Crime and Punishment. It’s depressing. I guess one would assume that from the title. Lol.
Crime and Punishment. It’s depressing. I guess one would assume that from the title. Lol.
Related
123 answers
38 answers
12 answers
31 answers
61 answers
169 answers
532 answers
98 answers
93 answers
8 answers
Loading Please wait
Anyone want to talk about it? I’m 1/3 through and not particularly enjoying it. Please give me encouragement to finish! I’m trying to work my way up to The Brothers Karamazov.
Kris Marshall Believe me. Brothers karamasov also has a bloody murder at the centre. But has some more colourful characters. Crime and punishment will push you into a constricting atmosphere, but if you persevere, it will pay you rich dividents. The ending scene alone, according to me, is worth its weight in gold. The downward spiralling of Raskolnikov can rightly make your reading experience harrowing, but I suggest you should continue, especially if your plan is to read Brothers Karamasov. I could write more specifically, but I don’t want to give any spoilers. They say, darkness intensifies in the pre-dawn hours and this book is a fine example for that.
Not the best book but I did finish it. Would say it is average.
I loved this book! Though I listened to it on audiobook which definitely helped me get through. The epilogue is so worth getting through the rest of the book. I just love the philosophical thought throughout. It experientially fleshes out the consequences of some perspectives.
It’s intense and depressing alright. Hang in there. It is bloody marvellous! ? I’m a Dostoevsky fan-girl after the book, and led me to read The Karamazov Brothers.
I’m at page 208 and found the first line I’d like to quote, “Strength, strength is what’s needed, because without it you can’t do anything. You have to gain strength by means of strength, that’s what they don’t know”. What hubris.
You need to read a few Russian authors in order to understand them, and then try Chinese, such as Lu xun or Lao She, after that.
@Joe if you were to make a reading list? In order.
@Kris Oh Kris, that’s not so easy. Gorky is a good start, begin from there, and after his work, enjoy.
Bulgarkhov, Heart of a Dog is another good start.
It’s one of my faves. My cat is named after the main character
@Gemma Rascal?
@Kris ? hadn’t thought of that! No, Rodion. Thought Raskalnikiv was a bit too king
My favorite novel ever. The first time I read it, I read it again six months later (something I’ve never done before). I think I’ve read it now five or six times since 2007.
What translation are you reading? Not Garnett’s, I hope. It was good for its day, but Pevear and Volokhonsky’s might be better to go with.
The book is not a whodunnit, but a WHYdunnit — and that makes Raskolnikov both the protagonist and the antagonist of the story. As for the pessimism in the story, keep going — Sonya is a special light in the midst of the darkness, and she plays a pivotal role of redemption and Christ-like compassion.
@Joshua that is some review, it’s gotten me interested although I am not a big fan of that genre at all ? let’s see will try
@Joshua 2018 translation by Michael R. Katz.
Ok, that is better that Garnett. I’ve yet to read his translation but I’ve heard good things about it.
Russian pathos (especially in Dostoevsky) is very heavy, but not nihilistic, if you stick with him.
@Joshua I don’t find this translation difficult reading, at all.
Why are so many people bothering with Raskolnikov? In the modern world he would ( most likely) be alone. Raskolnikov behavior seems bipolar, as he would be diagnosed with bipolar disorder ( in the modern world).
Raskolnikov is really not unlike Nietzsche’s ubermensch (though N had not written about that yet — but the trend was pointing in this direction by the mid-19th century). Except D. views this as a terrible mistake. There’s a prophetic dream near the end which sounds frighteningly like the 20th century with its utopian revolutions. D. himself was well acquainted with anarchists and such in Russia in his day. He saw where things were headed, where the violent means justified the utopian ends. That is a rationalist project, whereas D. views humanity as divided, disunified, and not rational at all. Raskolnikov represents all the things D. feared (he was right, too, I think), the good intentioned, intelligent man who can’t recognize that the means and ends cannot be separated. Raskolnikov creates his own hell. It’s fascinating and tragic to see him wrestling with himself, trying to justify what simply cannot be justified.
@Joshua excellent points. I read about Dostoevsky’s life in preparation . I think this is so important because it was the first time such a personality was created, fictionally? It does read like a horror story, in it’s way.
I think so… I recall reading (hearing?) that contemporary readers really thought Dostoevsky knew his subject TOO well, that he had actually murdered someone himself! There is a feverish aspect to the film, and St. Petersburg is in a sense a kind of macrocosm of Raskolnikov.
The interesting thing is Raskolnikov is not wholly evil. He’s a mix — and he doesn’t always know why. Raskolnikov is incapable if being an ubermench, of crossing over, of consistently applying himself in this way. He struggles with this, and his abstract philosophy that has gotten him where he is.
There are some passages from Hannah Arendt — not about C&P, but relevant. I’ll see if I can dig them up later today…
@Joshua what’s your personal thoughts on the opinion of it all being Raskolnikov’s dream? Side note: have you read
Yes but it really shows how hunger gets to someone. I love this book.
@Linda hunger? I don’t believe Raskolnikov murdered for theft. Are you saying hunger created a mental split? A moral chasm?
@Kris Yes that is what I am saying in my opinion.
You may be right it has been awhile since I read it.
@Linda another interesting thought to enhance my reading. Thanks.
I had the worst time ever with this book. It’s compulsory reading in Russian schools. Maybe it’s a great book, but not when you’re 16 years old. I couldn’t find myself to like even one character. And I can’t bring myself to reread it as an adult.
@Natalia I cannot imagine getting anything out of this book at a very young age. My daughter would have read Dostoevsky in high school because she took the highest level literature class as her major. I must ask her what she was able to get out of this, if anything other than a grade! Lol.
@Kris please, do! And if you could let me know her impressions of the book? I’m curious, how other school kids reacted to it. Me and my classmats all struggled with it.
Natalia Muravyeva 16!? I’m 60 and need clarification! I did ask my daughter, she works at an university far from home. I’ll let you know anything pertinent.
@Natalia I’m 14 and reading this outside of school- I hope I will be able to get something out of it!
The advanced English sophomore class at my school also reads it, but from the people in the class I talked to, most of the class just gave up on the book after a few chapters…
i prefer the idiot, but i liked this book too.
@Margaret I have read The Idiot, probably Notes From the Underground next.
Brilliant book! The overall message is not depressing–hang in there.
crime and punishment and brothers karamazov are not similar
The only thing that should be depressing is that translations do neither justice
19th C Russian authors were focused on “The Five Accursed Questions”: What is the meaning of life; how are we to live; what happens after we die; what is the nature of the ultimate reality; and one more (sorry, it has slipped my mind). D is pretty much addressing them all in this fine novel. If you want to read something less “depressing” but still Russian, try Gogol’s Dead Souls. Quite the romp, right @Joe?
I’m a Dostoevsky fan. I’ve read Crime and Punishment, probably the easiest to read and understand. The Brothers Karamazov. my favorite. The Possessed, the hardest to read. I have The Idiot and will get around to that one in time. These are the four Masterworks that Dosetoevsky wrote after getting out of prison.
I just finished The Idiot after a serious Russian Lit binge over the holidays, lol). I’ve read Brothers and C&P, but found The Idiot harder to get into, although I loved the main character. Maybe I just extended my binge one book too far
Loved this and the Brothers Karamazov
For my senior symposium in college, I read Brothers Karamazov, and the professor equated the pamphlet–writing of the day (e.g. Raskalnikov’s Napoleon theory) to blogging
I strongly encourage you to stick with it. (The ending is very satisfying, I promise.) Crime and Punishment is one of the most relevant works of literature a person could read in 2019. It helps to understand the context in which it was written, because Dostoevsky was responding to radical ideas of his time which are still prevalent today! One of these is rationalism, the belief that Truth can be reduced to mere human logic. C&P was also a response to the nihilists and utilitarians of his time. All of these philosophies are very popular today with the rise of modern progressivism in th 20th cent. We see Raskolnikov wrestling constantly with his instinctive goodness (such as leaving the roubles “unobserved on [Marmeladov’s] windowsill”) vs. the erroneous and evil conclusions he reaches from extensive thinking. The novel also wrestles with the question, “Are human beings fundamentally/instinctively good or bad?” Dostoevsky is a champion of transcendental (objective/categorical) Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, and his argument in favor of them is exemplified in the holiness of Sonya (a Christ figure of sorts), who helps Rask. make the correct choice. Dostoevsky was also responding to a radical communist novel, Chernychevsky’s “What Is to Be Done?” I’m still not sure what I make of the ending of this book, but as I finish it the second time I may post my final analysis later. Regardless, C&P shows how religion, politics, and philosophy are inescapably tied, forcing you as you consider these things to confront your own beliefs.
Here’s one key passage from C&P (echoed throughout the book), followed by a few passages from Hannah Arendt that sheds light on the sense of doubleness that Raskolnikov wrestles with. Dostoevsky:
Hannah Arendt, from her essay “Thinking and Moral Considerations”:
This one and the next (to be read together) are, I believe, from the same essay (at any rate, it is from a posthumous collection of essays and lectures, Responsibility and Judgment — most of my books are currently in storage). Part 1:
Part 2:
While Arendt isn’t directly discussing C&P in these passages, I find them relevant to the novel, and I think it gets to the meat of the philosophical issue(s) Dostoevsky was dealing with, certainly one important facet (though there are some apparent differences in Arendt, I think what she means to get at about no special organ is merely to say that, insofar as we are thinking beings capable of turning the mirror of thought upon ourselves — in this sense, for Arendt, self reflective thinking is a moral obligation. Raskolnikov desperately wants to stop thinking — but he can’t run away from himself).
From my goodreads review:
We have seen in Raskolnikov the gruesome reality of a philosophy where the ends justify the means. Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker because she’s a nasty old woman with a fortune and killing her can bring back justice. In other words, he convinces himself to be extraordinary and can transgress the law. But now, the murder having been committed, Raskolnikov is quickly learning that there are rules and they do indeed apply to him.
It just so happens that the rules are rules of the soul rather than laws of the society.
Raskolnikov is in a position to get away with murder if he is careful. But, more and more, he is having to fight an urge to confess to the crimes he has committed, because, since committing them, his soul has been in torment.
He is a living, breathing example of the truth that Razumihin spoke about early in the book.The soul doesn’t care how you organize society. The soul doesn’t care if you are rich or poor, if you live in comfort or squalor. The soul only cares about whether you are living a life of virtue or a life of sin.
The living soul demands life, the soul won’t obey the rules of mechanics.Raskolnikov has, thus far, escaped society’s punishment for his crime. But he has not escaped the punishment playing out in his soul. The soul has made him so contemptuous only later to realize how contemptible a person he is. Raskolnikov is someone who convinces himself that he’s a hero, that he’s the extraordinary and hence, have an inner right to transgress the law. Ultimately, his pride- his greatest sin has led him to punishment:
“ And if fate would have sent him repentance-burning repentance that would have torn his heart and robbed him of sleep, that repentance, that awful agony of which brings visions of hanging and drowning! Oh, he would have been glad of it! Tears and agonies would at least have been life. But he did not repent of his crime”
Raskolnikov’s soul will forever be in torment. That’s the eternal punishment for he who fails to become a hero.
Heartbreaking to lose classic book collection, but slowly starting over. No better time to read than during retirement with new perceptions.
@Yolanda yes. Experience and time help with appreciating great literature.
Wonderful book. Not for everyone, though.
reading now.