Crime and Punishment was probably the first dark book that I read and I was totally impressed by the language and the psychological torments of the main character.

My only problem, which is common in all his writing, was with the Russian names. I could not believe how many names a person can have.

This is by far my favorite Russian classic. I just loved every single word of it.

I would like to start my review by saying that Crime and Punishment has definitely changed something inside me. Many elements in this novel—such as a powerful story and a genuinely beautiful writing style; the profound, complex characters who will never leave my mind; the deep, thought-provoking dialogues, and the whole reading experience itself—are part of this unique journey that, as a reader, I'm truly grateful to have lived.

Raskolnikov, our protagonist, is one of the best developed characters I have seen in a novel – you can tell he is completely different at the end of the book, you can't almost recognize him, and after finishing this piece of literature, the feeling that you were reading, not a novel, but the story of a human being, is priceless.
Dostoevsky was able to create real people in Crime and Punishment: people who are at times happy, other times sad or depressed; people who feel fear, anxiety or pain, but who also may live good experiences; people who have dreams or have lost their hopes. Obviously I found quite important the fact that you can identify with the characters and their own feelings, fears and aspirations – with such memorable characters, how could you forget them?

Finally, I'm pretty sure that the story itself is very well known, and so I would prefer to talk about the translation I have read instead. The Pevear and Volokhonsky translation is quite understandable and straightforward, however, I was struggling with it a little bit, especially at the end of the book, since it is quite literal, and therefore, it made me feel exhausted and tired every now and then. I'm not saying there is something wrong in reading a literal translation, and besides I suppose this is one of the best translations in English, yet I just wanted to share my experience reading it and how, at times, it did feel like ‘too much’. I would recommend it though, since it was definitely a good choice after all.
All in all, Crime and Punishment is a novel everyone has to read at least once in their life, and of course I encourage you to do so when you feel totally ready.

P.S. To my friend Micah, thank you for joining me on this journey, it made my experience much more enjoyable and meaningful. :)

Favorite quotes:

None of the questions was new or sudden, however; they were all old, sore, long-standing. They had begun torturing him long ago and had worn out his heart.

“Do you understand, do you understand, my dear sir, what it means when there is no longer anywhere to go?” ... “For it is necessary that every man have at least somewhere to go..."

Well, but as soon as a man gets sick, as soon as the normal earthly order of his organism is disrupted, the possibility of another world at once begins to make itself known, and the sicker one is, the greater the contact with this other world, so that when a man dies altogether, he goes to the other world directly.

“Is there really no justice? Who else are you going to protect if not us orphans? Ah, no, we shall see! There is justice and truth in the world, there is, I'll find it!"

Yes, he was glad, he was very glad that no one was there, that he and his mother were alone. It was as if his heart softened all at once, to make up for all that terrible time.

Only a few people in the whole world could be saved; they were pure and chosen, destined to begin a new generation of people and a new life, to renew and purify the earth; but no one had seen these people anywhere, no one had heard their words or voices.

البشر يصبحون مجانين مسعورين. ولكنهم يعدون أنفسهم على ذكاء عظيم لم يزعمه البشر لأنفسهم في يوم من الأيام قط : فهم يعتقدون بأنهم معصومين من الزلل مبرّؤون من الخطأ. في أحكامهم. في نتائجهم العلمية. في مبادئهم الأخلاقية والدينية. إن قرى ومدنًا وأممًا بكاملها قد سرت إليها هذه العدوى. وفقدت عقلها. أصبح أفرادها يعيشون في حالة جنون. لا يفهم بعضهم عن بعض شيئًا. لا يفهم أحد منهم عن أحد شيئًا : كل واحد يؤمن بأنه الإنسان الوحيد الذي يمتلك الحقيقة. فإذا نظر إلى الآخرين تألم وبكى ولطم صدره وعقف يديه لوعة وحسرة. أصبح الناس لا يستطيعون أن يتفاهموا على ما ينبغي أن يكون شرًا وما ينبغي أن يكون خيرًا.

أصبحوا لا يستطيعون لا أن يدينوا ولا أن يبرؤوا. أصبح البشر يقتل بعضهم بعضًا تحت سيطرة بغض لا معنى له وكره لا يُفهم. هم يجتمعون ليؤلفوا جيوشًا كبيرة. فما أن يدخلوا معركة حتى يندلع الشقاق في جميع الصفوف فتنحل الجيوش. ويأخذ الجنود يهجم بعضهم على بعض. فيَعُض بعضهم بعضًا. ويذبح بعضهم بعضًا. ويلتهم بعضهم بعضًا. في المدن يدق ناقوس الخطر طوال النهار. ويُستنفر الشعب. ولكن ما الذي يستنفره ؟ ولماذا يستنفره ؟ ذلك أمر لا يعرف أحد عنه شيئًا. الرعب يستبد بجميع الخلق. المهن العادية هجرها أصحابها. لأن كل واحد يعرض آراءه وإصلاحاته. وما من أحد يستطيع أن يتفق مع أحد.

قبل الثورة الروسية بنصف قرن و الروس لا يلبسون إلا أسمالا بالية في كل الروايات من تولستوى إلى تشيكوف ودستيوفيسكى و غيرهم من رواد الأدب الروسى. حساء الكرنب هو الوجبة المسيطرة و الكوبيكا الواحد بعيد المنال. الذل طال طائفة النبلاء و المثقفين و الأراء و المعتقدات الجديدة تعصف بالمجتمع.

شاب كما في  مراجعة الصديقة النيرة أسرته فلسفة نيتشة و تاريخ نابليون فظن نفسه من طبقة مختلفة من البشر لا تنطبق عليه قوانين المجتمع بل هو من يقرر أي القوانين يسرى عليه و أيها جدير بالإنتهاك.

أنه في المقال قسم الناس إلى نوعين : مخلوق "عادي" ومخلوق "غير عادي". وفرض على أولئك أن يعيشوا مطيعين دون أن يعطيهم الحق في تجاوز القانون و خرقه لأنهم كمان ترى مخلوقات عادية, أما الآخرون فإن لهم الحق في إرتكاب الجرائم وخرق كل قانون لمجرد كونهم مخلوقات غير عادية! أليست هذه فكرتك ؟ أم تراني مخطئاً

من روائع الأدب العالمى صدرت في جزئين تجد مراجعتى لهما هنا:

الجريمة و العقاب – الجزء الأول

الجريمة و العقاب – الجزء الثانى

O Caminho da Consciência


Será crime matar um ser execrável que explora o seu semelhante?! Uma Sanguessuga! Um Abutre da Miséria alheia! Será crime aniquilá-lo?! Esmagá-lo como o verme que é?! Ou será, simplesmente, uma acção de limpeza social!?

Afinal a História da humanidade transborda de Heróis que exterminaram milhares, alegando causas nobres. E não raras vezes, pereceram inocentes como mortes colaterais.
Quantos Lideres Históricos chacinaram e trucidaram?! E a História não os absolveu e, mais que isso, jubilou?!...

Raskolnikov matou um ser socialmente perverso e outro inocente (uma morte colateral não intencional), e foi castigado!
Estaline matou milhões e conquistou um estatuto de popularidade na História da Rússia ao ponto de lhe serem consagrados um museu, uma rua e uma estação ferroviária!
Enfim!... Os Desígnios da Justiça são insondáveis!...

Porém... há a Consciência, aquela Sentinela implacável que não deixa escapar impunes as lacunas da Justiça!
E Raskolnikov tem uma, que... se é certo que o arremessou aos Infernos, também lhe concedeu a Redenção!

Á luz da Consciência, Raskolnikov cometeu um crime — por maior que seja a Podridão Social, a Cura correspondente, não passa pela eliminação dos Hediondos. Se enveredássemos por essa via, seríamos... provavelmente... reconduzidos à era "Adão e Eva"

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.....

n  "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."n

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

n  "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."n

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:

n  ”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.”n

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.

n  “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!”n

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:

n  "And how is it, how is it that you could give away your last penny, and yet kill in order to rob!"n

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.

n   "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."n

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

Raskolnikov’s psyche is so so intriguing and I loved immersing myself entirely in his mind’s descend into madness.

I've come to the conclusion that Russian door-stoppers might just be where it's at. "It" here meaning general awesomeness that combines history, philosophy and readability to make books that are both thought-provoking and enjoyable.

Up until this point, Tolstoy had basically taught me everything I knew about nineteenth century Russian society and its people. By that, I mean that everything I knew was about the drama and scandals of the Russian aristocracy. The difference here is that Dostoyevsky took me on an educational - but also gripping - journey around the backstreets and drinking dens of St Petersburg. He showed me the nitty gritty details of life in Russia for those less fortunate - drunks, prostitutes, the poor - and he painted a very vivid portrait of this time and culture.

Raskolnikov is a great protagonist; he really is. His head is one messed-up 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 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, and like a child who wants to jump inside the TV to 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 I was drawn into this world, how much I really cared about it. That doesn't happen often.

Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube

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.

cant... form.... coherent thoughts..... the brainrott....... [shakes fist at sky]

no but seriously i've completely lost my ability to think critically and write long-form reviews. typically i'd just write some short quip relating to the book, but i've sat staring at my screen for like 15 minutes and i cant come up with anything. so in advance, i apologize for this lackluster review. woops.

overall i thoroughly enjoyed this book, dostoevsky's writing has to be one of my favorites. i loved raskolnikov, he's just so silly. (hes a murder)

if you want to read an actual quality review on this book please please please go read leo's!! she's criminally underrated. leo's review<3

(instead of a long witty review i'm givnig you guys memes relating to the book, enjoy)


  




_________________________
n   ꒰