Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by azif
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
“Hell is other people” the complete lack of personal space for the characters in the book who are living in rented corners of rooms. This causes an involuntary proximity without a privacy. The mental consequences of which are irritability, anger, and violence.
There’s lots of talk of a ‘predetermined’ fate from Roskolnikov. This shows an abdication of responsibility by clinging to the notion that his path was set. Shirking agency “like a man condemned to death”.
Roskolnikov is superstitious. Like a desperate man, he clings to anything as a sign which lets Dostoevsky really sink into the kind of symbolism he really likes. Everything Roskolnikov does is connected and every sign means something with no scope for coincidences or accidents. The parallels between the death of the nag and Katerina Ivavnova, that of between Roskolnikov and Swidrigailov, encountering Lizaveta in the market. This tendency is also related to the sentiment of predetermination— he seems to intellectualise the occurrences around him to fit the narrative that he needs believing in. Signs are there for those to see who need them desperately. Signs are what are pivotal in turning Roskolnikov’s actions into fate. And Dostoevsky plays with this by directly tackling the inevitability of poverty— the very finality of its consequences that snuffs out hope. In the midst of all this despair, Dostoevsky compels the audience to view Roskolnikov’s actions as an inevitability of the inhospitable nature of poverty.
Performance as a theme: Roskolnikov performs the charade of normalcy when he feels nothing like it. His artifice is well thought and calculate. He even performs madness for an expectant audience— in controlled doses to manipulate other perception of his. How a person ought to behave— this definition changes according to circumstances.
Dostoevsky constantly uses his characters as an avenue for his political musings and ideological confusions. His writing shows that a person’s personality is where their politics shines. Luzhin and Razumukhin both hold political views that showcase who they are as people. Razumukhin’s openness to socialism reflects his communal nature and feelings of collective responsibility that reflects an almost foolhardy idealness. Luzhin is someone who has come up within the system through his personal hard work and therefore wants to preserve the order and has no interests in progressive ideas of social welfare. These reflect his solipsistic vanity.
Dostoevsky almost completely dismisses a certain brand of progressivism. It seems that he believes it is bereft of an idealism and actually steams from fashionable opportunism— not much unlike shown by Luzhin who is supposed to be the phony outsider. Dostoevsky ironically draws paralleled between the progressive insiders and outsider and holds a cynical view of new thought.
Sometimes Dostoevsky goes so hard with the misery that you have to wonder about his views on poverty. He shows the most stark depictions of it but he doesn’t shirk from critiquing the follies and hypocrisies of the poor; sometimes even appears to be critical of their ability to fancy and dream. He manages to do so in a manner that humiliates but does not disparage. It feels like a critique coming from the inside.
The right to ‘take’ what you want. According to Roskolnikov a man should seize the opportunity without a consideration to other circumstances— this is what makes him a man worth greatness. This ‘taking’ we a power and privilege that Roskolnikov wants because it’s one you can achieve through the stealth of your merit. Views his pesky morality as a weakness that makes him ordinary.
There’s lots of talk of a ‘predetermined’ fate from Roskolnikov. This shows an abdication of responsibility by clinging to the notion that his path was set. Shirking agency “like a man condemned to death”.
Roskolnikov is superstitious. Like a desperate man, he clings to anything as a sign which lets Dostoevsky really sink into the kind of symbolism he really likes. Everything Roskolnikov does is connected and every sign means something with no scope for coincidences or accidents. The parallels between the death of the nag and Katerina Ivavnova, that of between Roskolnikov and Swidrigailov, encountering Lizaveta in the market. This tendency is also related to the sentiment of predetermination— he seems to intellectualise the occurrences around him to fit the narrative that he needs believing in. Signs are there for those to see who need them desperately. Signs are what are pivotal in turning Roskolnikov’s actions into fate. And Dostoevsky plays with this by directly tackling the inevitability of poverty— the very finality of its consequences that snuffs out hope. In the midst of all this despair, Dostoevsky compels the audience to view Roskolnikov’s actions as an inevitability of the inhospitable nature of poverty.
Performance as a theme: Roskolnikov performs the charade of normalcy when he feels nothing like it. His artifice is well thought and calculate. He even performs madness for an expectant audience— in controlled doses to manipulate other perception of his. How a person ought to behave— this definition changes according to circumstances.
Dostoevsky constantly uses his characters as an avenue for his political musings and ideological confusions. His writing shows that a person’s personality is where their politics shines. Luzhin and Razumukhin both hold political views that showcase who they are as people. Razumukhin’s openness to socialism reflects his communal nature and feelings of collective responsibility that reflects an almost foolhardy idealness. Luzhin is someone who has come up within the system through his personal hard work and therefore wants to preserve the order and has no interests in progressive ideas of social welfare. These reflect his solipsistic vanity.
Dostoevsky almost completely dismisses a certain brand of progressivism. It seems that he believes it is bereft of an idealism and actually steams from fashionable opportunism— not much unlike shown by Luzhin who is supposed to be the phony outsider. Dostoevsky ironically draws paralleled between the progressive insiders and outsider and holds a cynical view of new thought.
Sometimes Dostoevsky goes so hard with the misery that you have to wonder about his views on poverty. He shows the most stark depictions of it but he doesn’t shirk from critiquing the follies and hypocrisies of the poor; sometimes even appears to be critical of their ability to fancy and dream. He manages to do so in a manner that humiliates but does not disparage. It feels like a critique coming from the inside.
The right to ‘take’ what you want. According to Roskolnikov a man should seize the opportunity without a consideration to other circumstances— this is what makes him a man worth greatness. This ‘taking’ we a power and privilege that Roskolnikov wants because it’s one you can achieve through the stealth of your merit. Views his pesky morality as a weakness that makes him ordinary.