bastante destacada, que se me asemej贸 a la combinaci贸n entre Victor Hugo, por la forma como estructura su historia, y Gabriel Garc铆a M谩rquez, por la duraci贸n que pueden llegar a tener algunos p谩rrafos y la cantidad de temas diversos que se encuentran all铆. Es una prosa 鈥攊r贸nicamente鈥� f谩cil de leer, pero que en mi opini贸n personal, ralentiza en exceso la velocidad a la que transcurren los hechos descritos en el libro. Para ser completamente honesto sent铆 que en las m谩s de mil p谩ginas no sucedieron tantas situaciones como esperaba, y tambi茅n percib铆 que desde el inicio se revel贸 demasiado pronto el verdadero cl铆max del argumento. Desde los primeros cap铆tulos es f谩cil detectar el problema principal que vivir谩n los protagonistas, con la 煤nica diferencia de que desconocemos la ruta que vivir谩n para llegar hasta all铆, por lo que eso me decepcion贸 un poco. No me malinterpreten, no me ha parecido aburrido el argumento, solo que no cre铆 que esa din谩mica del principio fuera a perdurar para todas las p谩ginas, quiz谩s esperaba un secreto que m谩s adelante me sorprendiera, quiz谩s esperaba algo as铆, pero no sucedi贸. Hay ocasiones en las que un libro est谩 bien escrito, el argumento principal tambi茅n es interesante, pero en el que la velocidad y duraci贸n excesiva de algunas partes puede llegar a hacerte sentir que est谩s teniendo una lectura interminable. Los libros largos me encantan, tengo muy buenas experiencias con muchos de ellos, pero con estos mastodontes de papel me gusta sentir que cada p谩gina ha valido la pena, y con este libro no viv铆 eso. Hubo partes muy interesantes, pero no todo el tiempo.
Ahora bien, eso no significa que el libro no valga la pena. El libro tiene todos los componentes de aquel libro cl谩sico que te invita a reflexionar sobre cientos de detalles de la vida. 驴Qu茅 est谩 mal? 驴Qu茅 est谩 bien? 驴En qu茅 debemos mejorar como sociedad? Dostoievski en esta obra te deja con la sensaci贸n de que, a pesar de que han pasado varios siglos y tenemos tanta diversidad de cultura con respecto a nuestros antepasados, seguimos enfrentando dur铆simas batallas donde la protagonista es la conciencia. La conciencia te puede ayudar a sentir paz, pero tambi茅n te puede condenar de por vida, eso en caso de que nunca lleguemos a perdonarnos por nuestras malas acciones que no dese谩bamos hacer. El tema m谩s importante de esta novela, en mi opini贸n, es la conciencia, y con cada uno de los personajes de este libro, podremos notar c贸mo batallan todos los d铆as de su vida con ese silencioso 芦enemigo禄. 驴Realmente quiero hacer el bien, o simplemente quiero evitar hacer el mal? Igualmente encontramos mensajes importantes sobre la familia, respetar a los padres, el dinero, la avaricia, la capacidad de tomar decisiones, etc. Personalmente no todas sus palabras lograron sensibilizarme sobre los temas presentados, pero s铆 hubo varias que me tocaron el alma, me dejaron emotivo, y asimismo perturbado por lo presentado.
Una aclaraci贸n importante es que uno de sus protagonistas est谩 cerca de la vida religiosa, por lo que en varias partes del libro el tema principal se centra en Dios, y en la religi贸n. Para aquellos que no creen en Dios puede parecer algo molesto leer tantas p谩ginas sobre el tema, y m谩s porque se cuenta la historia de c贸mo un monje se volvi贸 predicador, pero no es una situaci贸n que perdur茅 tanto tiempo porque el tema principal del libro no es la religi贸n, solo que el autor decide enfatizar demasiado en las creencias, cultura, pensamientos, etc., de cada uno de los personajes del libro 鈥搕anto principales, como secundarios- por lo que esta parte es necesaria para comprender al personaje cuasi principal de esta historia. Digo cuasi principal porque Dostoievski en sus primeras p谩ginas afirma que lo es, pero en mi opini贸n los protagonistas son los tres hermanos Karamazov, no solo el menor, Aliosha, sino los tres. Asimismo, hay otra conversaci贸n sobre la religi贸n entre un ateo y un religioso que tambi茅n debemos leer con cuidado. Pienso que son partes que requieren leerse con comprensi贸n, sin juzgar, y teniendo muy en cuenta que el objetivo del autor es exponer la mentalidad de cada personaje, y no cambiar nuestras creencias.
Sin lugar a dudas la mejor parte ha sido el final. Es la secci贸n donde comprendes que cada historia de cada personaje s铆 val铆a la pena para algo, y que sin la debida exposici贸n de estas mini-escenas seguramente este acto final no ser铆a tan llamativo e interesante como lo es en verdad. Por un momento cre铆 que no valdr铆a la pena llegar hasta el final del libro, pero por esa secci贸n s铆 vali贸 resistir tantas y tantas horas de lectura que realic茅 por m谩s de dos meses. Les juro que si esa parte hubiera sido mala, la batalla del ring que mencion茅 al comienzo de esta rese帽a habr铆a quedado definida en menos de cinco segundos. Afortunadamente ha valido la pena llegar hasta el final, aunque si me preguntaran no volver铆a a leer este libro jam谩s. Hay miles de historias que me est谩n esperando. Solo repetir铆a aquellas que me tocan el alma en la mayor parte de sus p谩ginas, como es el caso de mi querido libro, La Historia Interminable.
Como ya se sobreentender谩 por los p谩rrafos pasados, los personajes han estado excelentemente desarrollados. No me ha parecido tan sencillo comprender a los rusos del siglo XIX, pero entre m谩s fui avanzando m谩s fui comprendiendo el modo karamazoviano como viv铆an los seres de aquella 茅poca. Principal, y naturalmente, los tres hermanos Karamazov fueron los de mejor desarrollo, aunque no por ello me inclino a elegir un personaje favorito de la obra. Todos tienen sus tonalidades de bondad y maldad, por lo que comprendo a los personajes, y comprendo sus acciones, pero no lograron inmortalizarse en mi memoria. Eso s铆, si tuviera que elegir forzosamente un personaje a destacar, entonces no elegir铆a a ning煤n Karamazov, sino al abogado Fetiuk贸vich, que me sorprendi贸 gratamente por su gran capacidad para presentar diferentes perspectivas de una misma situaci贸n; perspectivas que no hab铆amos ni remotamente tenido en cuenta.
Ya casi para terminar, debo tambi茅n reconocer que he sufrido bastante con los nombres de los personajes. Siempre he cre铆do que los nombres m谩s dif铆ciles de diferenciar son los que se encuentran en novelas asi谩ticas 鈥攅specialmente chinas鈥�, pero la verdad es que sufr铆 bastante con los nombres rusos. Todos los nombres se me parec铆an, no lograba ni siquiera memorizarlos y mucho menos pronunciarlos. Lo digo con todo el respeto posible, pero esos nombres para m铆 fueron como trabalenguas nivel imposible. Vuelvo y reitero, lo digo con todo el respeto posible. S茅 que para aquellas personas nuestros nombres tambi茅n son extra帽os. Si ofendo a alguien, no es mi intenci贸n hacerlo, en serio que lo siento mucho, solo expreso mi opini贸n.
Podr铆a seguir escribiendo muchos detalles m谩s, pero no quiero desvelar mucho de la trama, ni tampoco quiero realizar ning煤n tipo de spoiler. Como ya lo he mencionado en varias rese帽as, los spoilers no deber铆an existir, matan la trama y te la friegan.
En resumen, Los hermanos Karamazov es una obra madura, que con la exposici贸n de una familia tan peculiar, te intenta dar muchas lecciones sobre la vida en general; lecciones que pueden tocarte el alma, o bien, pueden no hacerlo, todo dependiendo de la conexi贸n que sientas con la forma de pensar del autor. Por ejemplo, pueden parecerte las reflexiones sobre la sociedad, vanas y repetitivas, pero puedes conmoverte cuando te hablan sobre la familia, sobre la maldad del hombre en el pasado, etc. No es un libro que considere apto para todas las personas, ya que depende mucho del ritmo de lectura al cual t煤 est茅s acostumbrado, pero tambi茅n debemos entender como lectores del siglo XXI, que la forma de escribir del siglo XIX y de nuestra actualidad es bastante diferente, y que no podemos esperar de un libro cl谩sico de m谩s de doscientos a帽os la intensidad que encontramos en obras actuales que han sido dise帽adas espec铆ficamente para ello. No es un cl谩sico sencillo, lo reconozco, pero tampoco es imposible de leerlo. Solo es cuesti贸n de tener paciencia, no tener expectativas, intentar conectarnos con la prosa de Dostoievski, y arriesgarnos a experimentarlo por nosotros mismos. Mi calificaci贸n de cuatro estrellas expresa claramente que este libro me ha parecido muy interesante, me atrever铆a a decir incluso que es una obra maestra, pero que honestamente no me conmocion贸 con la magnitud que esperaba, no con la magnitud como s铆 lo hizo un peque帽o cuento de treinta p谩ginas. En esta ocasi贸n, la batalla del ring ha finalizado en empate.
May 5, 2017
鬲賵賱爻鬲賵蹖 賵 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖
鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賶 亘丕 丿丕爻鬲丕賷賵爻賰賶貙 賲孬賱 鬲賮丕賵鬲 爻毓丿賶 賵 丨丕賮馗賴.
卮毓乇賴丕賶 爻毓丿賶貙 爻賴賱 賵 賲賲鬲賳毓賴: 賷毓賳賶 丕夭 亘爻 爻丕丿賴 賵 乇賵丕賳 賴爻鬲賳貙 丌丿賲 賮賰乇 賲賶 賰賳賴 爻乇賵丿賳 賴賲趩賷賳 卮毓乇賶 賰丕乇賶 賳丿丕乇賴. 賵賱賶 賵賯鬲賶 賲賶 禺賵丕丿 賲孬賱卮 乇賵 亘诏賴貙 賲賶 亘賷賳賴 丕賲賰丕賳 賳丿丕乇賴. 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賶 賴賲 賴賲賷賳 胤賵乇賴.
卮毓乇賴丕賶 丨丕賮馗貙 賵賱賶 賷賴 噩賵乇賷賴 賰賴 丌丿賲 賵賯鬲賶 賲賶 禺賵賳賴貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 賮賰乇賽 鬲丨丿賾蹖 賴賲 亘賴 賲禺蹖賾賱賴 卮 禺胤賵乇 賳賲賶 賰賳賴貙 亘賱賰賴 丨賷乇丕賳 賲賶 賲賵賳賴 賰賴 賷賴 丕賳爻丕賳 趩胤賵乇 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 賴賲趩賷賳 卮毓乇賶 亘诏賴貨 丕夭 亘爻 丕賱賮丕馗 賵 賲毓丕賳賶 賵 賲囟丕賲賷賳 毓噩賷亘 賵 睾乇賷亘賶 丿丕乇賴 賵 倬乇 丕夭 卮賷丿丕賷賶 賵 噩賳賵賳賴. 丿丕爻鬲丕賷賵爻賰賶 丕賷賳 胤賵乇賷賴.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘
亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 (亘賴 乇睾賲 毓丿賴 蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖). 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇卮貙 噩賳丕蹖鬲 賵 賲讴丕賮丕鬲賴 賵 亘毓丿貙 丕亘賱賴. 丕賲丕 丿乇 乇丿賴 蹖 爻賵賲貙 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 賲爻鬲胤丕亘 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖诏蹖乇賴 賵 爻賵賲蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖 亘賵丿賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘賵丿賳.
丌賱讴爻蹖 賯丿賾蹖爻
賴乇 讴丿賵賲 丕夭 爻賴 亘乇丕丿乇貙 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 卮诏乇賮 賵 夭蹖亘丕 賵 诏丕賴蹖 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 丿丕乇賳. 丕賲丕 丕賵賳 讴爻蹖 讴賴 賲賳 毓賲蹖賯丕賸 賵 丕夭 毓賲賯 噩丕賳賲 亘丕賴丕卮 賴賲匕丕鬲 倬賳丿丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賲貙 丌賱蹖賵卮丕貙 亘乇丕丿乇 讴賵趩讴 鬲乇 亘賵丿.
賲卮丕亘賴 丕蹖賳 卮禺氐蹖鬲 爻丕賱讴 乇賵貙 丿乇 賴蹖趩 乇賲丕賳 丿蹖诏賴 丕蹖 賳丿蹖丿賲 賵 亘毓蹖丿 賲蹖丿賵賳賲 亘亘蹖賳賲. 趩乇丕貙 丕賲孬丕賱 "禺乇賲诏爻" 蹖丕 "爻乇诏卮鬲賴 蹖 乇丕賴 丨賯" 賴賲 卮禺氐蹖鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 賲匕賴亘蹖 丌賮乇蹖丿賳貙 賵賱蹖 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 爻賱賵讴 毓馗蹖賲 丌賱蹖賵卮丕貙 丕賵賳丕 賮賯胤 亘趩賴 亘丕夭蹖 賴爻鬲賳.
鬲賮丕賵鬲 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賶 亘丕 丿丕爻鬲丕賷賵爻賰賶貙 賲孬賱 鬲賮丕賵鬲 爻毓丿賶 賵 丨丕賮馗賴.
卮毓乇賴丕賶 爻毓丿賶貙 爻賴賱 賵 賲賲鬲賳毓賴: 賷毓賳賶 丕夭 亘爻 爻丕丿賴 賵 乇賵丕賳 賴爻鬲賳貙 丌丿賲 賮賰乇 賲賶 賰賳賴 爻乇賵丿賳 賴賲趩賷賳 卮毓乇賶 賰丕乇賶 賳丿丕乇賴. 賵賱賶 賵賯鬲賶 賲賶 禺賵丕丿 賲孬賱卮 乇賵 亘诏賴貙 賲賶 亘賷賳賴 丕賲賰丕賳 賳丿丕乇賴. 鬲賵賱爻鬲賵賶 賴賲 賴賲賷賳 胤賵乇賴.
卮毓乇賴丕賶 丨丕賮馗貙 賵賱賶 賷賴 噩賵乇賷賴 賰賴 丌丿賲 賵賯鬲賶 賲賶 禺賵賳賴貙 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 賮賰乇賽 鬲丨丿賾蹖 賴賲 亘賴 賲禺蹖賾賱賴 卮 禺胤賵乇 賳賲賶 賰賳賴貙 亘賱賰賴 丨賷乇丕賳 賲賶 賲賵賳賴 賰賴 賷賴 丕賳爻丕賳 趩胤賵乇 鬲賵賳爻鬲賴 賴賲趩賷賳 卮毓乇賶 亘诏賴貨 丕夭 亘爻 丕賱賮丕馗 賵 賲毓丕賳賶 賵 賲囟丕賲賷賳 毓噩賷亘 賵 睾乇賷亘賶 丿丕乇賴 賵 倬乇 丕夭 卮賷丿丕賷賶 賵 噩賳賵賳賴. 丿丕爻鬲丕賷賵爻賰賶 丕賷賳 胤賵乇賷賴.
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘
亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 (亘賴 乇睾賲 毓丿賴 蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖). 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇卮貙 噩賳丕蹖鬲 賵 賲讴丕賮丕鬲賴 賵 亘毓丿貙 丕亘賱賴. 丕賲丕 丿乇 乇丿賴 蹖 爻賵賲貙 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 賲爻鬲胤丕亘 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖诏蹖乇賴 賵 爻賵賲蹖賳 丕孬乇 丿丕爻鬲丕蹖賵爻讴蹖 亘賵丿賳貙 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 丕丿亘蹖丕鬲 亘賵丿賳.
丌賱讴爻蹖 賯丿賾蹖爻
賴乇 讴丿賵賲 丕夭 爻賴 亘乇丕丿乇貙 丿賳蹖丕蹖蹖 卮诏乇賮 賵 夭蹖亘丕 賵 诏丕賴蹖 賵丨卮鬲賳丕讴 丿丕乇賳. 丕賲丕 丕賵賳 讴爻蹖 讴賴 賲賳 毓賲蹖賯丕賸 賵 丕夭 毓賲賯 噩丕賳賲 亘丕賴丕卮 賴賲匕丕鬲 倬賳丿丕乇蹖 讴乇丿賲貙 丌賱蹖賵卮丕貙 亘乇丕丿乇 讴賵趩讴 鬲乇 亘賵丿.
賲卮丕亘賴 丕蹖賳 卮禺氐蹖鬲 爻丕賱讴 乇賵貙 丿乇 賴蹖趩 乇賲丕賳 丿蹖诏賴 丕蹖 賳丿蹖丿賲 賵 亘毓蹖丿 賲蹖丿賵賳賲 亘亘蹖賳賲. 趩乇丕貙 丕賲孬丕賱 "禺乇賲诏爻" 蹖丕 "爻乇诏卮鬲賴 蹖 乇丕賴 丨賯" 賴賲 卮禺氐蹖鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 賲匕賴亘蹖 丌賮乇蹖丿賳貙 賵賱蹖 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱 爻賱賵讴 毓馗蹖賲 丌賱蹖賵卮丕貙 丕賵賳丕 賮賯胤 亘趩賴 亘丕夭蹖 賴爻鬲賳.
August 9, 2015
賴丕 賵賯丿 丕賳鬲賴鬲 丨賰丕賷丞 丌賱 賰丕乇賲丕夭賵賮
賱賲丕匕丕 丕賳鬲賴鬲責 賱賲丕匕丕 賱丕 賷賵噩丿 賱賴丕 噩夭亍 乇丕亘毓 賵禺丕賲爻.. 賵禺賲爻賷賳責
賰賷賮 鬲毓賷卮 賲毓 兀卮禺丕氐 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 1500 氐賮丨丞貙 孬賲 鬲賳鬲賴賷 賴賰匕丕 亘睾鬲丞
兀賳鬲 賱賲 鬲毓卮 賲毓賴賲貙 賮賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳丕爻 鬲毓丕卮乇賴賲 賵賷毓丕卮乇賵賳賰 丿賵賳 兀賳 鬲賮賴賲賴賲 兀賵 賷賮賴賲賵賰
賲丕匕丕 毓賳 賰賱 賮乇丿 賮賷 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯氐丞
兀賳鬲 鬲睾賵氐 賮賷 兀毓賲丕賯 兀毓賲丕賯賴賲貙 鬲賮賴賲 丿賵丕賮毓賴賲 丕賱賳賮爻賷丞貙 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲賴賲 丕賱禺乇賯丕亍 賵乇亘賲丕 丕賱丿賳賷卅丞貙 丨鬲賶 兀賳賰 鬲鬲胤賱毓 毓賱賶 兀丨丕丿賷孬賴賲 賲毓 兀賳賮爻賴賲
賵鬲氐亘丨 賲鬲毓賱賯賸丕 亘賴賲 賵亘賲氐賷乇賴賲貙 孬賲 賵賴丕 鬲賳鬲賴賷 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 賮噩兀丞!
鬲賯賵賱 乇賳丿丞 亘胤賱丞 兀毓乇丕爻 丌賲賳丞: 賵丕丨丿 賲孬賱 睾爻賾丕賳貙 賷噩亘 兀賳 賷爻賲丨賵丕 賱賴 兀賳 賷賰鬲亘 乇賵丕賷丞 賵丕丨丿丞 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 亘毓丿 丕賱賲賵鬲
賵丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷 兀賷囟賸丕 毓夭賷夭鬲賷
賷噩亘 兀賳 賷爻賲丨賵丕 賱賴 亘賰鬲丕亘丞 乇賵丕賷丞 兀禺乇賶 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱貙 賲噩賱丿 丌禺乇貙 噩夭亍 丌禺乇 賲賳 丨賷丕丞 賴丐賱丕亍 丕賱賰丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮!
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賱孬 賵丕賱兀禺賷乇 賲賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賴賵 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賰孬乇 廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賲賳 亘賷賳 丕賱兀噩夭丕亍 賰賱賴丕
賴賳丕 賵亘賲賳鬲賴賷 丕賱匕賰丕亍 賷賯賵賲 丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷 亘鬲丨賱賷賱 爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷 毓亘賯乇賷 賱賰賱 鬲氐乇賮貙 賵賱兀賯賱 丨乇賰丞貙 賵賱兀丿賳賷 賴賮賵丞 氐丿乇鬲 毓賳 兀亘胤丕賱賴 賮賷 丕賱噩夭卅賷賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯賷賳
賴賳丕 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 胤乇丨 賮乇囟賷丕鬲 賱賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 毓賱賷賴 鬲賮爻賷乇 爻賱賵賰 丕賱兀亘胤丕賱 賲賳 賵噩賴丕鬲 賳馗乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞
丕賱兀賵賱賶 鬲鬲賲孬賱 賮賷 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賵賰賷賱 丕賱賳賷丕亘丞貙 賵丕賱兀禺乇賶 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 丕賱賲丨丕賲賷 賵丕賱丿賮丕毓
丨賯賸丕 丕賱賳賮爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賴賷 賲賳 兀毓賯丿 丕賱賲禺賱賵賯丕鬲 賵兀賰孬乇賴丕 鬲卮毓亘賸丕
賴賳丕賰 鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 鬲賳亘毓 賲賳 丕賱賮乇丿 丿賵賳 兀賳 賷賳鬲亘賴 賱賴丕 兀賵 賷賯氐丿 卮賷卅賸丕 賲丕 賲賳 賵乇丕亍賴丕
鬲氐乇賮丕鬲 丨賲賯丕亍 爻禺賷賮丞 賱丕 鬲卮賰賱 兀賷 賯賷賲丞
賱賰賳 丨賷賳 鬲賰賵賳 亘丨馗 毓丕孬乇 賲孬賱 丿賲鬲乇賷 賰丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮 賮廿賳 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲氐乇賮丕丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕賮賴丞 爻鬲噩鬲賲毓 賲毓賸丕 賱鬲胤賷丨 亘丨賷丕鬲賰 賵賲爻鬲賯亘賱賰!
丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱賳賮爻賷 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰 賲賳 兀氐毓亘 丕賱毓賱賵賲貙 兀賳鬲 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 賮賴賲賴丕 賵亘賳丕亍 賲賳賴噩 禺丕氐 亘賴丕
賮賰賱賴丕 賯丕卅賲丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲禺賲賷賳丕鬲
賮賰賷賮 賱賰 兀賳 鬲囟毓 賱賴丕 賲賳賴噩 賲丨丿丿 賱丿乇丕爻鬲賴丕 賵鬲丿乇賷爻賴丕
賴賷 丨賯賸丕 賰賲丕 賯丕賱 丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷:
丕賱爻賷賰賵賱賵噩賷丕 爻賱丕丨 匕賵 丨丿賷賳
賵亘乇賴賳 毓賱賶 兀賳賴 爻賱賵賰 賵丕丨丿 賲賳 卮禺氐 賲丕貙 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷丨賱賱賴 丕賱卮禺氐-賵亘丿賱丕卅賱 賲賯賳毓丞- 毓賱賶 兀爻丕爻 賲毓賷賳 賵賷爻鬲賳鬲噩 賲賳賴 賳鬲丕卅噩 賲丨丿丿丞 鬲鬲賵丕賮賯 賵賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 亘丕賱胤亘毓
賵賷賯賵賲 丌禺乇 賷丨賲賱 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 賲禺丕賱賮丞 鬲賲丕賲賸丕 賱賵噩賴丞 丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱兀賵賱賷貙 賮賷丨賱賱 丕賱爻賱賵賰 賵賷爻鬲禺賱氐 賲賳賴 賳鬲丕卅噩 鬲鬲賵丕賮賯 賲毓 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賴 兀賷囟賸丕
亘賱 賵亘丿賱丕卅賱 賲賳胤賯賷丞 賲賯賳毓丞 兀禺乇賶!!
丨賯賸丕 廿賳賴丕 爻賱丕丨 匕賵 丨丿賷賳
賱丕 鬲丨鬲丕噩 毓賱賲丕亍 賵賱丕 丿丕乇爻賷賳 賱賵囟毓 賳馗乇賷丕鬲 兀睾賱亘賴丕 賲亘賳賷賾 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲禺賲賷賳 賵丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 賵丕賱馗賵丕賴乇
賴賷 賮賯胤 鬲丨鬲丕噩 賱卮禺氐 賰卮禺氐 丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷
丕噩鬲賲毓 丕賱丨夭賳 賵丕賱兀賱賲 賵丕賱賲毓丕賳丕丞 賲毓賸丕貙 賱賷毓胤賵賴 賯賱亘 丨爻丕爻 賷卮毓乇 亘賲毓丕賳丕丞 丕賱兀禺乇賷賳 賵賷睾賵氐 賮賷 丿丕禺賱賴賲
賵丕賱兀匕賰賷貙 鬲賱賰 丕賱賯丿乇丞 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓亘賷乇 毓賳賴賲 亘毓胤賮 乇睾賲 賰賱 賲丕 賯丿 賷賯鬲乇賮賵賴 賲賳 兀賮毓丕賱 亘卮毓丞
兀賳鬲 賲毓 丕賱卮禺賵氐 丕賱鬲賷 賷禺賱賯賴丕 丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷貙 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 鬲丿賷賳 兀賷賸丕 賲賳賴賲
兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳賴 丨賷賳賲丕 賯丕賱 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賲賱丞貙 廿賳賲丕 賰丕賳 賷氐賮 賳賮爻賴
廿賱賶 賱賯丕亍 丌禺乇 兀賷賴丕 丕賱毓夭賷夭 丿賵爻鬲賵賷賮爻賰賷
毓夭丕卅賷 丕賱賵丨賷丿 兀賳 賴賳丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲噩賱丿丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 禺賱賯鬲 亘賴丕 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丨賷賵丕鬲 賱卮禺賵氐 兀毓鬲賯丿 兀賳 賲毓丕賳丕鬲賴丕 賱賳 鬲賯賱 毓賳 賲毓丕賳丕丞 丌賱 賰丕乇丕賲丕夭賵賮
賱丕 鬲禺丕賮賵丕 丕賱丨賷丕丞貙 賲丕 兀噩賲賱 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丨賷賳 賷丨賯賯 丕賱賲乇亍 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 卮賷卅賸丕 賲賳 禺賷乇 賵毓丿賱
鬲賲賾鬲
June 5, 2019
Russian novels always get better of me, I am left battered both body and mind. But the exhaustion is like the exhaustion of sex (can鈥檛 find more fitting analogy) breathless and full of life at the same. Like the traveler who was long gone on a journey and on his return, bathes for a long good hour, taking good care of every little pore of body, soaping himself as he sinks in tub very slowly, and as water pours over him he shuts his eyes and with numbing senses recalls everything in an episodic manner, the tiniest details of his journey, and that鈥檚 the magic of Dostoyevsky, his reader is exasperated by the far off tours but at the end, is exalted nonetheless!
The hell we create through our thoughts for ourselves, is never been better visited by any other but D.the endless war we are in with ourselves, the fluctuations of our mind, the contradictions of our ideas and creation of ideals, the conflict of God or no God, the choice of being sinner or saint, is all in us, within us, and Dostoyevsky leaves nothing unsaid in telling the tale of who we are, and what we choose to hide, the characteristic quality of his prose is directness, he sometimes, undoubtedly descends to the elegant, but his element is great. He occasionally invests himself to an extent, but his natural port is human psychology.
鈥淛e pense, donc je suis, I know that for a fact, all the rest, all these worlds, God and even Satan鈥攁ll that is not proved, to my mind. Does all that exist of itself, or is it only an emanation of myself, a logical development of my ego which alone has existed forever?鈥� (p. 781)
Brother Karamazov is not the tale to be taken as a chronicle of one family and parricide only, the murder is not a mystery here, neither is the murderer, it鈥檚 all known at the instant murder takes place, or even before, the plethora of themes and thoughts runs deep in the waters of this gigantic ocean that the volume is! We have in detail, the characters donned into garbs of confused expressions about other characters and on the brink of self-assessment and self-denial. And as the novel proceeds, there are peculiar ideas, echoing into the minds of characters, ideas get doubled or split into multiple strings as the tale follows, Dostoyevsky makes his characters suffer by their own doomed states, their own beings are their torture cells, no one escapes this suffering, no one!
The question of individual identity mounts many a time in the story, as the devil visits Ivan or so he fancies; the boundaries of one soul and the influence of wishes thought to be unvoiced are questioned throughout the novel, the suppressed/unidentified wishes of one character are accomplished by the other, For instance, the relationship between Ivan and Smerdyakov, with Ivan apparently the stronger and more intelligent, and Smerdyakov the instrument of his will. Ivan鈥檚 unconscious wishes for his father鈥檚 death direct Smerdyakov, who communicates with the unconscious directly; Smerdyakov is, then, the master, the controller of fate simply because he is able to penetrate the barrier of consciousness that must conventionally deny evil impulses.
We are quite restrained to admit the bastard smerdykov shrewder than Iven, he is cleverer and is more strategic with his nihilistic views, and the self-centered epileptic is astonishingly strongest of the characters, he proves through actions that 鈥渁ll the things are lawful鈥�
Ah! How cold he is to lay us stark naked before us, we鈥檝e long known his brother Karamazov, we are them, if not wholly, but in parts, the impulsive, goodhearted Dimitri is recognizable to us like a closed kin,we know Ivan, the skeptic genius and we鈥檝e been him too in our hearts, haunted by uncertainty, tormented by conscience....
鈥淒o you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child鈥檚 prayer to 鈥榙ear, kind God鈥�!鈥� (p. 287)
The hell we create through our thoughts for ourselves, is never been better visited by any other but D.the endless war we are in with ourselves, the fluctuations of our mind, the contradictions of our ideas and creation of ideals, the conflict of God or no God, the choice of being sinner or saint, is all in us, within us, and Dostoyevsky leaves nothing unsaid in telling the tale of who we are, and what we choose to hide, the characteristic quality of his prose is directness, he sometimes, undoubtedly descends to the elegant, but his element is great. He occasionally invests himself to an extent, but his natural port is human psychology.
鈥淛e pense, donc je suis, I know that for a fact, all the rest, all these worlds, God and even Satan鈥攁ll that is not proved, to my mind. Does all that exist of itself, or is it only an emanation of myself, a logical development of my ego which alone has existed forever?鈥� (p. 781)
Brother Karamazov is not the tale to be taken as a chronicle of one family and parricide only, the murder is not a mystery here, neither is the murderer, it鈥檚 all known at the instant murder takes place, or even before, the plethora of themes and thoughts runs deep in the waters of this gigantic ocean that the volume is! We have in detail, the characters donned into garbs of confused expressions about other characters and on the brink of self-assessment and self-denial. And as the novel proceeds, there are peculiar ideas, echoing into the minds of characters, ideas get doubled or split into multiple strings as the tale follows, Dostoyevsky makes his characters suffer by their own doomed states, their own beings are their torture cells, no one escapes this suffering, no one!
The question of individual identity mounts many a time in the story, as the devil visits Ivan or so he fancies; the boundaries of one soul and the influence of wishes thought to be unvoiced are questioned throughout the novel, the suppressed/unidentified wishes of one character are accomplished by the other, For instance, the relationship between Ivan and Smerdyakov, with Ivan apparently the stronger and more intelligent, and Smerdyakov the instrument of his will. Ivan鈥檚 unconscious wishes for his father鈥檚 death direct Smerdyakov, who communicates with the unconscious directly; Smerdyakov is, then, the master, the controller of fate simply because he is able to penetrate the barrier of consciousness that must conventionally deny evil impulses.
We are quite restrained to admit the bastard smerdykov shrewder than Iven, he is cleverer and is more strategic with his nihilistic views, and the self-centered epileptic is astonishingly strongest of the characters, he proves through actions that 鈥渁ll the things are lawful鈥�
Ah! How cold he is to lay us stark naked before us, we鈥檝e long known his brother Karamazov, we are them, if not wholly, but in parts, the impulsive, goodhearted Dimitri is recognizable to us like a closed kin,we know Ivan, the skeptic genius and we鈥檝e been him too in our hearts, haunted by uncertainty, tormented by conscience....
鈥淒o you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child鈥檚 prayer to 鈥榙ear, kind God鈥�!鈥� (p. 287)
July 6, 2016
I will generally finish a novel no matter what...but I could not push through this one. I have tried twice, so I suppose this is going to be a novel that doesn't ever make it to my "read" list.
UPDATE: It took me three starts and an unusual amount of determination to finish this novel. I was inches away from abandoning it for good and all. I am glad I didn鈥檛, but believe me when I say I hope I never encounter a book this hard to endure again in my reading lifetime.
The themes Dostoevsky tackles along the way are significant and weighty. Just when he begins to move the story forward, he always seems to stop and write a few chapters of political or religious philosophy, and the reader is required to stop with him, digest what the arguments mean, and weigh in personally on which side of the debate truth lies. The book inspires soul searching, but requires almost inhuman concentration.
The brothers themselves are atypical characters, volatile and impassioned, unpredictable and complicated. Nothing they do seems to be logical. Even Alyosha, who is easily understood to be the 鈥済ood鈥� brother, behaves sometimes in a way that is puzzling to my non-Russian mind. The father is a buffoon, and so crude and cruel that he garners no sympathy from me at all.
Over half way in, I feel that I do not care what happens to a single character here and that at least 90% of what has occurred makes no real sense. Then, things begin to gel, the story begins to move, I find myself caring about what happens to these men, particularly Dmitri (Mitya) and to the two women with whom he is involved. I know I will make it through this time.
I understand why this is considered an important work and a classic piece of literature. It addresses many important issues that have universal implications. What happens if you remove God from the equation? What purpose does faith serve in life? Does suffering lead to self-awareness and can it change a man for the better? To what extent are we morally responsible for others? If you wish a murder, if you fail to stop one, are you equally guilty with the man who commits the deed?
I suspect I will be pondering The Brothers Karamazov for a long while. I did not enjoy this read, but it will mean something to me. Perhaps, like Mitya, I needed to suffer to attain appreciation. At the very least, I have come away with a sense of accomplishment. Now for something very, very, very light.
UPDATE: It took me three starts and an unusual amount of determination to finish this novel. I was inches away from abandoning it for good and all. I am glad I didn鈥檛, but believe me when I say I hope I never encounter a book this hard to endure again in my reading lifetime.
The themes Dostoevsky tackles along the way are significant and weighty. Just when he begins to move the story forward, he always seems to stop and write a few chapters of political or religious philosophy, and the reader is required to stop with him, digest what the arguments mean, and weigh in personally on which side of the debate truth lies. The book inspires soul searching, but requires almost inhuman concentration.
The brothers themselves are atypical characters, volatile and impassioned, unpredictable and complicated. Nothing they do seems to be logical. Even Alyosha, who is easily understood to be the 鈥済ood鈥� brother, behaves sometimes in a way that is puzzling to my non-Russian mind. The father is a buffoon, and so crude and cruel that he garners no sympathy from me at all.
Over half way in, I feel that I do not care what happens to a single character here and that at least 90% of what has occurred makes no real sense. Then, things begin to gel, the story begins to move, I find myself caring about what happens to these men, particularly Dmitri (Mitya) and to the two women with whom he is involved. I know I will make it through this time.
I understand why this is considered an important work and a classic piece of literature. It addresses many important issues that have universal implications. What happens if you remove God from the equation? What purpose does faith serve in life? Does suffering lead to self-awareness and can it change a man for the better? To what extent are we morally responsible for others? If you wish a murder, if you fail to stop one, are you equally guilty with the man who commits the deed?
I suspect I will be pondering The Brothers Karamazov for a long while. I did not enjoy this read, but it will mean something to me. Perhaps, like Mitya, I needed to suffer to attain appreciation. At the very least, I have come away with a sense of accomplishment. Now for something very, very, very light.
June 29, 2023
鈥淵ou wanted to regenerate another man within yourself by means of suffering; in my opinion, if only you will remember that other man all your life and wherever you may flee to- that will be enough for you.鈥�
Dostoyevsky successfully captivates a narrative of futility and resentment, while exploring the notion with beauty.
To say a book with such gritty topics is bizarrely beautiful feels ironic, but the craft of this novel really generates a sense of emotion that I did not anticipate. From the depiction of religious and societal questioning, to the changeability of romantic and familial relationships- The Brothers Karamazov is a Journey, a long journey, but filled with the type of moral profundity that almost makes you forget that pages are passing by.
Each character serves a purpose, each brother is a personality worth exploring, every chapter presents new questions, new answers. The ending, a minefield of conflicting emotion.
This book is a long read, but entirely worth it.
Dostoyevsky successfully captivates a narrative of futility and resentment, while exploring the notion with beauty.
To say a book with such gritty topics is bizarrely beautiful feels ironic, but the craft of this novel really generates a sense of emotion that I did not anticipate. From the depiction of religious and societal questioning, to the changeability of romantic and familial relationships- The Brothers Karamazov is a Journey, a long journey, but filled with the type of moral profundity that almost makes you forget that pages are passing by.
Each character serves a purpose, each brother is a personality worth exploring, every chapter presents new questions, new answers. The ending, a minefield of conflicting emotion.
This book is a long read, but entirely worth it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 21,922 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.