Part 6 and overall discussion of Crime and Punishment

[NancyJ, Moderator]

SPOILER WARNING. If you haven't finished the book yet, we suggest that you leave this thread and return to it later.

This is the final spoiler thread for Crime and Punishment. Use this thread to discuss the ending, or anything else about the book.

However, during the first 2 weeks of July, please use a spoiler cover if you mention anything specific that might really spoil the book for those who are just starting to read it. I know we warned people not to look, but some will jump in anyway.

What do you think about the book overall? What are your favorite and least favorite aspects of the book?

Why is this book still significant and worth reading?

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Is morality the same as decency the same as Justice?? Is morality rigid with definite ‘red lines’? Or does it slip around depending on
social status?

I think the novel explores the fluidity of all kinds of Justice and morality and what is considered decent. What fascinates me is how individuals, whether the fictional ones in this novel or in real life, will focus on whatever crime is legally defined on the surface while either ignoring or appear oblivious to the crimes going all around them; for example, allowing women and children to starve to death because it is more important they preserve social proprieties and die by starvation rather than behave in a manner which is socially unacceptable, or that people judge an ugly old woman as perhaps deserving murder simply because she was a woman earning a living under the distinction of being ugly or old too. Marrying for money is perfectly acceptable in many societies, though often tittered at.

Apparently Justice and morals are very fluid, as the author points out, depending on who in society is judging.

[Kim]

I think Rodia had a lot to learn about the world. He was so conceited and just believed himself to be so right because he thought about things, that he figured murder wasn't that bad. Then, of course, he just lost his mind when he realized that he was so, so wrong on so many levels. I don't understand why he didn't think to use the money, and don't understand why he gives it away. This is a continuing theme in a lot of literature, where a poor person decides to give money they didn't have the ability to lose to someone else. But then, he doesn't even do it consciously. Later on, after giving it to the drunkard, he tallies up his spendings. It just doesn't add up.

I do like that eventually they point out how much he's isolated himself from society, and how overall messed up he is as a person.

That makes it so much more shocking to me that someone like Razumikhin appears to love him so deeply. I don't know if it's intended, but it honestly felt like he was a love sick puppy with a crush on Rodia. He compares the sister to Rodia so happily, as if he was before torn between love and friendship with Rodia until the sister appeared. It's probably more "out there" than intended, but they're going to be my "OTP" haha.

Overall it was a good book. I loved some of the scenes and the characters making you question what "good" was in society. Russia had its problems, that's for sure.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

The main character's actions do sound irrational. However, the background for the writing of this book, I think, was the underlying philosophy which was all the rage in Russia for awhile among intellectuals: Nihilism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism