You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
joelawrence 's review for:
Crime and Punishment
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
MY OPINION:
I took great effort to appreciate the political, economic, and psychological pertinence of the novel. (published in 1866, pre-soviet Russia, commentary on the pre-Nazi Ubermentsch, commentary on the place and purpose of religion within the justice system, etc) These big ideas, which I researched using Youtube and Sparknotes, kept me going throughout the book, since largely the book was without a plot. Personally, I floundered in the first 100 pages. In my opinion, there was too many characters, too much stream-of-consciousness, and too many nicknames for each character. Overall, the book is not half as heady as I expected-- and half as long, too. It's an easy read, mostly, if only because the vocabulary and sentence length are simple.
SUMMARY/BREAKDOWN:
At the outset, Raskolnikov is a disturbed individual with murderous impulses and a philosophy to rationalize it. As with my experience with Ayn Rand and Ray Bradbury, the sorrow-filled, bleak sections make the other sections gleam. I'm reminded of The Anthem, where Equality spends the entire book in colorless squalor without love, choices, or freedom of speech. (spoilers) Equality uncovers increasing freedom, discovering love, light, and leadership. Ayn Rand's Anthem is a bit hyperbolic. Bradbury's Farenheit, I recall also being almost comedically hyperbolic-- using irony throughout to make points about society. But, similarly, the society was described stylistically to be without life, real-life until the end of the book when Montag escapes to the woods. In comparison, Crime and Punishment is long-winded and subtle. Raskolnikov will spend entire chapters just wandering around the town in complete paranoia, narrating what he's thinking. So, as the reader, we get to hear his deranged ramblings. Discussions are also often one-sided in the novel. Characters will spout off 5, 10, sometimes 12 sentences before yeilding to the other character. I'm reminded of the section where Raskolnikov and Marmelodov are sitting in the bar about a fourth of the way through the book. Marmelodov speaks about 5 pages before Raskolnikov gets a word in. For another example, Raskolnikov gets a letter from his mother. Compared to today's text messages or emails, this letter is endless. I think it goes on for at least 4 pages. Each character is just completely egotistical and verbose. By contrast, when actual give-and-take dialogue occurs, it is refreshing. Another point in comparison, Crime and Punishment is awash with rationalizations for the murder, harsh criticisms of other characters, and a frantic search for escape from justice. Because of this, the infrequent admittances that murder is evil stand out. I found myself circling every reference to God. I reveled in the sections where Raskolnikov was sane, coherent, and compassionate. Much of the book showed him in a state of incredible anguish-- trying to avoid serving jail time for his murder. Like the two novels I mentioned, the end of Crime and Punishment is a a beacon of relief, since Raskolnikov has begun to seek justice for himself.
As a modern reader, this book is somewhat refreshing-- to hear someone actually feel guilty for killing others. In an age when mass murders happen daily, Raskolnikov is strangely a person to be exemplified. I found myself constantly comparing to other media in which killings are performed (especially Dexter). In video games, movies and TV today, murder and violence seems to be arbitrary and thoughtless. It may not be fun to experience guilt and shame, but those feelings are a necessary for Raskolnikov to admit his wrongdoing, and after reading this book I realize how necessary they are to our own willing self-control.
Obviously, I've hardly scratched the surface on what this novel holds in terms of psychological and spiritual critiques. I don't think that Crime and Punishment stands alone in it's approach on any of these topics, but it does historically.
I took great effort to appreciate the political, economic, and psychological pertinence of the novel. (published in 1866, pre-soviet Russia, commentary on the pre-Nazi Ubermentsch, commentary on the place and purpose of religion within the justice system, etc) These big ideas, which I researched using Youtube and Sparknotes, kept me going throughout the book, since largely the book was without a plot. Personally, I floundered in the first 100 pages. In my opinion, there was too many characters, too much stream-of-consciousness, and too many nicknames for each character. Overall, the book is not half as heady as I expected-- and half as long, too. It's an easy read, mostly, if only because the vocabulary and sentence length are simple.
SUMMARY/BREAKDOWN:
At the outset, Raskolnikov is a disturbed individual with murderous impulses and a philosophy to rationalize it. As with my experience with Ayn Rand and Ray Bradbury, the sorrow-filled, bleak sections make the other sections gleam. I'm reminded of The Anthem, where Equality spends the entire book in colorless squalor without love, choices, or freedom of speech. (spoilers) Equality uncovers increasing freedom, discovering love, light, and leadership. Ayn Rand's Anthem is a bit hyperbolic. Bradbury's Farenheit, I recall also being almost comedically hyperbolic-- using irony throughout to make points about society. But, similarly, the society was described stylistically to be without life, real-life until the end of the book when Montag escapes to the woods. In comparison, Crime and Punishment is long-winded and subtle. Raskolnikov will spend entire chapters just wandering around the town in complete paranoia, narrating what he's thinking. So, as the reader, we get to hear his deranged ramblings. Discussions are also often one-sided in the novel. Characters will spout off 5, 10, sometimes 12 sentences before yeilding to the other character. I'm reminded of the section where Raskolnikov and Marmelodov are sitting in the bar about a fourth of the way through the book. Marmelodov speaks about 5 pages before Raskolnikov gets a word in. For another example, Raskolnikov gets a letter from his mother. Compared to today's text messages or emails, this letter is endless. I think it goes on for at least 4 pages. Each character is just completely egotistical and verbose. By contrast, when actual give-and-take dialogue occurs, it is refreshing. Another point in comparison, Crime and Punishment is awash with rationalizations for the murder, harsh criticisms of other characters, and a frantic search for escape from justice. Because of this, the infrequent admittances that murder is evil stand out. I found myself circling every reference to God. I reveled in the sections where Raskolnikov was sane, coherent, and compassionate. Much of the book showed him in a state of incredible anguish-- trying to avoid serving jail time for his murder. Like the two novels I mentioned, the end of Crime and Punishment is a a beacon of relief, since Raskolnikov has begun to seek justice for himself.
As a modern reader, this book is somewhat refreshing-- to hear someone actually feel guilty for killing others. In an age when mass murders happen daily, Raskolnikov is strangely a person to be exemplified. I found myself constantly comparing to other media in which killings are performed (especially Dexter). In video games, movies and TV today, murder and violence seems to be arbitrary and thoughtless. It may not be fun to experience guilt and shame, but those feelings are a necessary for Raskolnikov to admit his wrongdoing, and after reading this book I realize how necessary they are to our own willing self-control.
Obviously, I've hardly scratched the surface on what this novel holds in terms of psychological and spiritual critiques. I don't think that Crime and Punishment stands alone in it's approach on any of these topics, but it does historically.