You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
On first reading this, I was at a bit of a loss for what to make of it. The quality of the writing is easily apparent and it's story and style has been hugely influential but the content of the narrative, taken out of the context of mid- to late-19th century Russia, leaves you with much to puzzle over. It was only after learning about this context that I was able to understand what the book is at all about.
If you don't know the basic outline of the book, basically a grisly murder is followed by several hundred pages of existential dread. Similar to Macbeth, the crime happens early but casts a long shadow the protagonist is unable to escape. I spent the first half of the book wondering what in the world is wrong with this guy, then about halfway through his theories are elaborated on which raised still more questions, and this time about the author. This is because the book is not written as a general comment on any universal human experiences or ideas but a very specific comment on a very specific strain of thought (egoistic utilitarianism of Russian nihilists) popular with a very specific class of person (young Russian students at this time). At first it seems to be about the existential struggle of being a lonely disaffected youth, which is why most people seem to like it (just have a look at all the top reviews on goodreads), and this is maybe part of it, but these people are completely missing the main point of the novel, without which Dostoevsky's position on the subject matter is left extremely ambiguous. And being ambiguous about someone justifying murder is not a good way to be.
The reason for this confusing positioning is because he is criticizing the strain of thought but actually sympathetic to the students that have come under the sway of these ideas. Believing that these students are at heart good people he wants to fully illustrate just what it would look like if they were to act out their beliefs in the real world. So he doesn't make Raskolnikov into a villain or buffoon but faithfully and sympathetically handles the character. Russian readers at this time would have more easily recognized these aspects of the novel and would have immediately known that Dostoevsky was criticizing Raskolnikov's justifications for murder.
Dostoevsky found it very troubling that the sort of utilitarian thinking his character uses had become commonplace among students and intellectual circles at this time in Russia. Far from just being the fevered ramblings of an isolated student these were ideas that were widespread at the time. This warning turned out to be extremely prescient, but sadly was not heeded. The Bolsheviks with their ends-justify-the-means attitude were essentially Raskolnikov writ large. And that's no accident, they had come out of precisely this late 19th century intellectual milieu that Dostoevsky is criticizing.
I read the Bantam Classic edition paperback which is the old translation by Constance Garnett. It's not a great translation, is full of lots of ridiculous faddish Victorian era language, bad grammar, and spelling errors (not sure if this is the fault of Garnett or Bantam). Garnett's translations of Turgenev are better (her style just mixes better with Turgenev). But the one saving grace of this edition is the absolutely essential introduction by Joseph Frank. I never read introductions first because not having read the book you have no idea what they're talking about, and I hate spoilers. But when I remembered to go back and read it, wow, it completely changed my appraisal of the novel. My opinion is that some kind of introduction is definitely needed, or you really wont be able to appreciate what is going on in the book. Maybe not the kind of full introduction given here by Frank, because I still think it tells a little too much about the book before you've read it, but you should at least know something about the intellectual climate of the time and place. Hopefully the explanation I've given here can help some people in this regard.
If you don't know the basic outline of the book, basically a grisly murder is followed by several hundred pages of existential dread. Similar to Macbeth, the crime happens early but casts a long shadow the protagonist is unable to escape. I spent the first half of the book wondering what in the world is wrong with this guy, then about halfway through his theories are elaborated on which raised still more questions, and this time about the author. This is because the book is not written as a general comment on any universal human experiences or ideas but a very specific comment on a very specific strain of thought (egoistic utilitarianism of Russian nihilists) popular with a very specific class of person (young Russian students at this time). At first it seems to be about the existential struggle of being a lonely disaffected youth, which is why most people seem to like it (just have a look at all the top reviews on goodreads), and this is maybe part of it, but these people are completely missing the main point of the novel, without which Dostoevsky's position on the subject matter is left extremely ambiguous. And being ambiguous about someone justifying murder is not a good way to be.
The reason for this confusing positioning is because he is criticizing the strain of thought but actually sympathetic to the students that have come under the sway of these ideas. Believing that these students are at heart good people he wants to fully illustrate just what it would look like if they were to act out their beliefs in the real world. So he doesn't make Raskolnikov into a villain or buffoon but faithfully and sympathetically handles the character. Russian readers at this time would have more easily recognized these aspects of the novel and would have immediately known that Dostoevsky was criticizing Raskolnikov's justifications for murder.
Dostoevsky found it very troubling that the sort of utilitarian thinking his character uses had become commonplace among students and intellectual circles at this time in Russia. Far from just being the fevered ramblings of an isolated student these were ideas that were widespread at the time. This warning turned out to be extremely prescient, but sadly was not heeded. The Bolsheviks with their ends-justify-the-means attitude were essentially Raskolnikov writ large. And that's no accident, they had come out of precisely this late 19th century intellectual milieu that Dostoevsky is criticizing.
I read the Bantam Classic edition paperback which is the old translation by Constance Garnett. It's not a great translation, is full of lots of ridiculous faddish Victorian era language, bad grammar, and spelling errors (not sure if this is the fault of Garnett or Bantam). Garnett's translations of Turgenev are better (her style just mixes better with Turgenev). But the one saving grace of this edition is the absolutely essential introduction by Joseph Frank. I never read introductions first because not having read the book you have no idea what they're talking about, and I hate spoilers. But when I remembered to go back and read it, wow, it completely changed my appraisal of the novel. My opinion is that some kind of introduction is definitely needed, or you really wont be able to appreciate what is going on in the book. Maybe not the kind of full introduction given here by Frank, because I still think it tells a little too much about the book before you've read it, but you should at least know something about the intellectual climate of the time and place. Hopefully the explanation I've given here can help some people in this regard.
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
omgggg si el yapper no yappease durante un par de cientos de páginas de mas sí que lo vería la obra maestra que dicen que es, el prota es gilipollas y me sobra el capítulo de los cuck pero bueno lo acabé por fin!!
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes