Fyodor Dostoevsky

One of the greatest books ever written. A splendid masterpiece...

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Jessie!

Harris Shahzad

Sydney plitt

There is so much to love about this novel, but I think my favorite thing is how complete all of the characters are. Even the characters with very little page time and small roles like Semyonovich, characters we never actually meet, like Martha Patrovna, and characters like Porfiry, who have few scenes but a major impact. Every single character in this book could be a main character. 

At first I thought the main theme of the book was predictable and a little boring. Very McBeth with how murder stains the soul, and the blood doesn’t wash off their hands. It ended up being so much more complex than that though. Raskolnikov’s descent into madness as he copes with not only the guilt of being a murderer,  but the confrontation that either his theory about man was incorrect, or he is just like everybody else, or more likely, both. 
While Raskolnikov is consciously testing his theory and is aware of his thought process, it is not necessary for one be aware of their subconscious reasonings in order to repeat the same behavior. We see this with Svidrigailov. 

One of my favorite scenes was Raskolnikov speaking with Porfiry at the police station. His conversations with Porfiry had me questioning if the conversation was really happening as it was relayed to us, or if Raskolnikov’s evolving madness was causing him to hear and see things that weren’t really happening. I’m still not sure. I was under the impression that all of the winking he kept seeing was a sign that he was not fully rooted in reality at that moment.  But I was still unsure whether Porfiry just knew exactly how to push his buttons, or if Raskolnikov was pushing his own buttons and was only imaging that Porfiry was doing it.

“and when, moreover, there was not only no clear evidence against the real criminal, but hardly even any suspicion (Porfiry Petrovich had fully kept his word)”

Based on the epilogue I believe that nobody had ever suspected him, and he had imagined all of it. 

“He sensed all at once that there was finally no point in asking himself questions.”

Though it’s probably not a great thing to relate to Raskolnikov, I deeply related to his constant inner monologuing and analyzing everything, including himself. 

“Existence alone had never been enough for him; he had always wanted more. Perhaps it was only from the force of his desires that he had regarded himself as a man to whom more was permitted than to others.”

I can’t wait to reread this book.

Victoria Marcos

I don't think this book needs any more positive reviews, but it was so good I have to give one. 

I enjoyed this book from end to end, even though it is a fairly hefty book. I usually enjoy reading classics, but this one has to be very high on the list. From Raskolnikov to Sonya, the way the book is written made me connect with most of the characters, and I liked how the reader gets a glimpse into the minds and background stories of different characters. I also enjoyed reading about the socioeconomic problems of 19th century Russia from another perspective than from history books. 

I especially enjoyed Raskolnikov's dual personality and how the internal fights he has with himself eventually lead to the story's resolution. From the very beginning, the reader knows the nature of Raskolnikov's personality because the root of the name itself, raskol, means separation or duality. Raskolnikov is torn between good and evil, God-man or man-God, being extraordinary or correct. In some parts of the book, Raskolnikov feels ashamed of what he's done, and in others, he thinks that the old lady he killed was "only an illness," later on even claiming that "(he) didn't kill a human being, but a principle" (Part III, Section 6). 

I think that Raskolnikov's theory throughout the whole book is illustrated in a conversation he has with Porfiry in Part III Section 5: "(in Raskolnikov's article), all men are divided between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary.' Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because (…) they are ordinary. but extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress any law in any way, just because they are extraordinary." In Raskolnikov's view, he is an extraordinary man, and as a result, he has the right to commit a 'legal crime' (words he uses in the epilogue). 

Having read Nietzsche recently, I believe Raskolnikov could be linked to Nietzsche's idea of a superhuman (the Übermensch), and the reality of what being an Übermensch would present. Raskolnikov sees himself as a superior man, even comparing himself to Napoleon's greatness in some parts of the book, which leads the reader to understand Raskolnikov's image. 

Overall, I liked how this Dostoyevsky analyzes the complexity of a character because, in my opinion, we sometimes tend to see things in the world as black or white, when in reality, things might be grey. In some parts of the book, I felt like Raskolnikov was simply a bad person without a moral compass, but in others, I felt that Raskolnikov was a good man with a complex way of thinking that made him look as bad sometimes. 

Even if you don't usually enjoy classics, I would recommend this book to anyone. It is effortless to read; the characters are very well analyzed, Dostoyevsky does a great work setting the reader in 19th century Russia, and, needless to say, Dostoyevsky was a gifted writer. 

Amanda Oakley

A book that explores the physiology of a man as he struggles with life and his own actions, Crime and Punishment was very engaging and thought provoking. 

Very well written book, especially considering that it’s translated! I’d love to be able to read this in it originally language. 

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Reviews

Highlights