Crime and Punishment
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Sign in to Goodreads to see your friends' reviews of Crime and Punishment.
discuss this book
| topics |
replies |
last activity |
| Question |
8 |
9 days ago, 08:44PM |
groups with this book
Russian Readers Club
72 members
last activity: 26 days ago, 01:59PM
location: 117593, Russian Federation
White Nights
70 members
last activity: 14 days ago, 08:05AM
location: Pacifica, CA
friend reviews (0)
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
other reviews
(showing 1-20 of 14563)
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
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
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
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
bookshelves:
classics
Read in January, 2005
My second-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 a...more
My second-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 that 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 a huge 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 feel for the people on a highly personal level. Yes, that's it; that's what gives the book its power. ...less
Read in January, 2008
recommends it for:
anyone willing to invest time for a worthwhile read
I haven't quite decided how I feel about this book. I decided to read it simply because I knew it was a classic and that it was about a man who killed his landlord. I thought that was a rather risque plotline for a classic, so I was intrigued and thus compelled to read it. Although that isn't a very substantial reason for deciding to read a book, it turned out well for me--I really liked it. At times the plotline can be tautological, and the Russian names are definately hard to manage if you don...more
I haven't quite decided how I feel about this book. I decided to read it simply because I knew it was a classic and that it was about a man who killed his landlord. I thought that was a rather risque plotline for a classic, so I was intrigued and thus compelled to read it. Although that isn't a very substantial reason for deciding to read a book, it turned out well for me--I really liked it. At times the plotline can be tautological, and the Russian names are definately hard to manage if you don't speak the language--most of the characters have complicated names, and to make matters worse, they all call each other by different nicknames that are never really formally introduced. The story is generally engaging and the language is eloquent and full of great SAT words. While subtle hints towards underlying messages and morals are made throughout the book, the true purpose is not revealed until the epilogue. Dostoyevsky makes some subtle comments on classes of society and relationships between people of various professions and other such social disparities, but this alone is not really fulfilling enough for most readers (at least I think so) for a book of this length. However, though it may seem throughout the book that there is no real point, and that the story is too predictable and can end in no other way than the predicted fashion, it all really does come together in the end, and the epilogue makes the book. Dostoyevsky describes a brilliant metaphor in the epilogue that, when coupled with the story before it, makes ingenious insights and commentary on society and human nature. If I read this book for no other reason than understanding that metaphor, it would still be worth it. I recommend this book to anyone who is willing to commit to a lengthier text; it really is worth it in the end if you are willing to invest enough time in reading it. ...less
bookshelves:
fiction
Read in April, 2008
Finally made it through a book by one of the big Russian guys. I mostly object to the idea of reading because I feel like I'm 'supposed to,' but I have heard enough genuinely enthusiastic reviews from friends about Dostoevsky and Tolstoy that I figured that I should really persevere.
I have tried and failed at Anna Karenin, Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace...I now blame life circumstances outside the pages of those books...too distracted, working too hard, couldn't stay awake, didn't have the...more
Finally made it through a book by one of the big Russian guys. I mostly object to the idea of reading because I feel like I'm 'supposed to,' but I have heard enough genuinely enthusiastic reviews from friends about Dostoevsky and Tolstoy that I figured that I should really persevere.
I have tried and failed at Anna Karenin, Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace...I now blame life circumstances outside the pages of those books...too distracted, working too hard, couldn't stay awake, didn't have the patience. But I've been trying to improve all those things about myself, and hey maybe it's beginning to take.
It also may be that I had an easier time getting 'into' the characters in this book--I didn't really like them (they're all douchebags and their behavior towards one another gets pretty absurd and hard to take) but I did care about them, which is more than I can say for the Brothers K. Maybe I should try that one again though.
Anyway I'm glad I read it, I think I got what D was trying to say about upstart intellectual self-important jerks, their brooding, and their 'movements.' He doesn't go easy on status-quo-dependent, social-climbing bureaucrats though either. There were a few passages in particular that really got the points across, and I think it was D's devastating wit that kept me interested for the entire thing.
By the way, I read an old Norton Critical Edition that I took from the FREE BOOKS box at the Lawrence Library when I used to work there. I'm sure there are too many editions floating around for this site to handle, so I couldn't find the exact right one, but it's worth being specific here because I found this particular translation (1953 by Jessie Coulson, fyi) to be excellent, especially compared with some of the other ones I've read and heard about from Janie (she is particularly frustrated with the translation of Anna K she's reading now...it has eliminated the use of patronymics to avoid 'confusing' readers). ...less
bookshelves:
classics
recommends it for:
hmm... don't know if I really can (see review)
Rated 3 stars for being good in parts but uneven on the whole.
Crime and Punishment was on my personal to-read list for a long time. I was really excited to read more of Dostoevksy since Notes from the Underground is one of my all time favorite books. On top of that people had personally recommended C&P to me, and it's considered to be among the greatest classics of all time.
So, I got around to reading it. And honestly, I was disappointed.
A case of having t...more
Rated 3 stars for being good in parts but uneven on the whole.
Crime and Punishment was on my personal to-read list for a long time. I was really excited to read more of Dostoevksy since Notes from the Underground is one of my all time favorite books. On top of that people had personally recommended C&P to me, and it's considered to be among the greatest classics of all time.
So, I got around to reading it. And honestly, I was disappointed.
A case of having too high of expectations? Probably. Here's the thing, C&P is a 500 (or so) page novel that's at least 300 pages too long. I started and gave up on C&P at least two times before because the introductory chapters are so boring. Things just start to get really interesting right when we reach the crime part of the novel, but then Dostoevsky once again brings back in characters and situations that I couldn't care less about.
I'm no Dostoevsky or C&P expert. This book might be much better in the original Russian or with more analysis and multiple readings. But it seemed to me that if core elements of the novel could be saved and most of the meanderings into distracting subplots discarded, C&P could be tighter with the payoff being more emotional impact on the reader.
Dostoevsky had an amazing ability to communicate, capture, and penetrate into irrational and contradictory nature of the individual psyche. I think his writing is at it's very best with an intimate little cast of characters or with the thoughts of individuals. The larger Dostoevsky's focus and cast, the more this gets lost. That's my opinion anyway.
C&P isn't horrible, but it's not as great as it should have been. If you're going to give it a read my advice is to avoid the old, standard Constance Garnette translation at all costs (and for Dostoevsky in general). I find her style dull and ponderous. ...less
bookshelves:
19th-cent-lit
Read in April, 2008
recommends it for:
anyone
A powerful novel; I almost don't know what to say, as I've just finished it and am tired~and I know already that I need to re-read it. About 1/3 to 1/2-way through I actually had to stop reading it, and put it aside for nearly 2 weeks, b/c the atmosphere became stifling in its psychological horror. Raskolnikov sometimes seemed a real Gollum, whom you want to throw your arms around one moment, and run away from the next, a bundle of contradictions ~ and yet what a character~ his image in my min...more
A powerful novel; I almost don't know what to say, as I've just finished it and am tired~and I know already that I need to re-read it. About 1/3 to 1/2-way through I actually had to stop reading it, and put it aside for nearly 2 weeks, b/c the atmosphere became stifling in its psychological horror. Raskolnikov sometimes seemed a real Gollum, whom you want to throw your arms around one moment, and run away from the next, a bundle of contradictions ~ and yet what a character~ his image in my mind was crystal-clear, despite this. I love Dosto's sensibility and where the novel ends up, but perhaps felt something lacking in the Way or means by which it ended up there, and it's a little hard to put one's finger on exactly. The most perfect novels, as my mom reminds me, contain a deliberate sequence of setup-setup-payoff, often surprising but perfect somehow, and if they are missing one of these elements it is clearly deliberate, and the very lack is perfect (e.g. No Country for Old Men "seems" to be missing its payoff); whereas I felt somehow that for a couple of things in C&P, we were missing some elements of "setup #2", so to speak, or perhaps it was that the payoff came without a more powerful and immediate instigator. Too, a few sequences seemed either out-of-place/unnecessary to the plot (though I feel like a humbug for making this sound like a complaint, as my beloved Dickens does this all the time, as does Hugo, beyond all bounds!!!), or not set up well enough (I'm thinking particularly of Svidrigailov's whole finale). Even the beautiful and symbolic imagery of the exchange of crosses was not paid off in the end in as powerful a way as it might've been. But nonetheless I was wholly captivated by this novel, and once I began again after my break of 2 weeks, I could hardly stop. Thrilling, chilling, intense, alive, and utterly Russian....less
bookshelves:
classic_fiction,
world_fiction
Read in October, 2007
Seri klasik karya pengarang Rusia ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris oleh Constance Garnett, dan diringkas secara populer oleh Alice Tek Eyck.
Nah aku baca yang terjemahannya seri populer ini.
Bernuansa muram abad ke-18 di St. Petersburg. di kota dengan semua masalah politik dan ekonomi (kemelaratan). bercerita tentang konflik batin (jiwa, kesepian, kemiskinan, dan cinta) yang dialami oleh seorang mahasiswa drop out bernama Raskolnikov - dimana dengan semua tekanan tidak bisa melanjutka...more
Seri klasik karya pengarang Rusia ini diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris oleh Constance Garnett, dan diringkas secara populer oleh Alice Tek Eyck.
Nah aku baca yang terjemahannya seri populer ini.
Bernuansa muram abad ke-18 di St. Petersburg. di kota dengan semua masalah politik dan ekonomi (kemelaratan). bercerita tentang konflik batin (jiwa, kesepian, kemiskinan, dan cinta) yang dialami oleh seorang mahasiswa drop out bernama Raskolnikov - dimana dengan semua tekanan tidak bisa melanjutkan studinya, memikirkan keadaan ibu dan adiknya yang miskin tapi masih harus mengiriminya uang (karena dia harapan satu-satunya), tinggal di sebuah kamar flat yang tak layak huni dan pengap (dan sudah menunggak uang sewa selama beberapa bulan), terpaksa menggadaikan benda-benda tak seberapa berharga untuk ditukar dengan uang pada seorang wanita tua lintah darat yang sangat dibencinya - akhirnya pemuda terpelajar ini (tanpa diduga) membunuh wanita tua lintah darat tersebut berserta adik tirinya yang tak sengaja memergoki perbuatannya.
Kejadian tersebut membuat Raskolnikov jatuh sakit - mental maupun fisik - walaupun dia tidak merasa menyesal sama sekali telah melakukan kejahatan tersebut (membunuh salah satu kutu), dan tetap berusaha waras dan menggunakan akal sehatnya guna mengindari kecuirgaan polisi. suatu pergulatan psikologis, bertahan pada teori yang diyakininya tentang "orang kecil" dan "orang besar".
pekenalannya dengan Sonia - yang terpaksa menjadi pelacur guna menghidupi ibu dan saudara-saudara tirinya - membuat Raskolnikov sadar akan adanya lembar baru dalam hidupnya. tentu saja setelah dia menebus perbuatannya dengan hukuman.
...less
Read in May, 2008
What I enjoyed about this book, and thought Dostoevsky did well, was exploring philosophical ideas and social movements without coming off as too didactic (cough cough Upton Sinclar cough cough). I wish I knew more about Petersburg during this era because I feel like I could get a lot more out of the novel with some more background information (although, for what book is this not true?). I thought that the reading of Lazarus scene between Sonya and Raskolnikov was totally awesome. I also really ...more
What I enjoyed about this book, and thought Dostoevsky did well, was exploring philosophical ideas and social movements without coming off as too didactic (cough cough Upton Sinclar cough cough). I wish I knew more about Petersburg during this era because I feel like I could get a lot more out of the novel with some more background information (although, for what book is this not true?). I thought that the reading of Lazarus scene between Sonya and Raskolnikov was totally awesome. I also really liked the character of Svidrigailov.
My one main complaint is: was everyone in Petersburg at this time batshit insane?! For a book that is purportedly centered around the events of a reasoned crime, the main character (as an aside, props to Dostoevsky for coming up with THE best name for an anti-hero ever: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, wayoh) seems pretty unhinged from the beginning. It seems too easy to pin his unraveling to this pre-existing condition, rather than the commission of the crime itself, which I felt was more of what Dostoevsky wanted to do. There is such an emphasis on reason (with one character's name, Razumikhin, actually MEANING reason), but it seems like every other page, someone is going into a "delirium." I think it would have been more powerful if Raskolnikov had been more detached, forward-thinking, and rational up until the crime.
By the by, if you're thinking of picking up some Russian lit, I've really enjoyed the translators for this book (I read their version of the Master and Margarita as well): Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. They've been working through a lot of the classics....less
Read in June, 2007
recommends it for:
philosophers and people interested in russian novels
most people i know don't enjoy the russian novels. they read them because these books are renowned to be excellent treatises on morality and religion and ethics. they read them for the same reason that i always read greek classics. because you feel that as a reader, you're supposed to read them. if that is the way you are (and you know who you are if this is the case) regarding russian novels, then don't read crime and punishment. don't read this book because you feel you're supposed to, or...more
most people i know don't enjoy the russian novels. they read them because these books are renowned to be excellent treatises on morality and religion and ethics. they read them for the same reason that i always read greek classics. because you feel that as a reader, you're supposed to read them. if that is the way you are (and you know who you are if this is the case) regarding russian novels, then don't read crime and punishment. don't read this book because you feel you're supposed to, or because you believe that x number of other people have read it, so you should to.
that caveat out of the way, i really enjoyed the book. i will say that bits and pieces of my translation were slightly annoying, but not enough to detract from the storytelling.
the novel essentially revolves around the question, or at least i believe it does, whether there are certain men, like napoleon, who are exempt from moral imperatives. men who are, for lack of a better explanation, better than others, and therefore not held to the same rules as the rest of us. the question is, how does one know if this is true? how is the theory tested? what if you are wrong? all in all, i really enjoyed it. raskolnikov was an utterly detestable and sympathetic creature. any more and i feel like i will ruin the experience. provided you're not one of those people reading because you feel you have to. if you're one of them, i fear you're experience is unfortunately already ruined. ...less
Read in February, 2008
Reading this book for the second time I really got a lot more out of it. Also, reading this book in the context of all of Dostoevsky's earlier work, especially Notes from Underground, shone a bright light on the inner meaning of the book.
Although I feel like The Gambler was the dishwater leftover after Dostoevsky worked on Crime and Punishment every day, I hope it enhances my understanding of The Idiot like Notes from Underground helped with Crime and Punishment.
At different points I wa...more
Reading this book for the second time I really got a lot more out of it. Also, reading this book in the context of all of Dostoevsky's earlier work, especially Notes from Underground, shone a bright light on the inner meaning of the book.
Although I feel like The Gambler was the dishwater leftover after Dostoevsky worked on Crime and Punishment every day, I hope it enhances my understanding of The Idiot like Notes from Underground helped with Crime and Punishment.
At different points I was reminded of my two favorite books while reading this one: Ulysses and Lolita. I know Joyce was a fan of Dostoevsky but Nabokov openly mocked him. I can't help but think that Nabokov was just mad at himself for taking so much from him stylistically. I was reminded of Joyce because both authors created protagonists who were semi-autobiographical who held beliefs that ran counter to the author's beliefs. Dostoevsky has Raskolnikov and Joyce has Daedalus. As for the similarities to Lolita, the showdown with Svidrigailov was remarkably similar to Humbert Humbert's showdown with Clare Quilty. Nabokov often poked fun at Dostoevsky's pulpy over-dramatic plots involving murders and prostitutes, but Nabokov use the same type of plots, albeit under the guise of satirizing Dostoevsky.
Reading this book I often had to pause to admire how elegantly it was designed. ...less
I read this in high school and still remeber being moved by it. Watching Raskolnikov's guilt frive him mad was fascinating. The tale of how love and asking for forgiveness can set you free was such a powerful metaphor for how God loves and forgives us.
I copied a review of the book b/c it's been a while and I didn't want to forget telling you something key.
The novel portrays the murder of a miserly, aged pawnbroker and her younger sister by a destitute Saint Petersburg student named Rasko...more
I read this in high school and still remeber being moved by it. Watching Raskolnikov's guilt frive him mad was fascinating. The tale of how love and asking for forgiveness can set you free was such a powerful metaphor for how God loves and forgives us.
I copied a review of the book b/c it's been a while and I didn't want to forget telling you something key.
The novel portrays the murder of a miserly, aged pawnbroker and her younger sister by a destitute Saint Petersburg student named Raskolnikov, and the emotional, mental, and physical effects that follow.
After falling ill with fever and lying bedridden for days, Raskolnikov is overcome with paranoia and begins to imagine that everyone he meets suspects him of the murder; the knowledge of his crime eventually drives him mad. However, he falls in love with the prostitute Sonya along the way.
Raskolnikov's real punishment is not the labour camp he is condemned to, but the torment he endures throughout the novel. This torment manifests itself in the aforementioned paranoia, as well as his progressive realization that he is not a "super-human," as he could not cope with what he had done. His confession to the prostitute, not his surrender, is the means to end his suffering....less
Read in June, 2006
i tackled this one after i notched the brothers on my belt, finishing it on the shore of some random river in amsterdam. i wasn't too let down with this one either. i found myself quite enthralled by his psychological ramblings throughout and decided, because i think you need to decide, to care about all of the side things that seem to be distracting out fearful hero and you as the reader. of course it has a very different narrative style then im used to, but it all has a purpose, well a purp...more
i tackled this one after i notched the brothers on my belt, finishing it on the shore of some random river in amsterdam. i wasn't too let down with this one either. i found myself quite enthralled by his psychological ramblings throughout and decided, because i think you need to decide, to care about all of the side things that seem to be distracting out fearful hero and you as the reader. of course it has a very different narrative style then im used to, but it all has a purpose, well a purpose as much as you want it to. which, i seem to recall, i did. ive read some other complaints about its length, but once you understand that the man has a lot to say, the protagonist and the author, you realize that it kind of does all need to be said. i'd have liked to see maybe a tiny more in the build-up of the some of the subplots post-crime, but i know that would mess with some of the internal structure which is quite delicate at many points.
i give this one a strong 4 with a reccomendation to read the brothers karamazov first, if you are someone who has decided to tackle the russian masters. i thoroughly enjoyed this book, but it took time to enjoy, and it took a commitment to enjoy, and sometimes life doesn't always offer you that opportunity....less
bookshelves:
fiction
I'm not sure whether it is perfectly honest of me to say that I liked this book. The plotline of the book is torturously tedious, and the narrative is marred by the convoluted language and style (some of which I'm sure comes from the era, and some of which I'm sure comes from the fact that it's been translated). If you can manage to convince yourself to be dragged through an obscenely agonizing amount of self-recrimination and ethical/existential angst to get to the potentially intriguing ethi...more
I'm not sure whether it is perfectly honest of me to say that I liked this book. The plotline of the book is torturously tedious, and the narrative is marred by the convoluted language and style (some of which I'm sure comes from the era, and some of which I'm sure comes from the fact that it's been translated). If you can manage to convince yourself to be dragged through an obscenely agonizing amount of self-recrimination and ethical/existential angst to get to the potentially intriguing ethical concept that forms the central tenet of the main character's ethos, you might still be broadsided by the fact that, due to his own personal weakness, the main character repudiates his own intriguing principle and decides that 'society was right all along.'
Oy. The only reason that I can even suggest that this book should be a classic is for raising the idea for people to discuss (even if the main character shies away from ever truly embracing it) that morality might be a tool used by those with power but which does not actually apply to those with power. It is the discussion of this idea, however one might evaluate it (because lord knows the book won't provide any light in that discussion), that is worth three stars....less
Read in December, 2007
A lot of people don't seem like Russian Literature. I guess it probably takes some getting used to. 19th Century Russian writers don't seem to write the novels that we're used to reading. They're often quite long, and sometimes difficult to keep reading; but like many novels that have endured the passing decades, I've found this one to reward the effort.
In Crime and Punishment Dostoevsky stabs you at the beginning, sticks his finger in the wound and twists it slowly for the rest of the n...more
A lot of people don't seem like Russian Literature. I guess it probably takes some getting used to. 19th Century Russian writers don't seem to write the novels that we're used to reading. They're often quite long, and sometimes difficult to keep reading; but like many novels that have endured the passing decades, I've found this one to reward the effort.
In Crime and Punishment Dostoevsky stabs you at the beginning, sticks his finger in the wound and twists it slowly for the rest of the novel. I found myself, several times, reacting with a physical visceral response, as if the prose were actually twisting up my guts somehow. I have not read very many novels that have done that. It's not enough for authors like Dostoevsky to just tell you something. They need to take you to it, show it to you personally, stick it in your face and make sure you see it, and make sure you understand every aspect of it before they're satisfied.
I liked this novel a lot, and I'll probably end up reading it again someday....less
Read in February, 2008
I finally read it! This was a book I had been putting off for a while. I would have liked to have tackled it in a class, with a little more discussion and criticism than that which I came to by way of Google, but it was still a great book, no matter how much I may have missed. Raskolnikov is at first an unrelatable character, disorderly and off-putting, but as the story progresses he becomes a picaresque hero of sorts, and no matter the reader's reaction to the murder which sets the story in m...more
I finally read it! This was a book I had been putting off for a while. I would have liked to have tackled it in a class, with a little more discussion and criticism than that which I came to by way of Google, but it was still a great book, no matter how much I may have missed. Raskolnikov is at first an unrelatable character, disorderly and off-putting, but as the story progresses he becomes a picaresque hero of sorts, and no matter the reader's reaction to the murder which sets the story in motion, one cannot help but be pulled into Dostoevsky's examinations of poverty, class, and social injustice (or justice).
My only word of caution: be careful in choosing a translation. I bought this with a few other books off the Barnes and Noble value shelf (you've all seen it) because I got a few gift cards for Christmas and I was about to deploy to Iraq. Though I can't remember the name of the translator, I can give a perfect example of the shortcomings of the translation, from memory. When a certain pistol 'misfired' (common English term) the author creates the term "missed fire'. I know....less
bookshelves:
favorites
Read in January, 1997
recommends it for:
anybody!
I read this book in AP English my senior year of high school, and I've read it probably 8 times since then. It follows in the tradition of a lot of existential novels that aren't necessarily plot-heavy but filled with such copious amounts of emotional torment that they really require a nap after reading.
I found the antagonist, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (gotta love the name) to be altogether repugnant and charismatic. In such a faraway place and a long-ago time, the thoughts and feeli...more
I read this book in AP English my senior year of high school, and I've read it probably 8 times since then. It follows in the tradition of a lot of existential novels that aren't necessarily plot-heavy but filled with such copious amounts of emotional torment that they really require a nap after reading.
I found the antagonist, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (gotta love the name) to be altogether repugnant and charismatic. In such a faraway place and a long-ago time, the thoughts and feelings of a destitute murderer were a thing I never thought I could relate to, but this book actually kind of makes it possible.
I've always enjoyed books where all materialistic distractions are stripped away enough and the human condition in its barest form can be revealed (and what better place than a barren, economically depressed, cold-ass Russian town full of drunks???). LOVE IT.
One recommendation: This novel is chock-full of nicknames and really long Russian names, so I always use a few sheets of paper to help me sort the shit out....less
Read in October, 2007
recommends it for:
anyone with daddy issues
I've finally caught up to an average high school English Honors student, and read some Dostoevsky. My self-loathing has ebbed, and I can say that the time spent with Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (sp?) et al was quite enjoyable. The way the narrative moves through different characters' inner lives while the outward drama unfolds became my favorite aspect. Though I have nothing to compare it to, the footnotes in the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation are quite helpful in further understanding t...more
I've finally caught up to an average high school English Honors student, and read some Dostoevsky. My self-loathing has ebbed, and I can say that the time spent with Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (sp?) et al was quite enjoyable. The way the narrative moves through different characters' inner lives while the outward drama unfolds became my favorite aspect. Though I have nothing to compare it to, the footnotes in the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation are quite helpful in further understanding the time period, and some general Russian turns of phrase. Most classics bore the piss out of me, but this one is suprisingly alive all the way through. Not hard to grasp at all. That tightening-vise feeling made me think of Robert Altman's "The Player", with a much less cynical ending. Can't trash Constance Garnett, since I've never read her translations, but I hear the voice of the author is more authentically captured in these fairly new P/V translations. ...less
book data (includes all editions)
avg rating
(all editions):
4.21 (14925 ratings)
avg rating
(this edition): 4.17
(8802 ratings)
number of reviews: 1294
other editions
[close]
Crime and Punishment (Mass Market Paperback)
isbn: 074348763X
[close]
Crime and Punishment
isbn: 0451530063
[close]
Crime and Punishment (Paperback)
isbn: 0679734503
quote
"Ah, Father! That’s words and only words! Forgive! If he’d not been run over, he’d have come home today drunk and his only shirt dirty and in rags and he’d have fallen asleep like a log, and I should have been sousing and rinsing till daybreak, washing his rags and the children’s and then drying them by the window and as soon as it was daylight I should have been darning them. What’s the use of talking forgiveness! I have forgiven as it is!"
more quotes »
<
