How to appreciate C&P?

[Rodion]

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.

I couldn't agree with this more. As a new-comer to Dostoevsky I was struck by the mental imagery and pace of C&P.

[lerik]

Actually, there is a new  C & P movie in Russia, which is on tv. So far from,all that I've watched, I really liked it.I think they didn't leave out anything of Dostoevsky's text.I especially liked Raskolnikov and Marmeladov.If  I will find a link somewhere to the movie, I will post it

[Kot Vaska]

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…”

Hello all!
I couldn't let this one go.

He just doesn't understand that D uses this variety of names for a reason. They are not merely names. They have their meaning.

Raskolnikov, for example, derives from the russian word "raskol" which means "split" or "dissent" (guess why?)
Razumikhin derives from "razum" which means "Mind", "Intellect".
Luzhin derives from Luzha - a pool (of water or mud, more likely)
Lebezjatnikov derives from verb "lebezit" which means to brown-nose
Marmeladov comes from "marmelad" meaning marmalade.
Zametov, the only one I'm not sure about. The only word I can guess with my limited knowledge of Russian is "zametat" - to cover (like snow covers the land) or to cover someone's tracks. Also it could be from "zamechat" or "zametit" - "to notice". He who is familiar with the book knows what Zametov notices in Rodion.

There are many such things in Dostoevsky's wordplay.
Thats why I strongly recommend reading him in Russian.

[highseas]

     I totally agree with your observations on the character's names.  According to the sources of information on Dostoevsky's characters that I have read, your facts are right on the mark.
     Thanx for posting because your information filled in a couple of blanks, for me, concerning his characters names.
I wish I had some knowledge of Russian because that is surely the best way to read Dostoevsky.

[Kot Vaska]

Also in Russian literary tradition it is common to refer to characters by their nicknames, last names, given names mixed in one given work because they often bear hidden meanings in them.

Accept it or not, Dostoevsky can't be blamed for referring to his characters that way just because it's uncommon in English literature.

[hull0997]

i  just finished it a week ago. i had been reading it and putting it down for the past two months.i didnt really catch on to it until the part where he dreams of the horse being beaten to death.thats the part that hooked me in so to speak.

[CCbluedevil]

There is so much to appreciate in Crime and Punishment. In Raskolnikov, you have a young man brimming with potential who has lost his place in society and lost his way. He is desperately in search of meaning and purpose in his life. Raskolnikov isolates himself from his family, his friends, his neighbors, his peers and becomes addicted to this monstrous idea that hatches in his head--that he is destined to make the world greater, and his first step in pursuing that destiny is to kill a woman whom he perceives as a drain on society. Why is she a drain? Because she is rich and hoards her money away where it does no one any good while people all around her in the city are starving and suffering? Because she is old and ugly? Because she treats others such as Lizaveta with violence and disdain? Because she is a loan shark who preys on people's desperation to make money off of them? Crime and Punishment is a murder mystery, but instead of trying to figure out "whodunnit?" we know exactly the nature of the crime and the person who committed it. The mystery is why was it committed and what should/will happen to the murderer? The brilliance of the novel is that the person who seems most baffled and surprised by the murderer's actions is the murderer himself. The detective who suspects Raskolnikov's guilt is a prototype for the "Colombo"-type of detective. He purposefully lulls the guilty party into a false sense of security by pretending to know less than he does. He drops things into conversation to watch the murderer's reaction and to get inside his head. He lets the murderer know that he knows, but still finds a way to let the murderer think that he is in control of the situation while he carefully sets his trap.

I love the contrast of Raskolnikov to the drunk Marmeladov and the predator Svidrigailov. At the beginning of the novel. Marmeladov confesses that he has completely shirked all of his responsibilities as a husband and father. He cannot keep a job and he steals money from his family to buy alcohol. His own daughter is forced into prostitution to buy food for his family. His wife is dying of tuberculosis and must work her fingers to the bone to keep the house clean and take care of the small children. The children are victim to their mother's abuse. He loves his family and wants desperately to do right by them, yet he keeps ending up back at the bar drinking the family finances away. Dostoevsky, a compulsive gambler and procrastinator, was fascinated by addictive behavior and was extremely insightful about it in a time when very little was understood about the psychology behind it. Raskolnikov, too, makes rash impulsive decisions that harm his situation and his mother and sister who need to depend on him. He does not pay his rent. He does not look for gainful employment. He does not take care of his health or appearance. He knows exactly what he should do in order to better himself and his situation, but instead of doing it, he closes himself off in his hovel and indulges himself in his philosophical and violent fantasies. He dreads seeing anyone he knows because he wants to remain in his state of denial and doesn't want to have to explain or change his behavior. Can't every one of us relate to the feeling of knowing that you are engaging in behavior that is inappropriate and that you would be ashamed to have to explain to your mother or your sister, but you do it anyway and surround yourself with people who won't try to stop you?

All of this Dostoevsky does while also commenting on the political, philosophical, and religious ideas that were en vogue in his time.

[nyudan2011]

I agree with you that Dostoyevsky does take a long time to get to the message he is trying to say, and has a lot of seemingly unnecessary plot revolving around Raskolnikov's family, but this is necessary as it reflects the mood of nileism that is quite popular during the time this novel was written. The story is about a person who in a process of justifying murder has also killed his belief in God and so at the end is an empty shell of a person who believes that there is nothing worthwhile in life.  The reason the story drags on is because the hero Raskolnikov is constantly debating the morality of his actions and the actions of others around him. We are placed inside of the mind of a murderer who deals with his guilt in a way that must take up hundreds of pages.

[dyw212]

One must remember, while reading "Crime and Punishment," that Dostoevsky truly expanded on the human mentality and uncertainty even before any such data had begun to be developed and researched.  Part of the beauty of Dostoevsky's novel is that he wrote very accurately how a person could feel after committing a premeditated crime, and that not many authors had been able to achieve such accuracy, if any attempted to achieve this at all.

One also has to appreciate the complexity of Raskolnikov's character, and how difficult it must be for him to live with the ongoing guilt and confusion and uncertainty, especially since Dostoevsky did not ever experience anything quite as similar to murdering two women.  It also helps to think of "Crime and Punishment" as a precursor to a human being's mentality, even without Dostoevsky specifically trying to publish any sort of psychological study.

The masterpiece of Dostoevsky's work is that he portrayed Raskolnikov's feelings and thoughts so accurately and realistically in a manner that was previously unseen in the 19th century, and that he did all this in the space of a 500-page novel, while also incorporating other subplots into his complex work as well.

[illinijames]

While I agree to a certain extent with the notion that this is an incredibly dark book, I think if we stop there we are missing the whole idea.  This is also a beautiful story of unimaginable redemption.  I was riveted by this book the whole way through.  The conversation and the characters are so real, and the redemption that comes at the end nearly brings me to tears.

I have only just read this book for the first time, but I was reading it specifically looking for some sort of redemption in Raskolnikov, and it is their throughout the book not just in the epilogue.  I absolutely love that it was Sonya's [almost entirely] unmerited love that ultimately redeems Rodya in the end.  
Such an unexpected, but beautiful picture of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


That is one way in which I appreciate Crime and Punishment