/lit/ - Literature

>>19363135
the same way Shakespeare is over rated garbage but """good"""

>>19363135
Dosto was a degenerate pulp fiction writer who was paid by the word to fuel his insatiable gambling addiction. If you like his work you are the literary equivalent of a soccer mom picking up a harlequin romance novel in the check out line at the local super market.

>>19363210

Nice copypasta. 10/10 Nabocuck.

its not even dostos second best novel desu famalam

>>19363210
Absolutely filtered

>>19363135
Personally, I dropped it by the second chapter because I could not for the life of me bother trying to understand what the Germans were saying. Shame because I was quite invested in it at first.

>>19363135
I liked Crime and Punishment but find Dostoevsky's (and Christianity's) fixation on suffering, suffering as a good thing, suffering as redemptive kind of unhealthy.

>>19363526
much more people destroy their lives and their physical and mental well beings through pursuing pleasure, by such a wide margin it isn't even debatable, many of the top causes of death stem from the pursuit of pleasure. embracing the humble strength of suffering is much healthier

>>19363210
I check out every Dostoevsky thread just to see if this gets posted and it never fails

>>19363135
>>The entire philosophical conflict of the book is undermined by the main character being physically ill the entire time.

this desu

>>19363135
>>The entire philosophical conflict of the book is undermined by the main character being physically ill the entire time.
I thought his sickness was just psychological? I didn't think he was actually physically sick.

>>19365528
Either way it actually undermines the entire story. Either it's a psychosomatic illness that is so obviously fake that it completely undermines the idea that the book is painting a depressing but realistic picture of what the consequences of committing a murder would ever be, or he was actually just tremendously physically ill in which case the ideology of the crime isn't even relevant.

He’s one of those writers whose scenes and chapters have become templates at this point. So it might seem underwhelming because his structure is everywhere.

>>19363135
>The entire philosophical conflict of the book is undermined by the main character being physically ill the entire time.
They’re directly related
>The entire detective story is also completely undermined by how physically ill the main character is.
How? If anything it was undermined by how Raskolnikov kept digging his own grave when talking to Porifry
>No real points are ever made for or against any ideas, the central idea of the story being so shallow that it is even made fun of constantly inside the story.
>The consequences of the main character's actions are basically just becoming even more physically ill after already being physically ill, and then going to jail and not caring about it.
I think you’re just a midwit anon

>>19365624
>How? If anything it was undermined by how Raskolnikov kept digging his own grave when talking to Porifry
He apparently confessed to the crime multiple times while in a week-long physically ill delirium where he speaks in his sleep-like state.

>>19363135
>The entire philosophical conflict of the book is undermined by the main character being physically ill the entire time.
Uhh, how? His illness is simultaneously physical and philosophical, which itself tells you something about Dosto's feelings on the new nihilistic and utilitarian strains infecting Russian politics at the time. Portraying it in a dizzying illness is a great approach IMO.
>The entire detective story is also completely undermined by how physically ill the main character is.
In what way? The detective aspect--specifically, Porfiry's gentle but subtly torturous interactions with Raskolnikov--were some of the my favourite scenes in the novel and they apply equally, as above, to the "physical" crime being investigated and the "philosophical" position being manifested and expressed by Raskolnikov. In other words, a brilliant way of handling the complexities of the subject.
>No real points are made
How can you say that when half the content of the novel is couplets of characters clashing about what the right or wrong thing to do is? Or were you expecting the narrator to insert footnotes reading: "When Profiry asks Rodion about his paper, he's actually trying to determine whether Rodion is the type of man to enact a philosophical theory in real life to test it. You will notice in the dialogue that follows that Raskolnikov is experiencing some guilt about his actions but is not yet ready to abandon the principles of his philosophical treatise which led to said actions."
>Svidrigrailov is kino
100% agree.

>>19365645
Are you forgetting Porfiry's third encounter with Rodion during which he literally says to his face, "But it was you" and then offers him a couple days to turn himself in, asking him that if he chooses to kill himself in those two days, that he be kind enough to leave a note confessing to his crime?

>>19366526
No, but it was never relevant given that porfiry already knew he was guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt when he admitted it while ill, something so absurd that it basically invalidates hundreds of pages of content.

>>19366514
>How can you say that when half the content of the novel is couplets of characters clashing about what the right or wrong thing to do is?

Because Raskolnikov himself as well as all of his philosophical positions are such a shallow caricature of those views that it's hard to take seriously. Even inside the book Raskolnikov is made fun of routinely for how unoriginal it is to justify killing in circumstances of great men. The idea is not at all original or controversial, the only question inside the story is whether he is a great man, which he most clearly is not. All that tells me is "Raskolnikov is an extremely arrogant delusional young man" not "nihilism is a poisonous ideology that tells people to murder in cold blood." I even hate nihilists in real life but this caricature of nihilism is just such a silly strawman that it's laughable. I guess a lot of nihilists are actually that stupid and arrogant, but it doesn't present anything like this in real life.

>His illness is simultaneously physical and philosophical

This is nonsense to me. Either he was significantly physically ill ahead of time, in which case the story feels more like a portrait of a sick arrogant mad man than a portrait of a man possessed by an ideology, or the ideology literally caused him physical illness, in which case you might as well just throw the book in the garbage at that point because the writer is not even trying. I don't need "nihilism will literally cause you to murder and then make you confess the murder while you literally faint and literally get destroyed by a massive fever for weeks", to criticize nihilism. At that point you might as well just write a book about the character literally burning in hell and how bad it is in literal hell, because you are so far from reality.

I get of course that "nihilism will make you literally ill" is probably not the point he was trying to make, but even as a metaphor its so shallow that it guts whatever point he was attempting to make. It's not exactly a clever parable.

>>19366906
That is not how the law worked then, nor how it works now. "The prosecution presents as its evidence the defendent's incoherent ramblings on the evening of the 27th and 28th of August"...etc. There's even a moment when Porfiry's (or was it Razumhikin's?) words give Rodion an out: "But he was delirious on that day, seen wandering the streets..." or something along those lines, basically saying that his actions during those critical days would not be those of a man of sound mind and body. He's given a legitimate insanity plea and is aware of this.

>shallow caricature of his view
In what sense is it shallow? In what sense is it a caricature? Some of those specific ideas, and others structured much like them, literally transformed European history between the 1850s and the 1940s. Those concepts--utilitarianism, socialism, individualism, atheism, nihilism, and the afterglow of the "enlightenment" revolutions (France and US) and the industrial revolution sparked fundamental shifts in society. Rodion's paper on the ubermensch is one such example of the strains of thought shifting public sentiment in those days and it results in a very small, though very deliberate, crime occurring. That's why it's such a beautiful piece of literature: the plot of the story is a microcosm of, and can be extrapolated to represent, some much larger and ultimately more signifcant shifts in European society.
>this idea is not controversial
You're wrong, especially in the 1860s, but also today.
>All that tells me is "Raskolnikov is an extremely arrogant delusional young man" not "nihilism is a poisonous ideology that tells people to murder in cold blood." I even hate nihilists in real life but this caricature of nihilism is just such a silly strawman that it's laughable.
Porfiry specifically makes this point in, I think, their first meeting. He says something along the lines of: "And what if a common man were mistaken about his status? What might follow?" An early hint that he is already quite suspicious of Rodion, maybe already convinced of his guilt.

>this is nonsense to me
I'm sorry you feel that way, but have you honestly never felt a physical manifestation of illness, nausea, or brainfog following the realization of having done a tremendous wrong? I'm just a normal guy, a non-criminal, but I've had moments where a sudden realization of how poorly-considered or naive my public actions were have actually made me have a miniature breakdown: nausea, confusion, inability to concentrate, tremendous fear and regret, all bundling together to the point where I have to lie in bed for half a day. It's only happened a couple times, but the mental things have become entangled with the physical things.
>nihilism will literally cause you to murder
Nihilism wasn't the ideology in question. You're thinking of Demons, which relies a bid on herd/mob mentality.

>>19366975
>That is not how the law worked then, nor how it works now.

He needed more evidence. Sure. There was 0% doubt about who was going to turn out to be guilty, though.

>You're wrong, especially in the 1860s, but also today.

Everybody on earth implicitly understands that there is situations where killing is morally justified. Most of them are probably not good at explaining it, but they all believe it. All war is like this.

>Porfiry specifically makes this point in, I think, their first meeting. He says something along the lines of: "And what if a common man were mistaken about his status?

A severely delusional ordinary person, say with paranoid schizophrenia, does not need an ideology like this to justify their insane actions, and if they have to can just justify whatever they want to anyway. One who is just delusional about their status with no intention to murder, is just universally hated by everyone as being extremely arrogant, this isn't uncharted territory and wasn't then either.

>In what sense is it shallow? In what sense is it a caricature?

There is essentially no ideology in question at the time that someone else other than raskolnikov would use to justify his actions for him. You can sort of argue that if you take utilitarian atheistic beliefs to their logical conclusion it can seem become okay to do what he did, in extreme circumstances, but if he were to consult someone else about it they would have just called him a retard probably. You can just as easily point to his crime as being the logical conclusion of extreme jealousy, extreme arrogance, grand delusions about self importance, extreme physical illness, extreme poverty, or some combination of those things, without even bringing his ideology into the equation at all. The idea that a person who is great enough could be morally right or at least not necessarily morally wrong to commit a killing in order to do something bigger varies between self evidently true for thousands of years before this book was written if the person is great enough, or completely retarded even within the book if the person in question is raskolnikov, so even within the story its ridiculous to point to it as being the cause of anything.

The way he wrote it seems to me like "extremely arrogant, depraved, delusional, physically ill, impoverished man latches onto a new perspective on the world that seems like it should justify his killing of someone that is taking place for completely unrelated reasons, then gets obviously unrealistic consequences for doing it. Materialistic view of life BTFO."

Would I feel ill if I did something very wrong? Probably. Would I be rolling around on the couch with a massive psychosomatic fever? No. Would anyone? No. Would I be admitting it in my sleep? No, neither would anyone else.

Would I commit murder on some random cunt pawn broker if I felt like she didn't deserve to live and the world would be better off without her, if I believed in his ideology? No.

>>19363135
You have to relate to Raskolnikov for to really resonate.

I suppose there is an angle that these materialistic perspectives on the world have an inherent corruption to them, horrible subtle little implications that are not said out loud, but rather lie in wait for someone sick enough to fall victim to them, and this story is supposed to be that kind of scenario, but he goes so over the top with the sickness constantly throughout the book that it feels like ideology is not even a real factor, and therefore does not actually say anything significant about the corruption of the ideology itself.

Even Dosto's own religion, which I myself share strongly, has enormous potential for shit like this. Suicide is pretty explicitly a sin within Christianity, and if you were suicidal and spoke to any priest about it they would tell you that it is forbidden and be very concerned for your health, but if you were sufficiently sick you could easily pick up on an implication in the bible that suicide is a morally righteous thing to do in certain circumstances, and I don't think that reflects poorly on Christianity but is just the reality of complex belief systems.

>>19367115
>needed more evidence
At that point, sure. By the end, not really. Yet he urged Rodion to confess.
>Everybody on earth implicitly understands that there is situations where killing is morally justified. Most of them are probably not good at explaining it, but they all believe it.
This is not the idea that Rodion is engaging with in his paper or his actions. He's arguing about whether there exists such an individual who's actions are INTRINSICALLY justified because of who's performing them. Very different from the proposition you just stated.
>A severely delusional ordinary person, say with paranoid schizophrenia, does not need an ideology like this to justify their actions, and can just justify whatever they want to anyway.
I don't think any sensible person on planet earth would consider Rodion Raskolnikov to be a paranoid schizophrenic. Therefore, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether a person, for ideological or philosophical reasons, is inherently justified in whatever actions they take. (Also: the fact that society broadly believes in protecting the mentally ill behind insanity pleas does not suggest that a mentally ill person is JUSTIFIED in their actions; it merely suggests they aren't entirely responsible for their actions. This is an important distinction).
>One who is delusional about their status with no intention to murder, is just universally hated by everyone as being extremely arrogant, this isn't uncharted territory and wasn't then either.
Nor was it the point. The point was that an intelligent, thoughtful person, equipped or "enraptured" by novel and in-vogue beliefs which were picking up at the time, could conceivably feel RATIONALLY justified in actions which, to other people, are criminal and unjustified.
>There is essentially no ideology in question at the time that someone else other than raskolnikov would use to justify his actions for him.
How can you say that? Europe was still recovering from the Napoleonic wars and almost every social movement at the time was an after-effect of the French revolution, which itself had bore Napoleon's emperorship.
>[...this idea was probably] self evidently true for thousands of years before this book was written if the person was great enough.
But who is to say who is great enough other than the person himself committing the act?
>"extremely arrogant, depraved, delusional, physically ill, impoverished man latches onto a new perspective on the world that seems like it should justify his killing of someone that is taking place for completely unrelated reasons, then gets obviously unrealistic consequences for doing it. Materialistic view of life BTFO."
This is a tremendous misreading of the premise of the text. The premise is impoverishment and alienation giving way to grandiose philosophical concepts; grandiose philosophical concepts give way to naive or ill-considered actions; ill-considered actions give way to crimes; crimes give way to illness and regret; etc.

>>19367166
>but rather lie in wait for someone sick enough to fall victim to them
Yes!
>but he goes so over the top with sickness constantly...that he's not actually saying anything significant about the corruption of the ideology itself.
But he is. How else should he have expressed it? With an explicatory footnote?
>[suicide and Christianity]
That's a pretty relevant example, to be honest. So let's take a step back: would anyone consider Christianity, despite its calls for doing one's duty, being courageous, responsible, and standing up for those who can't defend themselves, as being advocating for suicide, even though suicide is sometimes the most rational act in order to fulfill greater goods? At the very least, you could argue that many suicides have resulted FROM Christianity; likewise, Dosto has argued that many crimes have resulted FROM atheism/nihilism/enlightenment values.

>>19367261
>But he is. How else should he have expressed it? With an explicatory footnote?
Exactly the opposite. His statement is so absurdly over the top heavy handed that he fails to imply anything interesting at any point in the book. Raskolnikov is clearly very ill, and literally borderline crazy, and is even self aware about the fact that he is just coming up with shit to justify awful actions instead of actually doing the actions because of the beliefs. It is not a compelling portrait of someone actually just possessed by an ideology, and therefore makes no interesting implications about any particular ideology. How can he seriously blame the ideology if any of the modern thinkers *inside* the book would have told him he's crazy?

>you could argue that many suicides have resulted FROM Christianity; likewise, Dosto has argued that many crimes have resulted FROM atheism/nihilism/enlightenment values.
Or you could just argue that many ridiculous crimes and sins have been committed by sick misled individuals. Normal people would not fall for heaven's gate ideology, normal people would not fall for Raskolnikov ideology. Yes, the resulting actions from the sick person may vary wildly depending on whatever idea they fell for, but the fact that they are crazy and fell for something stupid and unpopular does not change.

There was lots of revolutionary materialistic ideas in mid 1800s russian society, but if Raskolnikov were to have consulted any of them, even some of the really extreme ones, on whether his act would be rational to follow through with, exactly zero of them would have actually advised him to do it. Don't get me wrong, they *would* advocate for many awful things that should be heavily discouraged if not illegal, but they would not actually advocate for that act. IMO Raskolnikov making wild extrapolations based on a vague structure of an idea instead of anything more concrete does not even reflect poorly on their actual ideas.

The idea that someone is great enough for basically any action they take to be inherently morally justified really is not as controversial as you want to make it sound. During the Napoleonic wars I'm sure nobody would give a single fuck if Napoleon decided to wipe out some guy who was standing in his way. Raskolnikov is not great like Napoleon, and of course if you have to carve out your own greatness you could not just consult someone on whether you are great enough, but nobody would ever imply to a guy like raskolnikov that he is actually great enough in potential to do something like that and be justified, they would imply he is a delusional prick, which they did many times in the story. Him following that idea to its conclusion is his fault, not the ideology's fault. The fact that the structure of the ideology could have someone sick convinced that they are doing the right thing by committing a murder, literally says nothing about the ideology.

I guess you could sort of argue that the individualistic implications of these ideologies come with the inherent implication that you don't need to seek approval from society, if you are intelligent enough to think up rational justifications for things that will benefit you then you can do it, but you would basically have to have autism to miss the fact that these ideas spread in the first place by people discussing them sitting around a table, and that if you just draw wild extrapolations without checking them against others, you are just an arrogant retard. That is within their ideology you would still be an arrogant retard.

>>19367339
>Raskolnikov is clearly very ill, an literally borderline crazy
I didn't get that impression, at least not before he committed the crime.
>is coming up with shit to justify awful actions instead of actually doing the actions because of the beliefs
This is incorrect. The crime follows his philosophical justifications, rather than him committing a crime and trying to justify it later. This is literally the whole content of the plot.
Please reconsider your understanding of this.
>or you could argue that many ridiculous crimes and sins have been committed by sick misled individuals
Yes. You could make a broad, basically meaningless statement. Or, you could try to parse through the varied and interesting concepts which motivate individuals, which is what Dosto has done.
>but the fact that they are crazy and fell for...
That's not at all what's depicted in the novel.
>none of the ideologies of the time would have advised him to do it
Ideologies don't often make specific calls to actions in specific circumstances; they usually seek to affirm general types of behaviours and concepts so that society moves in a better direction. Your assertion is akin to saying that people who are involved in the dignified death movement (euthanasia) believe that everyone with an illness should be killed. It's a misconstruction that is incongruent with the motivating values of the ideology. However, that doesn't mean that certain people won't "take up the cause" and propose that certain people who don't wish for death should be killed.
>vague structure of an idea
All broad philosophical concepts are vague, and while there is a certain latitude given for the relativistic interpretations of COMMON men, that isn't a blank slate for obviously criminal activity. This is among the things discussed and argued in the novel.

>idea is not as controversial as you want to make it sound.
It is absolutely controversial, then and now. No human being in history has been universally accepted as being inherently correct in all of their actions, no matter how violence or destructive. Therefore, the claim that someone MIGHT be inherently correct in all their actions is controversial.
>Raskolnikov is not great like Napoleon
You don't say.
>if you have to carve out your own greatness
...as ALL great men in history had to do
>you could not just consult someone on whether you were great enough
Truly great men need very few consultants.
>nobody would ever imply
Nor would any great man seek such consultation from the plebs.

Generally speaking, the case you're making is the case that becomes apparent to Rodion later in the novel: that he was mistaken and misguided in his beliefs, yet could not undo his actions. The fact that we've exchanged a few thousand words on the topic tells me that the novel IS a worthy piece of literature and is also a great exploration of several complex topics.

Also, did you address this post?
>>19367231

>>19365594
>Either it's a psychosomatic illness that is so obviously fake

Psychosis isn't fake, and it does happen to people who commit crimes or are dealing with other forms of extreme stress or guilt.

>>19367788
A guy in my state recently murdered his girlfriend in Massachusetts, drove 4 hours with her body north to St. Albans, cut up the body to try and hide the crime, then turned himself into the police on his own.

>>19367807
>a guy near my house once didn't experience psychosis despite committing a crime
>therefore psychosis doesn't exist
That's not actually the argument you're making, is it?

>>19363303
newfag lol

>>19367855
Dude... I realize we are on 4chan, so maybe it's a foreign concept but I am a different anon agreeing with you. Put a lid on the snark.

>>19367657
He is explicitly raving well before he committed the crime and spoke at length about how he felt like he was losing his grip. Before he committed the crime he also spent a solid page musing about how he is in a completely irrational and delusional mentally ill state of mind as he is trying to carry it out, even put together the plan. It is not just clear but hammered relentlessly before the act that it was basically 1. pure madness 2. starving 3. poverty 4. jealous hatred, that are actually driving him to commit the crime, and that all the ideological bullshit is basically his way of rationalizing all the other things to make it feel like an intellectually sound thing to do. It's almost like he deliberately wrote the book to take heat off of the ideology of the crime. Can I imagine a similar situation where a character would do it with major intellectual motivation to do it? Yes. Is that Raskolnikov? No, not the way the book is written.

Of course saying that "sick crazy people do ridiculous things with ridiculous motivations" is a broad and meaningless statement, which is why I think Crime and Punishment is a severely overrated meaningless book. I don't feel like he made any better point in the book, that literally is the best he managed. More interesting points *could* be made. Dostoevsky hasn't made them. He apparently tried, but how hard he was trying to make a philosophical point compared how bad the execution was is embarrassing.

The idea that it is even interesting to say that the nihilistic views of the time imply that this is okay to do isn't even interesting to me. You can justify the destruction of money lenders easily from the perspective of probably all major religions and philosophies, especially in the circumstance of great men. As an extension of that, especially with good enough aesthetics, literally any man in any cause on earth is usually willing to justify killing for their cause, it just isn't a deep criticism of that worldview.

The real crippling flaw of the book now that I think about it really just seems to be the obviously massive disparity between his own status and his perceived status, not even philosophically just as a character. If he were to voice any of his plans or ideas, the reaction of any reasonable person would be "and who are *you* to make this call?" The idea that real great men can get away with that is self-evident, the idea that he is one of them was retarded from page 1, especially considering his major illness and poverty. It reads more like a shitty character study of "Arrogant man thinks he should be a king and is punished." and not a philosophical argument of "man enraptured by ideas finds out the ideas are poisonous, this says a lot about out society."

Also the idea that the book provokes this discussion does not say anything about it's quality, were it not so highly rated I would throw it in the trash without a second thought.

Brothers Karamazov is far better than C&P and is a great evolution on the themes and philosophical concepts brought up in Dosto's earlier works

The book honestly doesn't even do a good job making Raskolnikov's idea look bad or the structure of materialist ideas look bad. When you consider that, had he actually been the great man he wanted to believe he was, if he had succeeded at parlaying one crime into another until he became some kind of lord, one could easily justify all of his actions not just with his theories but with many different competing worldviews. Given that reality, it basically reduces the message of the book to a shitty arrogant mentally ill character being shitty arrogant and mentally ill, rather than having any deeper implications than that. He himself muses about this in the epilogue.

>>19365594
The idea that he was really physically ill didn’t even enter my head reading it. Hypochondria is just part of neurosis; it’s still “real”, it’s just psychosomatic. It’s a recurring theme in most of dosto’s writing and in my diary desu.

>>19368117
I mean I guess at the time people didn't realize you can't faint psychosomatically. The concept is retarded knowing what we know now. The idea that he literally physically fainted when they were talking about the murder the first time at the police station is so retarded I almost put the book down and never picked it back up again.

>>19368143
>you can't faint psychosomatically
If I remember right Raskolnikov also hadn't eaten properly for a long time, possibly not eaten at all for days.
I feel you lack a certain suspension of disbelief needed for any fictional story.

>>19368209
It's not that I lack suspension of disbelief, it's that the whole point of the book is apparently to be making an allegory about real life, and especially the personal consequences of certain ideologies. If we're just going to throw out how things work in real life in order to wildly exaggerate the consequences of certain actions, then the allegory falls apart rapidly.

That isn't to say there isn't dramatic personal consequences, lots of murderers turn themselves in do to the crushing psychological and social consequences of what they've done, but the way Dosto writes about it is strangely unrealistic.

>>19368246
>but the way Dosto writes about it is strangely unrealistic.
That's a common (and fair) complaint towards Dosto's work. His characters are often incredibly sentimental/ extravagant and will go into long emotional tangents at the drop of a hat; some points make me feel as if I'm taking part in a Russian soap opera.
That said, I personally like that style of writing characters since I think it does a better job at exemplifying the philosophy Dosto is trying to paint.

As Joyce said,
>Tolstoy admired him but he thought that he had little artistic accomplishment or mind. Yet, as he said, 'he admired his heart', a criticism which contains a great deal of truth, for though his characters do act extravagantly, madly, almost, still their basis is firm enough underneath...The Brothers Karamazov...made a deep impression on me...he created some unforgettable scenes [detail]...Madness you may call it, but therein may be the secret of his genius...I prefer the word exaltation, exaltation which can merge into madness, perhaps. In fact all great men have had that vein in them; it was the source of their greatness; the reasonable man achieves nothing

>>19367927
Not being snarky. What argument were you making?

>>19368360
He was providing an anecdote to reinforce the argument presented by the person he was replying to. He is saying that the person he describes may have experienced a series of emotions parallel to the protagonist of the novel in question.

>>19367967
You're exaggerating with his state of madness preceding the crime. He was dwelling on a philosophical concept and trapped himself into a course of action. There is no evidence that the crime was done out of pure madness. Starving/poverty were certainly contributing factors.
>all the ideological bullshit is a way of rationalizing
....yes, but a rationalizing that takes place, by and large, BEFORE the crime. His paper. His conversation with Marmeladov, etc.
>Sick crazy people do ridiculous things with ridiculous motivations
...is NOT the point of the book. That's the relativistic idea you're imposing on the book, but I've made several unaddressed points in this thread which refute that incorrect reading of it.

The rest of your post seems to be digging deeper based on the fundamentally flawed premise.

>>19368394
It came across that he was suggesting that a person could commit a similar crime and not experience any illness of mind or body, and simply confess.

>>19368420
Why would somebody turn themselves in if they were experiencing no psychological distress? They would just go on living as normal and hope for the best, or continue their crime spree. Turning yourself in generally stems from guilt and the idea that punishment would absolve you of those tortuous feelings. That's exactly what was happening with Raskolnikov, he wanted to turn himself in because he just couldn't take it anymore. I don't find the book as ridiculous as others do because I've felt that exact thing before. "Just throw me in a cell so I don't have to live with this horrible mix of fear and self-hatred anymore!" It's like how your older brother hovering his fist over you is worse than actually getting punched.

>>19368440
The assertion that the post you replied to was rebutting was that it was over the top to suggest that physical and mental illness could or should represent a philosophical or ideological illness. The anecdote that a person committed a similar crime but with none of the physical or mental anguish as depicted in the novel being apparent seemed to suggest that people can, or often do, commit crimes without any illness in tow. That's how I read it, anyway.

>>19368440
He just didn't look like he was in the book. It didn't look like pressure or stress, it looked more like schizophrenia, which would undermine the entire book.

>...is NOT the point of the book. That's the relativistic idea you're imposing on the book, but I've made several unaddressed points in this thread which refute that incorrect reading of it.
of course its not the intentional point, dosto did a shit job getting his point across. It's such a disaster of writing that he ruins his own point.

>>19368490
No, you are making an assertion that
>THIS
is the point of the novel, then arguing that Dosto did a shit job of making that point, while I'm telling you that that's NOT the point of the book.

>>19368143
>you can't faint psychosomatically

This is like saying you can't cry psychosomatically because crying is a distinct physiological process, as if those things are mutually exclusive.

>>19368453
You don't know that he didn't experience the physical and mental illness. Presumably, a similar set of feelings are what led the man to turn himself in after going through the effort of hiding the body

>>19368498
The point made in the actual book seems very different from the point he was trying to make according to himself in notes about the book and in areas of the book where he is forcing it into the narrative. They are two completely different things and it baffles me that anyone considers it a great work because of it.

Why do people keep reading this over Under Western Eyes?
Also OP was filtered or infantile; I barely even know what you are bitching about. People just find reasons not to like something.

>>19363135
I think this Dostoyevsky fag was just getting off to the idea of shit sucking and things being not cool.
The old bitch dyed so fucking what, nerds want to make a big deal out of virtue and sin, shut the fuck up self important jerk offs.

>>19368594
i get the impression you have read none, or very little, of dostoevsky

>>19368600
imagine reading dost*evsk*

>>19368600
no one ever read him, they just copy what Peterson or the Red Scare cunts say.

>>19368603
go back to >>>/v/
keep expanding your needs until you burn out and kill yourself

>>19368538
>presumably
Okay...so you have no better bearing on what the guy in the anecdote experienced than I do.
It's possible for a murderer to turn himself without necessarily going through the type of emotional and physical turmoil depicted in C&P, such as is the case with some mass shooters who turn themselves in in a state of apathy.
"I don't like Mondays."

>>19363252
TBK > Demons > C&P > Idiot

>>19367362
You're very bad at writing

bump

>>19363135
I'm almost done with this book and I just wanna quit it.... its so fucking boring

>>19367978
Why non russians call him "Dosto" that sounds so fucking lame and gay

>>19369745
Because Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky is a bit cumbersome to type out every time. I swear you CLT fans are fucking cringe.

>>19368440
I agree with the other Anon that might statement was kind of non clarified, but you have represented me 100%

>>19363135

>>19365594
dumbo he was ill as a result of committing a murder

>>19367978
non-issue as he used every book as a preparation which he later used for Karamazovs

>>19368547
Please elaborate on what notes and statements you're referring to by the author.

>>19369741
I guarantee you're under 25 years old. I don't mean to be condescending, but I appreciated the book WAY more was I reread it in my early thirties.

>>19369906
dude's holding it the wrong way lmaoooooo

>>19363135
Dostoevsky was at his best with Notes from Underground, which came out 2 years prior to Crime and Punishment

>>19369750
I'm Russian and everyone calls him Dostoevsky
>>19369938
I'm 18. Guess I will reread it in 7 years.

>>19370612
Nah, Brothers Karamazov is by far his best work.
Notes is the best of his shorter stories though

>>19368143
>absolute panic
>hasn't eaten
very feasible actually.

>>19363135
also bloody hell, that cover is fucking awful

>>19368547
>reads a translation
>complains about not getting the authors vision
hmmmmm

>>19370810
>inb4 op read one of those awful translations that has gone through like 5 languages

>>19370810
It's oliver ready translation it's a decent one. Besides that lots of Russians hated Dostoevsky's style.

>>19367115
>There is essentially no ideology in question at the time that someone else other than raskolnikov would use to justify his actions for him.
Are you fucking retarded or what? Nihilism>morality is arbitrary>the advantages of murdering an abusive old lady nobody likes outweigh the disadvantages in every rational aspect>if the former is true, the only thing possibly stopping one from doing it is cowardice and fear of deviating from social customs
How fucking hard is that? I literally went through these ideas when I turned 12 and learned some people don't believe in god and you think nobody was thinking this some quarter of a decade before Nietzsche wrote the gay science?

>>19363135
Stick to lord of the rings or harry potter or whatever kids read these days

>>19363135
Ummmmm have we even decided the best Translation yet?

>>19363146
Please go back to /sffg/ you retarded illiterate urbanite.

>>19373368
>not reading it in the original

>>19372504
That's the point Dostoevsky was obviously trying to make, he just did it so poorly that it falls completely flat to me. He goes so overboard making Raskolnikov seem like a massively egotistical borderline madman, with extra emphasis on how hungry and delirious he was at the time, as well as his personal grievance with her blaming part of his absolute poverty on her, makes it seem like he would be glad to justify it using any logic he wants to.

I get that a more subtle writer might leave no doubt that this character was otherwise a rational but down on his luck man who was possessed by a pernicious ideology, but having read it, it just seems like the ideology is not even relevant and he is just insanely egotistical and sick. Takes all the punch out of his social criticism.

>>19363135
I stood up and gasped when she pulled the revolver out

>>19373506
Svidrigailov talking to the guard was one of the few times a book brought me to tears

>>19373516
Same tbqh. Honestly I love quite a few characters in this book, svidrigailov and dunya are some of the most interesting characters I've ever read. Raskolnikov doesn't even rank top 7 in this book for me.

>>19373589
I mostly got "into" the story. One of the few books where i got that. Really liked how Rodka's actions and emotions are described. In my opinion the high points are his climax, his confession to her, and Svidrigailov's trip to america.

>>19373615
You're the first person I've ever met who likes the way he's described. Normally even people who like the book universally criticize the super long word padding knowing he was paid by the page. I thought it was awful, could have been purged by 200 pages easily.

>>19363135
You read for the emotions, same with BK, but BK has a little more socio-political commentary.

>>19373657
Slogging through it kinda grew on me. The one passage i thought the most insufferable was him going out for a walk by the river.

>>19363526
You're projecting your shadow