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...
I just started reading this. So far of what I have read seems to give the tenant's insight of how things have been for him and he gives a keen introspect of the immediate world that is around him. His contact and interaction with others is one of confrontation.
I shall keep reading and see where it leads.
About how far has everyone read?
I skipped to the end and know how it ends. Ha! Now I can go back to chapter 4 where I left off.....
Thanks for your reply, Koa. I am not very familiar with the Bible and this particular story and your explanation seems good to me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koa
I wonder if Dostoevsky was a religious man himself. Maybe it is time to do some reading on his bio as well.
I have just finished reading Part V. Not a fast reader and this book is especially taking long time to digest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~K~
Ah I see. For me, it was a sort of easy interpretation...I'm usually really bad at interpreting things like that, but in this case it wasn't hard to find an idea about it all, and I assure you it felt strange ;)... And now I realise that it must be because of my Catholic background, while someone who has not been raised by going to the church every sunday, as I suppose is your case Scher, will find the whole story less granted... :) Interesting cultural difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I forgot everything about Dostoevskij and Religion :( If I'm bothered I can find my old notes... But I think he was somehow halfway... like in eternal doubt and that's why most of his characters question religion so hard but there are always some who are firm believers... If you read the Demons, there are wonderful passages with this conflict (I loved that book, that's the one that got me into Russian literature and language). And probably in the Karamazov Brothers as well, but I havent read that one yet.
And I think it somehow has to do also with his death experience... If you didn't read any bio you might not know that he was arrested for conspiracy (even if he apparently had little to do with the secret society group he was attending) and was graced exactly when he was about to be killed (by hanging if I'm not wrong?). And that changed his perception on life somehow... He wrote a lot about suicide but despite his troubled life he never even thought of killing himself, because after that experience he couldn't understand something so strong as suicide: it remained a mystery to him and that's why he portrays it so often.
I agree with you Koa that our cultural background as well as our life expriences affect the way we read and interpret things. I was wondering if the idea of 'original sin' has anything to do with the 'crime' in Crime and Punishment.
I've never thought of original sin in this context... Uhm if I think about it now I don't think it has much to do with Crime & Punishment cos the original sin was something more 'pure', that is they had no sin before, and were somehow naive in thinking there would be no consequence to their deed (though actually they were aware of breaking the rule so maybe it's not that different as it first seemed to me). But Raskolnikov acts in all awareness and convinction and knows about the consequence, that's why he can't find peace and surrenders... To me, it's more related to the Superhuman kind of thingy... But I'd like to see other opinions on this :)
Ive given up I cant be bothered to read it again! MAybe next month.
I'm almost halfway through!!!!!
Ha! I finished this book last night. I'm glad I read it.
My thoughts:
the lazarus passage was kind of intersting, I don't know what to make of it other then Sonya and Rashkolnikov were given second chances. I think that differs from the original sin angle because they were just given second chances they haven't be absolved of past sins.
My questions are:
What was the difference between that S guy and Rashkolinkov, where one could commit suicide and the other couldn't?
And was Rashkolinkov driven to "madness" because he felt guilty of killing or because he realized that he wasn't that great of a man that he couldn't do it well?
edited to add:
Does anyone else have trouble keeping those russian names straight??
I read a book and I think that this is the one of world' s gratest. It made me think about rightful crime. There are few questions rising from that theme:
What situations justified violence and who may commit a crime respectively in the name of who or what and is it worth it to sacrifice someone to save someone else?
We have some examples from history:
-Like French revolution: killing noble clerical minority would save more lower class people
-When USA dropped A-bomb at Hiroshima comment was: better to hurt 300.000 innocent people then to prolong war to infinity which would take more victims
So, it looks like that the same thing can be in the same time two different things: crime and heroism – depending of from what side you're looking at. Absolute justice does not exist, not in this or in «other» world. Everything is equally fair an unfair.
I personnaly liked this book alot. But I think "The Idiot" was better.
Hello everyone,
Sorry for joining in on your discussion at such a late time, but this book is still imprinted rather well in my memory. It must be roughly seven months or so since I read it, and I have loved it ever since.
I had a bit of an unpleasent experience with that passage. I was on my way to work, reading 'Crime and Punishment' in the train. I was feeling well, or rather, I was feeling as I do every morning really. Until I get to this passage. The way it was built up beforehand, the way his considerations and thoughts regarding the issue of taking a life had been presented before the actual act - plus reading the act itself made me feel physicly ill. My mouth went dry, my skin was tickling, I went pale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koa
So I decide to get off the train... Only to faint the moment I get up. I awoke with the sound and feel of someone slapping my cheek while calling for an ambulance. A kind woman was giving me a drink of water, a man was supporting me so I wouldn't fall over again and ofcourse the rest of the passengers had all come to see what exactly was going on.
The ambulance arrived and the physicians ofcourse told me I probably had the flue and that not having breakfast caused this. I never found the guts to tell three ambulance-folk, who pick up people in pieces on a daily basis, that all this "merely" happened because of my first encounter with Dostoyevsky. God I love that man.
True story.
Koa, I'm so glad you hated the epilogue, too. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Koa
I've read C&P twice in the last sixth months. A friend recomended it to me, so I read it and really enjoyed it, and then I brought it up in a conversation with my english teacher and she suggested I write on it for my diploma, so i re-read it. Unfortunately, I don't know many others who have read it and i haven't had much time to really discuss it with any one, and the diploma is in two days. O.o; i've gotten some good ideas from this forum, but there are two themes I noticed that I haven't seen a whole lot of commentary on. Firstly, redemption. Its obviously a very important theme, but i dont know why he needs Sonia to redeem him. Also, there's alot of mention about the human need to suffer. Marmeledov (excuse me on the spelling) talks about it in his bar conversation with Raskolnikov, and it comes up again when the painter confesses to the crime. I know its significant, but i still need to bounce it around a little more before i really understand it. any ideas?