/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16979415]

was raskolnikov a manlet? is that why he worshiped napoleon so much?

[Anonymous No.16979456]

Raskolnikov is described as tall and attractive in the first page... maybe the first paragraph. you people really don’t read anything

[Anonymous No.16979463]

>>16979456
/thread

[Anonymous No.16979472]

>>16979456
>"He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair."
lmao shit i forgot

[Anonymous No.16979525]

>>16979415
He’s like Eliot rogers, he’s not bad looking but he’s very, very autistic.

[Anonymous No.16979541]

>>16979525
Eliot Rogers was pretty fucking ugly. Also annoying as shit.

[Anonymous No.16979544]

>>16979525
what if he'd just payed to fuck sonya instead of killing and robbing two bitches lmao

[Anonymous No.16980490]

>>16979472
>He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome

I love how Dostoevsky made sure to include that from the start
Also why is that important?

[Anonymous No.16980544]

>>16980490

So you now he isn't just some ugly incel.

[Anonymous No.16980549]

>>16980490
To make me read his work

[Anonymous No.16980620]

>>16979544
The scene where the mother kisses Sonya's feet after her first night of getting her teen body ravaged by strangers got me hard as a rock.

[Anonymous No.16980631]

>>16980490
It doesn't matter, I imagine every male character in Russian novels as Tsar Nicholas or the Monopoly Guy anyway.

[Anonymous No.16980656]

>>16980631
>Nicholas
>not Alexander I

[Anonymous No.16980680]

>>16980656
Fugg, this is gonna be Vronsky now until I finish Anna Karenina.

So it will be:
Vronsky - Alexander I
Oblonsky - Nicholas II
Levin - Also Nicholas II
Levin's brothers - both also Nicholas II
Alexei Alexandrovich - Monopoly Guy

[Anonymous No.16980710]

>>16980680
oh yeah, the male children are all Sminem as well. The muzhiks all look like that really ugly slav pic that gets posted around

[Anonymous No.16980836]

>>16979456
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16980907]

>>16979472
*faints*

[Anonymous No.16981400]

>>16980544
The Chad Raskolnikov vs The Virgin Underground Man

[Anonymous No.16981436]

>>16979415
What is ultimately the point of the novel? Napoleon didn't think twice about killing people, and he made a huge impact on history and was a "great man". If you balk at killing people, tough luck for you bucko, you'll never be a "great man". Sounds pretty pessimistic if you ask me. Also, if you want to lift a woman out of poverty to become your wife because you want a loyal and faithful wife, you're the real monster. What a dumpster fire of a book.

[Anonymous No.16981539]

Just finished reading it, he thought of himself as a man above others. He was disillusioned into thinking from his university days that he was "so smart he could commit any crime" but ultimately through his conscious and A Series Of Unfortunate Events took the
>muh I'm sooooo awful
Pill

Personally didn't like the book very well, for its time I'm sure it was great but it drag on with some really unimportant chapters that easily could have been omitted.

[Anonymous No.16981613]

>>16980490
Well his crime was an intellectual one. Noble features are associated with intellect or spirit.

[Anonymous No.16981783]

>>16980490
the reader is meant to identify with raskolnikov, it's a hook

[Anonymous No.16981790]

>>16980620
that's kind of fucked but ok. still better than being a lolitapedo

[Anonymous No.16981792]

>>16979415
no it's what you are. Colombians

[Anonymous No.16981861]

>>16981436
He killed in his own self interest to prove he is a great man, but he's delusional about the self improvement necessary to become this Napoleonic figure. Raskolnikov's wrongful theory that "being able to kill is the root cause of a man's greatness" is what drives him to murder. In his mind, this was the necessary first step in becoming a great man.
Pyotr Petrovich wanted to lift Dunya from poverty only to hold it over her head. He's manipulative from the start to achieve a controlling relationship. To him, a wife should be a slave rather than a partner.
If anyone, Svidrigailov is "the real monster."

>What is ultimately the point of the novel?
Chiggedy-czech yourself before you wreck yourself.

[Anonymous No.16981883]

>>16981436
>he's never lived in poverty and wanted to kill people before
get off this board faggot

[Anonymous No.16981905]

>>16981861
Yes, but you and everyone seem to miss the fundamental point of the novel. Should he have killed in the first place? This question, while obvious, and can be answered in numerous ways has the greatest moral and theological implications. If Raskolnikov did not kill, he would have been worse off is my firm conviction.

[Anonymous No.16981911]

>>16981861
>In his mind, this was the necessary first step in becoming a great man.
All this proves is that the necessary prerequisite of being a "great man" is psychopathy, and that if you have a conscience that will haunt you over murder you're not going to make it. As far as Petrovich, he was completely based up until that laughable scene where he plants money on someone in full view of an open rival who then predictable outs him as a liar in front of everyone. I guess ole' Dosto had to contrive him to be a caricature of dishonesty to fit his hamfisted message. Just embarrassingly poor writing.

[Anonymous No.16981921]

>>16981911
You're thinking of Svidilgaiov, Petrovich was utterly pathetic and that scene was right in-line with his character.

[Anonymous No.16981923]

>>16981905
Absolutely based take. If you are a mopey slob of a human being, murder someone, confess, and achieve redemption and elevation. It's the clear choice.

[Anonymous No.16981940]

>>16981921
No, I was referring to Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, the would-be husband of Dunya who planted money on Sonya

[Anonymous No.16981978]

>>16979415
it's a crack at how nietzschefags are dumb, which is why rodya changes in the epilogue

[Anonymous No.16981997]

>>16981940
how would you think he's based?
Are you Jewish, by any chance?

[Anonymous No.16982005]

>>16981905
>Should he have killed in the first place?
He should have dropped his recluse NEET life, made some money, and completed his education.

[Anonymous No.16982016]

>>16981997
No, although your preoccupation with the ethnicity of people who disagree with your trivial opinions on literature is somewhat interesting.

[Anonymous No.16982042]

>>16982016
Luhzin was a literal Jewish caricature, you'd have to be completely retarded to think he's based. It's like calling a nigger tom from the 1900s based.

[Anonymous No.16982158]

>>16982042
That's just an expression of Dosto's anti-cosmopolitanism. City bad. Lawyer bad. Charity bad. It's almost a schizophrenic level of paranoia. Luhzin represents an uplifting hand, someone who wishes to marry into the family, not rule over them like he's their better. He makes every effort to be accepted by the whole family when he definitely could have simply bought any beggar woman he may have wanted off the street. One of the most criminally mistreated characters in literature.

[Anonymous No.16982166]

>>16980490
he doesnt want the crime blamed on the guy being some kind of genetic goblin. it's completely a choice, in order to justify his guilt afterwards

[Anonymous No.16982177]

>>16981911
>All this proves is that the necessary prerequisite of being a "great man" is psychopathy, and that if you have a conscience that will haunt you over murder you're not going to make it.
Idk if it's exactly psychopathy if you're making a calculated decision for the greater good, but yeah, a leader must be able to take life where it is necessary. Great men realize that killing can be justified based on context. But, Rodya is too eager to be a great man so he forces a premise that he must kill to rob enough so that he may have a start in the world. It's flawed logic.
As far a Petrovich being based, everyone saw through his bullshit and he got dumped by a penniless peasant. Lmao

[Anonymous No.16982238]

>>16982158
Because he deserves to be so, he was a piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.16982383]

>>16982042
antisemitism is the mark of every great man

[Anonymous No.16983076]

I haven't read C&P, but I've read Brothers Karamazov and Notes From the Underground. How does it stack up against them? Especially Brothers Karamazov, which is definitely one of the finest things I've read.

[Anonymous No.16983119]

>>16981978
Didn't Nietzsche's respect and adoration of Dostoevsky stem from reading Crime and Punishment?

[Anonymous No.16983274]

>>16982158
>Luhzin represents an uplifting hand
no, he only wants Dunya to be oh so grateful for his magnanimous spirit so that he can constantly remind her that without him, she'd be dying in the streets somewhere
if you're not retarded, you can easily identify a running theme in dosto's novels that characters who attempt to buy a woman into "loving" them never produce a healthy relationship

[Anonymous No.16983311]

>>16982383
>antisemitism is the mark of every gay man
ftfy

[Anonymous No.16983370]

>>16979415
He was the proto-incel really.

[Anonymous No.16984726]

>>16980490
>why did writer describe how main character looks like

[Anonymous No.16984927]

>>16979472
this is bad writing

[Anonymous No.16984945]

>>16980490
so the average 4chan user can relate to it

[Anonymous No.16985052]

>>16980490
raskolnikov is proud, intellectual and, in his way, has a sense of decency that sets him apart from the average hustling peasant (him stopping the pervert from harassing a girl on the streets, giving his money to marmeladov's family, helping katerina arrange her husband's funeral)
he is a very noble character and his appearance reflects that; one of dosto's recurring themes is the political and philosophical climate of Russia in his time, and the eroding and corrupting effect it had in his youth. perhaps rodja would have let a gilded life were it not for it

[Anonymous No.16985350]

>>16984726
u make is sounds stupid when u say it like that :(

[Anonymous No.16985390]

>>16983119
yes because he was a sadist who enjoyed others shitting on his philosophy

[Anonymous No.16986540]

>>16982158
very interesting take anon

[Anonymous No.16988026]

>>16979415
Wait, I am only like halfway in the book, where the fuck does napoleon come in? Everyone here talks about his admiration for napoleon but I haven't read anything like that, I just read a very kino story, kinda comfy if you think about it. But yeah, where the fuck does the napoleon part come from.

[Anonymous No.16988129]

>>16988026
the second half of the book?
>what's wrong with you

[Anonymous No.16988181]

Wow this thread sucks.

I think Crime and Punishment is purposefully left ambiguous because Dostoevsky was a massive pussy and he knew how things work. Dostoevsky wanted to present some ideas that would have been socially unacceptable so that's largely why the story was crafted the way it was.

>>16979456
>>16980544
Best posts.

[Anonymous No.16988182]

>>16988129
Oof

[Anonymous No.16988246]

>>16988026
There's nothing really about Napoleon himself. He's just used as an example of a great man. When he kills, society accepts and even celebrates it. Killing is not thought a crime when it is committed by great men, so Napoleon (for example) is exempt from punishment. Raskolnikov sees himself above common people as "a Napoleon," so he too may kill to obtain his objective.

[Anonymous No.16988264]

>>16988026
At one point it is brought up that Rasky wrote an essay about Napoleon, it's around the middle of the book if I recall

[Anonymous No.16988285]

>>16979456
>that one time I wanted to demonstrate to my friend how difficult it is to translate russian into english, so we went to a b&n and picked out several copies of crime and punishment and read the first paragraphs of various chapters, and none of the translations were close to each other in similarities

[Anonymous No.16988319]

>>16983311
Jew

[Anonymous No.16988424]

>>16988285
Pica or it didn't happen nigger

[Ghost of Dostoyevsky No.16988503]

Don't think about it too much, I just meant for it to be a fun book