Sad, pathetic critics

Crime and Punishment is not only a classic, it is a literary masterpiece. All of you out there that wrote three lines describing how unfathomably boring it was for you to read this, get over it. Just because you have the mental capacity of a chipmunk and the attention span of a rock does not give you license to deride a classic. I suggest that next time you wish to critisize something, make sure you understand it first. Otherwise, shut your little mouths and go back to reading 'See Spot Run.' Everyone else, congrats for having more than three brain cells. Oh, and a question for those who actually understood the book, do you know the motivation Fyodor Dostoevsky had behind writing this? I have a paper due on it, and I have some theories, but I would like to know what all of you think as well.

Perhaps a bit late for me to offer you any advice, so I'm now counting on you. I have an essay to write on the religious and moral aspects of CP and need all the help I can get. Did you happen to read Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics by Bakhtin (1963)? Seems to be one of the authorities of Dostoevsky, but I haven't read it myself yet. Loced your rant, by the way. Anyone who can't immediately discern the genius inherent in one of he greatest writers, of any age or place, deserves to live the lifeless drudgery they surely do.

..."Just because you have the mental capacity of a chipmunk and the attention span of a rock does not give you license to deride a classic. I suggest that next time you wish to critisize something, make sure you understand it first. Otherwise, shut your little mouths and go back to reading 'See Spot Run.' Everyone else, congrats for having more than three brain cells."...
Now, now... I know it's frustrating when you read bad reviews or comments on something you love, but why lash out? Crime and Punishment is the best book I've ever read (so far), but even if others don't feel the same way, there's no reason to insult them. People like/dislike different things. If someone listened to a song that was (in your opinion) the best song in the world and they hated it, you wouldn't tell them they were stupid and that they had terrible taste in music, would you? Anyways, everyone has their own opinions and we're all on this site to share them- not to insult people who don't share the same one. Okay, back to reading posts now...

I would like to read criticisms you've mentioned, and I'd wager those mentioned critics are morons who probably drools in anticipation of a new Dan Brown or Douglas Adams novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dulcinea

I would like to read criticisms you've mentioned, and I'd wager those mentioned critics are morons who probably drools in anticipation of a new Dan Brown or Douglas Adams novel.

---

I agree with you. I think that a lot of the time people go for the easier reading and are missing out on some great classics that may require actual thinking.

Crime and Punishment has been my all time favorite up to this point. It is a great psychological novel. Raskalnikov's greatest punishment came from his own conscience.

Dostoevski is a thoughtful , profound writer with incredible insight into human nature. He's a master psychologist. "Crime and Punishment" takes you deep into the killer's mind and heart and soul, letting you share his journey to redemption. And I still remember "The Brothers Karamazov" as the best murder mystery I've ever read! No so much a WHOdunit but a WHYdunit. For those who don't "get" Dostoevsky, there are plenty of lighter things to read...but his detractors are missing out, I think.

Never listen to the critics. Approach every book with an open mind and then judge it on its own merits!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mary Sue

Dostoevski is a thoughtful , profound writer with incredible insight into human nature. He's a master psychologist. "Crime and Punishment" takes you deep into the killer's mind and heart and soul, letting you share his journey to redemption. And I still remember "The Brothers Karamazov" as the best murder mystery I've ever read! No so much a WHOdunit but a WHYdunit. For those who don't "get" Dostoevsky, there are plenty of lighter things to read...but his detractors are missing out, I think.

Never listen to the critics. Approach every book with an open mind and then judge it on its own merits!

---

I never thought of "Brothers Karamazov" as a murder mystery- I can't exactly formulate what it is- probably psychological drama.

And another thing- I don't feel that Raskolnikov is redeemed. In the very end we read that he understood something. He still has a long journey before redemption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lit-phile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dulcinea

I would like to read criticisms you've mentioned, and I'd wager those mentioned critics are morons who probably drools in anticipation of a new Dan Brown or Douglas Adams novel.

---

I agree with you. I think that a lot of the time people go for the easier reading and are missing out on some great classics that may require actual thinking.

Crime and Punishment has been my all time favorite up to this point. It is a great psychological novel. Raskalnikov's greatest punishment came from his own conscience.

---

I also loved Crime And Punishment, the first novel I read by Dostoevsky, but I cannot say that I dislike all contemporary literature. Most of the time, I tend to highly disagree with most so-called 'critics;' many, to me, seem like the typical cynic who finds the minute elements of dislike in everything, only with a louder voice than the optimist.
Of course, contemporary literature has its intelligent writers and books, too, but most that I have encountered have never appeared on the best-seller list. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mary Sue

Never listen to the critics. Approach every book with an open mind and then judge it on its own merits!

---

Mary Sue, I could not have said it better myself. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boris239

And another thing- I don't feel that Raskolnikov is redeemed. In the very end we read that he understood something. He still has a long journey before redemption.

---

But I do think we're given the impression that redemption is at least a distinct possibility, albeit a distant one. Although sometimes it seemed more like he was just tired and defeated instead of it being a real honest epiphany but still, there was light at the end of his tunnel.

Well, how about that ending, huh! Am I the only one who felt a little cheated after finishing that novel? I will concede that the philosophy Raskolnikov was struggling with throughout the novel was certainly flawed in some areas (such as those that allowed for the vicious axe-murder of the pawnbrokeress), but this struggle, for me, is what held the novel's interest; I had expected that it would perhaps culminate in a sort of logical clarification of the ideas that were being illustrated, with a real understanding of these psychological experiences of his, and of a reason why his way of seeing things had been so wrong (in a way) and what would have made it right - though even the omission of the latter would have been fine, as moralization in literature can be rather annoying -, and what am I presented with but Christian morality! Out of nowhere we have "How it happened he himself did not know, but suddenly it was as if something had lifted him and flung him down at [Sonya's] feet. He wept and embraced her knees...They were resurrected by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other."*
In vulgar parlance: "WTF!" In truth I thought his way of going about things was justifiable enough (though perhaps this was because at the time I had been laying the Ayn Rand on rather thick...), excepting the murder. Why does the novel not simply end after Part Six. It would be a fine ending really; the confession made sense enough to me. Why, then, do we need to throw in the Divine? The ring of truth that steadily, if somewhat subtly, resonated throughout the entire novel was, for me, silenced completely. This saddens me, as, omitting the ending, this would be one of my favorite novels.
*I quote the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation.

*edit*
I am sorry; I did not realize there were other threads available for my complaint.

I didn't get it. I really didn't. I didn't notice there any kind of symbolism (SophieR says there is) nor did I enjoy reading it. It didn't arouse feelings in me (except confusion) tough for me art isn't art if it doesn't arouse any strong feelings. I have tried to find esseys and analyses of it from the Internet, but I haven't found any in my own language (and those who analysize C&P in English definitely don't like to use words simple enough for me to understand)..... :smash:
I thought that in this kind of forum other people's opinions would arouse some thoughs in me, too, and maybe other people's analyses could help me to understand the novel even a little a bit. But in here, people who didn't like C&P only say "it's boring" and most of those who did, say "if you don't like it you just don't get it". Oh that helps a lot. Or maybe there is a lot of good opinions in this forum, but got tired after reading the first page so I haven't seen them.

So I'm just going to sit here and feel myself "stupid" as Julian says.
And "lazy and two demensional minded" as Devine D says.
And "an idiot" as Skye Dean says.
And and andandandand....

I don't know. I guess I just want to have some kind of "wow"-experience.

Hi there -

As a teacher of literature, I am well aware that C&P is difficult reading - period. Dostoyevsky has many detractors (including his fellow Russian writers) and the criticisms of him are generally just. Do not feel bad that the novel didn't "speak" to you. There's no rule that it has to be meaningful to eveybody who picks it up. Those who criticise others for not liking it or understanding its profound nature might as well condemn people for not liking a certain type of food. Literature is like food: much of it is an acquired taste, and Dostoyevsky very much so. I doubt few people pick up C&P and instantly sense they are reading something powerful. More than likely, they sense they are reading something that is moving very, very slowly - full of endless paragraphs of very convoluted dialogue. It IS hard to read; it IS hard to understand. I'm curious about how many of the die-hards on this thread gained their devotion to Dostoyevsky through pure reading - or were they guided by a good teacher or some other form of study aid? Let's be fair here and admit that some literature is a challenge to read and grasp - think of William Faulkner or James Joyce.

Anyway - C&P is Dostoyevsky's examination of the human heart and the consequences of violating "higher law." In other words, Raskolnikov theorizes that one can commit crime for the sake of a "higher" purpose - that one evil deed is wiped out by a thousand good deeds. This idea is a paraphrase of the German philosopher Hegel - who believed that a crime that ultimately benefitted society was permissible. This provides Raskolnikov with justification (in his mind) to kill the pawnbroker (a leech upon the poor in St. Petersburg). What Raskolnikov discovers, is that crime - murder - affects the human heart in devastating ways: he withdraws from society, becomes alientated and tortured by guilt. The only solution to his problem is to rejoin society - but this requires him to admit that he is not "above" humanity - but actually a part of it. His "higher" theory of crime for the benefit of humanity did not "trump" the reality of the "higher" natural law: murder is wrong - but it's not wrong because society says it's wrong: it's wrong because the human heart rebells against it. As a Christian, Dostoyevsky sought to show that ideology does not change the laws of God - and because those "laws" are written in the human heart, its (the heart's) response to sin/crime reveals that we are not above the law.

That's a simplified version of C&P - its more complicated than that. But don't let the fanatics get you down. You're not an "idiot" or whatever if C&P didn't speak to you. It may take more time, additional readings for the book to speak to you. Great literature requires multiple readings. Come back to C&P again and you'll be surprised what you pick up on in the second reading. And, if it still doesn't, well so what? It wasn't your "cup of tea" apparently, and that's OK.

Good luck

Have you read, "Crime and Punishmet is..." I believe that someone should convince that person, and inform him about CP, and how it is such a supreme masterpiece.

So, this guy is trying to get people to help him eh?

Thank you Redzeppelin, for your words. I actually understood that what you told, but I still didn't (and don't) understand what's so great about it.

First of all, I'd like to say that I love C&P... I really do. And I know it can be annoying that others can't share the same view but as you perhaps know, each book has its own audience. The people who don't find C&P as entertaining, as insightful as we do are entitled to their opinions though admittedly, it would be better if they express their opinions in a more reasoned manner. Nevertheless, it is unavoidable that some may not like C&P. So, my point is, there's not much use in criticizing those people. Rather, time is better utilized in discussing the book. :)