Crime and Punishment

by Fyodor Dostoevsky

published

March 7th 2006 (first published 1866) by Signet Classics

edit

binding

560 pages

isbn

0451530063 (isbn13: 9780451530066)

description

The poverty-stricken Raskolnikov, believing he is exempt from moral law, murders a man only to face the consequences not only from society but from hi...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | more...

discuss this book

topics	replies	views	last activity
Question	8	47	05/07/2008 08:44PM

new topic

groups with this book

view all groups »

friend reviews (0)

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

Where's the love? Add this book to your favorite list.

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 24576)

all | this edition

Mahdieh rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

09/21/08

قهرمان داستان دانشجوی جوانی است، به نام راسکولنیکوف که به سبب نداشتن امکانات مالی ناگزیر از ترک دانشگاه شده است. به سبب فقر ‌و علاوه بر آن -مخصوصا- به سبب ملاحظات اعتقادی، ‌به آنجا کشیده می‌شود که پیرزن رباخواری و خواهر او را می‌کشد.

بخش اساسیی که سپس همه حوادث رمان به آن ...more قهرمان داستان دانشجوی جوانی است، به نام راسکولنیکوف که به سبب نداشتن امکانات مالی ناگزیر از ترک دانشگاه شده است. به سبب فقر ‌و علاوه بر آن -مخصوصا- به سبب ملاحظات اعتقادی، ‌به آنجا کشیده می‌شود که پیرزن رباخواری و خواهر او را می‌کشد.

بخش اساسیی که سپس همه حوادث رمان به آن گره می‌خورد مبتنی بر پیچیدگی انگیزه‌هایی است که این جنایت را به بار می‌آورد. روح راسکولنیکوف تقریباً مانند آیینه‌ای است که علتهای اصلی آشوبهایی را که مشخصه عصر او و سرزمین او بود، با آمیختن آنها به یکدیگر، ‌منعکس می‌کند. این علتها ناشی از آرمانهای اجتماعی مارکس و نظریه «ابرمرد» نیچه و نیز عرفان مسیحایی انکار نفسی بود که داستایفسکی عمیقاً در روح ملت روس احساس می‌کرد.

دو اندیشه در روح راسکولنیکوف، ‌به نحوی تقریباً آزارنده،‌ پیوسته یکی جانشین دیگری می‌شود: یکی کار نیکی است که او خواهد توانست با پولی بکند که پیرزن رباخوار پنهان کرده و آن را از تیره‌بختانی دزدیده است که از روی ناچاری به او متوسل شده‌اند‌ و دیگری قدرت تصاحب این پول به هر وسیله ی ممکن و صرف آن در راه عادلانه‌ترین مقاصد. قدرتی که از آنِ روحهای برتر و فارغ از هرگونه اخلاق قراردادی است. این دو نظریه به کلی متضاد با یکدیگرند؛ ‌یکی متوجه آرمانی بشردوستانه است و دیگری متوجه نظریه« ابرمرد»ی است که انسانها را قویاً به دو گروه تقسیم می‌کند: مردمان عادی و «برگزیدگان». با این همه، به نظر راسکولنیکوف‌،‌ می‌توان این تضاد را با جنایت از میان برداشت. وانگهی از یک سو راسکولنیکف با یک سلسله نمونه‌هایی که از همه جهات مؤید احساسات درونی اویند خود را در این اندیشه راسخ می‌یابد. در حقیقت،‌ از ازدواج شرم آوری آگاه می‌شود که خواهر،‌ برای اینکه بتواند به او یاری دهد و آرامش مادرش را در روزگار پیری تأمین کند،‌ به آن تن در داده است (بنابراین ، ‌قتل پیرزن رباخوار خواهد توانست روح شریفی را از بدبختی نجات دهد)؛ از سوی دیگر،‌ جوان به یک دلیل تاریخی هم در تأیید نظریه خود درباره «برگزیدگان» توسل می‌جوید. موفقیت ناپلئون از روزی آغاز شد که امپراتور آینده برای دفاع از قانون اساسی، ‌بی‌اندک تردیدی،‌ جمعیت بی‌دفاعی را به رگبار گلوله بست. او از این چنین نتیجه می‌گیرد که تنها کسی که می‌تواند صاحب استقلال روحی کامل باشد شایسته کارهای بزرگ است. این استقلال، ‌در عین آنکه او را در مقامی برتر از عامه مردمان جای می‌دهد، به او امکان می‌دهد که زندگی مردم را در دست خود بگیرد و کسانی را که برای اهداف عالی‌تر ناتوان یا زیان‌آورند قربانی کند. از این رو، راسکولنیکوف نقشه خود را با خونسردی کسی که خیال را واقعیت می‌پندارد طرح می‌کند و آن را به اجرا در می‌آورد و خسته و مانده از کوششی که به کار برده است، محل جنایت را با غنیمت بسیار ناچیزی ترک می‌گوید. از همان لحظه در عمق وجود خود احساس می‌کند که شکست خورده است. پولی که ربوده است حتی برای برآوردن اندکی از آرمان عدالت‌خواهی او نیز کفایت نمی‌کند. وانگهی اعصاب لرزان او حکایت از آن دارد که آن استقلال اخلاقیی را که همواره فضیلت اساسی روحهای برگزیده می‌دانسته است هرگز به دست نیاورده است.

با این همه، ‌راسکولنیکوف نمی‌خواهد اعتراف کند که شکست خورده است: او می‌داند که نتیجه از مقدمات فراتر رفته است و اشتباه دردناکی را در خود نهفته دارد؛‌ ولی او در اقدام خود پافشاری می‌کند. بنابراین، زندگی‌اش در دو زمینه متمایز گسترش می‌یابد: یکی عمیقاً عاطفی که در آن سرشت او،‌ که به نحوی غریزی همبسته بینوایان است،‌ خودنمایی می‌کند؛ دیگری زمینه‌ای است که در آن نظریه نا روشن او جریان دارد.

وجه خارجی رمان گرد موقعیتی که او ایجاد کرده است می‌چرخد. این وسوسه آزارنده و دغدغه خاطر، او را ترغیب می‌کند که خود را به جویندگان قاتل معرفی کند و آشکارا به جنایت خود اعتراف کند تا بتواند آن را مورد بحث قرار دهد و توجیه کند و از عذاب وحشتناک وجدان رنج می‌برد، ‌چندان که به فکر خودکشی می‌افتد. قاضی پورفیری پتروویچ که کار رسیدگی به ماجرای قتل را بر عهده دارد به راز او پی می‌برد،‌ ولی منتظر می‌ماند تا راسکولنیکوف خود به گناه خود اعتراف کند. می‌خواهد او را دستگیر کند که ناگهان اعتراف دروغین کارگری مبتلا به توهم که خود را قاتل معرفی می‌کند، وضع را پیچیده می‌سازد.

ابهام ماجرا،‌ پس از یک سلسله وقایع که مهم‌ترین آنها ملاقات راسکولنیکوف و سونیا مارملادوف،‌ دختر جوانی که تن به روسپیگری می‌دهد تا به خانواده خود کمک کند و برادران خردسالش را از گرسنگی نجات دهد، ‌گشوده می‌شود. سونیا با وجود زندگی یأس‌آمیز خود پاکی ضمیرش را حفظ کرده است، ‌و همین است که راسکولنیکوف را دلبسته او می‌کند. سونیا او را ترغیب می‌کند که نزد پلیس به گناه خود اعتراف کند. ولی مدتی می‌گذرد تا سرانجام این تصفیه روح صورت می‌گیرد. راسکولتیکوف محکوم به تبعید به سیبری می‌شود،‌ ولی همچنان معتقد است که جنایتی مرتکب نشده است،‌ بلکه فقط اشتباه کرده و قتل بیهوده‌ای انجام داده ‌است. سونیا همراه او به تبعیدگاه می‌رود، ‌و همین حضور سونیا است که او را از وسوسه می‌رهاند و سبب غلبه قطعی احساس همبستگی انسانی او می‌شود.

در پیرامون این واقعه وقایع دیگری با همان شدت درامی روی می‌دهد: مانند مورد خانواده مارملادوف،‌ که پدر الکلی و خشن آن،‌ تنها با شیفتگیی که به زن دومش، ‌کاترینا ایوانوونا،‌ و عشقی که به دختر خود،‌ سونیا، دارد زنده است، در عین آنکه می‌داند که زندگی هر دوی آنها را با فقر و عیب خود تباه کرده است. در مقایسه با او،‌شخصیت کاترینا برجستگی می‌یابد. کاترینا دخترخوانده خود را وادار به خودفروشی می‌کند، ‌ولی شبی را درکنار او در گریستن بدبختیهای خود و بوسیدن دست او به نشانه سپاس‌گذاری می‌گذراند. به موازات اینها وقایع دیگری روی می‌دهد که مربوط به دونیا، خواهر راسکولینکوف است؛‌ دونیا قبول کرده است که با مرد مرفه و ناتراشیده‌ای به نام لوگین ازدواج کند. پس از آنکه برادرش موفق می‌شود که ازدواج به شکست بکشاند، ملاکی که دونیا یک چند در خانه او آموزگار بوده است درصدد اغفال او برمی‌آید و برای ازدواج با او زن خود را مسموم می‌کند. این جنایتکار یک شب موفق می‌شود که دختر جوان را به خانه خود بکشاند. دونیابا رولور از خود دفاع می‌کند و مرد که به شناعت کار خود پی می‌برد خود را می‌کشد
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Kristen rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

08/12/08

bookshelves: 1001-books-before-you-die, classics

Read in August, 2008

This was certainly not what I expected... what was I expecting? Heck if I know, but it certainly wasn't this. First of all, I did not read this for or with a class, I read it on my own, in my own time. I did not have a teacher or professor there to tell me the deep symbolism or point out the "Christ Figure" and I didn't have a prefaced discussion with anyone on what was going on in Russia at the time. Perhaps if I had I could have enjoyed this far more... instead I sat down with the bo...more This was certainly not what I expected... what was I expecting? Heck if I know, but it certainly wasn't this. First of all, I did not read this for or with a class, I read it on my own, in my own time. I did not have a teacher or professor there to tell me the deep symbolism or point out the "Christ Figure" and I didn't have a prefaced discussion with anyone on what was going on in Russia at the time. Perhaps if I had I could have enjoyed this far more... instead I sat down with the book and yawned and slogged my way through it. Slogged is a good word because this certainly wasn't a page turner by any stretch of the imagination.

What we have here is a main character "Rodya" who considers himself a genius, above most other men, who lives in poverty. He is rife with self loathing although he is probably also one of the most self centered narcissistic characters I have ever read about. The supporting cast includes his mother, sister, her betrothed, a man who defamed his sister, Rodya's best friend, his doctor, a poor family who he meets and befriends, and of course the lawyer/inspector. Though the story itself seems that it should be interesting enough, a man commits murder - how does he live with it... the problem is that the dialog is long winded and often takes the shape of one long monologue after another (pages and pages of monologue). Often the monologues meander from one topic to another and the person they are talking to or referencing changes mid conversation.

Part of what makes reading this book a bit of a chore is the names, each character has several names, including nicknames, their full name, variations of their name and sometimes their last name. Within a single page a character may be referenced by four or more different versions of their name, and since their names are all so long (and most start with "R"), often you have to spend a second figuring out who is speaking, being spoken to, or being spoken of. We also switch from character to character and scene to scene with very little transition.

Rodya, our main character is a difficult lead to follow. He commits a terrible crime for reasons that a sane person cannot comprehend, then spends the rest of the novel behaving in the most bizarre manner, making strange conversations, and functioning as repulsively as he can. Even his acts of kindness turn out to be self motivated. His rational is disturbing and almost obnoxious to read about... I have read several books "from the mind of a murderer" and often times they can be quite interesting. This however is an awful lot of work for a tiny payoff that doesn't even occur until the epilogue.

One part of the story which showed promise in the beginning were the conversations between both Rodya and the detective who seems fully aware that Rodya is the killer, however they soon grow tiresome and the reader begins to wonder if the detective will EVER do anything about what he knows or if we will have to keep reading page after page of interrogations hidden as polite conversation. Rather than this being a book about the crime, or even the punishment (which I had assumed it would be) this is a book about a man driving himself to madness over the suspicion that people know what he has done. This is not about guilt, Rodya is incapable of guilt, this is about paranoia and where it can lead to.

What I did gain from this book was a disturbing look at what life for the poor was like in Russia at the time. Though in many cases it seems that those who were poor (which it was clear enough in the book that we were to pity) were poor of their own choosing... not that they chose to be beggars, more that they chose not to work hard and do what was necessary to maintain a better lifestyle. As they cry about not being able to feed their children, they spend their last penny in the bar. When offered the opportunity for work, they shirk it and end up back at the bar under the theory that they would not have been paid enough and that the wage would be insulting. Perhaps viewing this book from a modern mindset in a supposedly capitalist society I cannot fathom the choices made by not just Rodya, but the majority of the individuals who cross his path.

Though this was a fairly decent book, I am not certain what it is that makes this a classic other than perhaps the view on Russian life and the concepts that Rodya obsesses over being that certain men are above the law due purely to their more powerful intellect (he often likens himself to Napoleon in this respect - asking if anyone could hold Napoleon accountable if he'd been required to murder to start his forward progression). Perhaps I am missing the deeper meaning, or perhaps this is truly a story of redemption... but sometimes you don't want the person to be redeemed, you want them to pay... and not in a self chosen self loathing way, but in a harsh and almost violent way. Sadly the most despicable act is not the murder, but in Rodya's behavior towards those who love him. Much of this book is about pride, specifically Rodya's pride and the breaking down of that pride to the realization that he is not, in fact, Napoleon 2 and better get a better handle on reality.

I don't know that I would recommend this book to anyone, in fact when my kids are old enough to have to read it for school, odds are I will snicker and say "good luck." This is one of those classics that must have broken some sort of ground at the time but the effect has been lost, at least on me....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Shannon rated it:

(review of isbn 0679734503)

07/12/08

bookshelves: 2008, classics, not-worth-it

Read in July, 2008

My star rating is purely subjective and means only what GR says it means: I didn't like it. It didn't mean anything to me, sadly, and I didn't even find it to be an interesting story. I'm not saying it's a terrible book; in fact, I'd be very interested to hear what others think (reviews are a bit light for this book here I see).

First, I have a confession to make: I got two thirds of the way through and skimmed the rest. Well, worse than that: I flipped through and got the gist, but such is ...more My star rating is purely subjective and means only what GR says it means: I didn't like it. It didn't mean anything to me, sadly, and I didn't even find it to be an interesting story. I'm not saying it's a terrible book; in fact, I'd be very interested to hear what others think (reviews are a bit light for this book here I see).

First, I have a confession to make: I got two thirds of the way through and skimmed the rest. Well, worse than that: I flipped through and got the gist, but such is the way it's written you can't even skim. I just really had to put the book to rest, and it made me feel miserable thinking about making myself keep reading it. Reading should never make you miserable, so I did something I rarely ever do, and it nags at me but, well, there you have it.

The premise sounds interesting, and I had high hopes it would be one that would suck me in and captivate me. It's not that I had particularly high expectations - I didn't really have any expectations, though I thought it might be heavy on the intellectual side of things - but it was apparent from fairly early on that it wasn't going to be my kind of book.

It's Petersburg and a young student, Raskolnikov, is pawning his only valuables to an old crone, Alyona Ivanovna, who lives in a small apartment with her sister Lizaveta. He hasn't been able to afford to go to uni in several months, and his dress and manner makes him seem even lower class than he is. In desperation he hatches a plan to murder Alyona and rob her. He carries this out, killing not just her but her simple-minded sister who returns home unexpectedly, and in his fear and haste flees the scene with only some pawned trinkets and a small pouch.

His guilt manifests itself in fever and delirium, and he behaves very strangely thereafter. His friend and fellow student, Razumikhin, puts up with an awful lot and generously gives his time and efforts to help Raskolnikov; his mother, Pulcheria Alexandrovna and his sister, Dunechka, come to town to prepare for Dunya's marriage to an odious man; and Raskolnikov becomes somewhat obsessed with the family of a poor alcoholic who dies early on, in particular his eldest daughter Sonya, who had to become a prostitute in order to make some money for her family.

There's a lot of twoing and froing, a lot of agonising on Raskolnikov's part, and a lot of exclaiming. I wouldn't even have minded but Raskolnikov became such a bore, I didn't even want to slap, I just wanted to ignore him. It comes down mostly to the way it was written, which I didn't care for and which made the book a real slog.

I know this is some kind of work of genius, but if that's true, then I just felt stupid. It all seemed pretty obvious to me. No doubt if I made the effort I could see something special here, but it's like The Red and the Black - other people find the psychological melodrama truly fascinating, but to me, it's just melodrama, which I loathe. There's also no mystery, and not much suspense. There's a somewhat clever police inspector investigating the murder, but the game of cat-and-mouse the blurb enticed me with fell flat pretty quickly, and there was nothing left to hold me.

The blurb describes the book as "a preternaturally acute investigation of the forces that impel a man toward sin, suffering and grace." Uh huh. You can tell I'm really impressed can't you? It reads more like an account of a man going mad and being really self-centred, but after my sorry lack of appreciation for the equally masterful The Red and the Black, is it any surprise that I didn't like this book at all? If you're looking for a good story, this isn't it.

...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

21 comments

Raül rated it:

(review of isbn 0000000000)

08/14/08

bookshelves: 2008

Read in July, 2008

Ya se sabe que el lector (como el cinéfilo y muchas otras categorías de consumidor de cultura) funciona por comparación. Eso no significa que la comparativa se buena. Sólo que es, simple y llanamente, inevitable. En mi caso, la lectura de Crimen y castigo se ha visto completamente condicionada por el libro que estuvo antes entre mis manos: Vida y destino de Vassili Grossman. Mientras a Grossman no le perdonaba ciertos deslices de extensión injustificada, lo de Dostoievsky ...more Ya se sabe que el lector (como el cinéfilo y muchas otras categorías de consumidor de cultura) funciona por comparación. Eso no significa que la comparativa se buena. Sólo que es, simple y llanamente, inevitable. En mi caso, la lectura de Crimen y castigo se ha visto completamente condicionada por el libro que estuvo antes entre mis manos: Vida y destino de Vassili Grossman. Mientras a Grossman no le perdonaba ciertos deslices de extensión injustificada, lo de Dostoievsky seguro que consta en los anales de la literatura como un ejemplo de depuración y transparencia.

Lo primero que sorprende al abordar Crimen y castigo es descubrir que el estilo de Dostoievsky es mucho menos barroco y abigarrado de lo que podría esperarse de un autor de su época (increíblemente menos culterano y opaco que Grossman, más contemporáneo). A partir de ahí, todo es una delicia: la estructura de la novela, que podría aquejarse del formato "serial", es totalmente apasionante. Cada capítulo se resuelve como un átomo independiente del resto pero con poderosas fuerzas invisibles que los unen de forma adictiva y hacen avanzar el cuerpo total a un ritmo pausado, contemplativo, pero nunca aburrido.

Los personajes, pese a deberle demasiado a las leyes de la dramaturgia clásica (la madre sufrida, la hermana dispuesta al sacrificio, el amigo de moralidad inquebrantable), muestran unas entrañas intrincadas y ponzoñosas que acaban por redondear sus caracteres (la madre que opta por la ceguera ante el drama del hijo, la hermana que elige el amor en contra de la facilidad, el amigo que vislumbra el drama en los ojos de Raskólnikov). Pero si hay un personaje que se lleva la palma, es precisamente Raskólnikov, un SER HUMANO en mayúsculas con toda la carga de contradicción que eso implica. Es Crimen y castigo no sólo el retrato genial del sentimiento de culpa (como suele decirse) sino, sobre todo, una disección pluscuamperfecta de las contradicciones de todo ser humano: el querer y no poder, el creerse mejor de lo que en realidad se es, el no poder sobrellevar el peso de las consecuencias de tus propias acciones... La dramática realidad de darse cuenta (muy a lo Herman Hesse) que no todos somos iguales y que la muerte de un inferior puede beneficiar a un superior.

Aquí (y en muchos otros aspectos) entronca Crimen y Castigo con la maravillosa Los Miserables de Victor Hugo. Los puntos de contacto entre ambas obras son numerosos y evidentes (sentimiento de culpa, enfrentamiento contra el estado, personaje de policía como manifestación de la conciencia). Pero, sobre todo, si en algo se parecen las obras de Dostoievsky y Hugo es en la capacidad de ambos para tomarle el pulso a la cara menos amable de su época. Más allá de los personajes y la trama, Crimen y castigo se destapa como un retablo hiper-realista de la sociedad rusa de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, con especial detallismo hacia las capas sociales menos favorecidas: prostitutas, borrachos y personajes que viven al borde de la indigencia se trenzan en una trama que extrae de estos substratos sociales la verdadera carne humana....less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments

Nicole rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

10/03/08

Read in October, 2008

I dreaded reading this book, expecting it to be tedious, repetitive, unnecessarily verbose. Instead, it was suspenseful, complex, interesting. Yes, Raskolnikov's incessant back-and-forths of "They must know!" and "They don't even suspect!" take up quite a bit of text over the length of the book, and there are single-paragraph monologues that go on for four or five pages, which can be tedious at times. However, this book has more than enough strengths to keep reading through i...more I dreaded reading this book, expecting it to be tedious, repetitive, unnecessarily verbose. Instead, it was suspenseful, complex, interesting. Yes, Raskolnikov's incessant back-and-forths of "They must know!" and "They don't even suspect!" take up quite a bit of text over the length of the book, and there are single-paragraph monologues that go on for four or five pages, which can be tedious at times. However, this book has more than enough strengths to keep reading through its weaknesses and still be quite enjoyable.

One of my favorite things about this story is that it's sort of a murder mystery, but considered from an unusual angle. We already know who did it, and how, which allows the author to move on to different questions, like the theory behind it and its moral implications. It is a psychological thriller in part (will he be caught? will he turn himself in? will he commit suicide? do they even really know he did it?), but it's also in some sense a philosophical thriller. The philosophy behind the act is important, and an interesting argument... although it surprises me somewhat that Raskolnikov considers himself to be in the category of "extraordinary" people who can kill with impunity for the sake of a greater good, as he never seems to actually have a coherent plan at all, let alone one to benefit a larger population in any way. Even if he had been able to successfully "step over" the murders, it's not clear what end they would have been the means to (except perhaps continuing his own education with the money, but making that a valiant action for the common good would be a tough sell). Also, and this may speak to the discussion of moral implications or maybe it's just still philosophy and theory, but I do find myself wondering whether Raskolnikov's lengthy illness was brought on by his murderous thoughts or the murderous thoughts were first conceived during the illness. It doesn't really make a difference in the outcome of the book, but it would provide an interesting character note about him - if he had these thoughts and then became terribly ill, it could indicate his moral dilemma, repulsion at even considering the act (at least, this would jive with the way illness is treated throughout this book). If, on the other hand, he had the thoughts during the early fevered days of his illness and then still took steps toward that action in his more lucid moments, that paints him in a somewhat different light...

Probably my largest single complaint about this book is how so many of the characters lapse into fever and delirium almost immediately after stressful revelations (Raskolnikov, Dunya, Sonya, Katerina Ivanovna, Raskolnikov's mother, Svidrigailov...) I was fine with it when it was just Raskolnikov caught in the ups and downs of his own mysterious illness (possibly brought on just as much by malnutrition, insomnia, and, yes, psychological trauma, as anything else), but for it to be the standard response to distressing news across the board asked for more of a leap of faith than I could muster.

Overall, this was a deliciously dark read with healthy doses of insanity and depravity, and just enough potential for redemption for me to feel the book ends on a hopeful note, but not so much that it feels saccharine or forced....less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Cormac rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

07/31/08

bookshelves: classics

Read in January, 2000

recommends it for: all who can take it

John Henry Newman looked on conscience as the most immediate and personal proof of the existence of God. Dostoevsky, in Crime & Punishment, shows it as the biggest obstacle to holding on to genuine atheism. Like any logical atheist, Raskolnikov thinks there is no higher power which determines good and evil, right and wrong, his own mind being the ultimate arbiter of all such matters. He kills an old pawnbroking woman, not so much for her money as to prove that he is a sort of superman to who...more John Henry Newman looked on conscience as the most immediate and personal proof of the existence of God. Dostoevsky, in Crime & Punishment, shows it as the biggest obstacle to holding on to genuine atheism. Like any logical atheist, Raskolnikov thinks there is no higher power which determines good and evil, right and wrong, his own mind being the ultimate arbiter of all such matters. He kills an old pawnbroking woman, not so much for her money as to prove that he is a sort of superman to whom everything is permitted, that he stands above all conventional morality, has the right to do so, and that these convictions will suffice to put down any possible remorse. They don’t.
His attempts at self justification slowly succumb to his conscience. In the end Raskolnikov is 'saved' because he lets his conscience win in the battle with his own bad ‘alter ego’ (also mirrored in Svidrigailov, whose motto is, "the best time is had by those who are best able to deceive themselves"). The argument goes back and forth. His better self insists that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that wrong is very present in man; man’s trouble being that he "can get used to anything, the villain!" And then his worse self pipes back: "and what if I'm mistaken? What if man - the whole human race in general - isn't really a villain at all? If that's true, it means that all the rest [religion, morality, etc.:] is just a load of superstition, just a lot of fears that have been put into people's head, and there are no limits, and that's how it's meant to be”. It’s a long argument and a long process, but in the end his better self wins out. The awareness of his crime almost drives him to despair but he overcomes that temptation too. He tells his sister (who now knows the whole story) that he had thought of suicide but could not bring himself to do it. She says, "That means you still believe in life; God be praised".
Dostoevsky can’t refrain from a dig at the psychological experts of his (and our?) age. When Raskolnikov confesses and is sent for trial, quite a few ‘intellectuals’ see him as exemplifying "the latest fashionable theory of temporary insanity". And they are completely disconcerted when he, in his trial, gives a perfectly rational explanation of the greed and self-centered pride motivating his crime; as for "what had prompted him to turn himself in, he replied bluntly that it had been genuine remorse. All this was almost indecent"...
Crime & Punishment ends not just with the 'conversion' of Raskolnikov, but also with the clear comment by Dostoevsky that the new life his conversion opens up to him will have to be won, and that this will not be easy. Did he have in mind another story - a sequel that was never written? Or was he hinting that this is the story each one of us has to set about writing once we sincerely face our conscience, and keep at the job of throttling our bad alter ego?...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Crystal rated it:

(review of isbn 0679734503)

09/28/07

bookshelves: zrussians

Read in August, 2007

recommends it for: russian lovers

The writing is a bit pedantic at times, and a paragraph can span two pages in places. The best thing about the book is that the tediousness of reading the book is much like a reflection of the tedious state of mind of the criminal, on a smaller scale.

In the act of reading the novel, you begin to tire of the constant nervous state of wondering, thinking, over analyzing, that Raskolnikov is doing; this makes the act of reading a bit heavy, but is actually clever if intended by the author.
...more The writing is a bit pedantic at times, and a paragraph can span two pages in places. The best thing about the book is that the tediousness of reading the book is much like a reflection of the tedious state of mind of the criminal, on a smaller scale.

In the act of reading the novel, you begin to tire of the constant nervous state of wondering, thinking, over analyzing, that Raskolnikov is doing; this makes the act of reading a bit heavy, but is actually clever if intended by the author.

The frame of mind that the criminal seemingly feels is projected into the reader's mind through the act of reading itself. For two reasons- the first (and obvious) being that the events told cause you to think about them from the pov of the criminal. More interestingly though, is that the way it is written (certain syntax, sentence placement, questions, hurried and/or deluded passages) actually produces an agitated state of mind, similar to that of the criminal. You're not only thinking about the philosophy of the novel, which is agitating enough-- the sentences you're reading are shaping the way you think as well.

The character is asking himself a question, and answering it. And asking and answering, over and over, so you, as the reader, are reading his conclusions, making your own as well, and seeing it all in the larger scope of the other characters... however, while you're thinking about all that, you hardly notice when the sentences have picked up and become almost frenzied at times... when you put the book down, it really feels like you've gone through something.

It's fascinating to me that the manner in which a novel is written can agitate me just as much as the contents of that same novel. (Fury, by Salman Rushdie, is the same way.)

The ending really killed it for me though; the book was not past redemption, because though it was heavy, I enjoy the elements of Russian novel writing, including the detailed passages about feelings and psychological workings of each of the characters.

To end a 600 page philosophical novel about all of the varying concepts and points of view behind crime and the criminal mind with a few pages with Raskolnikov's sudden realization that pure love will set him free... this I just can't abide. Deus ex machina, badly done. ...less

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

2 comments

Alistair rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

12/26/07

bookshelves: euro---russian-literature

Read in January, 2005

recommends it for: ANYONE

This book to me is probably the central work of the Christianity-based wing of the literary existentialist movement. What I find to be so wonderful about it is that it has made fashionable so many of the central literary techniques employed in twentieth century literary existentialism (especially in the cases of Kafka, Nick Cave and, to a lesser extent, the surrealists as well). It has fantastic use of character development as a tool towards showing the evolution not only the human character und...more This book to me is probably the central work of the Christianity-based wing of the literary existentialist movement. What I find to be so wonderful about it is that it has made fashionable so many of the central literary techniques employed in twentieth century literary existentialism (especially in the cases of Kafka, Nick Cave and, to a lesser extent, the surrealists as well). It has fantastic use of character development as a tool towards showing the evolution not only the human character undegoes but also of philosophical ideals; this, of course, is diaphanous as continental literature (and especially Russians like Chekov, Bulgakov and Tolstoy) employ this technique but it is, for me, the seminal example of said technique's proficiency. The question surrounding the Nietzschean (although this book is antecedent to FN) undertones of Raskolnikoff's outlook in relation to the sanctity of life and (prophetically) cultural relativism are so beautifully conveyed throughout not only through the use of his thoughts played out as narrative but also in the vernacular of the characters, giving another layer to the characterisation as a philosophical tool. To give an example of what I mean, Raskolnikoff appears early in the novel to be very blunt, a man of but few words and a very concise user of language. He often employs words such as 'sultry', 'mere' and is derisory at all times in a stereotypically nihilistic manner. Towards the end, he makes a change to being extravagant and lyrical, reflecting a Renaissance-style dialect that is indiciative of his gradual conversion back towards a Christian existentialist stance, which is emplary of the period of time that this style of speech symbolisises. My favourite example being his repeated use of the word 'efficacious' towards his redemption, a word made popular by its use as an adjective of Christ's sacrifice in the KJ Bible, all the while his relationship with Sonia (herself symbolic of Christian values) and the religious images becoming more and more frequent.
As well as this picturesque language and remarkable use of character development, this book also touches me on a philosophical level, too. We all love books that agree with our own prejudicial views although we hate to admit it and this is one that does this for me. It is a great depiction of how a nihilistic, yet utilitarian existential morality is, in terms of its application to this example, a philosophical reality. However, the idea of the human heart and sentience means that this inevitability is irrelevent in terms of the sanctity of life is a beautiful amalgamation of traditional morality and the existentialist emphasis on empirical experience. The difference between philosophical theory and philosophical practical, so to speak. A true classic. ...less

Like this review? yes

1 comments

Timothy rated it:

(review of isbn 0679734503)

08/04/08

Read in August, 2008

When an artist’s work stands the test of time, it is worth asking why. So, although there many ways to review Crime and Punishment (it’s style, structure, characters), I will limit myself to brief commentary on the “deeper messages” in the novel. Even here, one could think about the novel forever, and make all sorts of connections with other thinkers. The fact that there is so much that could be said is what makes the book interesting.

When a work is consistently read for over a cent...more When an artist’s work stands the test of time, it is worth asking why. So, although there many ways to review Crime and Punishment (it’s style, structure, characters), I will limit myself to brief commentary on the “deeper messages” in the novel. Even here, one could think about the novel forever, and make all sorts of connections with other thinkers. The fact that there is so much that could be said is what makes the book interesting.

When a work is consistently read for over a century, there is a reflexive tendency to say that the work is “transcendent”; that it captures something about the human condition that cuts across place, time, and culture. In reality, this reflex is probably only partly true. The artist’s personality and socioeconomic status, as well as broader sociological factors, likely also play a role in determining what is remembered and what is forgotten.

But, in Crime and Punishment, reflexive “transcendence” seems to ring truer than usual. I say this partly because of Dostoevsky’s biographical history. Poverty, prison, near political execution, epilepsy. A man who faced considerable obstacles, although he seemed to be passionate and driven. Moreover, the work is (arguably, the conclusion of the novel notwithstanding) critical of Christianity and key characters are less than sympathetic (as is the case in much of Dostoevsky’s work). Basically, it is hard to imagine that the book’s message resonated with most 19th century Russians. Yet, the book lasted. There must be something “deeper.” Certainly, Crime and Punishment addresses personal morality. What makes a person immoral? If someone is immoral, then what can they do to redeem themselves? These questions play out in the novel largely through Raskolnikov’s introspections and unpredictable behaviors.

An important idea presented at several points in the novel is the “superman” thesis, introduced through second-hand description of an intellectual article written by Raskolnikov. By this argument, there are persons who, by virtue of their greatness, transcend good and evil; they stand aloft from conventional morality. It is partly aspirations of greatness that leads Raskolnikov to kill. I found myself wondering about the historical antecedents and consequents of this idea. I know Nietsche wrote of an “ubermensch”. I will have to revisit Nietzsche. Also, in a case of “life imitates art”, there is the Leopold and Loeb murder case in Chicago, in which two affluent youth premeditatively kill a young boy on philosophical grounds similar to Raskolnikov’s. At least three films were made about this murder case, including a Hitchcock film.

...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Vanja rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

12/28/07

Read in May, 1998

recommends it for: Those that love psychologically driven books, with a deeper underlying philosophy

Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.

While "Brothers Karamazov" is Dostoevsky’s longest, but also best, most subtle, and complex work, Crime and Punishment and "Notes from Underground" are shor...more Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment" and "Notes from Underground" are his most popular and famous works. And deservedly so. Dostoevsky’s "Brothers Karamazov", on the other hand, is his most critically acclaimed work- regarded by many as the best novel ever written. And deservedly so.

While "Brothers Karamazov" is Dostoevsky’s longest, but also best, most subtle, and complex work, Crime and Punishment and "Notes from Underground" are shorter, easier to read, and more entertaining. This is not to put down the other two books. I place "Brothers Karamazov" above the other two only because it is arguably the best book ever written, and only the best of many of Dostoevsky’s masterpieces. Crime and Punishment is another masterpiece and a great book.

As mentioned, Crime and Punishment may be Dostoevsky's most readable and entertaining longer novel. It is by far the best psychological study I have read, and owes much of its entertainment value to the psychological insight it presents.

Then the question may be: psychological insight into what? Well, nothing less than that of an intellectual murderer. The fun of the novel is in the psychological collapse of the protagonist’s mind, as he slowly becomes more and more obsessed and paranoid. Some of the thrill is also in the cat-and-mouse game that the inspector plays with the protagonist. Finally, some additional delight comes from the plot itself, and the actions involved.

That being said, this book is not primarily cheap entertainment (although it does well in this department), nor a psychological study (even Freud admired Dostoevsky), but rather it focuses on the philosophical, moral, and religious implications of the actions, the mental states, and the (internal and external) punishments that the protagonist must endure. As most of Dostoevsky’s books, this one is essentially about faith, doubt, and rationalism.

To conclude, if I would recommend an introduction to my favorite author (Dostoevsky), it would probably be "Crime and Punishment" (or "Notes from Underground"). This is especially recommended to those who love psychological thrills.

...less

Like this review? yes (5 people liked it)

add a comment

Maryam rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

07/12/07

recommends it for: not a soul

"داستایوسکی از نویسندگان معدودی است که یا بسیار محبوب یا منفور خوانندگان خویش است. شدت افکار و اعمال و احساسات او با خوی همگان سازگار نیست و به همین دلیل برخی او را شقی و شوم مریض می پندارند و آثارش را به خصوص برای مطالعه ی نوجوانان و اشخاص ناپخته و ضعیف مضر و ناروا می دانند. �...more "داستایوسکی از نویسندگان معدودی است که یا بسیار محبوب یا منفور خوانندگان خویش است. شدت افکار و اعمال و احساسات او با خوی همگان سازگار نیست و به همین دلیل برخی او را شقی و شوم مریض می پندارند و آثارش را به خصوص برای مطالعه ی نوجوانان و اشخاص ناپخته و ضعیف مضر و ناروا می دانند. اما آنچه مسلم است کسی در نبوغ و بزرگی و علو مقام نویسندگی وی شک نیاورده است و او را غالبن در عداد بزرگ ترین نویسندگان و هنرمندان جهان شناخته اند. از لحاظ شناسایی روح و طبیعت و عالم انسانی وی را در ردیف شکسپیر و از نظر گردآوردن حوادث گوناگون و شدت و قدرت احساس و فکر در داستانهایی موجز و کوتاه که غالبن در مدتی بسیار کم روی می دهد (تمام وقایع جنایت و مکافات در یک هفته به وقوع می پیوندد) با نویسندگانی چون سوفوکل و از لحاظ شیوه ی هنر با رامبراند مقایسه کرده اند."

از دیباچه ی جنایت و مکافات - مهری آهی

مگه کسی می تونه راجع به داستایوسکی حرف بزنه؟ داستایوسکی کسیه که تولستوی توی "هنر چیست" تمام آثارش رو هنر می دونه. جالب این که تولستوی از کتاب های خودش جز 2-3 تا رو هنر نمی دونه. می دونین این یعنی چی؟ نمی دونین که. مگه می شه فهمید؟! هر کی راجع به داستایوسکی و کارهاش حرف بزنه چرت و پرت گفته.

یکی از آرزوهای من میدونین چیه؟ اینه که تمام کتاب های داستایوسکی رو بتونم از روی زمیم جمع کنم تا جز خودم هیشکی نتونه داستایوسکه بخونه.

این جانب همین جا صریحن اعلام می کنم که خواندن آثار داستایوسکی را به هیچ موجود زمینی، هوایی،مریخی و غیره توصیه نمی کنم.
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Corrie rated it:

(review of isbn 0143058142)

08/09/08

Read in August, 2008

recommends it for: Jeffery, Vin

Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov is a young man with dreams of being great with a capital G however he is living in poverty and cannot be comforted by little things such as being young, handsome, intelligent, healthy and having friends and family who would do anything for him. His inconsolable ego drives the story about apathetic and disaffected youth written well over a hundred years ago that remains disturbingly relevant.

The story clips along quickly and it is not a difficult read but you ...more Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov is a young man with dreams of being great with a capital G however he is living in poverty and cannot be comforted by little things such as being young, handsome, intelligent, healthy and having friends and family who would do anything for him. His inconsolable ego drives the story about apathetic and disaffected youth written well over a hundred years ago that remains disturbingly relevant.

The story clips along quickly and it is not a difficult read but you cannot skim. Every line is significant, no characters are superfluous, and the Russian names are not easy to keep straight. Print a list off the internet to help you remember Avdotya is the formal name of Dounia, etc.

Rather than attempt to summarize the story I will include two passages that do all that work for me. Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov is summed up nicely as he observes a young woman who has become a prositute to support her alcoholic father.

*"There are three ways before her," he thought,"the canal, the madhouse, or... at last to sink into depravity which obscures the mind and turns the heart to stone."

The last idea was the most revolting, but he was a sceptic, he was young, abstract, and therefore cruel, and so he could not help believing that the last end was the most likely.*

The novel itself is also nicely summarized by the author.

*This is a fantastic gloomy business, a modern case, an incident of to-day when the heart of man is troubled, when the phrase is quoted that blood 'renews', when comfort is preached as the aim of life. Here we have bookish dreams, a heart unhinged by theories. Here we see resolution in the first stage, but resoulution of a special kind: he resolved to do it like jumping off a precipice or from a bell-tower and his legs shook as he went to the crime. He forgot to shut the door after him, and murdered two people for a theory... he is a murderer, but looks upon himself as an honest man, despises others, poses as injured innocence.*

I can't recomend it highly enough. It's beautifully written, challenging and inspiring. Patrick Bateman has nothing on our Russian psycho, Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov.

...less

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comments

Tyler rated it:

(review of isbn 0451519957)

04/23/08

bookshelves: classics

Read in January, 2005

recommends it for: _Anyone

My next-favorite book, after Notes From Underground. The storytelling is captivating. The characterization of life in St. Petersburg is superb, and the final two dream sequences color the narrative with an ethereal passion unlike anything else I've read.

If you read this book, you'll see why Dostoyevsky is among the greatest writers. Besides the narration, the dialog, too, is engrossing. Most of the action unfolds over four days, so the timing is compressed. Adding to the tension, the act...more My next-favorite book, after Notes From Underground. The storytelling is captivating. The characterization of life in St. Petersburg is superb, and the final two dream sequences color the narrative with an ethereal passion unlike anything else I've read.

If you read this book, you'll see why Dostoyevsky is among the greatest writers. Besides the narration, the dialog, too, is engrossing. Most of the action unfolds over four days, so the timing is compressed. Adding to the tension, the action is compressed further into a single city.

This technique of the storytelling accentuates the sense of life in the Russian capital during the 1860's. One's sympathy is engaged, as the plot unfolds, by the dawning realization that the urban, anonymous life we take for granted now was an unprecedented, frightening and disturbing phenomenon to the people who lived at that time.

While all the sub-plots are jewels in themselves, for me one especially affecting story arc concerns the woman with tuberculosis, which the author depicts with amazing talent.

Another striking aspect of the book, for those who live in the vacuous scream that passes for discourse in our modern media, is the author's ability to represent all his characters' opposing lifestyles and opinions in a way that would be fair, even sympathetic, to each person. Dostoyevsky demonstrates this unusual grasp of differing points of view in all his works I've read, and this singular talent of his makes the difference between a good book and a superb one in every case.

I thought the ending was a bit overdone and a tad out of key with the rest of the story, although many readers will disagree with me on that score. Even so ...

For those who have read it: My favorite character -- Svidrigailov.

The book exudes an unusual power to draw the sympathies of modern readers onto the special problems of 19th-century lives. No, I shouldn't say "special." Rather, it causes you to feel for the people on a highly personal level. Yes, that's it; that's what gives the book its exceptional power. ...less

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

Antarctic rated it:

(review of isbn 9644870026)

07/26/08

Read in June, 2008

برای من این اولین رمان روسی بود. قصد داشتم آخر هفته به جای این کتاب یک کتاب از میلان کوندرا بخوانم، اما به هر حال تقدیر این کتاب را پیش روی من گذاشت.
شخصا انتظار داشتم کتاب یک فضای کاملا تاریک و سیاه را ترسیم کند. اما حداقل در این کتاب از تاریکی سیاسی حاکم بر فضای روسیه حرفی زده ن...more برای من این اولین رمان روسی بود. قصد داشتم آخر هفته به جای این کتاب یک کتاب از میلان کوندرا بخوانم، اما به هر حال تقدیر این کتاب را پیش روی من گذاشت.
شخصا انتظار داشتم کتاب یک فضای کاملا تاریک و سیاه را ترسیم کند. اما حداقل در این کتاب از تاریکی سیاسی حاکم بر فضای روسیه حرفی زده نشده بود و فقط فقر و فلاکت را پیش چشم من گذاشت. این موضوع برای من یک امیتاز بود، زیرا در صورتی که حس می کردم کتاب فضای خیلی تاریکی را ترسیم می کند، احتمالا از آن زده می شدم. اما از آن جا که فضای توصیف شده در کتاب به نظرم منطقی آمد، این دل زدگی که به صورت پیش فرض در ذهن من وجود داشت به وجود نیامد.

کل داستان کتاب ماجرای جوانی را نقل می کند که به خاطر فقر مجبور می شود یک نفر را به قتل برساند و سپس درگیر یک کشمکش روحی می شود تا یا خودش را در رابطه با جرمی که مرتکب شده است توجیح کند یا خودش را قانع کند که خودش را به دست قانون بسپارد یا خودکشی کند.

در طول این مجادله هایی که قهرمان داستان با خودش و گاهی اوقات با برخی از شخصیت های دیگر داستان دارد گاهی سولاتی مطرح می شود که برای شخص من تکان دهنده هستند، مانند این یکی:

چرا بمب باران یک شهر بی دفاع در جنگ افتخار و کشتن یک پیرزن رباخوار که خون مردم را در شیشه می کند جرم است؟

وقتی که این کتاب را می خواندم بارها و بارها این جمله را با خودم تکرار کردم که
چقدر قوانین بشری احمقانه است. ـ
ـ
...less

Like this review? yes

add a comment

Rachel rated it:

(review of isbn 0679420290)

11/09/07

bookshelves: fiction

Read in October, 2007

recommends it for: everyone!

This is more a review of the translation than of the book -- Dostoevsky is my all-time favorite author, and everyone on earth should read everything he's written. That said, I picked up a few of my favorite books as translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, since I had heard they were worth reading. This was my first