Fyodor Dostoevsky: Crime And Punishment

[Faran]

I was wondering whether the other members here consider this book more a psychological exegesis or simply a story, though irrefutably reflective of the author's profound comprehension of the human mind and emotions.

In my opinion the book is predicated on the evil nature of the intellectualization and prevarication Raskolnikov, our main character, not so much indulges in, but seeks refuge within. Through a story Dostoevsky explains his opinion of the human mind, which considering the actions of the anti-hero he creates is not so cynical. Through the story he does this more artistically rather than pedagogically, and thus I consider this certainly not a book to read while lying on the beach or cuddled up by the furnace, unlike those of Mark Twain, Stevenson, Dumas, et al.

 

[headpodd]

I have tried to read this book twice now - the second time I even got half way through. It just seemed too much like hardwork so I gave it up as a bad job.
Sorry, that wasn't very helpful was it.

 

[Ashlea]

I would go for option one. A "story" would have a plot, i.e. action. There is about 4 pages of action in the 400+ page book. Oh, and I REEEEEEAAAAALLY don't like it. I have no appreciation for this sort of analysis.

 

[member 737]

Raskolnikov's idea of the world is very similar to Nietsche's philosophy. I mean mainly the particular idea of "uber Mensch" (sorry for my spelling, but I don't know how to put Umlaut above "u"), and the right of the "better" people to rule the world, without paying any attention to moral or legal laws. Certainly, Nietsche must have regarded himself as a member of the "better" ones group.

I like that in the end it turns out possible to find redemption. A ray of light after all poverty, unfairness, cruelty, hopelessness and sadness, which we get earlier from this book (and which rather doesn't make it an advisable lecture for a dull and rainy day).

 

[funes]

I'll admit that it has been a very long time since I read Crime and Punishment , so I may not remember everything clearly. But, it seems to me that the novel served several purposes. It does dramatize the plight of the desperately poor (Russian, or otherwise). It also seems to be about what someone (I forget who) called "the cunning of Reason". That is, the capacity of the human mind to justify, or rationalize, very nearly any action or ethos.
Thus, to the extent that it dramatizes the dangers of any radical philosophical/political ideology, it is an extension of the theme of "the cunning of Reason".
I don't know how closely Nietzsche's views can be specifically associated with the novel. The idea of the "Uber Mensch" is rather complicated and, in Nietzsche's writings, often misunderstood. (It has also been a very long time since I've read Nietzsche.)
As you say, though, Idun, the key aspect of the novel is that redemption can be found.

 

[fluffy bunny]

Just started this book yesterday, and it does seem to take potshots at society from the outset.

It is alright to be poor, but it is not alright to be destitute.

And do you suppose that a respectable poor girl can earn much by honest work?

There is about 4 pages of action in the 400+ page book.

That doesn't sound good, especially when the writing style of the translator I'm reading leaves a lot to be deisired

 

[True@1stLight]

Just started this book yesterday, and it does seem to take potshots at society from the outset.

It is alright to be poor, but it is not alright to be destitute.

And do you suppose that a respectable poor girl can earn much by honest work?


That doesn't sound good, especially when the writing style of the translator I'm reading leaves a lot to be deisired

Try Constance Garnett, she's one of the only ones I trust with Russian Literature.

 

[ecks]

It's definetly a psychological view into the human subconsiousness. It all depends if you enjoy these types of analyses. Has a lot of themes, one of them is Uber Mensch, other is redemption through suffering. Raskolnikov basically wants to be extraordinary, and thinks that by killing and having no remorse in it, he is one. However, he fails at that, since he feels guilt in his heart. Through Sonia, he comes to believe that through suffering, God will forgive his sins. Raskolnikov wants to justify his killing as being materialistic and uliterian, ie he needs money, but in reality he knows that the motive is idealistic. The book also shows how people are willing to sacrifice themselves for someone else.

 

[tradwork]

Dostoevsky ability to contrast Raskolnikov's mental state with his the outer world is what makes the book brilliant. On one hand Raskolnikov is a jaded murderer who is playing a dangerous cat-and-mouse game with the police, on the hand he carries on life as usual dealing with family politics and attending social events.

At times, it seems the outside world is more insane than Raskolnikov's character. Specifically, Katerina Ivanonva vanity and lack of compassion for losing her husband, Petrovitch's pride and ignorance, and even Rashmuzhin's unrelenting supportivness of Raskolnikov.

In this story it is hard to like any character, but Sonia and her deceased father were interesting.

Any thoughts, my apologies for the spelling of names.

 

[Nathan]

Crime & Punishment & Redemption (the full title)

I really enjoyed this book, not just for the great insight into a guilty mind (which we've all had at some point) or the analysis of pride when relating to humanity at large (Raskalnikov's ability to rationalize his murder), but the love story between Raskalnikov and Sonia, which is very tragic but also heart-warming and has both a realistic and fulfilling ending. I was actually expecting the end to be darker than it was, and was very uplifted by the tone at the end and the course taken by their awkard relationship.

Plus it was a really tense work; the murder itself was gripping and laid out well, and the suspenseful aftermath almost gave me heartburn. You must have a lot of patience, though.

 

[Plentipotentary]

Ecks...

Ecks you've missed why Raskalnikov feels he is a "Superman" (this is the term we used for our AP discussions). He does not feel he is a greater person because he can kill without remorse. Raskalnikov is in the belief he could kill a principle, not a person. However he realizes he is not a Superman because he killed the sister in addition to the pawnbroker. This unecessary death caused him to lose his "superman" status, not his remorse. His remorse is from his own intellectualizing about the murder and the nature of his own mundanity.

 

[Infinity]

I have tried to read this book twice now - the second time I even got half way through. It just seemed too much like hardwork so I gave it up as a bad job.
Sorry, that wasn't very helpful was it.

No it's not a hard-work at all!!! I'm reading it and also loving it!

 

[marlasinger]

I remember getting all the names mixed up - they sounded so similar. I had to restart the book, and everytime a new character was introduced, I wrote down their name and who they were in the story. That's the most memorable thing about that book, for me!

 

[Infinity]

I remember getting all the names mixed up - they sounded so similar. I had to restart the book, and everytime a new character was introduced, I wrote down their name and who they were in the story. That's the most memorable thing about that book, for me!

I agree. It's hard to remember names when you read world literature which is written in a language different from your own native tongue.

I'm at the middle of the book and I'm fascinated with it!!!

Notice my signature!

 

[Plentipotentary]

Watch out too, Dostoevsky confused some of his own names at various points and also renames some characters half way into the book simply from lack of focus and the time it took him to write it.

 

[Rustam]

I read this book in 9th form and couldn't understand it. But ages through, I grown up and slowly, very slowly began to comprehend all of what he wrote.
To realize main point you should live in Russia ... you should know history of this country.
Tsarism in Russia is very cruel not like the other one, for example in England or Spain ....
Like said Dostoevski "Russia can't live without RIOT". We killed our nation methodikaly, Tsarism killed in it own way, communism in own(the most brutal), "democrasy" in own.
So about novel
For my oppinion it is more psychological story then simple light reading.
It tell about one guy who didn't even know what should he do. And Who is he? I mean "Trembling creature he or Napoleon." Can't respond for accurasy.

 

[Plentipotentary]

They had you read it in 9th grade? Wow, that's a little too soon, most people that age dont have the worldly experience to really grasp C&P, not that they couldn't understand it.

 

[tradwork]

Cerebral Thriller

To realize main point you should live in Russia ... you should know history of this country.
Tsarism in Russia is very cruel not like the other one, for example in England or Spain ....

I agree, to fully comprehend the story the reader must enrich themselves in the culture and context of the story. However, even though I havn't lived in or experienced Russia I still enjoyed reading the book. I think the Dostoevsky's ability to depict each characters subconscious is amazing. The reader can get into Raskolnikov's head and feel what its like to be him.

Great read.

 

[ecks]

9th grade is kinda early, but for Russians it's easier since they can relate more to the novel. If a russian picked up a book such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or Huckeberry Finn, he would have a hard time understanding what it's about, but kids in America read it in middle schools. And I don't understand why people confuse the names so much, my fellow classmates had the same problem. Maybe because they are not used to them and they seem awkward. On translations, I think Garnett is not the best one, she kind of transforms Dostoevsky's words into Victorian literature. I'm planning to read it in it's native language when I learn enough. Rustam, may I ask you, would you recommend any other Russian literature that you enjoy without the given ones (Tolstoy, Turgenev, Pushkin, Gogol, Chechkov, etc)?

 

[Rustam]

Rustam, may I ask you, would you recommend any other Russian literature that you enjoy without the given ones

Of course, first of all is Bulgakov and his "Master&Margarita" and "Dog's heart".
Then Pushkit but he was poet, and his poetry very difficult even for the most of russians, but it is so beutiful, his language the richest in russian literature.
I don't like Tolstoy, maybe becouse i was compeled to read it at school.
Gogol, Turgenev, Chechkov they are all wrote great novels, but as we says they are not mine.

P.S.

Huckeberry Finn, he would have a hard time understanding

It is some part of our school programm