Please post your comments and thoughts on Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky here. You can find the online copy
here.
Book Club Procedures
Printable View
Please post your comments and thoughts on Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky here. You can find the online copy
here.
Book Club Procedures
ok, I bought the stupid book....here goes..
That's the spirit! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
as long as you think positively, that's really what's important. For example, don't say, "I think I am a looser." Instead, say, "I am definitely, DEFINITELY a looser."
about c&p: I've heard good things about it. I plan to read it after I finish exams for school (june 10th, I believe.) I'm going to have a barnes and noble party.
:D humm the sister who knows where our copy is has broken her leg so I cant get it yet.
So I have to start looking. So Ill start looking for the copy after I finish my exams on the 21st It only took me about six hours to read it the first time when i was 13 so it wont take me long to read! :nod:
Also I want to say :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: we are reading C&P
ok, i am going to attempt to read along & keep up this time. However, with college/work I may end up running out of time and giving up.
What did you think of Raskolnikov's dream in Part I?
I couldn't read it. Cruelty to humans is ok, but I can't deal with cruelty to animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerd
During my last year of school, C&P was on a shelf waiting anxiously to be read... 2 days after I finished my exams, I started it and did nothing but reading for 4 days... It caught me totally. The moment when he kills the old lady is to me possibly the most thrilling in the whole literature...my heart was beating so fast that all the Stephen Kings and co. can only vanish in comparison!!!
I read it for the second time 2 years ago for Russian Lit. exam, but it took me a couple of week, I guess I didnt have the excitment and anxiety to get to the end that I had the first time...
I have been thinking about this passage a lot... Is it possible that some people are 'jusitified' and/or 'allowed' to be criminals? If things had gone differently, would we all have been, for example, Nazis in Europe, hailing Hitler as a hero today?Quote:
well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed--often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law--were of use to their cause. It's remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course.
It is interesting that Raskolnikov's attitude towards crime is not consistent... He justifies himself and Sonya but not so forgiving towards Svidrigailov, who, he believes, was the reason behind Marfa's heart attack.
Any suggestions why Dostoevsky included Lazerus' story in the novel?
I know what you mean Koa... I am reading it for the second time after many, many moons and it is taking me longer... Though I have to admit, I am thinking/questioning/enjoying more this time;I feel like the first time round, I had read it without delving into it and I am now seeing many interesting points which eluded me earlier. In short, I am glad that I am re-reading it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koa
Yep, its just like I thought evil lecturers are conspiring against me to prevent worthwhile reading. I do intend to finish the book, as I am enjoying it (not as much as I enjoyed the brothers K however), but likely not till August sometime :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by me
What's a looser? I know what a loser is but I'm confused on the nature of a looser. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerd
I havent started yet... although I have read it before....
I started reading it sometime around the year Y2K, still need to finish it though - and really don't feel like finishing it, lol, ahem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Aubrey
I think it's just a typo for loser... Dunno if this Nerd who typed it is a native English speaker, but I think that 80% of non-natives make that mistake at some point - I've seen it many times and not always managed to point out that it's spelt with one O. But the pronounciation fools us cos most things with that sound have 2 O.
Scher, I'm feeling like reading it again...
I quickly checked the Lazarus passage, I think maybe it wants to represent the resurrection and in what will be Raskolnikov's (and Sonja's) redemption...as in they were metaphorically dead cos of their sinful life, but they can resurrect with the help of God - which can be proved by the (pathetic) epilogue of the novel (the only part I'm not so fond of cos it just doeesnt fit in too well I think). I just noticed that it mentions the Gospels and Lazarus again in the very last page...
Also, ive noticed that in the passage when they read the story, one of Lazarus' sisters says to Jesus twice "He wouldnt have died if you had been with us", which maybe can have a meaning in the novel as in the sinner lost their way, also religiously speaking if we want to see it just as "they lost their faith, they are sinners", but I dont think that Dostoevsky's view on God is just that simple. Thinking about it, Sonja is religious but lost her way anyway... Maybe a subtle critic to that logic of believing=no sin? In contrast to Raskolnikov whose beliefs are different and lead him to the crime anyway...
Or maybe this is just me going to deep cos if that sentence is there it was in the text of the Gospels anyway so it wasn't Dostoesvsky's choice to have it twice anyway...