Crime And Punishment

---

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: 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: 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. 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.

View all 15 comments. 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!

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? 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.

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! 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.

Related Articles

I feel for him, with him, in his dramatic stand offs with Pyotr Petrovich, his intellectual counterpart. I suffer with the psychopath, and take his side, even when I disagree with him. He creates characters with major flaws, and very different positions, and he gives all of them their space, their say, their moment on stage.

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. And he does it so convincingly that the reader feels the urge to argue with the characters. I found myself saying: 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. 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. 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: 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. Standing, shaking, roaring ovations! View all 58 comments. 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. View all 19 comments. 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! 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.

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.

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. 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 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. 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.

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.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

But he realizes she will never love him, and even after she throws the revolver aside, he allows her to escape. 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: 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. 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.

Crime and Punishment

If only we'd listened to him 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? After revisiting Crime and Punishment I am utterly troubled.

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. 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.

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! No, it's nonsense, it's rubbish! What filthy things my heart is capable of.

Yes, filthy above all, disgusting, loathsome, loathsome! 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. 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. 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….

Anyway I couldn't bring myself to it! I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it! Why, why then am I still …? 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. 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.

Navigation menu

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. 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. It was not so much the money I wanted, but something else. 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. 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: 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.

View all 50 comments. View all 42 comments. 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 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 It is the second of Dostoevsky's full-length novels following his return from 5 years of exile in Siberia.

View all 5 comments. I basically had to stop drinking for a month in order to read it; my friends no longer call. View all 4 comments. Oct 14, Nayra. View all 22 comments. Ah such beautiful pessimism. I find solace in the Russians, they make death seem like a mild disturbance in the beauty of life.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky | www.farmersmarketmusic.com: Books

Also their difficult is mere codswallop, the only difficult thing about Russian lit is the names. Crime and Punishment is the story of a crime and its eventual punishment. 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. 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!

Unless of course you've ever killed a pawnbroker in your life. Then I suggest staying well away from this. 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 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. 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. View all 69 comments. As usual with Dostoyevsky, the characters are shaken by great emotions, nobody stays calm. The account of the murder of the pawnbroker and her sister, as well as the interrogation of the shrewd policeman is among the highlights. The story takes surprising turns again and again.

The descriptions Dostoevsky everything is simply incomparable. You are in the middle of history and everywhere. Guilt and atonement is a very readable classic that lets you look deeply into the human abysses. This book guilt and atonement is a psychological, philosophical, religious, and at the same time social.

I wish some books never had to end. This will undoubtedly top my top 5 books of View all 8 comments. Dec 03, Vessey rated it it was amazing Shelves: Truly great men, I think, must feel great sorrow in this world. I dedicate it to my friend Jeffrey. 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. Thank you for being what you are, Jeffrey! Perhaps you'll hear my name someday. It is a thing universally spoken of, asked for, preached, aspired to, but do we actually know what it means? Can it be defined? 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? 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? 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? And I said to him that if we were able to have everything we needed, we would have been able to get over things. 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: 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. 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. I believe in gray areas. 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? 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.

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? Raskolnikov has a truly exceptional mind that, unfortunately, proves to be a knife with two blades. Sofia Simeonovna asks him: 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. 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. 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. 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. He did not understand that this sense might herald a future break in his life, his future resurrection, his future new vision of life. 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. 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? 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 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. 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. You are a very wise young man.

View all 74 comments. Jun 23, Florencia rated it it was amazing Shelves: 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, friends and 79 followers; okay, the one that's reading this know that I have finished it.

I can rest in peace. I'm somewhat young and have many things to do. View all 36 comments. Dec 16, 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 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. 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. View all 14 comments. May 17, Samra Yusuf rated it it was amazing Shelves: 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.

The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth. 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!! Crime and Punishment is one of the most heartfelt stories that I have read. Never a book is written about agonies of a human mind with so much compassion, sympathy and feeling. The beauty and charm in his work mainly lie in his truthful and sincere portrayal of human psychology. But that is not all.

He also paints a truthful and sincere picture of different classes of the Russian society. The two elements combined produce such realistic Crime and Punishment is one of the most heartfelt stories that I have read. The two elements combined produce such realistic stories that it never occurs to the reader that he is reading fiction. Petersburg, the main plot in Crime and Punishment revolves around a murder committed by the protagonist, Raskolnikov.

His mental agony at the horror and guilt of his action and his terror at being caught dominates the story line. Raskolnikov is an ex law student, whose mind is overstrained to the point of madness by his oppressive condition in life. So, when the murder was committed it looks as if the motive was to rob; but his later actions heavily contradict this conviction, and it is not clear what really drove him to commit the hideous crime.

Raskolnikov is characterized as a proud and egoistic man with queer ideas about morality. He justifies himself for committing the murder saying that the victim is a worthless person, but at the same time he is burdened with guilt.

Download This eBook

His conflicting ideas constantly torture him. It is really amazing how the author penetrate the criminal mind; the torment Raskolnikov goes through while planning, at the time of committing the murder, and afterwards the crime is committed, is portrayed with such accuracy that although one cannot pardon him for the sin he has committed, it is hard not to feel sorry. It is also surprising that the amount of cunning that is displayed in such a tortured mind. Through all his agonies, Raskolnikov does play a very clever game at concealing his crime and evading the police.

The story and characters all revolve around Raskolinikov; and these supporting characters are chosen from different sects of the Russian society. The psychological portrayal of these supporting characters transports you in to their minds and makes you live in them, so that every action of theirs is not read but felt. I enjoyed his choice of characters; their difference added colour and contrast to the story. Out of all I loved Avdoyta, the devoted sister of Raskolnikov, Razhumikhin, his true and loyal friend and Sofya, his savior who shows him the path of redemption. There are few sub plots intertwined with the main plot.

Through them Dostoevsky raises the issue of social conditions and suffering of women. Their anguish, their pain is written so truthfully in those pages that I was crying my heart out as I read them. The character of Sofya is for whom I felt the most. She is forced in to prostituting to provide for the family as his drunken father cannot keep to a good job. And Avdotya's being subject to unseemly sensual attention from the master of the house where she works as governess, and her inability to leave her position as she was prepaid half her salary make you burn with indignation.

It is shocking to read how unprotected women were legally and socially. And it is even more shocking that men like Pyotr and Svidrigailov, who have the power to help, victimizing the defenseless women to satisfy their own personal desires. The injustice of it all makes your blood boil. He seems to criticize heavily on the emerging socialist doctrines. There is so much humanity in it.

And Crime and Punishment it is well exhibited. It is a little wonder why Crime and punishment is called a masterpiece. Set in present day Japan in a provincial town, Bunzo Kurosawa, a greedy and violent father, is murdered in his own home. Bunzo has 3 sons: A film that examines the relationships between lives on both sides of the proscenium, Petr Zelenka's Karamazovi finds a Prague-based theatrical ensemble arriving in Krakow, Poland - where Crime and Punishment is the ultimate psychological thriller with a powerful sense of guilt and retribution, set in St. Petersburg in the second half of the 19th Century.

A retired gambler who works for a wealthy meat entrepreneur, travels to Mar del Plata where he must give a considerable sum of money to his boss's grandchildren. Set in Las Vegas, "The Gambler" tells the story of a wealthy Eastern-European family whose misunderstanding of the American ways results in the loss of their dignity and self-respect. Explore popular and recently added TV series available to stream now with Prime Video.

Start your free trial. Find showtimes, watch trailers, browse photos, track your Watchlist and rate your favorite movies and TV shows on your phone or tablet! Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.

See a Problem?

Full Cast and Crew. When reason fails, the devil helps. Fyodor Dostoevsky novel , Andrew O'Keefe. Wait, Is Mary Poppins a Witch? Share this Rating Title: Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Learn more More Like This. Crime and Punishment TV Movie

• Voyage littéraire de la Grèce. Tome 1-Tome 2 (French Edition)
• In Quest of Tolstoy (Studies in Russian and Slavic Literatures, Cultures, and History)
• Les femmes, actrices de lHistoire : France, de 1789 à nos jours (Collection U) (French Edition)
• The Poetry of Nino Martoglio (Pueti dArba Sicula/Poets of Arba Sicula Book 3)
• Bayesian Networks in R: with Applications in Systems Biology: 48 (Use R!)
• Dans la Vallee de lOmbre Roman (French Edition)