Reviews

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Only show reviews with written explanations

carterjj's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging emotional sad tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.25

xinquo's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional informative mysterious reflective sad tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.25

sidharthvardhan's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

"It began with the socialist doctrine. You know their doctrine; crime is a protest against the abnormality of the social organisation and nothing more, and nothing more; no other causes admitted."

Dostevesky begins by very slowly painting a dark world full of poverty and hopelessness. The the story moves very slowly, v...e...r...y s...l..o..w...l..y in the first two parts. I actually lost the number of times Rashkilonov fell ill during the book. His psychology and morality being the main subject of the book. Then there is fact that each character has three names.

R. is a good man - a man of golden heart. He doesn't believe he has done anything wrong but is greatly depressed by his condition. He knew after once he got his education, it would be far easier to manage his finaces- it was a question of those first steps which were difficult.

"A special little theory came in too—a theory of a sort—dividing mankind, you see, into material and superior persons, that is persons to whom the law does not apply owing to their superiority, who make laws for the rest of mankind, the material, that is...."

Socrates once said nobody knowingly commits a wrong. Logic though is a slave to passion which in turn is influenced by circumstances. Now R. was living in miserable circumstances, was greatly intelligent and was worried about poverty of his family. He was an atheist and thus his morality doesn't have divine backing:

There are no sacred traditions amongst us, especially in the educated class.

His extreme sulkiness doesn't help either. Thus when he saw a social parasite of a women - his hatred would have made him believe that she doesn't deserve to live. Till the very end. he was convinced that in killing her he had actually done a great social service and nothing convince him otherwise. This is what, he argued, a great soul in his position would do. His belief in this line of reasoning is so genuine, he actually wrote an article on the subject. This is where extremity of reason can take us to.

" what affected him was that a great many men of genius have not hesitated at wrongdoing, but have overstepped the law without thinking about it. He seems to have fancied that he was a genius too—that is, he was convinced of it for a time."

... or, as Mario Puzo puts it, "Behind Every successful man, there is a crime."

R's extreme rationalism stands in deep contrast with Sonia's morality mainly derived from religious values. If you keep to old roads you are not likely to be lost (but you won't find anything better either).

There are many other interesting things I would not detail (was Dounia tempted by Svidrigalov's offer? How come later deal with his crimes better than R did?) but in a nutshell its a great read. Its a masterpiece with a whole world inside.