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.

Διαχρονικό αριστούργημα, ένα βιβλίο άρτιο από όλες τις απόψεις.
Αν ήμουν συγγραφέας θα ήταν το χρυσό πρότυπο (επίσης, θα είχα σκάσει απ'τη ζήλια μου που η πένα μου ποτέ δε θα έφτανε σε τέτοια επίπεδα αλλά αυτό είναι άλλο θέμα).

Ως αναγνώστης, θαυμάζω όχι μόνο τη αφηγηματική δεινότητα του Dostoyevsky (είναι κοινότοπο και που το λέω ακόμα) αλλά και το πόσο στρωτή κι αναπάντεχα ευανάγνωστη είναι η γραφή, χωρίς να κάνει ουτέ μια στιγμή εκπτώσεις στη σοβαρότητα και το κύρος του. Αυτό για να βλέπουν μερικοί, μερικοί πως το να γράφουν δυσκίνητα και πολύπλοκα δεν είναι αυτομάτως δείγμα ποιότητας και πως το να πραγματεύεται κανείς θέματα υπαρξιακής αναζήτησης, εσωτερικής πάλης και κάθαρσης δεν είναι αντιστρόφως ανάλογο με τη ρέουσα αφήγηση. Ο δάσκαλος Fyodor Mikhailovich έδειξε πώς γίνεται.

Τα έχει πει, άλλωστε, καλύτερα από μένα η Όλγα Χαρίτου.
"- Το Έγκλημα και Τιμωρία είναι μια περιπέτεια της ψυχής, είναι ένα δράμα της ύπαρξης. Είναι ένα βιβλίο σχεδόν θρησκευτικό. Μ' αυτή την οπτική θα το ξαναδιαβάσεις σήμερα.
- Πάλι να το ξαναδιαβάσω;
- Πάλι και πάλι και πάλι!"

Dostoyevsky forces us to examine crime from a much broader perspective - a perspective that questions the implicit (and explicit) connection between the criminal and the criminal justice system. Should be required reading for all members of law enforcement who have command responsibilities. Should also be required reading for metal heath professionals who have to deal with marginalized groups.

ΕΥΛΟΓΙΑ και ΚΑΤΑΡΑ αυτό το αριστούργημα...
Δεν περιγράφω άλλο...

ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΟ!

ای انسان ابله! گمان بردی که با نفی ادیان به قله علم و معرفت رسیده‌ای؟! پس بگو، چگونه بی‌عدالتی در بدو تولد را توضیح خواهی داد؟ رنج‌هایت را چگونه توجیه می‌کنی؟! چطور کسی را از خودکشی منع خواهی کرد وقتی قبل از آنکه انتخابی کرده باشد، سقف آمال و آرزوهایش تعیین شده؟ ای انسان! به من بگو چگونه عدالت را در زمین برقرار خواهی کرد.

آه ای خدایان! ای زمین و ای آسمان! من فقط می‌خواستم بر آنچه که شما بر من تحمیل کردید، طغیان کرده باشم. می‌خواستم به خود ثابت کنم که می‌توانم انتخاب کنم. انتخابی خارج از آنچه که شما به من ارائه کردید. می‌خواستم به خودم ثابت کنم که من هستم! اما ای دریغ... من می‌خواستم ناپلئون باشم. می‌خواستم اراده‌ام را بر تمام جهان تحمیل کنم و بر زشتی و پلشتی تیغ بَر کشم. دریغا که من هم شپشی بیش نبودم.

چگونه می‌شود این رنج را تحمل کرد؟ وقتی بچه‌ها گرسنه‌اند و تو چیزی نداری که بهشان بدهی، وقتی کاترینا به سرش می‌زند و می‌پرسد "سونیا، چرا ما پول نداریم؟" بهشان چه خواهی گفت؟ وقتی فاصله آنچه انسان می‌خواهد باشد و آنچه که واقعا هست زیاد شد، چه باید کرد؟ به من بگو اگر از فرودستان، دین را بگیریم برایشان چه می‌ماند؟ نه دوست من. بیا دیگر ادامه ندهیم چون نه آنها تاب تحملش را خواهند داشت، نه ما طاقت ضربه تبر را.

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

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.

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.

"¿De qué soy culpable ante ellos? ¿Para qué voy a ir allá? ¿Qué voy a decirles? Todo esto es tan sólo una alucinación... ellos mismos degüellan a millones de seres, y todavía se consideran virtuosos"

Me gustó mucho este gran clásico que definitivamente lo es no tan sólo por el contenido sino por el modo que está escrito y estructurado aunque hay detalles desde luego que no me gustaron. Gracias a Dios mi edición tenía una lista antes de empezar de los principales nombres de los personajes rusos que son insufribles. Aún con eso uno se enreda y creo que nunca me acostumbraré a la manera cómo se llaman entre ellos y el nudo que hace en mi cabeza. Por eso prefiero "a la antigua" cuando se les traducía los nombres incluso al español.
Desde luego lo comparé bastante con "Rojo y Negro" de Stendhal al ser éste mucho antes precursor de un tipo de personaje que para mí debe haber influido en Dostoyevsky de alguna manera, pues todos los realistas rusos asumieron mucho estilo del francés romántico y realista que realmente fueron los que marcaron la pauta en ese estilo de todo el siglo XIX. El mismo Dostoyevsky se dedicó a traducir a algunos autores franceses al ruso y es innegable la influencia.
Raskolnikov es un personaje muy bien construido y aunque uno de los detalles que más me aburrió o molestó fue que se pasaba la mitad de la novela en estado febril, sus monólogos no tienen pierde, me hizo recordar "Demian" de Hesse y vaya que uno le cree y sobre todo aterrizas más con Rodia que con Demian, por lo menos entiendes mejor sus impulsos y su contexto, no es tan filosófico pero qué más explicativo que la misma vida de Rodia.
Siempre supe el argumento desde colegio y aunque siempre quise "justificar" muchas cosas de la novela al leerla la verdad no se terminan justificando muchas cosas, pero lo que sí está bien plasmado es el pensamiento de Raskolnikov. Es un tipo que a diferencia de Julián (quien más que todo es ambicioso y aspira a una vida superior) odia a todo el mundo, de hecho tiene muchos rasgos psiquiátricos de ensimismamiento, falta de contacto social, abandono, depresión y un largo etcétera. Hay una frase casi calcada de "Rojo y Negro" cuando ambos personajes dicen algo similar: "no soy grande (soy piojo) porque yo mismo me lo pregunto". A pesar de creerse superior sin embargo Rodia vive en un estado febril y enfermizo por lo que de ninguna manera lo es y él mismo lo sabe.

"A algunos de sus condiscípulos parecía, en verdad, que los miraba cual si fuesen niños, por encima del hombro, como si a todos los sobrepasase, tanto por el talento como por el saber y las ideas, y considerase sus convicciones e intereses como algo inferior"

Pero sí disfruté mucho sobre todo de sus monólogos donde se mostraba más filosófico, razonable y hasta perverso, pero tiene grandes frases; mas bien en su interacción con las demás personas está totalmente desbocado aunque por momentos aparezcan destellos de lucidez y humildad.
Algo que sí me sorprendió fue que hablara frecuentemente de Napoleón, eso sí no sabía, igual Julián habla de él, pero en el caso de Rodia no parece ser una admiración real y tangible sino una justificación de su moral, un desperfecto si se quiere decir, un asesino y un transgresor.

"El verdadero dominador (Napoleón), al que todo le está permitido, bombardea Tolón, asuela París, olvida a su ejército en Egupto, derrocha medio millón de soldados en la retirada de Moscú y sale del paso con un retruécano en Vilna; y todavía, después de muerto, le levantan estatuas... Según parece, todo le estaba permitido. ¡No; esos seres, por lo visto, no son de carne y hueso, sino de bronce!"

Me dio bastante gracia lo de la utilidad. Es un concepto que también en Stendhal se consideraba algo terrible, la gente que sólo ve "lo útil" pues yo muchas veces le he ido por ahí en cuanto a decisiones. Pues Rodia también es muy práctico y cree en ese concepto firmemente por sobre todas las cosas.
Luego están muchos personajes, no son a mi parecer "tipos" ejemplificantes de su época, tenemos a un comisario, a un secretario, Etc que sin embargo no me llamaron en lo absoluto la atención, a pretendientes mayores o menores, y bueno en sí a la familia de Raskolnikov que quizás más que todo giran en torno al personaje principal. Ni siquiera Sonia me llegó a llenar demasiado los ojos como personaje aunque sí Dostoyevsky llega a tener niveles de cotidianidad cuando hace interactuar a Razumijin, Dunia, la madre de Raskolnikov, Etc. Cuando entraba en esos niveles, se alejaba de lo filosófico, de la descripción demasiado científica de los trastornos mentales, también me gustó bastante. Desde luego el gran amigo de Rodia Razumijin gana muchas simpatías por su estilo desenfadado y su gran preocupación por su amigo, un ejemplo de amistad y de sensatez ante la terrible tragedia que desde el primer momento de la novela se avecina.
También la descripción de la pobreza aunque sólo con la familia de Marméladov realmente la sentí mejor descrita me agradó y desde luego horrorizó algunos desenlaces de los personajes. En cuanto a Sonia lo que más me gustó sin duda fueron los dos diálogos grandes que tuvo con Raskolnikov, más que todo porque era una lucha constante entre ambos, una tensión entre el crimen y la religión, el trato que le da él a ella es bastante duro y áspero pero se armoniza perfectamente con lo que realmente es. Si hubiera cambiado demasiado pues hubiera sido poco creíble y raro en la atmósfera de la novela.
He tenido grandes ratos de aburrimiento sobre todo cuando Svidrigailov y Porfirii Pétrovich hablaban, creo que son personajes que no aportan demasiado en cuanto a descripción de caracteres, en la historia sí desde luego, pero como personajes no les veo mayor sentido. A pesar de eso una estrella más por el personaje de Rodia muy bien llevado y por la gran estructura de la obra.

I read Crime and Punishment severs years ago and immediately rated it 5 stars. Then, I started walking around town telling people it was one of my favorite books ever. People would walk up to me on the street and ask, “Hey, Justin, you look like a guy who reads good books. Hey, could you power rank your top five favorite books of all time for me?”

That’s an example of a real life question that no one ever asked me. But, if they did, I was ready to respond!

“Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Les Miserables, Crime and Punishment, and the fifth one is always changing. Today, I’ll go with The Count of Monte Cristo.” Then, I have to remind myself I’ve never read the unabridged version of that one, and also the list of books isn’t really in order. Also, no one is asking me this question anyway. Finally, I’m never really walking around the town anyway.

So three years ago I loved this book and a month ago I couldn’t tell you a thing about it. I knew the main plot, obviously. You know, there’s a crime and then the next 80 percent of the book is the punishment. I don’t think that’s a spoiler. I hope not. So I knew the main plot, but I really couldn’t remember why I loved the book years ago. It was time to read it again!

I quickly remembered why I loved it. Dostoevsky has his crazy ability to write about the human condition that still feels fresh and riveting over 200 years later. It’s tedious at times, not always a blast to read, not always fast-paced, but sticking with this book until the end is worth it. The characters are given so much life that even the ones that seem to be minor give you a reason to care when they show up. There aren’t too many of them and they are all beautifully written, whether you like them or not. And you probably won’t.

The translation I read made the book feel like it was written in the 21st century. Sometimes older books like this can be exhausting or written in a way that makes them a chore to attempt to read, but this one is one of the most accessible 19th century books I’ve found. I don’t read many books that date that far back, but when I do... that’s stupid. I’m just trying to say if you want to dabble in classic literature and looking for a place to start, I highly recommend this one.

Also, if you love nihilism this might be just what you’re looking for. Great characters. A extremely well written story that dives deep into consequences of our actions and what it’s like to deal with (or not really deal with) guilt and consequences and remorse. It reaches its climax early, but the rest of the book plows on with much more plot to soak in before it’s all over.

And when it’s over you can walk around town and tell random people who don’t care how much you love this book. Or come tell me about it. I’m still trying to find someone to tell about it.

Single Quote Review:

Am I a good person? Deep down, do I even really want to be a good person, or do I only want to seem like a good person so that people (including myself) will approve of me? Is there a difference? How do I ever actually know whether I’m bullshitting myself, morally speaking?

~ DFW, imitating FMD

n  n
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...
n  n

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.