Rating: 
Summary: Shackled
Review: I read "Crime and Punishment" expecting a harrowing tale of the punishment experienced by the author during his time in prison. What I found was a tortured man limited by his eloquence. He writes of his suffering for the entirety of the work, but that's all it is, writing. The plight of this man is stale. It arouses as much sympathy from the reader as a book report on prison life might. But there was merit in the book. It revealed tortures, that although unthought of, nevertheless existed in those circumstances. It opens the eyes of the reader to the multitude of madness the human spirit can endure.
Rating: 
Summary: A Decent Book
Review: I'd say this is certainly not Dostoyevsky at his finest, but for the most part, the book was entertaining. Occasionally you might ask who you are reading about, Dostoyevsky or Aleksander Petrovich (if anyone knows the answer, e-mail me), or you might wonder when the book is going to end. But this is compromised for by its fascinating content explaining, at great length in detail, brutal Siberian prison life in the 19th century. It is worth reading nearly 400 pages to hear about the punishments of the convicts, the ways vodka was smuggled into the prison. In the midst of all this is a certain mood among the prisoners: depressed, but finding friendship among their fellow convicts. No other book can depict such an atmosphere, and now we have no idea what one was like, except if we read The House of the Dead. Dostoyevsky is a very good writer, in my opinion. I suggest this book.
Rating: 
Summary: my favorite book forever
Review: I'm only 19, but I know this will be my favorite book forever. It takes you inside the darker places that exist inside the psyche of every human, and makes the renewed hope brought by deep suffering shine through.
Rating:
Summary: A good, but flawed work.
Review: I've read all of Dostoyevsky's books, and I like six of his works better than this one. That isn't to say that this is a bad work, it simply shows how talented of a writer he is.This book is a semi-autobiographical piece about the time Dostoyevesky spent in a Siberian prison. Here he relates to the dehumanizing, deadening effects of the modern prison system and invokes his philosophies of better ways of treating and rehabilitating prisoners. He sketches detailed characters, and builds largely on the dichotomy between the "common crook" and the "gentleman lawbreaker," the latter which is represented by him, and also the minority in the prison. All in all, quite a good piece.
Rating:
Summary: A good, but flawed work.
Review: I've read all of Dostoyevsky's books, and I like six of his works better than this one. That isn't to say that this is a bad work, it simply shows how talented of a writer he is. This book is a semi-autobiographical piece about the time Dostoyevesky spent in a Siberian prison. Here he relates to the dehumanizing, deadening effects of the modern prison system and invokes his philosophies of better ways of treating and rehabilitating prisoners. He sketches detailed characters, and builds largely on the dichotomy between the "common crook" and the "gentleman lawbreaker," the latter which is represented by him, and also the minority in the prison. All in all, quite a good piece.
Rating:
Summary: Prison memoir served straight up
Review: Protests, bribes, imagined saviors, concealed knives, stolen Bibles, dogskin boots, and theater on a farthing budget. The House of the Dead is a collection of anecdotes about prison life, based on Dostoyevsky's real-life experience of serving four years' hard labor for political dissent. Men of all races and nationalities, peasant and professor, have been fettered and thrown in jail together. Some are innocent. Some are unrepentant of gruesome murders. These stories illuminate how they got along together and how they didn't, and how they negotiated their lives with the power-crazed guards who flogged them at the blink of an eye. I thought it unfortunate that there was no plot to speak of. The narrator was a wholly passive observer who did not reflect on the circumstances that had landed him in jail, did not befriend any of the other convicts beyond merely getting to know them well enough to profile their characters, and abruptly ended his monologue when he was, it seemed, almost accidentally freed. As a work of fiction, it leaves much to be desired. Nonetheless, it should be of some value to psychologists and historians interested in Russian prisons, and of immense value to Dostoyevsky scholars wishing to know more about the events that shaped his life and thought.
Rating:
Summary: Great Work: Interesting and Educational
Review: Reading the House of the Dead is essential to understanding Dostoyevsky. While his novels are far more elaborate and well developed in a literary sense, this book is important because it is based on his actual experience. It does contain the seed of philosophy and analysis of human nature that drives much of his other works and this is written in a manifest manner. This book is relatively plot less but the characters and scenes are well developed and often it strikes awe in the reader. Being so easy to read, straight forward, and all together interesting I suggest this book highly to those who want an introduction to Dostoyevsky.
We have to remember a few things when reading this book. It is probably true that upon original release that Dostoyevsky did not want to use his own name in the book and he also wanted to make the book readable to his public. What's more is we have to realize the time and place. Russia was still basically feudal during the 1850's and nobility were treated far differently than peasant classes. Understanding this brings a whole new dimension to this work. Dostoyevsky, it seems, tries to show how most of the criminals behave like some bizarre mirror of Russian society. And of course the theme of adaptation is developed throughout.
This is one of the more important Dostoyevsky works. It is important to understand both the person and the thinker that Dostoyevsky was. It also is a great background on the time and place of Russia, the setting of most of his work. Beyond this it presents some interesting ideas and is certainly an interesting record of prison life in the 19th century. I can understand why many would say that this is not one of his best works and on many point I certainly agree. However, this book is still very compelling and absolutely interesting. Given that reading this is not a massive investment of time that his novels generally are this is a certain must read. I rate this book highly and if you give it a chance I surmise you will to.
-- Ted Murena
Rating:
Summary: An incredible book that must be read.
Review: This book examines to what extent a man will go to keep his humanity. Among feters and prison walls, a different sort of society emerges. How is a caged man different from a caged animal? Does a prison truely change a man for the better? This is a great book.
Rating:
Summary: Not His Finest, But Still A Good Read
Review: This book is very Dostoyevsky in some ways, yet is still a departure from his usual fare. It is properly dark and depressing in keeping with his usual style. It is a personel account of his time in a horrific Russian prison. He builds his characters well and evokes feelings in the reader, but this book will never stand up to his immortal Crime and Punishment.
Rating:
Summary: Not His Finest, But Still A Good Read
Review: This book is very Dostoyevsky in some ways, yet is still a departure from his usual fare. It is properly dark and depressing in keeping with his usual style. It is a personel account of his time in a horrific Russian prison. He builds his characters well and evokes feelings in the reader, but this book will never stand up to his immortal Crime and Punishment.
|
