[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 121 KB, 200x307, Crimeandpunishmentcover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11938118 No.11938118 [Reply] [Original]

What did it all mean? I've just finished reading it and I feel like I didn't get it, at least not 100%. Needless to say, I feel a bit disappointed. Will I enjoy it more when I reread it? I feel like I will.

This would be the third work by Dostoevsky I've read. There's Crime and Punishment, Netochka Nezvanova, and White Nights. The first is probably the most interesting of the three, but it still felt a bit underwhelming.

Have I picked my Dostoevskys wrong? What are his best novels? What did you think of those three books I mentioned?

>> No.11938229

This book is a critique of several different ideologies that would have been fashionable at the time of writing, including Nietzschean morality and scientific socialism. Ultimately, the intelligent but spiritually lost Raskolnikov finds his way to genuine faith and redemption. What is your background OP?

>> No.11938252

I liked White Nights, don't know about Netochka. White Nights is not as weird as C&P, but C&P is not too weird - you didn't pick your Dosto wrong.
I remember someone saying that the quotations from the Bible in C&P were essential - it may be right, in which case it may also be one of the things that go unnoticed when you "just" read it the first time. There's probably some other details. However I don't think the main meaning or issue is hidden, it's just about trying to justify murder, feeling guilty, looking for a way to cope, etc.

>> No.11938537

I definitely did catch the critiques, but I don't think they are important enough to consider them the main message of the book. I also did understand Raskolnikov reached peace, but the way he reaches it is not completely satisfactory for me. Why did he turn himself in? There was no real reason to do so after Svidrigailov shot himself. Porfiry Petrovitch had literally no proofs against Raskolnikov and the latter seems to have had no issue with killing (at least not consciously). The epilogue even mentions Raskolnikov feeling no remorse. Why did he do it? Because Sonya Marmeladov told him to do it? Because his sickness and discontent was ultimately caused by the unconscious belief he was not worthy of the crime he committed? At the same time, the story felt a bit boring at times and it didn't feel as compelling as it should have. Raskolnikov wandered sickly a lot of the time (it reminded of Nause by Sartre, which isn't precisely my favorite book) and that annoyed me. I was expecting a 9 or 10 and got a 7 or 8.

>> No.11938614

>Why did he turn himself in?
Guilt was driving him insane because he wasn't the overman he thought he was. Once he accepts he has committed a "crime" he accepts the "punishment" and finds redemption in jeezo.

>> No.11938630

> guy thought he was smart, nihilistic, and had a wicked sense of humor
> does a bad thing
> his image that he made for himself slowly breaks down and he gets off his edgy high horse

>> No.11938639

He mind collapses almost immediately

>> No.11938640

I think he actually finds redemption in Sonya. As I said in the previous post, the epilogue mentions him feeling no remorse while being in Siberia.

>> No.11938645

Her Christian forgiveness of him (he couldnt forgive himself) is what makes him come to Jesus.

>> No.11938692


What do you think of the book in general? How would you rate it? Is it the best work by Dostoevsky? Was it "page turner"?

>> No.11938702

He doesn't feel remorse "rationally" with his brain. His gut, his essence, his soul tells him he is wrong.
In Siberia he still hasn't made up his mind, but it is implied that he is on the right path.

I think the epilogue is kind of forced though.

>> No.11938734

The epilogue is good imo, but I wish Dostoevsky had dedicated more time to encounters between Porfiry and Raskolnikov and less to the latter's sickness and excursions through Petersburg. Svidrigailov could also have used some more character development and it would have been nice to see Luchin reappearing somewhere else in the story.

>> No.11938738

I don't recall it being a drag, maybe the buildup.

I fancy Brothers K. more. This one drags somewhat in the middle, but its highs are the highest.

>> No.11938743


>> No.11938759

>Why did he turn himself in?
Guilt and the desire for redemption due to his interactions with Sonya

>Porfiry Petrovitch had literally no proofs against Raskolnikov
He had strong circumstantial evidence, and he knew he had Raskolnikov psychologically. Are you forgetting the part where he agreed to turn himself in?

>the latter seems to have had no issue with killing (at least not consciously)
This is the issue anon, he thought he was Napoleon, but he didn't have the stomach for heroic action, in his own appraisal. He intellectualized himself out of remorse but his body had other ideas, hence the sickness and mental breakdown

>At the same time, the story felt a bit boring at times
It was a psychological thriller, a deeply paranoid and claustrophobic work, Raskolnikov all but lives in a grave. If you're looking for action or flashy events, you misunderstand what makes it great.

The entire thing is a Lazarus metaphor my dude.

I love it in general, and I would say it is the closest thing to a page turner Dostoevsky ever did. I would not say it is his best, but that does not mean it isn't great, and if someone did consider it his best, I wouldn't argue. Its really just personal taste I think.

>> No.11938761

Maybe Brothers K. is for me then. I expect some "filler" but I also expect the payoff to be significant. The payoff in C & P may have not been enough for me, but I remain confident that a rereading of the book might help me appreciate it more. Anything on other significant Dostoevsky titles? (The Gambler, Idiot, etcl).

>> No.11938770

Oh, I just learned the English version has him as Luzhin (I read it in Spanish).

>> No.11938795


>> No.11938828

>The entire thing is a Lazarus metaphor my dude

Dosto isn't about big payoffs in the end.
The Notes from the Underground is short, but gripping and relevant (all his books are timeless). The Idiot has great premise but the latter half is a real inconsequential drag save for 3-4 characters.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.