Hot Best Seller

Crime and Punishment. An Easton Press Limited Edition in Full Leather

Availability: Ready to download

Full leather hardback. Different gold embossed pattern than the picture shown, this is a black book with gold embossing but has a snowflake looking design. This book is a limited edition printed in Belgium (in English). Never read, some shelf wear and corner bumping, gold foil rubbed through on the bottom of the book from sitting on shelf. No writing or highlighting.


Compare

Full leather hardback. Different gold embossed pattern than the picture shown, this is a black book with gold embossing but has a snowflake looking design. This book is a limited edition printed in Belgium (in English). Never read, some shelf wear and corner bumping, gold foil rubbed through on the bottom of the book from sitting on shelf. No writing or highlighting.

30 review for Crime and Punishment. An Easton Press Limited Edition in Full Leather

  1. 5 out of 5

    Bonnie

    There was a time in my life when I couldn’t get enough of reading Dostoevsky. Maybe because his books made me think so deeply about being human and how we choose to live our lives. I began with Crime and Punishment, probably the work he is best known for. What I remember is being fascinated by Dostoevsky’s brilliant understanding of human nature. I remember thinking what a deep study this book was; an incredible examination of a man who commits murder and how he is “punished” for it. I remember There was a time in my life when I couldn’t get enough of reading Dostoevsky. Maybe because his books made me think so deeply about being human and how we choose to live our lives. I began with Crime and Punishment, probably the work he is best known for. What I remember is being fascinated by Dostoevsky’s brilliant understanding of human nature. I remember thinking what a deep study this book was; an incredible examination of a man who commits murder and how he is “punished” for it. I remember thinking that here was a master storyteller. Not only able to create complex characters, but able to take the reader deeply inside a character’s mind. Best of all, I remember that I would stop reading periodically and think; not a mindless read, but an absorbing one.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Stephen

    6.0 Stars. One of my All Time Favorite novels. In addition to being one of the first works of Classic Literature that I suggest when asked for recommendations from others, this story holds a special place in my heart as it was the story, along with Moby Dick, that began my love of the “classics” for which I will always be grateful. So often we are forced to read the great works of literature for school or at times not of our choosing and I think it tends to lead to a lifelong aversion to them.. 6.0 Stars. One of my All Time Favorite novels. In addition to being one of the first works of Classic Literature that I suggest when asked for recommendations from others, this story holds a special place in my heart as it was the story, along with Moby Dick, that began my love of the “classics” for which I will always be grateful. So often we are forced to read the great works of literature for school or at times not of our choosing and I think it tends to lead to a lifelong aversion to them...like being forced to eat vegetables as a child...yuck. I was fortunate enough to come back to these stories on my own terms while I was in College. My parents, at my request, bought me a subscription to several Easton Press library collections including the “100 Greatest Books Ever Written” and “Books That Changed the World.” Two of the first three books I received were Moby Dick and Crime and Punishment. So I took a weekend off from getting drunk and running naked through Downtown San Diego and decided instead to get drunk in my apartment and read Crime and Punishment….and I fell head over heals in man-love with Dostoyevsky. I loved this book from the opening scene in which Raskolnikov is convincing himself about the rightness of committing the murder of the money-lending pawn-broker all the way through the bittersweet end and the beginning of his redemption. Powerful, brilliant, insightful and surprisingly engaging despite the fact that it is far from being a "light" read in either prose or content. The central theme of this story is not really the crime (i.e. Murder) or punishment (i.e., incarceration) in the formal sense of the word. The real crime is Raskolnikov’s arrogance in placing himself above his fellow man and thus is not bound by the rules of society (i.e., his belief he is like Napoleon). Likewise, the punishment is the deeply felt, and unexpected from his standpoint, guilt over what he has done. It is Raskolnikov’s personal, internal struggle with the evil he has perpetrated. His mind, his body, his very essence rails against his actions and leads him down the path that will eventually lead to the possibility of redemption. It is such a deeply personal, emotionally evocative journey that it was impossible for me not to become intensely invested in the story. Something that struck me as I was reading about Raskolnikov’s struggle with his conscience was the thought that everybody does things that they are ashamed of or wish they could change. That is part of being human. It is our ability to feel genuine remorse over our bad actions and voluntarily take steps to rectify those mistakes that leads to growth and character. I think this is why I have always loved stories of redemption because it is such a classic theme of being human. On the other hand, I also realized why I get so bat shit crazy with anger when I hear of certain kinds of what people terms "non violent" crime. Rapists and murderers when they get caught are punished and sent to places I have nightmares about. Whether or not it is enough, we can debate, but it is defintely not a fun place. What bothers me are the slime balls who steal and pillage millions and billions of $$$ from people who need it and end up spending time in cushy federal prisons with cable TV and other amenities. I see these "crimes" as bad as most violent crimes because they lead to real severe pain and devastation for many of the victims and yet the punishment never seems commensurate. And yet, these “white collar” criminals get off so much easier and you NEVER (or rarely) see genuine remorse over the destruction they have caused. It lead me to do a little justice fantasizing and I came up with this that I thought I would share... Sorry for the less smooth segue, but it was something that came to me while I was reading the book. Anyway, unlike those above, Raskolnikov’s story is one of true growth and redemption and is definitely a story that I think everyone should read. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!! P.S. The second time I “read” this I listened to the unabridged audio as read by George Guidall and he did his usual AMAZING job. I think his narration is superb and truly enhanced the experience of the story.

  3. 5 out of 5

    s.penkevich

    ‘To go wrong in one's own way is better then to go right in someone else's.’ I have been giving a lot of thought to this novel lately. Despite the three years that have gone by since reading Crime and Punishment—three years in which I’ve read some outstanding literature, joined Goodreads and written just over 100 reviews of the books I’ve journeyed through—Dostoevsky’s novel still resides on it’s throne as my personal favorite novel. No other web of words, brushstrokes or music melody has ever st ‘To go wrong in one's own way is better then to go right in someone else's.’ I have been giving a lot of thought to this novel lately. Despite the three years that have gone by since reading Crime and Punishment—three years in which I’ve read some outstanding literature, joined Goodreads and written just over 100 reviews of the books I’ve journeyed through—Dostoevsky’s novel still resides on it’s throne as my personal favorite novel. No other web of words, brushstrokes or music melody has ever struck me so deeply and consumed me so completely as this book did. The author’s collection of works as a whole has left such a mark on my soul that I felt it necessary to permanently affix his likeness on my arm. Over a century has passed since its initial publication, yet Dostoevsky’s message is still as poignant today as it was when it was first inked onto paper. Crime and Punishment features an immensely engaging blend of intrigue; philosophy; political, social, moral and religious commentary, that all thread together to create a masterpiece of literature that captures the deep, raw core of the human condition when it is at it’s most gruesome and vulnerable. The exquisite literary genius of the novel evoked a strong emotional resonance in me and the timing of my reading was just right to forever wed me to my love of books. Initially envisioned as two separate novels, one following the inner turmoil of a murderer and the other chronicling the melancholic destruction of a family due to a flighty, alcoholic patriarch, Dostoevsky deftly weaves together a multitude of unforgettable characters as they interplay through their tangle of plotlines. There are some incredible scenes that will forever haunt and delight me in my memory, such as the narrow escape from the scene of the crime which had me holding my breath in anxious anticipation, the darkly comical disaster of the funeral feast, or the emotionally charged and grim meeting between Dunya and the vile Svidrigaïlov. Each character is carefully balanced with their foil, each character is written with their own unique style of speech and language, and the novel seems to tie every thread together with such perfection and care as it churns forward, raining destruction on the lives of it’s characters to bring them toward their own personal redemption or demise. This was a book that I was unable to put down as the words flowed from their pages to deep within my heart. Dostoevsky brilliantly straps the reader to the emotional states of his characters and is able to create seamless transitions between scenes or from the minds of one character to the next by riding the wings of an emotion. Most often this emotion is guilt, and the murder scene and it’s feverish follow-up is so expertly crafted that the reader feels they must share in Raskolnikov’s guilty burden. During the course of reading this book, I was overwhelmed by a crushing sense of guilt that was disconnected to any of my own actions. Yet, had police officers confronted me at any given moment, I would have held out my hands in surrender since I was so burdened by the guilty residue of the novel. What further linked me to the book was Raskolnikov’s illness following his crime. Maybe it wasn’t the novel taking root in my soul, perhaps it was due to the cold fall weather that was creeping in at the time, or perhaps it was due to my lack of sleep and early rising to embark on 10-12hr shifts in an unheated factory where I would work away amidst a cloud of aluminum dust, but I felt feverish and ill alongside Raskolnikov and his fever dreams. I don’t think I felt well again until after finishing the book. I believe I read Crime and Punishment at the ideal moment in my life. I had spent the summer going through several of Dostoevsky’s other novels and falling madly in love with his writing. Then my whole life was uprooted. At the time I began C&P, I had moved across the state away from all my friends, family, and everything I knew and recognized, to live in Holland with my brand new baby daughter and work in a factory that could easily serve for a modern day sequel to Sinclair’s The Jungle. Looking back, I think I can see why I so easily soaked up Raskolnikov’s feelings. Dostoevsky shows how we are a product of our choices, and it is how we deal with our consequences that makes us who we are. I was placed in the new situation because of choices I had made, like choosing to skip class to smoke and read by the river, and Raskolnikov was faced with the guilt of his own actions. It was the most dramatic shift in my life and I am not a person who enjoys change, yet here I was without a familiar face and nobody to talk to. Crime and Punishment was there in my hand every morning and night as I walked between my home and car, like a friend holding my hand to comfort and encourage me in my exhaustion. It rode shotgun on my hour commutes like a faithful companion, and was the friendly face in which I could take refuge in on my breaks. When stripped of all I knew, there was literature to keep me sane and give me something to hold on to as my world spiraled out of control around me (my daughter was also a tether of sanity for me, but fatherhood was still new and intimidating at the time). Dostoevsky and his beautiful words became my friend and my passion, and in my solitude (because, let’s face it, I was very much an oddball in that factory and it took awhile to find my place there) I plunged myself deep into books, something I am very thankful for and feel that all the strangeness and loneliness of the existence is washed away by the glow I feel from grappling with my favorite authors. Then I discovered Goodreads and you all became incredibly dear to me. I don’t think I would have survived my time in that dark pit without you all, so, from the bottom of my heart, thank you. I apologize that this isn’t really much of a review, I’m very excited for this review, as it was seeing this GR friend—one of which I hold in the highest regard and am always incredibly impressed by—reading Crime and Punishment that brought back a flood of memories of my times with the book as if I were Proust with his madeleines. I highly recommend this novel, and firmly stand by my choice of it as my favorite. Recently, I had to make a list for work of my top 5 favorite books, which was difficult to do, damn near impossible, but I realized how simple it was to put a book down in the #1 slot. I have read some incredible books since, Hunger (my love of which stems from the similarities to Dostoevsky I noticed in the book), Gravity’s Rainbow, or To the Lighthouse to name a few, yet nothing has ever left as deep of an impact on me as a reader and as a human being as this book. This is a fantastic book about the human spirit, about our deepest, darkest impulses, and shows that our own inner consciousness can dish out a far greater punishment than any legal system can. Now I need to sleep and sober up. 5/5 ‘ I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity.’

  4. 5 out of 5

    Emily May

    I've come to the conclusion that Russian door-stoppers might just be where it's at. "It" here meaning general awesomeness that combines the elements of history, philosophy and high readability to make books that are both thought-provoking and enjoyable. Granted, I have only read three of the Russian big-uns: War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and now Crime and Punishment, but I intend to rectify this shortly with The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot. Now, I don't want to go blazing with too much exci I've come to the conclusion that Russian door-stoppers might just be where it's at. "It" here meaning general awesomeness that combines the elements of history, philosophy and high readability to make books that are both thought-provoking and enjoyable. Granted, I have only read three of the Russian big-uns: War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and now Crime and Punishment, but I intend to rectify this shortly with The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot. Now, I don't want to go blazing with too much excitement into the land of Tsars and vodka, and then just ending up with a load of disappointment like I got from some of the Aussie authors I was counting on this year, but I have honestly liked every Russian novel I've read so far, big and small. This may seem like a very odd comparison to make, but Crime and Punishment has made me feel much more ready to write my review of Stormdancer. One of my main points I wanted to make about the Japanese steampunk was to do with the massive overload of Japanese words that had me pulling up google every few minutes and resulted in a loss of excitement and appreciation for the story. But I was reluctant to say "this book is too Japanese" because I sound exactly like a typical silly uncultured westerner who isn't interested in learning about other ways of life. However, Crime and Punishment really proves that it isn't me being deliberately ignorant. I knew only what I'd got from Tolstoy about nineteenth century Russian society and people when I started this book, about as much as I knew about Japan from reading Manga when I started Stormdancer. The difference is that Dostoyevsky took me on an educational - but also gripping - journey around the backstreets and drinking dens of St Petersburg that told me about the nitty gritty details of life in Russia for those less fortunate - drunks, prostitutes, the poor - and I felt I had a very vivid portrait of this time and culture without once having to use google. I had a recent comment on one of my reviews basically saying I owed it to the author to do a little research before I comment on the novel, that it wasn't the author's responsibility to provide all the information. Look, in the end, I prefer a book that can stand up on its own without requiring additional material to have it make sense, I just do. And Crime and Punishment delivers that. It's educational without feeling like one lengthy info-dump, and it's philosophical without being a mindfuck. Raskolnikov is a great protagonist, he really is. His head is all over the place and he constantly struggles with what he believes in, his conscience and his desire to get what he wants. The reader is pulled so deep inside the dark depths of his mind that it's hard to avoid becoming completely absorbed in the story. He is at times nasty, at others funny, and at others pitiful. Dostoyevsky has created one extremely well-rounded and complex character. Crime and Punishment shows the human capacity for evil, but also for shame and remorse. And this latter is the real "punishment" for Raskolnikov when he is driven near to insanity by his guilt. I don't really know how best to fully articulate my feelings for Crime and Punishment. I don't give many five star ratings and I rarely feel this strongly about what I've read. I actually had a bloody dream about it! Speaking of dreams, I want to use this one example of Dostoyevsky's ability to engage the reader so thoroughly: I read one particular scene in the book that made me seriously distressed, I was furious, on the verge of tears, I was like a child who wants to jump inside the TV and make everything better... and then Raskolnikov awakes to discover it was just a dream. I swear that my sigh of relief fully eclipsed his! But that's how far into this story I became, how much I really cared about it. That doesn't happen often.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Lisa

    What a sensational reading experience, what an unconditional surrender to an atmosphere of fear, anxiety and confusion - and to an epic battle of wills! Rarely these days do I read with that kind of hopeless, helpless feeling of being completely, utterly lost in the imaginary world. From the first moment, when Raskolnikov steps out on the street and begins wandering around in Petersburg, to the very last pages, I live with the characters, I am part of the story, I have my own opinions, and argue What a sensational reading experience, what an unconditional surrender to an atmosphere of fear, anxiety and confusion - and to an epic battle of wills! Rarely these days do I read with that kind of hopeless, helpless feeling of being completely, utterly lost in the imaginary world. From the first moment, when Raskolnikov steps out on the street and begins wandering around in Petersburg, to the very last pages, I live with the characters, I am part of the story, I have my own opinions, and argue against their actions, in my head, while reading on in a frenzy. What can I say? There has been enough said of Raskolnikov’s murky motives for doing what he does. I don’t agree with him at all, neither with the theory he proposes, nor with the idea that he can expiate his crime through intense suffering. I hate the nonchalance with which he discards the murderee - “a louse” - as an unimportant detail in the bigger picture of him, his character, his suffering ego, and his ultimate redemption and resurrection as a “new man”. Even if the pawnbroker is not a sympathetic character, she is an independent woman, who provides for herself, without having to sell her body to a husband or a pimp. She is not a “louse”, and by killing her out of vanity, pride, self-promotion, delusion or hubris, Raskolnikov destroys her. It is not the devil’s work, as Raskolnikov says at one point. A great man should be better able to take responsibility for his own actions. It is Raskolnikov himself who knowingly, condescendingly, makes the calculation that an ugly, businesslike old woman does not have any value in herself. Of course not, Raskolnikov! Neither does Shylock in The Merchant Of Venice! Not part of the mainstream community, they don’t count, in the name of law and justice and compassion. It takes a Shakespeare or a Dostoyevsky to point that out without sounding preachy and moralist, and without siding with one character against another. In a world in which women are property, the unattractive pawnbroker is meaningless, unless you turn her riches into your property. As for the brutal killing, with an axe? A mere trifle in the context! But as Dostoyevsky might well be one of the most brilliant authors ever describing an evil character, I commiserate with the scoundrel, with the egomaniac, charismatic murderer. I feel for him, with him, in his dramatic stand offs with Pyotr Petrovich, his intellectual counterpart. Their verbal exchanges evoke the image of two predators circling each other, working on their own strategies while calculating the enemy’s. I suffer with the psychopath, and take his side, even when I disagree with him. Such is the power of Dostoyevsky’s storytelling genius. He creates characters with major flaws, and very different positions, and he gives all of them their space, their say, their moment on stage. And when they appear, they have the audience’s full attention. Dostoyevsky lets a cynical self-confessed abuser of women commit the one act of charity that actually has a positive impact on three children’s future. He lets a drunkard, the comical character of Marmeladov, who pushes his wife to insanity and his daughter to prostitution, revel in the pleasure of suffering, sounding almost like a philosopher when he cherishes his idea that god will honour the self-sacrifice of the women he has destroyed, and that the same god will indiscriminately have mercy on himself as well, for being so willing to suffer (especially the pulling of hair does a great deal of good, according to Marmeladov, comical effect included!). Dostoyevsky lets women sacrifice themselves in the name of charity and religion. Needless to say, I have strong opinions about that, and apart from the unspeakable suffering imposed on them in their lifetime, I do not approve of any religious dogma that justifies self-sacrifice as a virtue - in our time of terrorist violence, it seems an almost obscene attitude. Regardless, I suffer with them through the author’s brilliantly atmospheric narrative. Dostoyevsky, the sharp psychological mind and analytic, accurately points out the difference between women in the story, sacrificing “only” themselves, and the violent men, sacrificing others (mostly women, children and innocent, intellectually inferior men) for their own benefit in their delusion that they are extraordinary, and have special rights beyond the law. And he does it so convincingly that the reader feels the urge to argue with the characters. I found myself saying: “But Raskolnikov, I really don’t think Napoleon would have killed a pawnbroker with an axe to demonstrate his greatness, that is not the way great men exert their power. And as an anachronistic side note, in these times of newspeakish, American-style greatness, we need to ask ourselves if that is anything to strive for at all.” It is a powerful book, and a book about power. The hypnotic power that a charismatic personality exerts over other people. The physical power that men exert over women and children. The mental power that educated people exert over simple minds. The financial power that wealthy people exert over hungry, poor, miserable people. The religious power that dogma exerts over people to accept injustice in the hope of scoring high with god in the afterlife. The linguistic power that eloquence exerts to dominate an entire environment with propaganda. The individual power to say no. Two characters, both women, refuse to play the cards they are dealt. Dounia Romanovna and Katerina Ivanovna - you are my true heroes in this endlessly deep masterpiece of a novel! Dounia - holding the revolver, ready to kill the man who has lured her into a corner and tries to blackmail her into a sexual relationship! The most powerful scene of all. I shiver while reading. Literally! I have goosebumps! As will power goes, hers is brilliant. No man owns that woman. Thank you for that scene, Dostoyevsky! And she manages NOT to kill, thus showing her spoiled, attention-seeking, impulsive and arrogant brother who is mentally superior despite physical weakness. Katerina - committing an act of insanity while slowly dying of consumption, and leaving her three children orphans! Instead of hiding herself and suffering in secret, she takes to the streets, forces her misery upon the world, and makes it official. She has all the right in the world to dance, sing and make noise to point to the insanity of society, which creates a platform for a life like hers. And her refusal to receive the greedy priest on her deathbed is simply divine: “God can take me as I am, or be damned!” Right you are, Katerina! I could go on in infinity, but I will break off here, just like Dostoyevsky breaks off in medias res, hinting at the untold sequel - the marriage between Raskolnikov and Sonia! Oh, dear, what an emotional roller coaster that must be - it is quite enough to allude to it in an epilogue to make me smile. The brooding murderer and the saintly whore, joined together in holy suffering. Brilliant, even as a vague idea. Curtain. Standing, shaking, roaring ovations!

  6. 5 out of 5

    Matt

    The problem with being a high school student with average intelligence is that you can get fairly good grades with fairly minimal effort. It is an invitation to cut corners and utilize only one half your ass. This happened to me in English class. I'd sit back, take good notes, and bluff my way through various tests (this was back in the day before Google, when my family only had an AOL dial-up connection and all the answers, right and wrong, were on the internet). For these sins, I am now fated The problem with being a high school student with average intelligence is that you can get fairly good grades with fairly minimal effort. It is an invitation to cut corners and utilize only one half your ass. This happened to me in English class. I'd sit back, take good notes, and bluff my way through various tests (this was back in the day before Google, when my family only had an AOL dial-up connection and all the answers, right and wrong, were on the internet). For these sins, I am now fated to read the classics long after I was supposed to read them. On the plus side, coming to the classics on my own volition gives me a better appreciation than having to read them with a figurative gun to the head. This has allowed me to enjoy certain works to a higher degree. However, I don't think any number of years will allow me to appreciate or enjoy or even suffer Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. First published in 1866, Crime and Punishment is the excruciatingly-detailed psycho-epic about the murder of a pawn shop owner (and her sister). The murderer is named Raskolnikov. He is a former student living in a wretched little closet apartment. He is utterly unlikable: smug, arrogant, temperamental, condescending and self-delusional. Today, we would recognize this person as having a serious mental illness (and the book would be called Inability To Form Criminal Intent and Involuntary Commitment instead of Crime and Punishment). Dostoevsky, though, presents Raskolnikov's malady as spiritual, rather than mental. In a way, he is just like every grad student you've ever met: shiftless; over-educated and under-employed; haughty, yet prone to bouts of self-loathing. I imagine if this book was written in the next century, Raskolnikov would have shaggy sideburns, wear a t-shirt emblazoned with Che's image, and have a well-hidden addiction to prescription pain pills. Raskolnikov has some interesting theories. He's a Nietzsche-inspired pre-Nazi who believes that the world can be divided into two classes: an elite, Napoleonic class, free to do what they wish; and a second class comprised of everyone else. This former class, because of their elevated standing, don't have to follow the rules. Armed with this self-serving worldview, Raskolnikov, in need of money, determines that the pawn broker Alyona Ivanovna is a louse who deserves to die. So he takes his axe and a fake pledge to her apartment and bashes her head in. The crime is suitably graphic: He took the axe all the way out, swung it with both hands, scarcely aware of himself, and almost without effort...brought the butt-end down on her head...Because she was short, the blow happened to land right on the crown of her head. She cried out, but very faintly, and her whole body suddenly sank to the floor, though she still managed to raise both hands to her head...Then he struck her again and yet again with all his strength...Blood poured out as from an overturned glass... Once the murder is complete, very early in the novel, the long, slow, excruciating psychological unraveling begins. Some of Raskolnikov's madness is displayed through seemingly-endless internal monologues. Is this what it's like to be a crazy person? Maybe, maybe not. But it's effective in its way, because it drove me insane reading it. Raskolnikov's deterioration is also presented via his relationships. Despite being an utter jackass, he has a lot of friends and family who care for him. Among them is the doting Natasha, a housekeeper at Raskolnikov's apartment; a doctor named Zossimov; and Raskolnikov's "best friend" Razumikhin. Razumikhin reminds me of a more-refined Milhouse from The Simpsons. He looks after Raskolnikov, tries to get him a job, and suffers all Raskolnikov's verbal abuse with unflagging patience. I couldn't decide what annoyed me more: Raskolnikov's monomania or Razumikhin's spinelessness. Complicating this picture are several uninteresting plot threads that eventually, finally, after hundreds of pages, merge. One thread deals with Marmeladov, a wrecked old drunk whose daughter, Sonia, is a prostitute (with a heart of gold!). Raskolnikov is eventually redeemed by Sonia and Sonia's faith. A second thread has to do with Raskolnikov's mother and sister. His sister, Dunya, has come to St. Petersburg under a cloud, though things are looking brighter for her and the family, as she is engaged to Luzhin. Luzhin has money, and a keen eye for beautiful, vulnerable women. Raskolnikov rightly senses Luzhin's ill intent, and the animosity between the two men does not help Raskolnikov's troubled mind. On top of all this, there is a clever, Dickensian police inspector named Porfiry Petrovich. He knows immediately that Raskolnikov is the murderer, yet insists on playing a lame game of cat-and-mouse. One of the few enjoyments I got from this novel was the cold irony of a Russian police officer patiently waiting for his suspect to confess. In Dostoevsky's Russia, the law is clever, intelligent, and implacable. Of course, just a few decades later, the NKVD and KGB would be breaking down doors in the middle of the night and hustling people off to Siberia for no reason at all. To Dostoevsky's credit, all these characters intertwine, and all the stories pay off, such as it is. In order to do so, however, there are plot contrivances piled atop plot contrivances. Dostoevsky relies heavily on characters overhearing important bits of information. The only Russian novels I've read have been by Tolstoy, so I don't have much to compare this to. I'm not fit to analyze Crime and Punishment against other works of Russian literature, or even against Dostoevsky's other books. All I know was that this was a drag to read. There are paragraphs that go on for pages, and the density - unleavened by any action - is numbing. One of the most common complaints when reading Russian literature is the names. It's almost become a cliche. Well, in this case, it's true. At least Tolstoy gave his characters American nicknames. Here, you have to deal with both the patronymics and identical-sounding or near-identically-named characters. The easiest task you have is not mixing up Raskolnikov with Razumikhin. It gets a little harder trying to keep Alyona Ivanovna (the pawnbroker), Katerina Ivanovna (Sonia's mother) and Amalia Ivanovna (Sonia's mother's landlord) straight. Also remember that Dunya goes by the name Dunechka or Avdotya Romanovna (but that Porfiry Petrovich is not the same as Ilya Petrovich). More confusing than the names is the culture shock. When I first tried to read Crime and Punishment in high school, I chalked my confusion up to a poor translation. Well, this time around, the translation is in the incredibly capable hands of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. They managed, in Anna Karenina and War and Peace to be both faithful and readable. Here, again, I have no complaints with the translation; but I also had a revelation: I don't get Russians. I don't fully grasp their social hierarchy; I don't get why they like mustaches on women; and I certainly don't understand their interactions. They get mad for reasons I can't comprehend; they are insulted for reasons I do not fathom. In Dostoevsky's hands, Russians are a bunch of operatic drama queens, incapable of having a subtle or nuanced reaction to anything. Every emotion has an exclamation mark. You get Dunya trying to shoot Svidrigailov one second, and then tearfully embracing him the next. Characters fall on their knees before each other, and laugh at inappropriate times, and have opaque motivations. I say this with all cultural sensitivity: Russians are a bunch of weirdos. Despite all its length and detail, I found Dostoevsky's psychology simplistic, and the ending pat. And I say this fully realizing I might come across as a Philistine. Of course, there are enjoyable moments, including a classic set-piece following Marmeladov's funeral (imagine a Russian version of Clue, in which accusations are followed by counter-accusations, and everyone is shouting and fainting). Surprisingly, there is also a good bit of humor, such as this interaction between Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov regarding the morality of eavesdropping: In that case, go and tell the authorities; say thus and so, I've had this mishap: there was a little mistake in my theory. But if you're convinced that one cannot eavesdrop at doors, but can go around whacking old crones with whatever comes to hand, to your heart's content, then leave quickly for America somewhere! Or Svidrigailov on women: Depravity! Well, listen to that! However, for the sake of order, I'll answer you first about women in general; you know, I'm inclined to be talkative. Tell me, why should I restrain myself? Why should I give up women, if I'm fond of them? At least it's an occupation. Indeed! Finally, there is a certain precision in the character observations that transcends their unfamiliar interactions. The characters - in their thoughts, beliefs, and self-delusions - are admirably rendered and universally recognizable.

  7. 3 out of 5

    JSou

    Oh, Fyodor. Who else could keep me up and awake night after night, even though I promise myself every morning to go to bed at a decent hour? Who else can create such authentic human emotions that I feel I'm experiencing all of them myself? Who else would make me subject my kids to dinners of grilled cheese sandwiches, scrambled eggs, or frozen waffles just to spend more time with you? There is no one else. Only you.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Jim Fonseca

    What can I add to 7000+ reviews (at the time I write)? I think this book is fascinating because of all the topic it covers. Like the OJ trial, it is about many important interconnected things and those things remain important today, even though this book was originally published in 1865. Sure, it has a lot about crime and punishment. But also insanity and temporary insanity, the latter a legal plea that could be entered in Russia of the mid-1800's. It's about guilt and conscience, long before Fre What can I add to 7000+ reviews (at the time I write)? I think this book is fascinating because of all the topic it covers. Like the OJ trial, it is about many important interconnected things and those things remain important today, even though this book was originally published in 1865. Sure, it has a lot about crime and punishment. But also insanity and temporary insanity, the latter a legal plea that could be entered in Russia of the mid-1800's. It's about guilt and conscience, long before Freud. In fact, this book was written at a time when psychological theories were coming into vogue. It's about false confessions. It's about poverty and social class and people who rise above their class and people who fall from the class they were born into. It's about the wild dreams and the follies of youth. There is also mention of many social theories that were in vogue at that time, so, for example, if you want to, you can click on Wikipedia to find out about "Fourier's system" and his phalansteres. There is attempted rape, blackmail, child labor, child prostitution, child marriage and child molestation. There is discussion of marrying for money. There are ethnic tensions between Russians and the Germans of St. Petersburg. Should you give to charity or should you give to change the conditions that caused the poverty? Like me, you may have thought that was a modern idea, but here it is, laid out in 1865. There's a lot about alcoholism. Stir in a cat-and-mouse detective and a bit of Christian redemption. No wonder this is a classic.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Lizzy

    “Crime? What crime? ... My killing a loathsome, harmful louse, a filthy old moneylender woman who brought no good to anyone, to murder whom would pardon forty sins, who sucked the lifeblood of the poor, and you call that a crime ?” Just a few scattered toughts, for I do not know how to begin. After revisiting Crime and Punishment I am utterly troubled. What to do? What to say? In my opinion, to write a review of one of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's great masterpieces is a troublesome undertaking. To wri “Crime? What crime? ... My killing a loathsome, harmful louse, a filthy old moneylender woman who brought no good to anyone, to murder whom would pardon forty sins, who sucked the lifeblood of the poor, and you call that a crime ?” Just a few scattered toughts, for I do not know how to begin. After revisiting Crime and Punishment I am utterly troubled. What to do? What to say? In my opinion, to write a review of one of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's great masterpieces is a troublesome undertaking. To write a decent one, even harder. So here are just a few toughts, backed by Dostoyevsky's own words so that I don't blunder it all. One caveat: my review today will focus on Rodion Románovich Raskolnikov, although there is much more to be said. Ah, such fascinating despair. I had a period in my life when I went deep into Dostoevsky. Perhaps because his books made me contemplate about being human. This is a remarkable study in emotions, intense and anguished. “Raskolnikov went out in complete confusion. This confusion became more and more intense. As he went down the stairs, he even stopped short, two or three times, as though suddenly struck by some thought. When he was in the street he cried out, "Oh, God, how loathsome it all is! and can I, can I possibly… . No, it's nonsense, it's rubbish!" he added resolutely. "And how could such an atrocious thing come into my head? What filthy things my heart is capable of. Yes, filthy above all, disgusting, loathsome, loathsome!—and for a whole month I've been… ." But no words, no exclamations, could express his agitation. The feeling of intense repulsion, which had begun to oppress and torture his heart while he was on his way to the old woman, had by now reached such a pitch and had taken such a definite form that he did not know what to do with himself to escape from his wretchedness. ” Is it a miracle that I commiserated with Raskolnikov? That I resented his mother when he did and I loved her when he did? That I felt Raskolnikov's anxiety, and tried to tell him to turn back when he was climbing the steps to the old woman's apartment? But up he went. And that it anguished me because I new, as any reader would, what was bound to happen? Yes, his is not the kind of personality that I usually sympathize with. However, I could begin to understand him and his despair. Yes, Dostoyevsky created a very real character and I believed him enough to mentally immerse myself with his creation while submersed in his book. And this kept me turning the pages up to the last one. “No, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it! Granted, granted that there is no flaw in all that reasoning, that all that I have concluded this last month is clear as day, true as arithmetic… . My God! Anyway I couldn't bring myself to it! I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it! Why, why then am I still … ?” Raskolnikoff's justification for his act was that great and famous men, like Ceasar and Napoleon, were assassins absolved by history. He identified himself with those history figures. And that gave him the right to commit the crime. How could he explain the murder? I understand he just required a belief to explain it to himself. He was no Napoleon; he was not fighting in a war. And he knew it. What he needed was a moral argument that pushed him up the steps and lifted his arms in the final act. "And you don’t suppose that I went into it headlong like a fool? I went into it like a wise man, and that was just my destruction. And you mustn't suppose that I didn't know, for instance, that if I began to question myself whether I had the right to gain power—I certainly hadn't the right—or that if I asked myself whether a human being is a louse it proved that it wasn't so for me, though it might be for a man who would go straight to his goal without asking questions.… If I worried myself all those days, wondering whether Napoleon would have done it or not, I felt clearly of course that I wasn't Napoleon. I had to endure all the agony of that battle of ideas, Sonia, and I longed to throw it off: I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake, for myself alone! I didn't want to lie about it even to myself. It wasn't to help my mother I did the murder—that’s nonsense—I didn't do the murder to gain wealth and power and to become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I simply did it; I did the murder for myself, for myself alone, and whether I became a benefactor to others, or spent my life like a spider, catching men in my web and sucking the life out of men, I couldn't have cared at that moment.… And it was not the money I wanted, Sonia, when I did it. It was not so much the money I wanted, but something else.… I know it all now.… Understand me! Perhaps I should never have committed a murder again. I wanted to find out something else; it was something else led me on. I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right …” You will question as I finish: where are the other characters? Where is Raskolnikov’s sister Dunya; and what about Sonia, the one that prostituted herself to help her family and whom Raskolnikov sort of falls in love with? Yes, the women in the story turn out almost consistently to be the stronger characters, the source of redemption. What about the patetic Marmeledov; the the self-centered Luzhin; the drunken philanderer Svidrigailov? They are all fascinating in their own right, and important to the story. A much more crucial issue: what was behind Dostoyevsky's novel? Where is God, religion? For that I would have to go back to his Russia, to his time and his life. Nevertheless, all that will have to wait for a possible follow-up-review, today all my effort was on Raskolnikov and how I felt reading Crime and Punishment. An outstanding classic about the human essence, about our darkest and deepest impulses. The unequivocal voice of each character, the sharp study of society, the movements of Raskolnikov, of the extreme reduction of hate to the redemption of love. Ultimately it reveals that our own inner consciousness can stand a far greater punishment than any legal system can. Brilliant! ___

  10. 5 out of 5

    Michael

    Here's another review as I go! I suppose I just can't let go of Dostoyevsky's squalid, bleak, complicated, and spiritually vexing world, so despite having just finished The Brothers Karamazov, I find myself plunging headlong into Crime and Punishment, a book I last read 20 years ago. I'm reading the new Oliver Ready translation, and it's wonderful so far. I can well imagine how shocking this book must have been at the time. It depicts a world where everyone is either taking advantage of someone el Here's another review as I go! I suppose I just can't let go of Dostoyevsky's squalid, bleak, complicated, and spiritually vexing world, so despite having just finished The Brothers Karamazov, I find myself plunging headlong into Crime and Punishment, a book I last read 20 years ago. I'm reading the new Oliver Ready translation, and it's wonderful so far. I can well imagine how shocking this book must have been at the time. It depicts a world where everyone is either taking advantage of someone else or being taken advantage of, where most of the characters are engaged in a mean, petty, and morally bankrupt struggle for survival. Ironically, it's Raskolnikov himself who comes closest to espousing some idealistic notion of virtue among all the squalor, when he criticizes his sister for being engaged to someone she doesn't love, all for the sake of the man's money, with its potential to lift their family out of poverty. *** Dostoyevsky is brilliant at depicting a character on the edge--one whose thoughts veer between lucidity and paranoia and whose passions overwhelm him even when he can hardly muster the energy to get off his sofa. What's interesting about his passion is the deep moralism that accompanies it--his sense of the world's injustice, as when he rushes to save Marmeladov, a drunkard who was trampled by a horse, and brings the man to his family and feels sorry for them all as he comforts them and gives them money. You get the sense here of a man who deeply feels all the depravity and injustice of the world, one who can hardly stand it, and yet he's the murderer and perhaps the most depraved one of all. And yet.... Raskolnikov is also quite suspicious of "phonies," to use a Holden Caulfield term, as when he confronts his sister's fiance. Here's another complication in this fascinating character. Is he the most "honest" character in the book? In a way he is, but of course he's hiding the biggest secret. He constantly struggles against his own duplicity and is often on the verge of blurting out his crime. He even does at one point, yet his listener thinks it's a joke, and he plays along, but you can see how the act of dissimulation itself is so painful to him. *** When Raskolnikov visits the disgraced Sonya, he becomes strangely Christ-like, kissing her feet and claiming he's bowing "to all human suffering." He seems to take all suffering on his shoulders, especially the suffering of children, as he constantly warns Sonya about what will happen to her young siblings should their mother die. But of course this is all complicated by Raskolnikov's avowed athiesm, which he makes clear to Sonya when she says that God would never let their mother die and leave those young children as defenseless and homeless orphans, and Raskolnikov responds, "almost with a sort of malicious glee," by asking: "What if there is no God?" *** There is certainly no romanticizing of poverty here, as we see Katerina Ivanovna literally go mad and die from her circumstances. What a tragic and pathetic scene when, homeless, she drags her young children to the streetcorner, dresses them up like performers, and demands they sing and dance for coins, all the while they're crying and she's yelling and coughing up blood. Raskolnikov's premonitions come true, when he turns to Sonya afterwards and wonders what will happen to the children now. *** Raskolnikov, for all his powers of empathy, seems to long for something more--for the power to achieve greatness, to become a great figure of history--and the murder is for him bound up in this quest. He rationalizes that if Napoleon, in order to fulfill his destiny, had to knock off a few lowly people, wouldn't he be justified in doing so? Passages like this presage all sorts of 20th century horrors, and it's fascinating to see them here, spoken by this most complicated character. *** Hurtling toward the end now, with Raskolnikov having confessed to a distraught Sonya, and Svidrigailov overhearing from the room next door. Svidrigailov tries to use his knowledge to confront Raskolnikov's sister and get her in his power, claiming he'll take Raskolnikov away with him to America to save him, if only Avdotya will succumb to him. In a scene straight out of a pulp novel, she's shocked and pulls out a revolver and shoots at him as he approaches her, only to graze his head. But he realizes she will never love him, and even after she throws the revolver aside, he allows her to escape. *** Some spoilers may follow, but I'll do my best not to give too much away: The fate of Svidrigailov was for me the one false note in the book--the one point where Dostoyevsky took the easy way out. I wasn't at all convinced he'd use the revolver in the way he did, and I felt the author basically wanted this troublesome character out of the way. Otherwise, wow, the ending was just brilliant--the drama of whether Raskolnikov would confess or not was drawn out masterfully. Then, in Siberia, we get what were for me some of the saddest and truest lines of the entire book: "Existence alone had never been enough for him; he'd always wanted more. And perhaps the only reason he'd considered himself a man to whom more was permitted than to others was the very strength of his desires." Only at the end, after a sickness, and Sonya's sickness, does Raskolnikov finally shed the torments of his ambition toward greatness--which in many ways was the driver of his entire crime. He becomes, finally, content, because he finally finds love--real deep spiritual love for this woman who'd given up everything to live near his remote penal colony. Love is what finally transforms him and gives him hope that, after seven more years, he'll be able at last to live. And so ends this amazing journey--one that will remain with me for a long time, one that I'll ponder and dip back into, one that seems so modern and relevant today. In a way it really does presage the entire 20th century, with its exposition of how dreams of greatness can lead to sordid crimes, how greatness is a form of torment and perhaps even a form of demented thinking. I can't help seeing Raskolnikov as a "wanna-be" Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or any of those tragically self-aggrandizing men who see crime as simply a means to an end, who believe they're superior beings and are therefore entitled to use "lesser" people to service their own dreams. It's a terrifying mentality, and Dostoyevsky knew it well. If only we'd listened to him.....

  11. 5 out of 5

    Sherif Metwaly

    العظَمة هي أن تكتب رواية بلغت التسعمائة صفحة، وتجعل القارئ يشعر وهو يقرأها كأنه يقرأ رواية صغيرة الحجم تجري صفحاتها بسرعة مذهلة بين يديه، ولا يشعر معها لا بالوقت ولا بالمكان الذي يقرأ فيه. المهارة هي أن تكتب رواية مزدحمة بالشخصيات ذات الأسماء عسيرة النطق، ولا يشعر القارئ للحظة واحدة بالتوهان والتشتت وهو يقرأ. والعبقرية، كل العبقرية، أن تلخص زبدة الرواية وسر عظمتها في آخر عشرين صفحة، ليكونوا أعظم ما فيها. والكاتب، الذي يجمع بين العبقرية والمهارة والعظمة، هو ساحر، ولذلك، دوستويفسكي ببساطة شديدة، أ العظَمة هي أن تكتب رواية بلغت التسعمائة صفحة، وتجعل القارئ يشعر وهو يقرأها كأنه يقرأ رواية صغيرة الحجم تجري صفحاتها بسرعة مذهلة بين يديه، ولا يشعر معها لا بالوقت ولا بالمكان الذي يقرأ فيه. المهارة هي أن تكتب رواية مزدحمة بالشخصيات ذات الأسماء عسيرة النطق، ولا يشعر القارئ للحظة واحدة بالتوهان والتشتت وهو يقرأ. والعبقرية، كل العبقرية، أن تلخص زبدة الرواية وسر عظمتها في آخر عشرين صفحة، ليكونوا أعظم ما فيها. والكاتب، الذي يجمع بين العبقرية والمهارة والعظمة، هو ساحر، ولذلك، دوستويفسكي ببساطة شديدة، أثبت لي في هذه الرواية، أنه ساحر. وأنت تقرأ هذه الرواية، وبدون أي نية للحذلقة والتعالي، رغمًا عنك ستشعر في البداية بكثيرٍ من الندم على أن أجّلت هذا اللقاء أكثر من مرة، إما لرهبةٍ من دوستويفسكي نفسه، وإما لرهبةٍ من حجم الرواية. وبعد مائة صفحة أو يزيد، سيزول الندم وتحل مكانها المتعة. بعد انتهاء الجزء الأول ستشعر – للحظات – بأن كل ما قرأته في حياتك قبل هذا الجزء وحده يوضع في كفة، وهذا الجزء يوضع في كفة أخرى تمامًا. ستدفعك مفاجأة نهاية الجزء الأول لالتهام الخمسين صفحة الأولى من الجزء الثاني على الأقل من شدة الترقب، ويمكنني أن أقول، بدايةً من هذه اللحظة، أنك صرتً أسيرًا لصفحات هذه الرواية، ففجأة، ستؤجل مذاكرتك، ستؤخر نومك أو تقلل ساعاته، ستفُضل الذهاب بالمواصلات لمكانٍ اعتدت الذهاب اليه مشيًا كي تختصر الوقت وتجد في نهاية اليوم بعض الدقائق لالتهام القليل من الصفحات، ستصبح هذه الرواية محور حياتك فجأة، وستنتهي فجأة، لتكتشف أن الأيام التي قضيتها معها مرت كأنها ساعات. هذه الرواية، بها من العمق النقسي ما سيجعل خلايا عقلك تنتشي، ومن الشخصيات الفريدة من سيصل بها الأمر أن تزورك في أحلامك. نعم، أنت في هذه الرواية تشارك بطلها راسكولينيكوف كل تفاصيل حياته، أنت معه وهو مستيقظ، وهو نائم ويحلم، وهو يهذي، معه في لحظات عقله وجنونه، معه في الصمت والكلام، تشاركه حواراته مع غيره وحواراته مع نفسه، أنت تعيش مع شخصٍ كما لم تعش مع أحد في حياتك، أمك وأبيك أنفسهم لم تعش معهم لحظات بلغت من الدقة والعمق كتلك اللحظات مع راسكولينيكوف التي لن تفارق ذاكرتك طويلًا، جدًا. في بداية هذه الرواية تجد الجريمة، جريمة قتل، دوافعها الظاهرية هي الانتقام من الاستغلال والظلم، الانتقام لأجل الإنسانية. ستكتشف بعد ذلك أن هذه لم تكن الجريمة الوحيدة، ستجد غيرها المزيد من الجرائم التي يعاني منها البشر ولا نلتفت لها لأننا لا نعتبرها أصلا جريمة. الفقر جريمة، الجوع جريمة، الحرمان من الحب جريمة، وحب من لا يستحق الحب جريمة، الذل جريمة، والضعف جريمة، والاستسلام للمرض جريمة، والغضب جريمة، والنسيان جريمة، وعدم قراءة هذه الرواية، أيضًا.. جريمة، وستسأل: تُرى، لأجل أي جريمة من هذه الجرائم كان اسم الرواية " الجريمة" والعقاب؟. العقاب هو أنك ستفقد القدرة على الكلام!، نعم هذا هو عقاب دوستويفسكي لي ولك، وللبشرية. سترتبك ارتباكًا لا مثيل له مع النهاية وقد شعرت أنك عاري الجسد، وأن روحك تطفو على السطح كأنها تغتسل من شوائبها، ستأخذ شهيقًا طويلًا يتسرب هواؤه لكل خلية بجسمك، كأنك تولد من جديد، ستمر عليك ساعات، وربما أيام، تحاول أن تسترجع كل تفاصيل الحكاية من أولها لآخرها، لتكتشف الرسائل والدروس التي حُملت بها السطور، فتكتشف أن قراءة واحدة لهذه الرواية لا تكفي، ولا قراءة ثانية ولا ثالثة، وأنك ربما تحتاج أن تقرأها بتتابع معلوم وعلى فترات مدروسة طوال حياتك!، أنا لا أبالغ والله، ولا أهذي من فرط الانتشاء الذي أشعر به بعد النهاية، أنا أحكي ما أشعر به حاليًا، وربما تثبت الأيام خطئي أو صوابي لي أنا قبل أن تثبت لك. بدأت هذه الرواية وأنا على حالةٍ من الخواء الروحي والضعف النفسي لا يعلمها إلا الله، عشت معها أيامًا لن أنساها، ببساطة لأنها، بطريقةٍ ما، عالجت شروخ روحي، وجددت رؤيتي للحياة، أعطتني دروسًا عن نفوس البشر لا أعتقد أن كتب الطب وعلم النفس بقادرة على أن تشرحها بنفس هذه السلاسة والعبقرية، ووهبتني، بكل حب، علاقاتٍ مع بشرٍ، ليسوا خيالًا على الورق، إنما اعتبرهم من لحمٍ ودم. صوفيا وراسكولينيوف، رازوميخين وبورفيري، وكاترينا، وغيرهم، شخصيات سأظل أحكي عنها كأني عاشرتها زمنًا، على أمل أن أعود لألتقي بهم، وأسمع حكايتهم، مستقبلًا، مرة تلو الأخرى، دون أن أمِلَ. تمت

  12. 3 out of 5

    Foad

    با اینکه این کتاب رو خیلی وقت پیش خوندم، هنوز که هنوزه، به نظرم شاهکار تمام اعصاره و هیچ کتابی روی دستش نیست. و جالب اینه که این کتاب، اول پاورقی روزنامه بوده و بعداً مستقلاً چاپ شده. حالا مقایسه کنید بین پاورقی های روسی و پاورقی های وطنی! داستايوسكى و نيچه من تا مدت های مدید، فکر می کردم و کاملاً از این بابت مطمئن بودم که داستایوسکی، نظریات راسکلنیکف رو از حرف های نیچه اقتباس کرده. حدس می زدم که اون دوره حرف های نیچه باب طبع جوان های تحصیل کرده بوده و راسکلنیکف نماینده ی این قشر. این که گروهی از با اینکه این کتاب رو خیلی وقت پیش خوندم، هنوز که هنوزه، به نظرم شاهکار تمام اعصاره و هیچ کتابی روی دستش نیست. و جالب اینه که این کتاب، اول پاورقی روزنامه بوده و بعداً مستقلاً چاپ شده. حالا مقایسه کنید بین پاورقی های روسی و پاورقی های وطنی! داستايوسكى و نيچه من تا مدت های مدید، فکر می کردم و کاملاً از این بابت مطمئن بودم که داستایوسکی، نظریات راسکلنیکف رو از حرف های نیچه اقتباس کرده. حدس می زدم که اون دوره حرف های نیچه باب طبع جوان های تحصیل کرده بوده و راسکلنیکف نماینده ی این قشر. این که گروهی از مردم راهبر هستن و گروهی "سوسک"، اگه راهبرها برای پیش بردن بشریت به سمت کمال والاتر اخلاق "سوسک" ها رو زیر پا له نکنن، "سوسک" ها کل عالم رو میگیرن. میشه حدس زد که چقدر، چقدر تعجب کردم وقتی دیدم داستایوسکی مقدم بر نیچه بوده. میشه حدس زد که چقدر شیفتگی م نسبت به داستایوسکی و عظمت فکرش بیشتر شد. دلبرکان غمگین من سه شخصیت از این رمان رو عاشقانه می پرستم. هر چند شاید معادلشون توی رمان های دیگه پیدا بشه، ولی توی این رمان به اوج کمال رسیدن. سونیا اول از همه، تأکید میکنم، اول از همه، سونیا. من دیوانه وار شیفته ی سونیام. به نظرم هر مردى رؤياى يه سونيا رو در سر مى پرورونه و پنهانى عاشق اونه: زنى بى نهايت ساده دل و بى نهايت پاک كه به رغم همه ى بدى هايى كه آدم كرده، عشق و گذشتش رو از آدم دریغ نکنه. که آدم بدونه در سخت ترین طوفان هاى روحى هم میتونه به آغوشش پناه ببره. راسکلنیکف در مرتبه ی دوم. مظهر تمام و کمال روشنفکر پوچگرا که به نظرم مهم ترین تیپ دو سه قرن اخیر (مخصوصاً در اروپا) بوده و هست. به نظرم آدم تا مثل راسکلنیکف نباشه، نباید این رمان رو بخونه و اگه بخونه، شاید خیلی رمان رو نفهمه. مخصوصاً شدت عطش و نیاز این پوچگرا، به سونیای پاک رو. بازرس پورفیری نهایتاً بازرس پلیس، که بیشتر روانشناسه تا بازرس و به خاطر همین دوستش دارم. به خاطر باهوش بودنش و موش و گربه بازی کردنش با راسکلنیکف و به خاطر شیوه ای که میخواد باهاش راسکلنیکف رو به دام بیندازه. به نظرم یکی از بهترین ضدقهرمان های آثار کلاسیکه و با معادل فرانسویش، بازرس ژاور، قابل قیاس نیست.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Ahmad Sharabiani

    867. Преступление и наказание = Prestupleniye i nakazaniye = Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment (Russian: Преступлéние и наказáние, tr. Prestupleniye i nakazaniye) is a novel by the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky. It was first published in the literary journal The Russian Messenger in twelve monthly installments during 1866. Later, it was published in a single volume. It is the second of Dostoevsky's full-length novels following his return from 5 years of exile in Sibe 867. Преступление и наказание = Prestupleniye i nakazaniye = Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment (Russian: Преступлéние и наказáние, tr. Prestupleniye i nakazaniye) is a novel by the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky. It was first published in the literary journal The Russian Messenger in twelve monthly installments during 1866. Later, it was published in a single volume. It is the second of Dostoevsky's full-length novels following his return from 5 years of exile in Siberia. عنوانها: جنایت و کیفر (مترجم: محمدرضا عسکری در 147 ص)؛ جنایت و مکافات؛ نویسنده: فئودور داستایوسکی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: در ماه می سال 1970 میلادی عنوان: جنایت و مکافات؛ نویسنده: فئودور داستایوسکی؛ مترجم: مهری آهی، تهران، صفیعلیشاه، 1345؛ در 790 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، خوارزمی، 1363، قدیمیترین ترجمه را: اسحق لاله زاری و انتشارات صفیعلیشاه از این کتاب نشر داده اند در 396 ص، سپس: مهری آهی در 790 صفحه انتشارات خوارزمی، بهروز بهزاد هم در 626 ص انتشارات دنیای کتاب؛ اصغر رستگار نیز در دو جلد در اصفهان، نشر فردا؛ شکیباپور در 626 ص؛ پرویز شهدی کتاب پارسه در 659 ص؛ احمد علیقلیان در 730 ص نشر مرکز، لویا روایی نیا نگارستان کتاب در 976 ص؛ هانیه چوپانی در 800 ص، نشر فراروی؛ مریم امیر و آرزو پیراسته در 811 ص یاقوت کویر؛ علی صحرایی در 775 ص؛ نشر مهتاب؛ اصعر رستگار در در 711 ص نشر نگاه؛ نسخه خلاصه شده: با ترجمه: امیر اسماعیلی؛ تهران، توس، 1364؛ در 214 ص؛ داستان دانشجویی به نام «راسکولْنیکُف» است، که با رعایت اصول مرتکب قتل می‌شود. با انگیزه‌ های پیچیده‌ ای که حتی خود راسکولنیکف از تحلیل آنها عاجز است؛ او زن رباخواری را همراه با خواهرش (که غیرمنتظره به هنگام وقوع قتل در صحنه حاضر شده) می‌کشد، و پس از قتل، خود را ناتوان از خرج پولها و جواهراتی که برداشته، می‌بیند؛ و آنها را پنهان می‌کند. پس از چند روز بیماری و بستری شدن در خانه، راسکولنیکف این تصور را که هر کس را که می‌بیند، انگار به او مظنون است؛ و با این افکار کارش به جنون می‌کشد. در این بین او عاشق سونیا میشود، دختری که به خاطر مشکلات مالی خانواده‌ اش، دست به تن‌ فروشی زده. مضمون و درون‌مایهٔ رمان تحلیلِ انگیزه‌ های قتل، و تأثیر قتل بر قاتل است؛ که داستایوسکی مسئلهٔ رابطه میان: خویشتن و جهان پیرامون، و فرد و جامعه، را در آن گنجانده است. ...؛ خوانش نخستین بار این کتاب مدهوشم کرد. ا. شربیانی

  14. 3 out of 5

    Agir(آگِر)

    داستایوفسکی آنقدر نویسنده مشهوریست که انتقاد کردن از او دل و جرات زیادی می خواهد. بخاطر همین دست "ناباکوف" را گرفتم و کشاندم به این ریویو، تا در این منازعه هراس آور تنها نباشم. البته وقتی پای انتقاد از داستایوفسکی در میان باشد، ناباکوف با لذت تمام برای شما سخنرانی خواهد کرد ولادیمیر ناباکوف: غیر روس ها دو چیز را دربارهی داستایوفسکی متوجه نیستند، یکی اینکه همهی روس ها به اندازهی آمریکایی ها عاشق داستایوفسکی نیستند، دیگر اینکه آنهایی هم که عاشق اویند به او به عنوان کسی با نیروی سحرآمیز احترام می گذ داستایوفسکی آنقدر نویسنده مشهوریست که انتقاد کردن از او دل و جرات زیادی می خواهد. بخاطر همین دست "ناباکوف" را گرفتم و کشاندم به این ریویو، تا در این منازعه هراس آور تنها نباشم. البته وقتی پای انتقاد از داستایوفسکی در میان باشد، ناباکوف با لذت تمام برای شما سخنرانی خواهد کرد ولادیمیر ناباکوف: غیر روس ها دو چیز را درباره‌ی داستایوفسکی متوجه نیستند، یکی اینکه همه‌ی روس ها به اندازه‌ی آمریکایی ها عاشق داستایوفسکی نیستند، دیگر اینکه آنهایی هم که عاشق اویند به او به عنوان کسی با نیروی سحرآمیز احترام می گذارند نه هنرمند. او یک پیامبر بود، روزنامه نگاری عامه پسند، بازیگر کمدی بی دقت. قبول دارم که برخی صحنه هایی که آفریده، برخی از بحث های کمدی‌اش، بسیار سرگرم کننده اند، اما قاتل های حساسش و روسپی های پرشورش چیزی نیستند که بشود یک لحظه تحملشان کرد، دست کم من خواننده نمی توانم با سپاس فراوان از ناباکوف رک گو، باید عرض کنم که تحمل ناپذیری شخصیت ها در این اثر به اوج خود می رسد. واقعا در خط خطِ این کتاب در حیرت بودم که شخصیت ها نه تنها قابل دوست داشتن نیستند بلکه حتی نمی توان درکشان کرد...این را هم بگویم که این اثر دوست نداشتنی- که لقب شاهکار هم بهش می دهند- باعث نشد سراغ دیگر آثار داستایوفسکی نروم. از خواندن برادران کارامازوف واقعا لذت می برم، اما متاسفانه در آنجا هم گاه گاه داستایوفسکی غیرهنرمند بودن خودش را به نمایش می گذارد و آدم را به خشم می آورد. در قسمت هایی از کتاب دقیقا نقش یک پیامبر را به عهده می گیرد و نظرات اخلاقی شخصی اش را مستقیما تو گوش‌ات فریاد می زند قسمتی از ریویوی قبلی: از معدود کتاب هایی که بعد از پایان بردنش،احساس خاصی نداشتم راستش نمیتوانم کتاب را بد یا خوب بنامم اگر بد بود چگونه توانستم کتاب را تا آخر بخوانم من که تجربه پرت کردن کتاب یک عاشقانه آرام نادر ابراهیمی پس از خواندن ده صفحه را داشتم و اگر خوب بود چرا از لذت خواندنش مست نمیشدم؟ پاسخ: فک می‌کنم تنها هنر روانکاوی داستایوفسکی باعث شد بتوانم این کتاب را پایان ببرم و این به علاقه خاصی که به علم روانشناسی دارم بر می گردد، وگرنه سرنوشت راسکولنیکف و سایر داردوسته سن پترزبورگی این کتاب، کمترین علاقه ای در من خواننده بر نمی انگیختند

  15. 4 out of 5

    Geoff

    I basically had to stop drinking for a month in order to read it; my friends no longer call. But it's great.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Barry Pierce

    Ah such beautiful pessimism. I find solace in the Russians, they make death seem like a mild disturbance in the beauty of life. Also their difficult is mere codswallop, the only difficult thing about Russian lit is the names. That's it. Crime and Punishment is the story of a crime and its eventual punishment. That's it. End of review. Or not. It's really the story of a crime, followed by more crime, with a sprinkling of just a bit more crime, and then finished off with a tad of punishment. The m Ah such beautiful pessimism. I find solace in the Russians, they make death seem like a mild disturbance in the beauty of life. Also their difficult is mere codswallop, the only difficult thing about Russian lit is the names. That's it. Crime and Punishment is the story of a crime and its eventual punishment. That's it. End of review. Or not. It's really the story of a crime, followed by more crime, with a sprinkling of just a bit more crime, and then finished off with a tad of punishment. The main character (I'm literally too lazy to try to type out his name) is a really fascinating character to study. I mean, yeah he's psychologically warped and is a bit "Oh I murdered someone but you should feel sorry for me anyway", however I always seem to find likable traits in even the most monstrous of characters (I still to this day stand up for Humbert Humbert). I just feel that I want to find someone else who's read this and sit down and talk for hours about the main character. To use a Russian motif, he's a matryoshka doll of a character. Like I felt with Emma Bovary in Madame Bovary, Raskolnikov (there I actually typed out his name) is kind of more interesting than the novel itself. Don't get me wrong, this novel is great and all but I just loved Raskolnikov. I could harp on about all the themes and plots in this vast novel but I like keeping my Goodreads reviews brief. Basically, I thought this was hella good and I totally need to read more Dostoyevsky. I highly recommend this novel as well, so read it guys! Don't be scared. Unless of course you've ever killed a pawnbroker in your life. Then I suggest staying well away from this.

  17. 3 out of 5

    Nayra.Hassan

    راسكلنكوف الذي قتل ليؤكد ذاته ..ليثبت لنفسه انه من تلك الفئة الاستثنائية من البشر ممن لهم كل الحق في تحدي المجتمع و القانون .. راسكلنكوف هو احد ضحايا نيتشه اذن تبدأ الرواية بشكل حماسي مبالغ فيه بالجريمة فبعد ان اعتصر الفقر الشاب المثقف. .يقرر ان المجتمع لن يخسر شيئا بمقتل المرابية العجوز ..و لكنه بمقتلها سينفذ نفسه و أسرته واحباؤه الذين يخسرهم تباعا لقلة المال. ...و بعد الجريمة يغرقنا ديستوفسكي في العقاب و كاغلب رواياته نرى: السقوط ثم الخلاص للافلات من اللعنة. ...سيغرقك النقاد في كلام كثير عن الحل راسكلنكوف الذي قتل ليؤكد ذاته ..ليثبت لنفسه انه من تلك الفئة الاستثنائية من البشر ممن لهم كل الحق في تحدي المجتمع و القانون .. راسكلنكوف هو احد ضحايا نيتشه اذن تبدأ الرواية بشكل حماسي مبالغ فيه بالجريمة فبعد ان اعتصر الفقر الشاب المثقف. .يقرر ان المجتمع لن يخسر شيئا بمقتل المرابية العجوز ..و لكنه بمقتلها سينفذ نفسه و أسرته واحباؤه الذين يخسرهم تباعا لقلة المال. ...و بعد الجريمة يغرقنا ديستوفسكي في العقاب و كاغلب رواياته نرى: السقوط ثم الخلاص للافلات من اللعنة. ...سيغرقك النقاد في كلام كثير عن الحلم النابليوني ..وان الرواية نبوءة بالثورة البلشفية منذ 1866 و .. من المؤكد أن كل دارس للاداب لابد و حتما عليه ان يقرأها. .فهي أفضل ماتم كتابته عن عذاب الضمير. .و تحمل عواقب أفعال لا يتحملها جهازك العصبي و لكني للاسف اعترف أنني لم أحبها حقا..اكملتها. .فبها خطا تشويقيا بوليسيا. .لكنها كئيبة حقا إلى ابعد الحدود..كئيبة لحدود عبثية احيانا. . بالطبع ملايين يختلفون معى و يفهمونها حقا ..و لكن انا ساظل اتسائل كيف اتعاطف مع بطل يثبت لنفسه انه قادر على فعل كل ماهو قاسي و منفر. .مادام يعتقد أنه صواب؟

  18. 4 out of 5

    Shannon (Giraffe Days)

    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 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.

  19. 3 out of 5

    Vessey

    "Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great men, I think, must feel great sorrow in this world." In this review I focus on the theme of pain as a path toward personal growth and discovering one’s true identity. I dedicate it to my friend Jeffrey. At first we would just read each others’ reviews. It was a common painful experience that bought us together and let me get to know the fabulous person behind the written words. Thank you for being "Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great men, I think, must feel great sorrow in this world." In this review I focus on the theme of pain as a path toward personal growth and discovering one’s true identity. I dedicate it to my friend Jeffrey. At first we would just read each others’ reviews. It was a common painful experience that bought us together and let me get to know the fabulous person behind the written words. Thank you for being what you are, Jeffrey! SPOILERS "If I am guilty, forgive me (though if I'm guilty, I cannot be forgiven)…I'll try to be both courageous and honest all my life, even though I'm a murderer. Perhaps you'll hear my name someday." How much do we know of forgiveness? It is a thing universally spoken of, asked for, preached, aspired to, but do we actually know what it means? Can it be defined? And if so, is there anyone who has the right to define it and give it a universal meaning or is it something each of us needs to define for him/herself? Is forgiveness meant to erase the act? If so, then, indeed, nothing could ever be forgiven, because nothing can ever change the past, bring back the time, make you a different person, change the reality of who you are and what you have done. But if there is such thing as forgiveness, what does it mean? Does it mean to believe that the committer is not guilty, that they have done their best under their circumstances? But if there is no crime, then there is no need of forgiveness. Or is this it? To keep an open mind, to understand when and where judgement needs to be bestowed and when and where – withdrawn. Or is it to conceal, to hide your negative feelings toward them and act merely on your positive ones? But if so, wouldn’t that be a lie, a false forgiveness, a show? And if we let it all out, then wouldn’t we be condemning them, after all? Or maybe this is it. Along with the accusations to be able to show them some goodness, to remember that they are humans too. And what about when we have no positive feelings toward them and all we can see is a monster? And if we don’t let ourselves fall into lust for vengeance and let them go, or even, show them some goodness, despite the knowledge that they wouldn’t do the same for us? Would that be forgiveness? And if the wound is healed? Does our overcoming the hurt automatically bestow forgiveness on the committer? And how would they feel? If the pain is gone, does that release us from responsibility? If the victim ceases to be a victim, does the criminal cease to be a criminal? If those whom we have hurt can make peace with what we have done, can we? Which is the harder forgiveness? The one we need to bestow on others or on ourselves? Do we truly believe in forgiveness when we speak of it? Can a wound really be overcome? My friend Jeffrey told me once that we don’t get over things. That the best we could hope for is to find a place for them somewhere within us and carry them in a way that wouldn’t paralyse us and that would let us keep going despite the pain. And I said to him that if we were able to have everything we needed, we would have been able to get over things. But due to life’s nature, there is always more that needs to be overcome. If it is true that we never get over things, then it is because there are always new ones piling on top of the old ones. Also, what happens when there is not enough left of us to be healed? In Fugitive Pieces it is said: ”Nothing erases the immoral act. Not forgiveness. Not confession. And even if an act could be forgiven, no one could bear the responsibility of forgiveness on behalf of the dead. No act of violence is ever resolved. When the one who can forgive can no longer speak, there is only silence.” Whatever the truth, I believe that forgiveness, whenever possible and with its different faces, helps us in our sorrow, in our need, our humiliation and anger. Raskolnikov’s family and friends presented to me a truly profound from of forgiveness. They don't conceal their feelings and their belief that what he has done is unacceptable, incomprehensible, cruel act. Yet, they do so without assuming lofty position, without anger, without judgement, without coldness, without contempt. They choose to treat the criminal as an equal, as a victim in need of help, as a loved one. But can a criminal be a victim at the same time? Those are the biggest victims. Victims of themselves, of their inability to rise above and believe. But is it so easy to determine the nature of a crime? It is usually seen as a harmful to others deed. But I don’t believe that things are simply right and wrong. Not everything that isn’t wrong is right, and not everything that isn’t right is wrong. I believe in gray areas. “You shed blood!” “Which everyone sheds, which is and always has been shed in torrents in this world, which men spill like champagne, and for which they're crowned on the Capitoline and afterwards called benefactors of mankind…if I'd succeeded, I'd have been crowned, but now I'm walking into the trap!” We tend to see people who bring down oppressors, dictators, tyrants, as heroes, revolutionaries. And this is how Raskolnikov sees himself. It is his personal rebellion against an oppressor. Oppressor who consists of more than an old pawnbroker. To him she is part of a decease that the world is rife with. She is no a single tyrant holding a whole city or nation in her fist, but sometimes the face of evil, the oppression is not just one person, but many. To him she is part of a society that needs to be brought down in order for new, better breed of people, compassionate, altruistic people, to come and rule. To come and make the important decisions. And he thinks that if he can't defeat the system, he can at least weaken it by destroying one of its members, the harsh, uncaring old woman, and add the acquired from her to the good society, to those in need. And he also sacrifices an innocent woman in order to protect himself and his plan. And the pawnbroker herself? I don’t think he sees her in this horrible light because she doesn't want to relieve him a little bit of his debt. Or at least not mainly because of that. I think he sees her this way mostly because there is no compassion in her refusal, no understanding. There are those who make hard decisions and hurt other people but are hurting while doing so and are sorry for that they need to do it. This woman shows no compassion, no regret. And it is this most of all that drives him over the edge. I believe it is essential to show compassion toward those we hurt. Even when we think they deserve it, even when we feel we have no other choice. Raskolnikov kills her. And kills her sister. He believes that sometimes it is acceptable for an "exceptional" human to sacrifice an "ordinary" one in the name of the greater good. I cannot see him as simply a criminal, or simply a victim. I can neither oppose, nor side with his philosophy. All is quite relevant. I can talk of this situation. Do I see the murder of the two women as justified act? No. Yet, I can’t help but feeling more sorry for the murderer than the victims. Raskolnikov has a truly exceptional mind that, unfortunately, proves to be a knife with two blades. Sofia Simeonovna asks him: "And how is it, how is it that you could give away your last penny, and yet kill in order to rob!" He is one of those with whom the good and the bad come from the same place. His passion, his broad consciousness lead him to both great good and great cruelty. For some reason it just goes both ways. His victims lack the capacity for such a crime, but they also lack the capacity for the good he is capable of. He is a deep, very deep person, but he doesn’t possess the necessary to bear this depth. It is marvellous to possess such a wealth of profundity and passion, but only when you have the means to channel them the right way. Sometimes the best of us is the worst in someone else. There are those of us who lack the necessary substance to bear their gifts with dignity, integrity, passion, and therefore their depth, their brilliance is a murder. They incite them to believes and actions that are far beyond our and their own comprehension. Only a healthy spirit can bear the weight of a large intelligence. As Raskolnikov himself points out, ”it takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently”. I keep asking myself why our human complexity results into violence, sadism, cruelty, and not in beauty, nobleness, desire. It is our birthright and obligation to be more than what nature has bestowed on us. Technically, biologically, we are no more than animals, part of the big chain, but inwardly we are something else. Something exceptional, spectacular, breathtaking. We are strong and beautiful in our intricacy, but cruel and weak in our inability to bear it, to recognize it, to give in to it. The beauty of the human heart and mind is always dual, deadly and life-giving, poisonous and healing, grand and small. And it is there that lays the biggest mystery. For it is pain and suffering that the most beautiful creations are based on. It is pain that forces us to grow, to develop, it is pain that reveals to us our most amazing qualities, our deepest beauty, our profoundest selves. It is there that lays the irony, the paradox. Our highest cannot exist without our lowest. As said in ”An Unnecessary Woman”, ”Peaks cannot exist without valleys.”. I think it is rather notable that after having murdered two women and being incarcerated for it, Raskolnikov is actually more at peace with himself than at the beginning. The pain he goes through changes him. He might have commits his crime only once, but in his mind many times before that. Subconsciously, but still, the thoughts, the feelings that lead to it in the end have been part of him always. And after finally getting to it, he changes. "In torment he asked himself this question, and could not understand that even then, when he was standing over the river, he may have sensed a profound lie in himself and in his convictions. He did not understand that this sense might herald a future break in his life, his future resurrection, his future new vision of life." Sometimes there is no other way than through our own destruction and the one of others for us to come to realize our truth. In Raskolnikov’s case the cost he pays for his personal growth are the lives of two human beings and the suffering of all those who love him. Yet, in the end he does find peace. A peace he has never known before. Because it is one thing to imagine and think of something. It’s another to face it. Only when he truly faces his convictions, by actually acting on them, he realizes their true nature. Some I used to know told me they felt his remorse was self-serving. But does the suffering make the remorse more real, worthier? Isn’t it the inner change that is most important, the decision to be a different person? Desperation drives Raskolnikov toward his crime and had he stayed in this abyss of guilt and darkness, maybe he would have gone down the same road eventually. Yet, he manages to realize the error of his ways and make peace with what he has done, and this saves him and those around him. I believe, though, that personal growth can be achieved without a crime, without a downfall, without taking others’ lives and happiness away. I have always believed that, when it comes to personal growth, deep reading and writing are the best alternative to pain and suffering. Long live great literature. P.S. I would also like to thank my friend Sidharth who really does understand and appreciate the connection between beauty and pain and whose words about it were a part of what inspired me to write this. Thank you, Sidharth. You are a very wise young man. :) Read count: 1

  20. 4 out of 5

    ❄️Nani❄️

    I wish some books never had to end. This will undoubtedly top my top 5 books of 2018. Guaranteed.

  21. 3 out of 5

    Samra Yusuf

    If I were not to be a reader, would’ve not known the places I’m never been to, nor the people I’ve never met, it is only when we identify with another soul, we come to know our own, our caged beings are feathered and our little brains expanded as we glide over infinity other worlds so different from ours and yet alike. I’ve been sleeping with a murderer for last fortnight, in long dark hours I’ve been an intent listener and an ardent lover, to be in mind of a murderer is not a very safe port to If I were not to be a reader, would’ve not known the places I’m never been to, nor the people I’ve never met, it is only when we identify with another soul, we come to know our own, our caged beings are feathered and our little brains expanded as we glide over infinity other worlds so different from ours and yet alike. I’ve been sleeping with a murderer for last fortnight, in long dark hours I’ve been an intent listener and an ardent lover, to be in mind of a murderer is not a very safe port to be, Dostoevsky makes his readers suffer by the same excruciating pain as his characters experience in their doomed state, the never-ending battle of right from wrong, reality from delusion, mental stability from confusion and crime from confession leaves us exasperated and in awe of such nerve wrenching tale which with every turn of page leaves us in midcoitus just the moment we thought we had it all, in us. As life tells us he did so, it’s only through a book we realize the “why” of it, and it is the time we become lovers of murderers. Stricken by poverty and dogged to change his doom, Raskolnikov regards the idea of robbing an old pawnbroker on his way back to the closet apartment he resides as paying guest. The subject is very simple. A man conceives the idea of committing a crime; he matures it, commits the deed, and so the punishment starts, the flash back of the scene plays in the screen of his mind, he is tortured by his own self, he wants it to end, considers confessing his crime before the authorities, and yet finds no courage to do that, in the long run goes to police, states his crime and is sent to Siberia. If it could only be that simple! Raskolnikov is the student of law and a self-acclaimed revolutionary, a nihilist to the boots, intelligent, unprincipled, unscrupulous, reduced to extreme poverty, decides to take matters in his hands for once, for him world is crowded with two kinds of people, the one who act and are named in history, like Napoleon, for whom the smaller crime done to accomplish bigger aims is defensible and even requisite, Raskolnikov strive to be the one. “Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.” And there is no greater grief than to be the torture cell of one’s own thoughts, no greater agony than to ablaze in uncertainty at the point of insanity, Raskolnikov’s punishment started the day he seeped in him the idea of crime, suffering never brings atonement, as Dostoevsky tried to preach, but more suffering. Other plot threads weave the whole picture of Russia of the time, when one with three times a bite of bread was considered lucky, the time when women were either domestic hags or harlots, the time when everyone talked too much, spanned over hundreds of pages the talk of no consequence, the time when Russia had witty officers in police, who used to hunt down criminals like a tiger and yet waited for his surrender, and the time when people killed just to see if their theories were in alignment with reality. Dostoevsky had witnessed death with his bare eyes, as he faced the firing squad in St.Petersburg and was spared at the last moment, and the way he rips off the layers of human mind, lays us naked before us and the whole world to view, is of no surprise!!

  22. 5 out of 5

    Matthew

    I have few Dostoevsky fans in my friends list so my opinions here might not go over so well. I have been wanting to read this classic for a while and I had high expectations, but they were not met. I liked it okay but I found it to be a bit slow and drawn out. Ultimately not a whole lot happens in the story, but it takes 500 pages to get there. In fact, there are probably as many plot points in the 15 page epilogue as in the rest of the book. However, despite this, I can say that parts of the jou I have few Dostoevsky fans in my friends list so my opinions here might not go over so well. I have been wanting to read this classic for a while and I had high expectations, but they were not met. I liked it okay but I found it to be a bit slow and drawn out. Ultimately not a whole lot happens in the story, but it takes 500 pages to get there. In fact, there are probably as many plot points in the 15 page epilogue as in the rest of the book. However, despite this, I can say that parts of the journey were pretty good. Every few chapters there would be a high intensity event that would draw me in. In fact, if you graphed this book out with the high points followed by long lulls, it would probably look like an EKG. Also, it was interesting to take in the classic Russian writing. Whether or not it was always super exciting, I did enjoy the feel of the narrative from the classic Russian perspective. In summary, I would not recommend this as highly as some other classics, but if you are hardcore into completing your classic reading list, you can't miss this one.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Michael Finocchiaro

    I first read this book in high school and it blew my conceptions of literature away every bit as much as Light in August and One Hundred Years of Solitude. The first use of stream of consciousness, the deep analysis of Raskolnikov's conscience, the extraordinary plot movement and violence, the perfect narrative viewpoint...everything about this book is near perfection and at the highest level of literary achievement. For me the two Dostoyevsky books to read if you are to read any are this one an I first read this book in high school and it blew my conceptions of literature away every bit as much as Light in August and One Hundred Years of Solitude. The first use of stream of consciousness, the deep analysis of Raskolnikov's conscience, the extraordinary plot movement and violence, the perfect narrative viewpoint...everything about this book is near perfection and at the highest level of literary achievement. For me the two Dostoyevsky books to read if you are to read any are this one and Brothers Karamazov. If not for all the universal themes addressed and the vividly depicted characters, then for the incredible prose and in-depth character analysis. I don't think I will ever fully sound the depths of Crime and Punishment. I have read it in two English translations and one French translation. I would recommend that Folio version in French and the Oliver Ready translation in English.

  24. 3 out of 5

    Sarah

    Oh, Rasky!!!!!!!! You idiot. Spoilers ahead: --Damn! I felt Raskolnikov's anxiety. I resented his mother when he did and I loved her when he did. I felt sick at the thought of Luzhin or Svidrigailov getting their hooks in dear Dunya (shout out to Dunya!) I wanted Porfiry to just accuse him, already! I guess I'm saying that Dostoevsky managed to make a very real character that I believed enough to mentally and physically align myself with while reading. This is what ultimately kept me turning the Oh, Rasky!!!!!!!! You idiot. Spoilers ahead: --Damn! I felt Raskolnikov's anxiety. I resented his mother when he did and I loved her when he did. I felt sick at the thought of Luzhin or Svidrigailov getting their hooks in dear Dunya (shout out to Dunya!) I wanted Porfiry to just accuse him, already! I guess I'm saying that Dostoevsky managed to make a very real character that I believed enough to mentally and physically align myself with while reading. This is what ultimately kept me turning the pages. --I find it a miracle that I liked Raskolnikov. His personality--at least that suggested in the character's essay On Crime--isn't one that I tend to sympathize with. The scholar who thinks he's a super-human and therefore above or aside from others is someone who I want to punch in the nuts, normally. A complete lack of humility is not sexy. I liked him, anyway. I think we weren't seeing him at his finest, and the way that Dunya and his mother and that swell chap Razumikhin loved him suggested so. --What was up with Sonya? Why was she so good? Why did she love him and follow him to Siberia? DANG! I've always had a soft spot for the wounded and/or pathetic men of the world, so I'm familiar with this theme, but still. But still. STILL, goodreaders! How could Sonya be that good? --Speaking of o_O, what was up with all the madness and dizziness and delirium in this book?! I've known people in pretty distressing situations and tragic despair...and they didn't immediately get a fever. Was there some sort of Russian virus that lay dormant until stress levels rose? There must've been because it sent Raskol into delirium where he shouted out murder clues in his sleep, killed Katerina Ivanovna (though, to be fair, she was dying, anyway), caused Dunya to betray her brother to her mother while sleeping ("She was raving!") and then finally killed his poor mother after a few years of being batshit. O_o? --I find Dostoevsky's personal story, weaved in with Raskolnikov's, to be very interesting, and I appreciated the translator's endnotes that helped me piece these together. I would like to read more about him before reading "Notes from Underground." --My favorite moment was when he was serving hard time and realized he loved Sonya. Maybe this makes me a sap, but it was such a relief to know that he could feel, again. The other prisoners hated him less after that, which makes all the sense in the world.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Saleh MoonWalker

    فوق العاده قلم افسانه ای داستایوفسکی، توصیف بی نظیر جزئیات، داستان پردازی عالی و شخصیت پردازی مناسب باعث شد این رمان به اثری فوق العاده تبدیل بشه. داستان تمام مدت هیجان انگیز بود و تا انتها، هیچ افتی نداشت و اصلا حوصله سر بر نمیشد. با اینکه جزئیات از نظر آماری زیاد استفاده شده اند، اما استفاده ازشون در جای مناسب، کاملا تعداد رو توجیه میکنه به طوری که هیچ جزئیاتی اضافه نیست و روی هیچ بخشی بیش از حد لازم تمرکز نشده. شخصیت پردازی و دید روان شناختی ای که نسبت به تک تک شخصیت ها داشت، باعث میشد که خوانن فوق العاده قلم افسانه ای داستایوفسکی، توصیف بی نظیر جزئیات، داستان پردازی عالی و شخصیت پردازی مناسب باعث شد این رمان به اثری فوق العاده تبدیل بشه. داستان تمام مدت هیجان انگیز بود و تا انتها، هیچ افتی نداشت و اصلا حوصله سر بر نمیشد. با اینکه جزئیات از نظر آماری زیاد استفاده شده اند، اما استفاده ازشون در جای مناسب، کاملا تعداد رو توجیه میکنه به طوری که هیچ جزئیاتی اضافه نیست و روی هیچ بخشی بیش از حد لازم تمرکز نشده. شخصیت پردازی و دید روان شناختی ای که نسبت به تک تک شخصیت ها داشت، باعث میشد که خواننده دنیا رو کاملا دقیق از چشم اون فرد ببینه و تصمیمات اون شخص رو با منطق و زاویه دید خود اون فرد کاملا درک کنه. به معنای کلام میشه دنیا رو از زاویه دید فردی قاتل با شرایط شخصیت اصلی داستان، دید. کنار هم قرار دادن حرفه ای این اشخاص و ایجاد پلات اصلی داستان، باعث میشه که دنیایی به وجود بیاد که خواننده هنگام خواندن این اثر، در اون حضور داشته باشه و کاملا هدفمند، حرکت به سمت جلوی داستان رو درک کنه. داستان شما رو کاملا در خودش غرق میکنه، جوری که حجم کتاب و گذر زمان اصلا به چشم نمیاد و حس نمیشه. رنج شخصیت ها اونقدر استادانه و دقیق بیان شده، که به رنج شخصی خود خواننده تبدیل میشه. نظرشخصی : از بین تمام کتاب هایی که تا این لحظه خواندم یا اسمشون رو شنیدم، این اثر، بهترین عنوانی که میشه برای یک کتاب انتخاب کرد رو داراست.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Jr Bacdayan

    I do not know how to begin, I am utterly troubled. What to do? What to say? In my opinion, to write a review of Dostoyevsky's great masterpiece is a very hard undertaking. To write a decent one, even harder. A week ago, if you asked me what my favorite novel was, I'd greatly struggle with it. I might consider Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Nabokov's Lolita, or probably even Heller's Catch 22. I might give varying answers. It would probably depend on my mood, or the current focu I do not know how to begin, I am utterly troubled. What to do? What to say? In my opinion, to write a review of Dostoyevsky's great masterpiece is a very hard undertaking. To write a decent one, even harder. A week ago, if you asked me what my favorite novel was, I'd greatly struggle with it. I might consider Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Nabokov's Lolita, or probably even Heller's Catch 22. I might give varying answers. It would probably depend on my mood, or the current focus of my stream of thoughts. But, alas! Now, now I have found it! A book, unquestionable enough to be the greatest novel and work of fiction that I have read. As I say this, please bear in mind that I have humbly read very few of the novels I intend to read. Let us say that I'm still a novice of the classical greats. Call me a classical dunce, if you must. I have scarcely pierced through the surface of the greatest literary works. Scarcely. So forgive me, if you think that I overpraise this. Bear with me. Deal with me as a wise and knowing adult would deal with an inquisitive child. What I ask for, is your indulgence, if you can give it to me. Crime & Punishment. Two words. Cause & effect. Low & High. Evil & Justice. Two words that are intertwined, knitted cheek by jowl, and always associated with the other. Two words that are close yet far as possible. The title's two words is reflective of Dostoyevsky's great masterpiece itself. Of course, it certainly is about the psychology of a crime and the punishment it measures. But more than that, the novel features exceedingly contrasting views. These views, contrasting and even paradoxical, can sincerely confuse a man. But, these seemingly contrasting views when scrutinized is really just the product of a struggle inside a man's very being. A man's final struggle of whether to finally detach himself from society, from life, from his humanity, or to finally succumb to it. These struggles, or contradictory ideas can be noted several times in the book. We have Raskolnikov's Napoleonic belief that he is of the elite, and should step over obstacles without being affected even if blood is involved, as was hinted in his article. Then, later on he would admit to Sonya that he was not of the elite since he was terribly affected. But again, when he was in prison he would declare that he was not there because he was guilty of anything but rather because he was weak and confessed. Also, we have his being generous and charitable. He would give Marmaladov's widow, Katarina Ivanovna, all the remaining 25 rubles his mother sent him. Then there was his helping of his schoolmate and the crippled father, and the saving of two children in the fire. Here was a man acting as a savior to strangers yet could not even bear to look and much less talk with his mother and sister. Here was a man who believed that anything could be sacrificed for the success of his career, who killed two women yet refused that her sister be wed to a rich man for his sake. Here was a man who regarded religion as nonsense yet read the gospel and asked people to pray for him. Here was a man who didn't care if he died, didn't eat, didn't care about his illness, yet refused to commit suicide. Here was a man suffering. A man, who because of his crime, suffered his punishment of madness, of guilt, of never ending anxiety and anxiousness. I fancy that Dostoyevsky reiterates that this punishment that goes on through a criminal's mind is far more potent than the punishment of being contained in four walls. As he pointed out in the epilogue, that in prison, the convicts valued life much more. While in this state of madness, of insane ecstasy. A man would undergo extreme suffering and lose his mind and matter. In the words of Sonya, "Oh, what suffering! What suffering!" “The man who has a conscience suffers whilst acknowledging his sin. That is his punishment.” This struggle inside Raskolnikov, is enhanced by his intellect. He cannot help but disdain what is going on inside him. His reason rejects his will. If anything, the more intellectual you are, the more you are prone to detach from your surroundings. You reason that feelings and relations are merely nonsensical. You think of dialectics instead of breathing fresh air. “Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.” As I give my conclusion, let me also give some remarks about my feelings towards the end of the book. It is hard not to root for a happy ending. I was glad that Rasumikhin and Dunya had gotten theirs. And after such pain and suffering, I have forgiven Raskolnikov and want for him peace of mind too. His final realization that he indeed had love for Sonya brought me intense joy. I do not know why. Maybe it was empathy, if anyone deserved happiness it was Sonya. Sonya whose happiness was only through Raskolnikov. Here was a Murderer and a Harlot. Two shameful transgressors who believed that their transgressions were justified. One out of vanity, the other out of charity. One who is vile and contemptuous, the other loving and loyal. Bound together by some irreversible force of nature. Intertwined. Like the words Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov and Sonya are two people who are far different but are bound together. They are allegories of the words themselves. Raskolnikov stands for Crime. He is a murderer who is unrepentant, he is contemptuous, menacing, vain, and indifferent. A man who believes he is above the law. All for self-gain. Sonya stands for Punishment. She is true, loving, loyal, charitable, a woman who deserved richly but lived poorly. A call for justice. Raskolinkov and Sonya, two utterly different people that are connected by suffering. Raskolnikov is crime, he cannot atone himself no matter what he does. Sonya is the atoning punishment. Only through Punishment, can Crime be atoned. Only through Sonya, can Raskolnikov atone himself. This enduring masterpiece is a beauty to behold. A complex, broad, and psychological mastery of not only crime and punishment but also of life, death, sacrifice, society, intellect, love, and ultimately renewal and hope. As I end this review, let me leave you with these excerpts. "Go now, this minute, stand in the crossroads, bow down, first kiss the earth you've defiled, then bow down to the whole world, on all four sides, then say aloud to everyone: 'I have killed!' " "Accept suffering and redeem yourself by it, that's what you must do." "He went on down the stairs and came out in the courtyard. There in the courtyard, not far from the entrance, stood Sonya, pale, numb all over, and she gave him a wild, wild look. He stopped before her. Something painted and tormented, something desperate, showed in her face. She clasped her hands. A hideous, lost smile forced itself in his lips. He stood a while, grinned, and turned back upstairs to the office." "But all at once, in the same moment, she understood everything. Infinite happiness lit up in her eyes; she understood, and for her there was no longer any doubt that he loved her, lover her infinitely, and at last the moment had come... "

  27. 5 out of 5

    Florencia

    For the love of Zeus, I have finished! I think we will be living on the moon with robots as our cooks by the time I write a review for this masterpiece, but I just want to let the world (or, at least, 118 friends and 79 followers; okay, the one that's reading this) know that I have finished it. I did it. I can rest in peace. Not now, anyway. I'm somewhat young and have many things to do. But, you know.

  28. 4 out of 5

    °°°·.°·..·°¯°·._.· ʜᴇʟᴇɴ Ροζουλί Εωσφόρος ·._.·°¯°·.·° .·°°° ★·.·´¯`·.·★ Ⓥⓔⓡⓝⓤⓢ Ⓟⓞⓡⓣⓘⓣⓞⓡ Ⓐⓡⓒⓐⓝⓤⓢ Ταμετούρο Αμ

    ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑ και ΚΑΤΑΡΑ αυτό το αριστούργημα... Δεν περιγράφω άλλο... ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΟ!

  29. 5 out of 5

    Carol

    I am spending waaaaay too much time thinking about this darn book!FOR ME, this was a bizarre, very dark, sometimes tedious and even disturbing book.It begins as RAS plans and ultimately commits a grotesque (view spoiler)[double (hide spoiler)] murder (with a borrowed ax) of a wicked old lady pawnbroker. As the story evolves, we get to see RAS' many faces, illnesses, his extreme poverty and experience his emotional roller coaster of feelings as he slowly passes through each stage resulting from h I am spending waaaaay too much time thinking about this darn book!FOR ME, this was a bizarre, very dark, sometimes tedious and even disturbing book.It begins as RAS plans and ultimately commits a grotesque (view spoiler)[double (hide spoiler)] murder (with a borrowed ax) of a wicked old lady pawnbroker. As the story evolves, we get to see RAS' many faces, illnesses, his extreme poverty and experience his emotional roller coaster of feelings as he slowly passes through each stage resulting from his horrid act. What amazed me was his utter arrogance in thinking he was above the law and better than his peers; that is was ok for "him" to commit murder. In the end, however, I was glad to see that RAS finally (view spoiler)[confesses, pays for his sins, actually feels remorse and passes to final redemption with the help of Sonia. (hide spoiler)] I cannot say that I enjoyed this classic, and it was far from an easy read as I had a rough time keeping the character's straight bc of not only the similarity of the Russian names, but bc one may be called by three completely different names to boot.One final note: In Part One, RAS has an absolutely awful dream of descriptive animal abuse so unbearably brutal that I felt the need to mention it.Whew! After writing down my thoughts, I am still at an impasse at how to rate this book so I suppose 3 stars it is......or not.

  30. 3 out of 5

    Shivam Chaturvedi

    "I like living. I have sometimes been wildly, despairingly, acutely miserable, racked with sorrow, but through it all I still know quite certainly that just to be alive is a grand thing." - Agatha Christie Crime and Punishment proved to be one of those rare breed of books that well and truly break through the outer facade and leave behind a permanent impression, even if its a dark and hideous one. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky died a 110 years ago before I was born, and yet all through the while "I like living. I have sometimes been wildly, despairingly, acutely miserable, racked with sorrow, but through it all I still know quite certainly that just to be alive is a grand thing." - Agatha Christie Crime and Punishment proved to be one of those rare breed of books that well and truly break through the outer facade and leave behind a permanent impression, even if its a dark and hideous one. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky died a 110 years ago before I was born, and yet all through the while that I was reading Crime and Punishment, it felt like he must have written this books for me and me alone. It was almost as if he could see through time you know; like a known face reaching out from an unknown, distant pass. I found Raskolnikov's actions and world view to be eerily similar to that of mine, as if I was looking through his eyes. Or if he was looking through mine eyes instead; one and the same. Now mind you, this is not necessarily how the world is, only this is how he chose to see it. Or perhaps this was the only way he was capable of seeing it. Note the difference between the two, for Dostoyevksy not once accuses Raskolnikov of a crime. He lets us, the readers, decide for ourselves about that. That, however, is right about the only slack he cuts him. Everywhere else he scythes through his 'protagonist'. Lays bare his twisted and conceited thoughts, practically strips him naked. And that is where I found myself cringing. Raskolnikov's biggest flaws, his worst nightmares, his darkest secrets were all mine. But this wasn't it. Every time I looked up from these accursed pages, I could almost imagine Dostoyevsky sitting off across me. With a smirk on his face he would say, "You really thought no one would ever know?" Add to this the fact that beyond a point in this book, Nina Simone's beautiful rendition of Sinnerman would not stop playing in my head. You know you're in love with a book when mere words on a scrap of page (although Dostoyevsky's are hardly 'mere words' to be honest) can spring in your head one of your favorite tunes. English is not the most evocative language in the world; am afraid that honour must go to Urdu. Yet, the force behind these 'mere words' is one to reckon with, and I learnt it the most beautiful way. And to top it all, Sonya. I am a sucker for simplicity and her character was delightfully attractive and fascinating. As is, I found her and Raskolnikov's a better story than most that I see around myself, real or imaginary world whichever. Should I feel too stupid to wish happiness for them? I think not, because its not too bad to have a little bit of hope at times. And that is what I realized Dostoyevsky was trying to tell us too - that there is hope and redemption for the worst of us. Raskolnikov and Sonya So yes, living is worth the while. So said Madam Christie..so said Raskolnikov too, and Dostoyevsky. So say I.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.