What are you currently reading?

[AlberichUndHagen]

My first time reading Emile Zola novel: L'argent.

[Brian]

Well that's a review that makes me want to hunt down a copy. Thanks!

Looking into it I see there's a NYRB edition:

That's the one I have!

[SimonNZ]

They have such a sharp eye for the books they choose to reprint. It's one of the very few series where you can buy without even reading the back just knowing that if they are championing it then it's got merit.

[Mandryka]

In the book she makes a distinction between stories which are about investigation and stories which are about description. This is in the former category, she's trying to see whether she can use a narrative to capture, communicate, her memories of how she felt when she was still a teenager. In particular, her first couple of sexual experiences, her bulimia and her response to her peers' response to her. It's probably the most experimental thing I've read by her, and as such, one of the most stimulating.

[Brian]

James McBride's new novel "Deacon King Kong," published in March. I'm near the end and totally swept up. McBride is always remarkable for the way he can blend humor into very serious subjects. A lot of serious novels that get praised as "funny" aren't funny at all because most novelists are earnestly deadpan, or scathing, or cutting, rather than funny. McBride is FUNNY. And he's also catching big game here, about race and religion and alcohol and the way people will sacrifice what they really want to have what is easy. Really hope the end lives up to what's transpired so far.

[j winter]

Well, I finally finished War and Peace; and having closed the book, blinked, brewed another pot of coffee, and peered out the window, it seems clear alas that God has not taken the hint -- the bloody coronavirus is still here. 

So, on to The Brothers Karamazov.   

Perhaps I should reconsider my tactics... I goofed off a lot in college, so the list of brick-sized great novels that I've always meant to read is rather long.  In some ways I imagine this is like a sneak-preview of my eventual retirement (although I always envisioned a bit more travel being involved, or at least the occasional dinner out...) 

[Brian]

I'm starting W&P soon! My thinking is that now's the time to take on real big books like that. After W&P, I plan to spend a month rereading old favorites, because rereading is something I have done almost not at all for many years. The fact that there are so many books to read kinda inhibits me from going back to ones I love.

... But the big question is ... How did you like it???

[Jo498]

Have you read any other Dostoevsky? It's been ages that I read the stuff but in my late teens/early twenties Dostoevsky probably was the first "great literature" that really totally fascinated me more than any genre/middlebrow/mystery/thriller etc. ever did (And I re-read most of the bricks at least once, probably should do so again now after another 20 years). But Karamazov is the longest of the bunch and has a few dry spells, so I'd not recommend it as a starter. Although it might feel short after W&P... I think the best starters for Dostoevsky are "The Gambler" and then "Crime and Punishment".

[j winter]

I have to say, I feel totally inadequate to writing a "review" of War and Peace -- I will say that the book's reputation is well-deserved, as a blend of historical writing and narrative drama I've never read anything like it.  The sheer structural architecture of the thing is deeply impressive.  His characters are beautifully drawn, in part because there is so much space for them to grow -- he can show them from many different angles, how they see the world as children and teens and then later as adults, how they maneuver and interact in social situations ala Jane Austen and also how they fare in the middle of the greatest war yet fought.  Some of his characters are carrying a lot of symbolic weight -- he uses the philosophical struggles of Pierre and Andre to make a lot of points about his country and history in general, and while by modern standards it can be a bit heavy-handed they also come across as real, authentic people, if very much a product of their time and place.  Their relationships are moving; I actually teared up a few times, I won't say where so as to not spoil the plot. 

It's a very cinematic book, by which I mean Tolstoy's very good at zooming the camera out to show things at a high level, be it a battle scene or aspects of Russian society like the nobility or the Freemasons, and then zooming back in to a tight close up on his characters and their reactions; and he uses all of this technique to expand on his main questions, what is the proper relationship and orientation of the self and one's personal desires to one's society, and the related question of what, in the end, drives the forces of history, be they social, military or political.  His take on many historical figures is fascinating, particularly the contrast between Napoleon and the aged Russian top general and his staff, though I'm a bit of a history nerd -- most readers likely find his lengthy digressions on history to be a slog, but I actually enjoyed them (other than the extensive Epilogue at the end, which I have to admit was tough going).  It's an impossible book to summarize -- I found it extremely moving, and am very glad I read it.  I definitely plan to re-read it someday, perhaps in a different translation, as I am sure there are many connections and foreshadowing that I likely missed along the way.


As for Dostoevsky, I am about 75 pages into the Brothers Karamazov and enjoying it so far.  I haven't really read any Dostoevsky prior to this -- I started Crime and Punishment many years ago and didn't get far, which is why I decided to try this one instead (that and I have a good audio version on Audible, which helps).  I may try a few of his short stories as well -- I switched off while reading W&P to read The Death of Ivan Ilyich among other things, which was good to shift gears a bit.


In addition to all of the Russian stuff, I am also reading/re-reading my way slowly through Don Quixote, which I've read most of over the years but never quite made it to the end.  I figure something light will make a good contrast (and again, I have a good audio version which is nice while getting some exercise)....

[Mandryka]

I have to say, I feel totally inadequate to writing a "review" of War and Peace -- I will say that the book's reputation is well-deserved, as a blend of historical writing and narrative drama I've never read anything like it.  The sheer structural architecture of the thing is deeply impressive.  His characters are beautifully drawn, in part because there is so much space for them to grow -- he can show them from many different angles, how they see the world as children and teens and then later as adults, how they maneuver and interact in social situations ala Jane Austen and also how they fare in the middle of the greatest war yet fought.  Some of his characters are carrying a lot of symbolic weight -- he uses the philosophical struggles of Pierre and Andre to make a lot of points about his country and history in general, and while by modern standards it can be a bit heavy-handed they also come across as real, authentic people, if very much a product of their time and place.  Their relationships are moving; I actually teared up a few times, I won't say where so as to not spoil the plot. 

It's a very cinematic book, by which I mean Tolstoy's very good at zooming the camera out to show things at a high level, be it a battle scene or aspects of Russian society like the nobility or the Freemasons, and then zooming back in to a tight close up on his characters and their reactions; and he uses all of this technique to expand on his main questions, what is the proper relationship and orientation of the self and one's personal desires to one's society, and the related question of what, in the end, drives the forces of history, be they social, military or political.  His take on many historical figures is fascinating, particularly the contrast between Napoleon and the aged Russian top general and his staff, though I'm a bit of a history nerd -- most readers likely find his lengthy digressions on history to be a slog, but I actually enjoyed them (other than the extensive Epilogue at the end, which I have to admit was tough going).  It's an impossible book to summarize -- I found it extremely moving, and am very glad I read it.  I definitely plan to re-read it someday, perhaps in a different translation, as I am sure there are many connections and foreshadowing that I likely missed along the way.


As for Dostoevsky, I am about 75 pages into the Brothers Karamazov and enjoying it so far.  I haven't really read any Dostoevsky prior to this -- I started Crime and Punishment many years ago and didn't get far, which is why I decided to try this one instead (that and I have a good audio version on Audible, which helps).  I may try a few of his short stories as well -- I switched off while reading W&P to read The Death of Ivan Ilyich among other things, which was good to shift gears a bit.


In addition to all of the Russian stuff, I am also reading/re-reading my way slowly through Don Quixote, which I've read most of over the years but never quite made it to the end.  I figure something light will make a good contrast (and again, I have a good audio version which is nice while getting some exercise)....

I read maybe 7/8 of the Bros Karamzov but never finished it. Please, if you do finish it, let me know who dunnit.

[Florestan]

I read maybe 7/8 of the Bros Karamzov but never finished it. Please, if you do finish it, let me know who dunnit.

You're kidding, right? Everybody and their neighbours knows that. 

[AlberichUndHagen]

I actually never reported this but the last time I re-read Karamazov it ultimately turned out, after a promising opening, to be bit of a disappointment. This goes to the eternal debate of authorial intent. My scruples are: a) that Dostoevsky, in my humble opinion, manages to make the option of atheism much more sensible than faith and knowing Dostoevsky was a devout Orthodox (plus the fact that most atheists in Dostoyevsky in general, such as in this one, turn out to be lacking in moral judgment), this most certainly wasn't the intention. And b) I also find the character of Alyosha absolutely insufferable (really, out of the 4 brothers, Ivan was the only one who had my sympathies 100 %).

Edit: I knew I forgot something. c) Sometimes Dostoevsky is so subtle that when reading all the analyses about this book it really makes me wonder whether the author's intent was really that. For ex. the often made point that the buffoon father Fyodor manages to represent the character traits of all his sons but only in a distorted and twisted form. In retrospect, I can see this for ex. during his conversation with Zosima but I still am a bit doubtful whether Dostoevsky had that in mind when he wrote it.

[j winter]

You're kidding, right? Everybody and their neighbours knows that. 

I actually don't, so pretty please no discussion on this thread?   0:)

[Florestan]

I actually don't, so pretty please no discussion on this thread?   0:)

Oh, of course. I won't spoil it, don't worry. I was just teasing Mandryka. 

[Jo498]

You can watch the movie with Maria Schell as Grushenka to find out. But that movie is mainly about Dmitri and the two women, the other brothers fade to the background.

[Jo498]

As I wrote above, it's been ages and I think one can fault FMD for overloading the book with some things like the teachings of Sosima and the Grand Inquisitor etc. And the trial with all the speeches is simply too long, IIRC.
And note that this was supposed to be only the first volume, with the second featuring Alyosha going out into the world.
The Grand Inquisitor parable is really quite brilliant and I think it can be read in mostly secular fashion as it is less about faith than about governance and power.

[JBS]

Of the three Dostoyevsky novels I have read, the one I liked most was The Idiot.
C&P and BK were the other two.

[Ratliff]

I recall reading the Brothers Karamazov three times, loved it, was disappointed, loved it. I should stop while I am ahead. I recently read The Idiot, which I found brilliant (again). Next I'd like to read The Possessed (again).

[SimonNZ]

You're kidding, right? Everybody and their neighbours knows that. 

I've read Brothers Karamazov twice...and hand on my heart I can't now remember whodunnit.

I read them all one after the other with a friend of mine  as a project, which looking back was not a great idea as they've all blended into each other and when I now think of a memorable scene I've no idea which its from. Its like one big amorphous 10.000 page urtext.

edit: thinking about this the big exception is The Idiot which has remained the most distinct and vivid in its characters, scenes and story arc.

[Brian]

I recall reading the Brothers Karamazov three times, loved it, was disappointed, loved it. I should stop while I am ahead. I recently read The Idiot, which I found brilliant (again). Next I'd like to read The Possessed (again).

I loved it the first time (in college) and was disappointed reading it again 6-7 years later...now you're tempting me to try a third