I have been bested...

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.

This year I decided to attack my list of unread classics with vigor and courage, so I finished a novel that has been on my to-read list for about 25 years.

I don't remember why "Crime and Punishment" first piqued my interest back in high school, but since then I've been meaning to read it, along with some of the other great Russian novels. And now, thanks to my obsession with audiobooks, I've finally read it.

The novel follows Raskolnikov, a poor student in St. Petersburg who becomes obsessed with killing an old woman for her money. He justifies his murderous plan by arguing that the woman, who is a pawnbroker, deserves to die because she takes advantage of the poor with her high interest rates.

After committing the crime, which Raskolnikov bungles, he is overcome with guilt and remorse. He becomes even more deranged, especially when an investigator suspects Raskolnikov of the murder.

Even though this book was published in the 1860s, it felt quite timeless: a man plots a crime, and then is wracked with guilt. A detective tracks him down, making the suspect even more paranoid and unhinged. It's just like a modern crime drama on TV.

There were several aspects of this novel that especially impressed me. First was Dostoyevsky's emphasis on the mental anguish of Raskolnikov. It felt very progressive to have such a psychological angle, especially when the field of psychology was so young.

I was also impressed with how Dostoyevsky wrote about the women in the book, especially Raskolnikov's mother and sister, and also Sonya, a young woman whom he fancies. There was such compassion for the difficult choices the women had to make to survive, and his distaste for the various ways they had to sacrifice themselves showed a feminist leaning that I hadn't expected.

Finally, I need to comment on the structure of this novel. Early in the book, Raskolnikov goes into a bar and a chatty stranger begins a long, rambling conversation with him. While reading this section, I started to get impatient, and wondered what the point was. I paused the book and gave myself a quick lecture: "Diane, you're reading one of the great Russian novels. Give Doystoyevsky time. He's a master writer — let him tell the story."

So I proceeded on, and of course, Doystoyevsky was vindicated on all counts. The man in the bar was a critical character and was crucial to the rest of the plot. After finishing the novel, I reflected that every scene, every person, was necessary to tell the whole story. My impatience was more about the hurriedness of modern life and of the pressure in Western culture to GOGOGOGOGO than it was a fault of his writing.

I highly recommend this thoughtful novel. I've spent a lot of time thinking about Raskolnikov and the women in the book, and I'm glad I took the time to read it.

شاهکاره!
اونقدر ری ویو های عالی و مفصل درباره این کتاب نوشته شده که هم نیازی نمی بینم توصیف و تشریح کنم و هم اینکه اونقدر این کتاب عالیه که اگه بخوام حرف بزنم کلی حرف میشه که ممکنه تکراری و اسپویلر باشن. بنابراین فقط در یک کلمه می گم شاهکاره!
ای کسانی که هنوز در خوابِ غفلت از این کتاب به سر می برید بیدار شوید و بشتابید که گوهری گرانقدر در انتظار دستان و دیدگان و مغزهای شماست!

Reading “Crime and Punishment”, was an incredible experience.
The Ultimate psychological thriller!!!
It felt contemporary & timeless.... it was even FUN at times - Have others called this a fun book? I doubt it! Lol
But that’s me. Sue me.

I listened to the Audiobook ( excellent narrator),
during the day- walking/working or soaking....
And read the ebook at night and early mornings in bed... or while spinning on the bike. I was living - breathing - and eating this book - little time to be online.
I purposely didn’t try to sync my reading with the Audiobook. I liked reading the ‘same’ text after hearing it. Digested the happenings deeper this way.
For my first run with “Crime and Punishment”, I think I did alright. I spent much time ‘thinking’ about the characters... and Raskolnikov’s madness.

The story and visuals - (both) - start right out.
Hooked me with the immediate descriptions- dialogue- and
atmosphere. I was getting that Russian feeling! I felt like I should go sit in a Tavern and drink. (I don’t drink- but thought about it) .

Two people are killed in Chapter one. No time wasted in getting down to business!
Raskolnikov justified his plan to kill an unscrupulous pawnbroker for her money. ( her daughter gets killed too - just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time)
Raskolnikov thinks he can balance out the evil with enough good. It’s ‘murder’.
Is that possible?

The horror Raskolnikov inflicted on himself left an indelible mark on his own psyche. Or at least I thought....
I later wondered.
The epilogue is fascinating!

For a long time - I kept wondering
“Why did he ‘really’ kill these women?”

Dostoyevsky explores morality.....one that no thinking person can ignore.
At times - I wondered if Dostoyevsky was a social scientist - as well as an artist - even a spiritualist.

Dostoyevsky explored the role of negative and positive motivation and the way they played out in the moral domain: guilt/shame over moral failings.
He explored moral truth and not just moral preference...

Stimulating thoughts about
good and bad.
Most of the characters in this book are neither all good or all bad - but the scale tips to one side - then another - then another again - twisty!

Raskolnikov’s crime ‘was’ murder!! The punishment??
That takes much longer to explore.
Not much escape for suffering.

The storytelling itself was wild -with crazy dreams - drama - mystery - Philosophy - religion - psychology- murder - prostitution- poverty - love - suffering - and definitely questions about morality.

Fascinating male and female characters.

At some point - I realized - this book is as relevant today as when it was written.
I thought of the Taliban. They seek well-being in this world but their religious beliefs have led them to create a culture that is almost perfectly hostile to human flourishing.


Thousand before me have written a more comprehensive review.
It was an accomplishment for me just to read it. I’m thrilled that I enjoyed it.
I got great value - and gained insights.

Many thanks to s.penkevich
His review was so passionate and personal.
It moved me to read it sooner than later.

Except:
“He could never have imagined such brutality,
such frenzy. In terror he sat up in bed, almost swooning with agony. But the fighting, wailing and cursing grew louder and louder. And then to his intense amazement he caught the voice of his landlady. She was howling, shrieking and wailing, rapidly, hurriedly, incoherently, so that he could not make out what she was talking about; she was beseeching, no doubt, not to be beaten, for she was being mercilessly beaten on the stairs. The voice of her assailant was so horrible from spite and rage that it was almost a
croak; but he too, was saying something, and just as quickly as indistinctly, hurrying and spluttering. All at once Raskolnikov trembled; he recognize the voice— it was the voice of Ilya Petrovich. Petrovich here, and beating the landlady! He is kicking her, banging her head against the steps— that’s clear, can be told from the sounds, from the cries and the thuds. How is it, is the world
topsy-turvy?”
“And, why, why had he come here!”

Raskolnikov “lay for half an hour in such anguish, intolerable sensation of infinite terror as he had never experienced before”.

Outside his bedroom the noise subsided and Nastasya came in with a bowl of soup.
Raskolnikov asked Nastasya about the horror outside his bedroom door.
She says:
“Nobody has been beating the landlady”.
“No one has been here. That was the blood crying in your ears”.
Whoa there a pony.

Raskolnikov was ill.....not completely unconscious, he was sometimes delirious and sometimes half conscious. That’s the way I liked Raskolnikov best!!!!!
Ha!

Thanks to this dead author and the thousands of readers before me!
Wicked Book!

“When reason fails, the devil helps!”

An outstanding character study but I have to admit I wanted more to the actual story, having waited so long to read it. So given the love for this book I am clearly a bit of an outlier on this one. It doesn’t often happen with the classics but on this occasion it clearly has. That said the book is truly fantastic for the aspects of the book I enjoyed – Psychology of crime, writing style, and characterisation.

A short summary of the book

The setting is 1860 in St. Petersburg, where Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, an impoverished former student lives in the top floor flat of a rundown building. Short on money he plots to kill a pawnbroker whom he considers a ‘louse’ or parasite for feeding off the poor. Then for the rest of the book we witness the torment and mental anguish for having committed the crime, as Raskolnikov faces his family, society, and the justice system but ultimately himself.

Review and Comments

A standout in the book is the characterisation. There is no better book to observe what for many would be the true psychology of crime and murder, first as Raskolnikov rationalises the murder as he sets himself up as judge and executioner and then the aftermath as we witness the torment, guilt and paranoia he faces as those around him directly or indirectly help bring about his demise.

As a novel that contrasts good with evil and the sane and mental anguish living with the consequences of having committed murder this is such an iconic novel. I get the structure of the novel, the ‘crime’ in the first 20% of the book and then the ‘punishment’ at the end, with the real purpose of the book to highlight the psychology of living with murder. However, I didn’t need a 'punishing' 600+ pages to get me there and so it felt really tedious in the middle – at times.

I put it down for a few weeks assuming it was me or perhaps not the right time to read, but the second and third attempt just didn’t improve the reading experience.

The setting was St Petersburg and so was selected for the world tour and what a perfect choice. Dostoevsky uses the crowded streets and poverty as well as the inequalities of society to heighten the atmosphere of the book as we observe the mental decline and downhill spiral of the chief protagonist. The author also subtly and convincingly contrasts eastern and western cultures, values and perceptions seeing the failings of both but in the end, I have to admit it was written for the homeland domestic audience.

In all a story that took a long time to go nowhere but the writing style and the character development was outstanding. A work of art when it comes to the psychology of murder but for the reading experience you really do have to be in the mood for it. I’ve rounded down on this one from 3.5.

From such a brilliant writer, you can expect an abundance of meaningful quotes

“It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.”

“Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing.”

“A hundred suspicions don't make a proof.”

“The man who has a conscience suffers whilst acknowledging his sin. That is his punishment.”

This was my first Dostoyevsky, and I’d heard a lot of praise, but I was still not expecting it to be so immersive and engaging. A character as brilliant and profound as Raskolnikov doesn’t need my acclaim—following his twisted flow of thoughts felt like nothing short of a train wreck. The reader is pulled so deep inside his dark mind that it's hard to avoid becoming utterly engrossed in his story. I've never read a book that made me wonder and doubt like this did; the guilt, shame and horror Rodya experiences after killing an innocent woman strangle him with more severity than the law ever could.

I was also pleasantly surprised by how complex and yet progressive the female characters were. Sonya, a 19th century prostitute, ought to be of the most disgraced and powerless people in society, and yet Dostoyevsky doesn't present her as stained or disgusting. She’s a nuanced, kind-hearted, almost christlike figure; the only force strong enough to transcend Raskolnikov’s contempt of humanity. And Dunya’s strength in confronting her villainous abuser, Svidrigailov, was one of the highlights of my read.

Dostoyevsky’s themes, though spectacular, aren't always the lightest. But if you want to appreciate the storyline without diving into the philosophy, you can do that too, because I was genuinely shocked by how modern this felt, and what an absolute thriller of a page turner it turned out to be! Crime and Punishment is many things, but it's never boring; not when you’re in a world of St Petersburg slums, axe murderers, oafish drunks and spying police investigators. Maybe we non-Russians have it easy because of translation, but I’m happy to say this masterpiece isn’t nearly as dense as people make it out to be. I thoroughly enjoyed every one of its seven hundred closely written pages.

Instead, I'd say the lack of paragraphs and Russian naming conventions are what pushes this into a slightly heavier read, but it's still worth it. I find it interesting that Crime and Punishment has the reputation of being one of the bleakest and most depressing books out there, but I found myself truly moved by the beauty and poignancy of its ending.

An examination of the psychology of a murderer, Crime and Punishment delves into the darkest depths of the mind, where tangled threads of hatred and paranoia and torment weave together to form a man such as Raskolnikov. Insignificant but too proud to admit it, he believes he is above trivial morality. But there is some tortured compassion in him, although it all but vanishes as he commits the titular Crime. Spiraling deeper and deeper into madness and resentment, Raskolnikov isolates himself and continues his desperate narcissism to the bitter end. His intensifying anxiety and terror, paired with his exaggerated belief in his own importance, drive him to increasingly severe breakdowns. Raskolnikov retreats into the uneasiness of his own mind, his fears threatening to overwhelm him.

Is there inherent evil in humankind? We all have hatred inside of us, but what defines us? What defines Raskolnikov? His moments of selfless generosity or his sudden, formidable rage? Should we be content to suffer from an endless helix of our innate capacity for violence?

I highly recommend the translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. It captures Dostoevsky's eloquent voice without compromising the urgency and anxiety of the novel.

5 stars

n  “Guess,” he said, with his former twisted and powerless smile.n

Certain components resonated but too long-winded

Crime and Punishment centers on a student (or former student), Raskolnikov. He is in a dire financial predicament and is forced into pawning his most treasured and sentimental items. Why should the good, kind Raskolnikov suffer while the greedy pawnbroker grows more and more wealthy, profiting off the suffering of the unfortunate? Wouldn’t it be better for Raskolnikov to eliminate the pawnbroker and distribute the riches to the needy?

Let’s start with the pros of this book, shall we?

Raskolnikov in many ways is a highly relatable character—he considers himself to be a good person who has fallen on tough times, and he is highly attuned to the tragic events happening around him; he doesn’t turn away from the suffering of others, he doesn’t stay out of it. He tries to be the hands and feet of Jesus.

This book also has a tremendous number of great quotes, and Crime and Punishment is the definition of a classic—each time the reader could learn something new during each reread.

One scene in particular is incredibly moving, a beautiful, thought-provoking scene; it involves Sonia and the 100 ruble note.

Now, for the cons……

Good grief! The character names were extremely confusing! For example, Raskolnikov is also Rodya, Pyotr Petrovich is also Luzhin, and Sonia is also Sofya Semyonova. Additionally, Razumihin and Raskolnikov, the similar sounding names and length were extremely confusing. Is this a bad translation or is this intentional?

Further, this book is rather depressing. This book did not delight my soul—it is a bleak reminder about the depravity of humankind (as if I needed another reminder).

And the ultimate crime is that Crime and Punishment is too long-winded. To be clear, the discussion of philosophy can be riveting and important. Can good people do “bad” things? Why are some people exempt from normal standards of behavior? For example, killing people is typically illegal and morally frown upon, but a soldier in war might be expected to kill. It is moral to kill one person to save many? Should we be defined by our occupation or our moral character?

But…my gosh! It was overly done. Raskolnikov, Rodya (whatever you are going by these days)—just get on with it! Please move on, one way or another!

The Green Light at the End of the Dock (How much I spent):
Electronic Text – Free through Libby
Audiobook – 1 Audible Credit (Audible Premium Plus Annual – 24 Credits Membership Plan $229.50 or roughly $9.56 per credit)

2025 Reading Schedule
JantA Town Like Alice
FebtBirdsong
MartCaptain Corelli's Mandolin - Louis De Berniere
AprtWar and Peace
MaytThe Woman in White
JuntAtonement
JultThe Shadow of the Wind
AugtJude the Obscure
SeptUlysses
OcttVanity Fair
NovtA Fine Balance
DectGerminal

Connect With Me!
Blog Twitter BookTube Facebook Insta My Bookstore at Pango

Cited as one of the supreme achievements in literature, Crime and Punishment is neither about the crime, nor about the punishment, but about the psyche of a criminal.

The protagonist wantonly commits an off the cuff murder, without any mortification whatsoever. He is enthralled with the majestic image of a Napoleonic personality who, in the interests of the greater social good, believes that he possesses a moral right to kill. At the same time, he is guilt trapped and tormented by his own act. And mind that, repenting isn't easy for him! He is constantly ashamed of his impropriety and remains delirious. His conscience perpetually forces him to accept the reality of his mediocrity, yet he decides to shelve events and evade the authorities. One of the police officials even suspects him and persuades him to accept the crime while promising for clemency, but he refuses to acknowledge and snubs any leniency offered by the authorities.

Only a downtrodden and dispirited prostitute can offer salvation (salvation that can only be found in love ), leaving him off the hook.

This is my second Russian classic that I've read. I read Anna Karenina last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. I knew the general story of course of C and P, a student kills an old lady for her money, because he feels as a higher class of being he shouldn't be restricted to society's rules. It was much, much more than that. There are other stories within the main story and they are as interesting as his is.

About 10 years ago, I tried to read The Brothers Karamazov and couldn't finish it. I believe my inability to do so was a factor of my lack of sophistication for one thing; I hadn't read enough to be able to take it in and also that is a hard one to begin with. Crime and Punishment is much more accessible. For one thing, you are inside the head of mostly the main character, Raskolnikov. I love the name, because he is a rascal, but not in a cute way. He is a degenerate. Ironically, he is quick to see moral degeneracy in others, but not in himself, even after he becomes a murderer. Murder happen very early in the book, so it's not a spoiler.

The whole book is about his reaction to what he has done. He is overwhelmed and he believes that is because he is not the great man of destiny he thought himself to be. It is not that, grief and remorse is destroying him, but he can't understand it. He has to take a long journey inside himself and with the help of his family and friends, he eventually becomes a better man. Punishment is given through the state, but Dostoyevsky is saying the worst punishment comes from inside us.

Si usted tiene la idea de que leer a Dostoyevski es pesado, aburrido o difícil, veremos si puedo hacer que cambie de idea.

«Crimen y castigo» es un entretenido, intenso y dramático folletín protagonizado por un inolvidable personaje objeto de un amplio relato psicológico y repleto de escenas conmovedoras que se suceden sin pausa, siendo así una novela con una lectura apasionante en su superficie y extraordinariamente clara en sus profundidades (el epílogo mejor ni mencionarlo).

Fue publicado por primera vez en 1866 en la revista «El mensajero ruso» en doce entregas y con enorme éxito, un éxito que no le ha abandonado hasta nuestros días ni en cuanto a lectores ni en lo que a estudiosos se refiere, para lo que no es su menor virtud el hecho de que, no sé si gracias a Fiódor o a su pesar, sea susceptible de varias lecturas filosóficas provenientes de posiciones incluso esencialmente antagónicas y con gran influencia en pensadores y escritores de muy variada condición.

n   “Para vosotros, en todas las circunstancias, lo primero es hacer lo posible para no pareceros al hombre.” n

El objetivo de Dostoyevski al escribir «Crimen y castigo» fue luchar contra el éxito que el nihilismo estaba teniendo entre la juventud de su época y sus, para él, funestas consecuencias. Para ello, el autor, como en él es característico, estructura una historia en torno a unos personajes que encarnan diversas variaciones de ese mal que se impuso combatir. Estos individuos no tienen por qué despertarnos antipatía, incluso pueden inspirarnos compasión y hacernos comprender sus actos sin que por ello los aprobemos. En fin, intenta ser justo en el debate.

En este caso, los personajes elegidos son cuatro:

-Piotr Petróvich Luzhin, un arribista capaz de todo por subir en el escalafón social sin respeto a nada ni a nadie. Este, obviamente, no es un personaje simpático y su destino en la obra dará más de una alegría al lector.

-Andrei Semenovich, un joven bienintencionado, algo arrogante y no muy inteligente que se encarga de proclamar uno de los principios más importantes y necesarios para el futuro paraíso socialista, a saber, “Todo lo hace el medio, el hombre en sí no es nada”, y como no es nada, puede serlo todo, cualquier cosa que nos propongamos.

-Arcadio Ivánovich Svidrigáilov, un cínico sin escrúpulos, un vividor con la inteligencia necesaria para salir indemne de sus delitos y cuya moral se circunscribe a su egoísta placer.

- Por último, cerrando el cuarteto, el personaje más importante, el imborrable Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, un orgulloso racionalista que intenta probar mediante un crimen su supuesta libertad ilimitada, su pertenencia al selecto grupo de hombres extraordinarios capaces de sobreponerse a sí mismos, de imponer sus reglas, despreciando al amplio “hormiguero” seguidor ciego de la moral imperante. Una persona sensible, generosa y valiente aunque un tanto huraña, inteligente pero sin recursos económicos para proseguir su carrera intelectual que se presumía brillante.

Esta es la píldora nihilista a tragar, una discusión que puede ser entendida como un cuestionamiento de la moral y así lo interpretaron muchos existencialistas que admiraron su obra. El azúcar que envuelve la píldora para así mejor tragar está compuesto de un poco de novela social, el propio crimen, la consiguiente investigación policial a cargo de un precedente del detective Colombo, aquel entrañable personaje protagonizado por Peter Falk, y, por supuesto, el infierno mental al que se tiene que enfrentar Raskolnikov al descubrir fracasado su experimento.

En cuanto a los argumentos en contra del demonio nihilista, prácticamente se limita a pregonar las bondades que conlleva la obediencia a la ley natural que el autor, por arte de birlibirloque, hace coincidir palabra por palabra con la ley de Dios. ¿Qué Dios? Pues el suyo, naturalmente.

“Si alguien me demostrara que Cristo está fuera de la verdad, si estuviera positivamente demostrado que la verdad está fuera de Cristo, yo preferiría permanecer con Cristo que permanecer con la verdad.” Fiódor Dostoyevski

Si aún sigue pensando que Dostoyevski es pesado, aburrido o difícil… tan amigos que ni comisión me llevo.