How to appreciate C&P?

[Frenzied]

I read Crime and Punishment. I completed it. I stuck with it hoping to get something out of it. But I got nothing. It was really a bore and it seemed to drag on and on. He seemed to take hundreds of pages to make a point. And they were points not too great in my opinion.

I really cannot get why people say that it was a great read. I truly cannot see why. Can someone enlighten me?

[Worm]

He scouted the idea of committing a crime and being allowed to do so, without being punished for it ...

what do you think?


There's also a part with a dream that there'll be a virus spread over the world someday, and everybody will die from it, except the gifted, they will overcome it, and survive.
What do you think about that bizar dream?


What do you think about the character of Raskolnikow?  Would you like him?


These are just a few questions that pop first in my head when I think of C+P ...

I loved the book ... despite its darkness.

[Dillon]

I think Dostoe also wanted us to see how matters can be solved and our imaginations explored beyond matters of principle--that is, how to derive knowledge not from the implication of ideas, but the realization of them. Look at Lebezyatnikov and Luzhin, notice their similarities and differences to Razumikhin and why those differences exist.

[Frenzied]

He scouted the idea of committing a crime and being allowed to do so, without being punished for it ...

what do you think?


There's also a part with a dream that there'll be a virus spread over the world someday, and everybody will die from it, except the gifted, they will overcome it, and survive.
What do you think about that bizar dream?


What do you think about the character of Raskolnikow?  Would you like him?


These are just a few questions that pop first in my head when I think of C+P ...

I loved the book ... despite its darkness.

I think the idea is fascinating, but the novel doesn't really explore it, and isn't it supposed to be more about literary value than philosophical?

Is it Raskolnikov's dream where at the end he tries to kill Alyona but fails? Urhh.. I like it. I liked all the dream sequences in the novel, I feel they're more intriguing than the rest of the novel. I dunno. What am I supposed to feel about that dream?

Urm, I think I would like him, with his contempt towards others and all, but it'll be hard to hang out with him and stuff..

[Worm]

The novel doesnt really explore it?  What do you think the double murder is?

...

I could answer more in detail, but i'm not going to - i think you're a fisher behind a mask, and know all of these things already more than well enough.

[Frenzied]

I'm a fisher behind a mask? What does that mean?

Maybe I know more than enough, but I just cannot understand the novel's popularity. Maybe I just couldn't stand how long it was..

[lerik]

I'm a fisher behind a mask? What does that mean?

Maybe I know more than enough, but I just cannot understand the novel's popularity. Maybe I just couldn't stand how long it was..

A lot of Russian students also have problems with the novel's length.Try reading some other work of Dostoevsky...uhm..I don'[t know if i can recommend you "The Idiot" because it is also quite long..."Netochka Nezvanova" was unfinished but it is quite short..."The Brothers Karamazov" are going to be very long for you...

[lerik]

Maybe  "The Insulted and the Injured"?...Sometimes your opinion about an author or a book changes over period of time,so maybe one day,you will learn to appreciate C & P

[Worm]

Maybe I know more than enough, but I just cannot understand the novel's popularity. Maybe I just couldn't stand how long it was..

Well, there are different minds in the world than yours.


It's okay if YOU don't like the book, you know.  You don't have to follow popular opinion.
... maybe one of the reasons that you didn't like the book very much, was that you didn't really grasp what you read, if i may say so.  Imagine the things you read, to happen in real life - imagine exactly THOSE things happenings, THOSE things being said ... wouldn't that be extraordinary?  Imagine meeting people like them ... perhaps then you'll be able to better grasp and appreciate it..

There are so many beautiful scenes in the book, i don't understand how you can't be touched by it ...

[Frenzied]

I get that I don't have to go with popular opinion, i'm just wondering why it's a well-liked book. The scenes and the conversations, i found, felt quite trivial. not only was it trivial, it was always so long-drawn out. So I didn't find them moving or anything. Actually I was drawn to the novel because of its concept. A novel investigating the mind of a murderer. Wow. But what I found was Raskolnikov saying that all is bile, and leaving in the middle of conversations. Where's the part about what's in his head? Sorry if I sound angry, don't wanna insult anyone here

Anyway, check out this negative review of the novel http://www.retortmagazine.com/05/id_12.05_dan_schneider.htm and tell me what you think..

Right now I'm reading Notes from Underground, and I'm finding it better.. Probably because of the size and exclusion of superfluous stuff.

I dunno, maybe someday if i feel like it I may read C&P again.

[Worm]

There aren't many conversations in the book that are trivial from my pov.  What many times looks like some common everyday babble, actually might be just there to reveal something about the personality of the character.. in that light, it becomes more interesting.
In my opinion, i consider the book to go quite far into Raskolnikow's mind .. so, if that's not far enough for you, my hat goes off to you.

C+P is definitly a book for people with a special taste, many people I know would never read it.  But I do have that taste.

I didn't really like the negative review of C+P.
To go in depth into it, would take a very long time.
Items I spot at first glance:
- whether C+P is a great work or not is an irrevelant subject to me.  It doesn't matter in the end.
- I abhor his rejections of the finer points in the novel as Hollywood stuff, like at the end, of the final passage of the book.  These are serious statements, and that opinion of Dan Schneider means to me, he hasn't lived that much yet himself.


.. I'm convinced Dostoevsky would have been hurt if he had read this review.

[deep-thinker]

returning to the original question;

for me the book is about realising our limits as human beings. Rskolnikov demonstrates what he can achieve and the consequences of it. His apparent repentance seems to define his place in the world, whether he accepts it or not, and it suggests to me that thought alone is not enough to prove brilliance. It is about a time and a place and luck.

However, just because its famous does not mean you have to like it; in terms of appreciation I would the above is a good place to start. In terms of it being "talky" I would suggest re-reading some of the finer passages between the detective and Raskolnikov. Does the detective know what Raskolnikov did, and if so why does he not arrest him even towards the end?

[Radio Saturday]

I second Lerik's opinion that perhaps you should try "The Insulted and Injured"; it explores many of the themes that Dostoyevsky would return to in other books.

Also, I think there's a reason that many of the conversations can seem trivial. They're revealing the character, slowly, by way of his actions rather than his thoughts. In many ways, reading Dostoyevsky, to me, can feel like reading an excellent play or watching a wonderfully-done movie -- you don't always see inside the character's head. The character is built via his or her actions and words, rather than by giving us the running commentary in his/her head. That's why the conversations etc. can seem trivial. In my opinion, Dostoyevsky is one of the few writers into whom you can't read enough. It's impossible to read too much into any given action/word because every single one is completely loaded.

I think it's good that you're reading some of his shorter works, as well. While you're at it, have a look at "White Nights." Beautiful, I tell you.

[poor knight]

Maybe it's beacuse I've read more FD than I have most other authors, but one thing I've noticed that is really great about him is that he often uses his earlier short stories as "character sketches" for his great novels, much like painters do. The stories are, of course, excellent in their own right, but within them you can clearly see where he got his ideas for what would ultimately be his greatest characters, and why his expository is so necessary to the story.

So, I'd agree with the others; start with some short stories that hint of the Raskolnikov, the Sonya, the Marmeladov, the Katrina to come. Maybe in addition to the Insulted and Injured, A Gentle Creature, Netochka Nezvanova and The Landlady. Poor Folk, too.

[Arkadii2004]

I found that Retort magazine essay to be hilarious. It was probably written by an egoistic and pretentious young man but at times, the self parody was so delicious, I wondered if it was not brilliantly purposeful. That is to say, it is “Raskolnikov’s” criticism of Crime and Punishment.
My favorite passage (which had me rolling on the floor) follows;
“On the minor side, Dostoevsky also makes a big error in his use of character names. First, rather than merely using the characters’ first names he uses their first, middle, surnames, and familiar names in different combinations, as well as multiple nicknames…”