The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The novel, published in 1880, is Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s last book. This is a rich novel, containing everything about human life. It deals with emotions, inner struggles and religious believes. It captures the human soul. The book centers around three brothers, Ivan, Dmitri and Alexei or Alyosha Fyodorovich Karamazov, and their relationship with their strange and difficult father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov. Ivan is intellectual and atheist, Dmitri is a sensualist and Alyosha is a novice in a monastery. Dostoyevsky was a master of creating believable, living characters. However, there were few female characters, and I would have liked them more nuanced. Katerina Ivanovna had a little depth, but Grushenka seemed one-dimensional. I would have liked to see the world from their perspective.

The book really gets going when Fyodor, the selfish and ruthless father, is murdered and Dmitri is arrested. The following trial is interesting and includes psychological themes such as morality and motive, discussed from different points of view by the attorney and prosecutor.

The dialogue is often deep, philisophical and interesting. But the book is heavy and sometimes so detailed that the pace becomes painstakingly slow. It is considered a masterpiece, and it really is, but I somehow got weary of the meticulous details and thereby cared less about the characters than I initually did. However, it is a great book and especially the last hundred pages are amazing.

War's unwomanly face by Svetlana Alexievich

Svetlana Alexievich has interviewed countless people during many years, to describe the soul of the Soviet Union, in her series "Voices from the Big Utopia". She received the Nobel price in literature in 2015. In this book, two hundred women speaks of the time during the war. How they fought the enemy, how they rescued wounded soldiers, and how they themselves fired sniper’s rifle, bombed and killed. They had learned to hate, but even during the darkest of times, their hearts loved, and they saved not only their own, but German soldiers as well. Svetlana Alexievich collects these stories and makes art.

This book really affected me. It feels like I have been there, at the front, among the soldiers. 
Together, they make a choir of voices, and I wonder whether it’s easier to understand the reality of that time from one single person’s testimony, or through the fabric of many memories. The book is full of strong voices that have been silent for forty years. It was time the emotional shards, the human destinies, were told.

This is not a hero book. This book is not focusing on the winning of the war, but on the reality during and after the war. The women's stories are colorful. They remembered feelings and details, and they never stopped appreciating beauty and art. Some refused to change from their dresses, others slept with their earrings, while yet others slept while sitting up to be able to wear hats as long as possible. Because, in daytime, everything that was considered female was forbidden.

Surprisingly many young women volunteered to fight at the front. At a very young age, they convinced their parents to be allowed to participate, or escaped from their homes to join the army and be sent to the front. The loyalty to their country was immense, and more important than their families. It was not only the young girls dreams. Some of the parents even wanted their young daughters to join the army. It's difficult to understand their enormous devotion. Their team spirit and companionship. It's a big difference between communism and today's individualism, and it's interesting to learn about a totally different perspective of live.

One might think that women’s part of the war indicates some gender equality, but even though women were allowed to join the army, the men treated them far from equal, and used all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. Their view of these women became very clear after the war, when many of them didn't want to marry a woman soldier, and even despised them. Half a million women sacrificed everything, and when returning from the war, they were forgotten. And while the male soldiers were received as heroes, the female soldiers were viewed as unfeminine and unattractive. I want to remember everyone. It’s difficult to explain, but I feel like I owe them that. They have been alone with their feelings for a very long time, abandoned by the society after the war. The least I can do is to listen to them, and remember them. She who made herself a white dress of a German parachute and married her love before a battle. She who let her daughter carry a bomb. She who drowned her own baby to not be found by the German soldiers. She who kissed her husband for the very last time. She who gave the enemy bread. She who was captured and tortured. She who still can’t handle the color red. She who came home and realized her child didn’t recognize her. She who returned home and found her own grave. And many more.

They all deserve to be remembered. This book makes them as invincible and immortal as they once were.

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

The novel was published 1873-1877 in The Russian Messenger. Fyodor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Nabokov and William Faulkner were all very impressed by it. Faulkner even claimed it to be the best work ever written.

The meeting of two women will irrevocably change their lives forever. When Anna Karenina gets to know Kitty Shcherbatskaya, she also gets the chance to know her acquaintance Vronsky. Kitty, on the other hand, has to get to know herself before knowing who she should get to know. The two women are the very opposites of each other but after this day they both begin to transform. The graceful Anna is destined to condemnation and the childish Kitty is destined to insightfulness - give or take a few years. It’s not until then that their true destiny can be revealed.

To follow the conventions of the time was essential, and much of the unhappiness in the book is due to the common view. In this way, the characters are trapped in the conventions of society and people's expectations, not free to make their own choices. Not until they decide to stop caring. Perhaps Karenin isn’t more unhappy than the society forces him to be. Perhaps Kitty’s feelings for a man that suites the aristocracy are not her own feelings. How do one know what’s true and what’s not when constantly affected by one’s environment? To what extent do people’s expectations around us influence us? This shows Tolstoy’s opinion of the higher social levels of society. He was himself apart of it, and didn’t like it. The character Anna, on the other hand, sacrifices not only being part of society but other things as well for the life she wants to live. It seems women often had to make these decisions. In a world of hypocrisy, Anna's brother, Oblonsky, is constantly unfaithful to his wife, while Anna’s situation makes her fall from grace. She is banned from the very same circles that receive both her brother and lover. 

Anna, a kind of feminist of her time, builds up a facade of indifference and seductive charm. Holding her head high, refusing to accept herself as a condemnd, fallen, disgraced woman, she is fighting with all the means accessible to her. Being dependent of a man outside marriage is slowly poisoning her. Behind the facade, her world is beginning to fall apart. Is it really possible for love to rise above social conditions?

Tolstoy writes in a magnificent way. Many themes are masterfully spreading a light over the Russian society in a very interesting time. Discussions about industrialization, agriculture, politics, education and religion reveal a country on the verge of turmoil. Parts of Russia wanted the country to Europeanize, while others wanted it to maintain its traditional values. There was an identity crisis, where the population spoke French while at the same time discussed what it meant to be russian. Russia was torn between people wanting to overthrow the tsar, while others wanted to industrialize agriculture for the country to become as modern as the west. All this is explained through the eyes of the characters. It’s fascinating to feel the dissatisfaction boiling beneath the surface, thriving and growing, the beginning of which would finally escalate into the Russian revolution.

Every chapter feels necessary to get to know and understand the characters. The only flaw is the sometimes long, tedious parts. Even though Levin with his existential philosophic pondering - not unlike Tolstoy himself - is a favorable character, the mowing was really tiresome. It can't be necessary to know so much about mowing. It isn’t even interesting in the first place. But Levin comes alive and shines in the presence of hard work with his peasents. In line with his own book where he describes that a man is influenced by his surroundings, he is himself influenced. When in town, he becomes a different person, but in the country he is always Levin.

What makes Tolstoy’s characters so convincing? Perhaps their tendency to be totally convinced at one time, and doubting the next. To be totally in love with someone, and the next moment not really sure. To be cynical, and from a sudden inspiration see people’s goodness. Their personalities are floating like waves in the sea, indefinite forms, evolving, changing, but never altering shapes. Tolstoy was a master when it came to character development. All these vivid contradictory characteristics make them human. They come alive before the reader's eyes. Anna with her perseverance and fear of abandonment, Karenin with his emotional torments and vengeful manner, Vronsky with his struggle of feelings and lack of understanding family bonds, Kitty with her naivety and attentiveness, Levin with his humanity and fits of jeolusy and despair, Varenka with her goodness and inspirational manner, Dolly with her endurance and indulgence, and Oblonsky with his love of women and way of giving advice.

In the center of it all stands Anna and Vronsky. We get to see a relationship from the first innocent glance, to a flourishing relationship, and to the final destruction. Anna and Vronky tear their relationship apart by circumstances caused by conventions. The contrast between the two main couples is strong. While one is evolving and prospering, the other is falling apart.

Time Magazine’s J. Peder Zane, along with William Faulkner, considers it to be the best book ever written. I think it’s definitely a must read for everyone that is in the least interested in a time of change, character development caused by internal but also external factors, and how it intertwine with human destiny. Not only does the book paint a picture of the former Russian society like a theater, where people have different roles to play on stage, judged by their appearance rather than their personal, authentic goodheartedness, and how this leads to one of the world's greatest love tragedies. It can also, with a little imagination, with a little imagination, be applied to the society of today.

The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol

A great inspiration to authors like Fyodor Dostoevsky, Gogols ”Overcoat” has survived 170 years and continues to mesmerize readers over the world. The short story centers around a titular councillor named Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin and his unfortunate experience with hierarchy and bureaucracy. When Akaky realizes he needs a new overcoat for work, his problems start.

There are certainly many different hidden meanings to interpret, if ignoring the practicalities and consider it from a more psychological perspective. The immense importance which is associated with materialism, not only when it comes to protection against the cold, but also regarding status in society, is worth considering. The way Akaky changes when wearing the new overcoat is interesting - perhaps the story is about an invisible man suddenly, with a piece of fabric, becoming the center of attention, just to be made invisible again? What happens, psychologically, if the feeling of communion and acceptance from others, is given and suddenly taken away? What is most prominent, however, is the bureaucracy that Akaky is facing - a down right obstacle, complicating everything, even preventing the purpose of the ministries. The message of the story is how this could affect someone of low hierarchy.

The Seagull by Anton Chekhov

The Seagull, 1896, received disastrous reviews initually, but when it was produced again, in 1898, it was a success. The depressed characters are easy to identify with. Most people in the novel are unhappy because they love people that don't really see them. A seagull shot by a man - as suggested by the character Trigorin, himself an author - is a metaphor for a person destroyed by unrequited love.

The play challenges the actors as well as the audience and readers because of the smooth writing of scenes and the character's mood, instead of a conventional play. The readers have to interpret the characters, from clues presented to them, as the most important themes are hidden from the stage. As in real life, the characters prefer not to talk about what's really on their mind. Chekhov's tecnique of the stream-of-consciousness is claimed to be original for his time. His wanted to ask the readers questions, and not to answer them. He wanted to present the readers with certain clues, challenge them, but not present them with a solution. The sub-textual content makes the play a rare piece of the 1800's.

”… I have no rest from myself, and i feel that I'm devouring my own life, that in order to make the honey which I give away to someone out there, I rob my best flowers of their pollen, I tear apart the flowers themselves and trample their roots. Am I not a madman?” - Trigorin.

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

The Master and Margarita was written between 1928 and 1940. It all begins with the Devil arriving in Moscow and interjecting in a conversation between to men about the existence of God.

It's layered, complicated plot with it's satire and philosophical context rises many questions. The novel consists of wizards, talking cats and flying pigs but at the same time it reveals a dysfunctional society. The paranoia, the fear of the police and the senseless arrests are common in this book and can be connected to the time of it's creation. The frequent, unnamed fear that bubbles beneath the surface within the characters mirrors the oppressed Soviet society in the 30's.

The really interesting aspect is that the Devil isn't the true evil in the book. The true evil lies within people, and Woland just brings it out. Bulgakov reveals man's inner nature in an exceptional way. Human flaws such as greed and selfishness destroy the characters. Had they been able to resist the temptations, they would have made it. It takes people to build a dysfunctional society. The author shows how easy people are manipulated and affected by money, for instance.

The book deals with contrasts such as good and evil, courage and cowardice, belief and denial, and freedom and imprisonment. When people speak their mind they end up at the psychiatric ward. This symbolizes the oppressed people in the Soviet Union in the 30's. Being free wasn't a choice in such a society, and it required for Margarita to become a witch to be able to brake the rules. The novel also contains the concept of atheism during the time of its creation, and the significance of every man's right to believe.

Something interesting and worth speculating about is the true identity of the Master.

Kan ett brott vara ett straff?

Crime and Punishment av Fyodor Dostoevsky

Dostoevskys mästerverk behandlar många ämnen, inte minst filosofi och psykologi. Handlingen är en djup, mörk och komplex filosofi som går långt utanför ramarna för vad som anses vara politiskt korrekt och är upp till läsaren att tolka. Känslorna som huvudkaraktären upplever i samband med sitt brott kan med sannolikhet härledas till Dostoevskys egen bakgrund och tid i fängelse.

Den före detta studenten Rodion Raskolnikov lever ett liv i fattigdom och depression. Han har en alldeles speciell övertygelse om att världen består av två olika sorters människor. Den ena är såkallade övermänniskor, människor med personlighetsdrag som har vad som krävs för att utveckla mänskligheten men kan behöva kliva över vissa hinder för att uppnå detta och därför står över lagen. Hindren kan vara olika kriminella handlingar som i det avseendet naturligtvis inte framhävs som det. Den andra gruppen av människor är vanliga, anonyma individer som på grund av just detta står under lagens makt. Raskolnikov bestämmer sig för att ta reda på vilken grupp han tillhör genom att begå mord ”for the greater good”. Kommer han stå över lagen?

Läsaren får följa Raskolnikovs inre kamp mellan det han anser vara rätt och hans samvete och självrespekt. En del av honom rättfärdigar sitt brott medan hans ofrånkomliga samvetskval ger honom den ”feber” han tampas med i en stor del av boken. Kan övertygelsen om att han själv vet mänsklighetens bästa vara någonting annat än motsatsen till en synd? Kan ett mord vara rättfärdigat? Kan man sympatisera med en mördare? Läsaren får själv en del att reflektera över.

Den återkommande diskussionen mellan Raskolnikov och Kriminalkommisarien, som med alla psykologiska medel försöker locka fram ett erkännande, är ett imponerande maktspel och skildrat på ett mycket välskrivet och högst imponerande sätt. Dostoevsky liknar ingen annan författare vad gäller filosofiska dilemman och symbolisk. Crime and punishment tillhör den unika gruppen böcker som fångar läsaren och vägrar släppa taget, inte ens efter bokens slut.

Betyg 9/10