Rating: 
Summary: To Overrate this Book Would Be a Crime
Review: Crime and Punishment portrays great ideas about the nature of humanity in a very dull way, but somehow the story remains gripping to the very last page. The Brothers Karamazov, although much longer, is perhaps a better novel on the whole. The idea behind C&P -- that man loses his ability to conceal his act by his own conscience and guilt -- is cleverly inverted by Woody Allen in "Crimes and Misdemeanors." I think the latter, not the former, is perhaps closer to the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Great writing, amazing thinking
Review: This is the first Dostoyevsky novel I've read. It will not be the last, I've already bought the Pevear/Volkhonsky translation of the Brothers K. I'd read Tolstoy before this and there is really no comparison. Both are great authors, but the experience with each is completely different, even though both authors deal with spiritual themes. In Crime and Punishment you get inside the mind of a man who willfully commits murder and then undergoes a spiritual transformation afterward. It's much less subtle than Tolstoy, more raw, but also extremely intriguing.
Rating:
Summary: Exceptional Work
Review: If Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are considered to be the best of novelists (and they are, by many), Crime and Punishment may thereby be considered one of the greatest literary works, as it substantiated Dostoevsky's claim that he was a great writer (beyond Poor Folk), contrary to what many critics of the time had to say. Common criticism cites flawed style or technique, even claims that Dostoevsky couldn't realize the art he was creating (and so could not have been a real artist). It is for the most part undisputed, however, that Crime and Punishment remains the greatest of psychological novels. It appeals to the reader on a personal level-- time and time again the concept of one "becoming Raskolnikov" is seen in criticism. In my personal experience, I can certainly testify to this. I read the first two parts of the novel on a train from Cologne to Stuttgart, and on stepping off the train, I felt such a connection with Raskolnikov that I was paranoid of being caught by the police for the murder of the old pawnbroker. I was forced to constantly remind myself "it's just a book". But is it really? Does not the ability of Dostoevsky to influence us this greatly constitute something more than just words on paper? I would encourage anyone to read the book and see for themselves.
Rating:
Summary: The Classic Study of Sin & Guilt...
Review: THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is regarded as Dostoyevsky's masterpiece. But Raskolnikov is certainly his most memorable and disturbing character. Raskolnikov...whose name means "split"/schizo...is a brilliant student caught-up in nihilistic, atheistic ideas pervading Russian academic circles and literary salons of his day. Many of these will motivate Bolshevik revolutionaries 50 years later. He is obsessesed with the Nietzschean concept of the MAN ABOVE LAW...the Ubermench/superman who lives Beyond Good & Evil; ordinary strictures of Conscience, and prohibition against SIN. The plot of the novel concerns his deliberate choice to murder an innocent...though in his eyes useless and parasitic..woman and "see" what happens...... This simplification of one of the most demanding novels ever written is like saying MOBY DICK is about a fanatic who wants to kill a whale. Dostoyevsky's anti-hero is ironically appealing because of both his perverse...intellectually rationalized...narcissism and equally driven need to be and believe in GOODNESS. The important father figure/detective named Porfiry baits and prods this young man to confess the monumental egotism and wickedness of his NAPOLEON COMPLEX and its disasterous implications. (Dostoyevsky thoroughly explores the latter in his novel, THE POSSESSED) How well he succeeds and how Dostoyevsky proposes redemption and renewal for such intellectual criminals (who believe they have the right...even obligation...to declare whose life is "worthy"} form the basis of this classic study of Sin and Guilt. In today's Post-modern, Deconstuctionist era (where a pop psychopathic, cannibalistic serial killer is apotheosized and admired) CRIME and PUNISHMENT remains a mind-jarring journey into the heart of darkness that shows a glimmer of the Gorgon's face to those who feel they must look......
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing for Fyodor - But still good
Review: I've read 4 Fyodor books and discuss him often, so I know a bit more than the average reader unfamiliar with him. I must say I was disappointed. I read it through, and kept waiting to get that rush of intellectual stimulation feeling, but it never came. I didn't get a feeling that I was missing something; it was more a sense of "come on fyodor, I know you're capable of more than this." The dualistic personality of Rasko was interesting, the superman theory & putting it into practice w/utilitarianism was interesting, and the epilogue was great. Great, that is, until the last page. The standard Hollywood ending of "give yourself to love and life will be eternal bliss" was extremely weak, and seemed to undermine the whole character of Raskolnikov, which got me thinking about Fyodor himself. I'm guessing that Rasko is very similar to Dost as a young student. I would also guess that these superman theories and the desire to kill the old lady was probably also taken from Dost's real life experiences. But from here the novel splits from real life. Dostoevsky didn't actually kill anyone in his life, for he didn't have the courage/evil/whatever you want to call it. It seems like he wrote an entire novel to prove that "well, even if I had killed her, I just would've gone nuts anyways and messed up my life and everyone else's". It's like he's trying to make excuses for a crime that he wanted to commit but didn't. I also don't like his advocation of leaving reason behind and turning your back on your convictions in order to do whatever feels right. Dostoevsky has such brilliant thoughts, but then he makes these conclusions that just disappoint me greatly. It's like he's too scared to follow his mind, so he just turns away out of weakness. But anyways, I think the novel would've been better if Dost. stuck to his life experiences, rather than getting so fictional. I think his psychology of Rasko after the crime was a bit off. Some killers do feel intense guilt and confess, but the very vast majority of them don't. They rationalize and blame other people and in the end feel no guilt at all. It seems like a case of wishful thinking. But anyways I was just very disappointed with it. Too much boring pointless plot. Not enough development of the philosophies. Rasko fainting whenever he heard someone talk about the murder seemed a bit exaggerated. I did like when Rasko commented that he's not a Napoleon (it just would've been more realistic if he figured this out before the murder). If someone has the strength to murder someone else, chances are they're going to have the strength to deal with the resulting emotions. And I liked when Rasko was in prison and said that his beliefs were all still valid. But then he falls to his knees and gives himself to love and walks off into the sunset to live in neverending happiness. Please. Ally McBeal is more realistic than that. Read The Brothers Karamazov or Notes From Underground. They're more mature & deeper.
Rating:
Summary: Crime and Punishment, Sin and Redemption
Review: Many of the 'classic novels' I have read were originally written in English, and therefore forego translation in modern bindings. Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, although written in the latter half of the 19th century, holds up well to the conversion from the original Russian to English.Rodion Raskolikov is a student, an author, an intellectual. Like countless others in Russia at the time, he is also very poor. His empassioned mind imagines that a local woman, a pawnbroker is evil, a parasite, for taking the valued trinkets of her neighbors and paying them a pittance in return, and for holding promisary notes over their heads. His rage turns to murder, justifying his actions later on as doing a greater good for many by taking the life of this one person. However, his crime is two-fold, as he is discovered by the woman's sister, still with the murder weapon in his hands, and in a moment of terrified frenzy, murders her as well. The bulk of this novel, exquisitly written, is the slow realization of Raskolnikov that his crime was just that, a crime, no matter how good his intent. Raskolnikov struggles with the guilt of his actions, even as he time and again proves his worthiness as a person in his actions regarding others, giving up his last bit of money to help another less fortunate than himself, attending to a dying man in the streets, trying to secure a good future for his sister, with a worthy man. Raskolnikov, as the reader discovers, is a good and decent man. The underlying message of this book seems to be that even a man of conscience cannot commit an unconscienable act without repurcussion, without 'punishment', and that no matter how justified you think you may be in your actions, no matter how many good deeds you may do, with conscience there is always a higher authority to answer to, that of your own mind, and what you can or cannot live with. Dostoevsky had been described to me as dry, turgid reading. I found it to be nothing of the sort. The story never drags on or belabours a point without logic and qualification. The characters, although the focus of the story is Raskolnikov, are all well realized, and developed. The story itself remains interesting and engaging throughout every page, with a well crafted conundrum once you reach the epilogue, and leaves the reader, at least this one, with a desire to read more about this man, beyond the final words of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Profound thought...difficult to read
Review: Crime and Punishment offers the best of Dostoevsky'spre-existential existentialism, but is mired ...(by) its length and unnecessary details. Raskolnikoff's character is portrayed in the best literary tradition, as are his arguable polar sides, Sonia and Svidrigailoff. This Wordsworth version, however, is not very well put together. There is one partition that only contains one chapter. Names are spelled differently than any version my classmates read. Choose another version if you purchase this work. Thought-provoking, but slow and plodding.
Rating:
Summary: serious psychological tragedy
Review: People don't write books like this anymore. Books that take evil seriously and observe the evil-doer clearly, without ghettoizing him as either a martyr or a demon or transforming the harsher elements into dark comedy. This is the depraved human soul laid bare. It's long, its serious and there's no redemption at the end. It's one of the true greats, better than the Brother's K in my humble opinion.
Rating:
Summary: One of the top five novels written
Review: This is book is one of the greatest novels written. It was however written originally as a piece of propaganda. Its author was a political conservative who was concerned about the spread of Western ideas in Russia and how they could destroy society. It was a theme that he was to return to in some of his other novels notably the Devils. The book was written at a time when novels produced in Russia had to be supportive of the autocratic system and this was passed by a state board. The central theme is about a young student who decides to kill an older woman in his apartment block. The reason for the murder is not gain but rather to show that he is a person who is free and like a Napoleon. Dostoevsky also intended to write another novel called the drunkard at the same time. The plot of that novel involved a man who forces his daughter into prostitution because of his inability to control his urges. Instead of bringing them out as separate novels Dostoevsky intertwines the two stories and makes the young prostitute the means by which his main character can be redeemed. The book starts with the murder and follows the gradual realisation by the police of the identity of the murderer. Although the book started out as a simple expose of the way that western ideas could corrupt the youth of Russia it grew into something else. In part that was because of the development, some time after the novel was published, of philosophical systems which stressed a moralism of self actualisation. The sorts of systems of Nietchze and Kirkagaard. It is also a novel which tends to speak to young people. At least once in a young person's life they feel like the hero, wanting to do some act which defines them as superior to the common heard, to express their freedom or individuality. Ironically they identify with the hero who is meant to be an example of a person who is redeemed by rejecting the sorts of ideas which is the reason why people now read the book. Whilst the main attraction of the book is a message which was at variance with the reason it was written it is still a classic. Everyone has to read this as it is one of the most remarkable books written.
Rating:
Summary: Great Work
Review: Raskolnikov is a young student in 19th century Petersburg. He quits school because he can't afford to put himself through, he has sold most of his Earthly possessions so that he can eat, and then he takes the life of a wealthy pawnbroker and robs her house because he feels a sense of entitlement. This story brings the 19th century of Russia to life, Raskolnikov is such an intriguing character, and its characters are one of the book's greatest strengths. The settings are vivid, the plot itself is wonderful. The book is very coherent, it loses little in the translation, which is a credit to the translator, because a bad translator can screw up a book like this. This is a great book and definitely worth reading.
|
