I am still loosing my mind over this. This book was just fucking incredible.

I am still loosing my mind over this. This book was just fricking incredible. At every moment right when I thought I knew what would happen, my expectations got thrown out the window. I love Raskolnikov so much hes my little baby. I want to discuss this book so badly it just is SO good

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I still don't understand why he killed the old woman. why?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Many reasons, money, misplaced sense of justice, desperation.
      But the key is that he wanted to prove something to himself. He wanted to know for certain that he could, that he had the potential for evil, without which potential for good cannot exist.
      He wanted to know that his life was worth living. Lost, unable to find meaning, he realized his ego is all he had left, and his ego gave him the mission and meaning of becoming "great"
      The book expands on where this idea took him

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        was he insane? this thought process doesnt follow a reasonable logic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He wasn't mentally well of course, but his train of thought is understandable
          What seems incoherent to you?
          >Life isn't worth living unless I can leave my mark on history (a conclusion as old as achilles)
          >Therefore I must prove to myself I am a great man in order to know my life is worth anything
          >But how could I be a great man, I am harmless, weak, I never hurt anybody
          >Thus the first step is to prove to myself that I am not harmless
          >After all one cannot be truly be a good person if he is just incapable of evil
          >And there is a person I know to be evil that I own money to, no better place to start
          >Not only would I do a good act, I would also solve my economic problems, there is no better place to start then
          He is obviously insane, but I don't think it's hard to understand his logic.
          He was desperate to feel alive, he saw it as an out from his crippling existential depression.
          He saw himself as superior to other criminals moved by base impulses, and thus as infallible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            because an assassination of a random lady would leave a mark in history with lesser meaning, as perhaps should we say, if he simply continued studying in law school and became a high status individual who could in fact made a change in history. Also, as far i can remember, he didnt own money, he just pawned his possessions for a very cheap price. He planned to steal the lady's israeliteelry, but apparently not out of greed, because raskolnikov himself wouldnt hesitate to give money to those that were in need (marmeladov and the drunk girl). So, in other words, his way of acting resembles more Robin Hood, but even as, he didnt need to kill the lady - he could simply just thief her possesions. What I suggest is that he just wanted to kill her, rather than prove himself or something like that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you the assassination is not meant to leave a mark on history, it's an arbitrary test that raskolnikov creates for himself
            He wants to know that when the time comes he can do it, or else why even bother. In his mind, after the kill is done, he can resume his studies now with a light spirit and cured of his existential depression, knowing he is "worthy" of life.
            >What I suggest is that he just wanted to kill her, rather than prove himself or something like that
            The two things are not mutual exclusives, the woman eas unlikeable. But if it was just that, why do you think that welk before the act he was already full into depression, having abandoned his studies and social contacts? He was not moved just by bloodlust, or will to be robin hood, he was having an existential crisis, he no longer knew who he was.
            Svigriladrov (butchered the name) is a key character because he shows raskolnikov that the man of action he idealizes is a farce. He takes what he wants, does what he wants, and then when he fails he fricking kills himself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, makes sense

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You failed at reading comprehension

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what do you mean? I read like just 1/10 of the book

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well that explains it. You're missing Raskolnikov's own explanation for doing it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            good summary

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To see if he was a man or just a louse; a Napoleon or a coward.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's part of what makes this book great. In the end, the reason is never made completely clear. He gives various contradictory explanations. It's not something that could ever become logically transparent. It's an attack on rationality, as the human psyche becomes an abyss.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is a whole chapter where he explains like 7 reasons why he did it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Why Raskolnikov killed the hag?
      He had a simple thought of killing her, which he kept feeding as he imagined the steps he would take and how exactly he would act. He had it all planned based on his monologue in the first chapter, and was in fact thinking about it as he walked to visit the hag, as evidenced by his worry of being noticed because of his german hat
      Now, like the other anon mentioned, Raskolnikov gives several explanations as to why he committed to the murder. I believe however, these are all retroactive. Raskolnikov thought of killing the woman. Instead of playing it as a mere intrusive thought, he kept feeding on it, be it because of his hate for her, his desperation for money, or a more base instinct, which he afterwards tried to rationalize as a more noble cause.
      The timeline on when he wrote the article is not very clear to me. I believe he had written it in college, which leads me to think he hadn't met the hag by that time, and therefore hadn't written it with his intention of murder in mind yet. If I'm wrong, then it's still unimportant, as the fact is that he had those thoughts of glory in his mind.
      So then, perhaps while sitting in his sofabed, Rodia gave too much thought on killing the hag, and now simply had to rationalize it. Perhaps he did it unconsciously, based on the conclusions made in his essay which still permeated his mind. He needed to prove himself a great man, capable of whatever was needed with no fear of the authorities.
      Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he said in his essay, but whatever he wrote was enough to make Porfiry take a particular interest in Rodia. Perhaps he himself had thought something similar as Rodia, and knew that if someone were to live with this ideology, it would lead them to murder without a doubt.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn’t even his idea. He overhears the people in the bar talking about killing her for her money, it’s just idle talk from random normies like ‘eat the rich’ would be now. The book follows a pastoral theme where his whole great man theory is just a play on the literary ideals and journalistic arguments that a growing and new educated class in the city is obsessed with. Raskolnikov kills her as his own real contribution to these same literary ideals in a way where he tries to make it more real and his own, his contribution is himself and in that he places himself morally higher than the goals of the plebeians or whatever. That’s why Luzhin is treated as the biggest idiot and worst moral offender as he fully believes in this new golden age of education and moral selfishness and individual rights where Dosto has a way more pessimistic outlook tailored to a sort of reader that’s read all the banned books and fully believes in French Voltariean S&M erotic atheism. That’s Svidrigailov is the hero that saves everyone because he’s just a dirty penitent troll that realizes he’s been cut out off from all reality because he automatically sees the way he can have power over people and that makes it so he’s constantly surrounded by people willing to dance for money and israelites squabbling over silverware. Razumhin’s the only good person in the story as he’s written as being blessed by nature but he’s a German/Western European innocent simpleton. The Landlady follows a similar theme where a young kid is constantly saying ‘by jove’ and obsessed with everything Goethe and German science and he gets buckbroken by a Russian women crying in a church and starts laying in bed all day having religious fever dreams. And Murin is probably supposed to represent the vision of pastoral Abrahamic freedom that saves Raskolnikov at the end

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based. I felt exactly the same way when I reread it as an actual adult. It is exceptionally good.

      >Why Raskolnikov killed the hag?
      He had a simple thought of killing her, which he kept feeding as he imagined the steps he would take and how exactly he would act. He had it all planned based on his monologue in the first chapter, and was in fact thinking about it as he walked to visit the hag, as evidenced by his worry of being noticed because of his german hat
      Now, like the other anon mentioned, Raskolnikov gives several explanations as to why he committed to the murder. I believe however, these are all retroactive. Raskolnikov thought of killing the woman. Instead of playing it as a mere intrusive thought, he kept feeding on it, be it because of his hate for her, his desperation for money, or a more base instinct, which he afterwards tried to rationalize as a more noble cause.
      The timeline on when he wrote the article is not very clear to me. I believe he had written it in college, which leads me to think he hadn't met the hag by that time, and therefore hadn't written it with his intention of murder in mind yet. If I'm wrong, then it's still unimportant, as the fact is that he had those thoughts of glory in his mind.
      So then, perhaps while sitting in his sofabed, Rodia gave too much thought on killing the hag, and now simply had to rationalize it. Perhaps he did it unconsciously, based on the conclusions made in his essay which still permeated his mind. He needed to prove himself a great man, capable of whatever was needed with no fear of the authorities.
      Unfortunately we don't know exactly what he said in his essay, but whatever he wrote was enough to make Porfiry take a particular interest in Rodia. Perhaps he himself had thought something similar as Rodia, and knew that if someone were to live with this ideology, it would lead them to murder without a doubt.

      It wasn’t even his idea. He overhears the people in the bar talking about killing her for her money, it’s just idle talk from random normies like ‘eat the rich’ would be now. The book follows a pastoral theme where his whole great man theory is just a play on the literary ideals and journalistic arguments that a growing and new educated class in the city is obsessed with. Raskolnikov kills her as his own real contribution to these same literary ideals in a way where he tries to make it more real and his own, his contribution is himself and in that he places himself morally higher than the goals of the plebeians or whatever. That’s why Luzhin is treated as the biggest idiot and worst moral offender as he fully believes in this new golden age of education and moral selfishness and individual rights where Dosto has a way more pessimistic outlook tailored to a sort of reader that’s read all the banned books and fully believes in French Voltariean S&M erotic atheism. That’s Svidrigailov is the hero that saves everyone because he’s just a dirty penitent troll that realizes he’s been cut out off from all reality because he automatically sees the way he can have power over people and that makes it so he’s constantly surrounded by people willing to dance for money and israelites squabbling over silverware. Razumhin’s the only good person in the story as he’s written as being blessed by nature but he’s a German/Western European innocent simpleton. The Landlady follows a similar theme where a young kid is constantly saying ‘by jove’ and obsessed with everything Goethe and German science and he gets buckbroken by a Russian women crying in a church and starts laying in bed all day having religious fever dreams. And Murin is probably supposed to represent the vision of pastoral Abrahamic freedom that saves Raskolnikov at the end

      Good answers. The incidental conversation he overhears with the two blokes talking about how much she loans out for, how easy it would be to rob her, etc. just feeds into the precedent idea that destiny has plans for him. Tying into his concept (from the essay he published that Porfiry Petrovich later references, about the ubermensch/Napoleon figure... the Great Man theory) is the fact that, when a great man needs to do something, things line up for him to be able to do it. He interprets the fact that he overheard that particular conversation as proof that he, Raskolnikov, is destined to end this wretched old woman's life as being for "the greater good," something which only great men have the will, strength, duty, and means of achieving.
      Overall, I see it as being a tiny seed being watered by coincidences which, due to the somewhat troubled mind of Raskolnikov, seem more intentional than they are.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's a classic case of overcoming his oedipal complex. He was killing his mother, with every blow to the pawnbroker. Fact: a motif of the book was old women abusing younger women: his mother forcing his sister to a loveless marriage, Katerina Ivanovna forcing Sonia into prostitution, the pawnbroker abusing her younger sister. Fact: he only made peace with himself after his mother died while he was in siberia. Fact: the plot gets going after he gets the letter from his mother. If you want to understand crime and Punishment, read Freud.

      ok, here's the boring answer. Another reoccurring theme in the book is the fight between new ideas: theory of evolution, nihilism, pragmatism, atheism, socialism versus the old ideas: orthodox christianity. Dostoyevsky saw many characters while he was in siberia. He saw both learned men and christian fools. And he figured that the old ideas: orthodox christianity was better. That's why he killed the pawn broker: because he tried to apply new ideas

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >oedipal complex
        It's a Christian book anon. Leave your gay fantasies out of this. Dostoyevsky would have slapped you for suggestion such ideas to interpret his book.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To attempt to overcome nature, anon (he fails).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because he didn't have a kind, caring girlfriend.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t think Sonya really fixes him or is much or much of a ‘positive’ influence in reality, it only seems that way in a really ironic way. He confesses his crime to torture her and spends the rest of the book seething at her for making him cry. In his initial impressions of her he sees her as this character that’s talked about as being low and fallen by people like his mom and sister, but somehow she’s better than all of them and he’s going to prove it, that’s why he uses her to humiliate them. When he first sees her she’s dress refined and looks impressive, but when he actually meets her she reminds him of Lizaveta and seems as helpless and doomed as the rest of them and completely ignorant about it. She didn’t find some cheat code that made her better than everyone, she was just taken advantage of in an even more brutal way.
        Raskolnikov’s actual conversion comes when he accepts the Abrahamic covenant at the end and fully rejects becoming an Aryan sexual master like Svidrigailov (Jefferey Epstein, Crowley, Anton Lavey, Marilyn Manson, Ted Bundy). That’s when he stops seeing Sonya through her sensual doom and instead sees the Schilleristic potential and worth. You guys are looking at in some funny happy time way but the conclusions are way more brutal. Dostoevsky really lived that shit. Once you’ve learned all the secrets of the Aryan sexual masters you’ve seen the height of Earthly life, and its end. Svidrigalov is just a redo of Prince Valkovsky, go back and read the dinner scene between him and Ivan, it’s the exact same as in Crime and Punishment between Svidrigalov and Raskolnikov. Pay attention to Valksovky speech and what makes him who he is. Me and Dosto saw it, the height and the end

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s Svidrigalov’s sensuality that shows him what a great man really is, basically like a kid that’s a little bit smarter than the other kids doing weird rapey shit unsupervised. It freaks him out more than because it reminds him of that same use of people and dependent nature between them that he’s constantly trying to show he’s not beholden by. Any sort of moral escape is completely lost to him and he accepts his fate, that’s why he confesses. Sonya wasn’t some prostitute above the law and Earthly morality, Svidrigalov isn’t some unrestrained and free individual and a person like that just becomes a coomer.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s Svidrigalov’s sensuality that shows him what a great man really is, basically like a kid that’s a little bit smarter than the other kids doing weird rapey shit unsupervised. It freaks him out more than because it reminds him of that same use of people and dependent nature between them that he’s constantly trying to show he’s not beholden by. Any sort of moral escape is completely lost to him and he accepts his fate, that’s why he confesses. Sonya wasn’t some prostitute above the law and Earthly morality, Svidrigalov isn’t some unrestrained and free individual and a person like that just becomes a coomer.

          But the part no one can answer is why Sonya becomes devoted to Raskolnikov. Of course it doesn’t mean anything to him and her devotion is worthless, but in her own words it’s because he’s ‘the most unhappiest man in the world’. I guess that’s what Otto Weininger admired about her. A mother type would be like a steward of good qualities and the prostitute type would be more like choosing based on individual taste and the highest taste would be the person who suffer most like an incel. That’s why Christianity valorizes the prostitute over the mother

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's tall and handsome, are you autistic?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that's more Razumhin, who's described as having hands similar to a bears paw. He's the dumb oaf of the story, which is why Dosto ironically names him 'reason'. Rodion is more scrawny and shriveled up, he's described as being almost wimpy and deprived. Sonya never notices his physical attributes or draws attention to them so it can't be explained as being a cause of her devotion to him.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's how he's described in the book. Mentally ill, cowardly and moronic, smelly and disheveled... but tall and handsome. Thus all vagine go sploosh.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok and if he didn't have that one little positive quality you morons would be screeching about how much he sucks and he's a beta or whatever. Think about it in the logic of the book what makes someone attractive, you guys straight up can't read. It's the self defense, skill, something mentally impressive and worthy of respect that all humanity submits to like the one guy on a horse and everyone else is a peasant. Think about the book not your psycho teacher's pet social 'concepts'

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, it's just that if you want to make a character interesting to women, you just describe him as "tall and handsome." Other than that nothing matters.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you really think Dosto wrote that to make him appealing to women? It's to show that he's a piece of trash loser but he still has one little trick up his sleeve or he's still well bred so he some metaphysical quality. A big part of the book is that women are always going to be defenseless against an Aryan sexual master like Svidrigalov. Svidrigalov had no obstacles hypnotizing the girls he came across, there was nothing they could do to deny him and that's why he lives in his own wasted world, that's the whole point of his character. Dounia's the only girl that could resist him and Dosto goes out of his way to point out her massive man jaw and masculine virtues and qualities. Raskolnikov hates Sonya right up until the end when because he only sees that helpless and defenseless side of her

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you really think Dosto wrote that to make him appealing to women?
            Sure, it's a writing hack everyone uses.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Razumhikin a dumb oaf? I read him as being optimistic, enthusiastic, and loyal. And he's a translator... what kind of "dumb oaf" character is working as a translator?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's the German/West Euro character. He's translating Schiller. He constantly says 'by jove'. Dosto writes him as a Pagan simpleton. He's contrasting that against the Russian Abrahamic characters of Svidrigalov and Raskolnikov. He does the same thing in The Landlady with Ordynov's happy whimsical German landlord and Murin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can't disagree with any of that, but "dumb oaf" doesn't seem like an accurate description.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I don’t say that I’m going to have anons screeching about how he’s the best character ever because he’s a big happy smiley guy and Raskolnikov sucks and the book should’ve been about him doing translations and writing little poems and making little cakes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            a veteran of the board, I see. I yield.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the book should’ve been about him doing translations and writing little poems and making little cakes
            A man can dream.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >“I wanted to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right"

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's one of my favorites. Some think the ending was cliche but I thought it was beautiful. I saw myself in Raskolnikov and I think thats what made it so powerful.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    im reading but im considering dropping it. raskolnikov is too whiny and soft skinned, unexpected from a guy who made a plan to kill a random lady (and also didnt hesitate to kill her sister)

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit he's literally me..........................................

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I love Raskolnikov so much hes my little baby
    Femanon...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, im a man. Raskolnikov is still my babygirl though

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What translation did you read?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something that still amazes me is how complex and well written are many of the secondary characters (though if you fail to develop them in such an enormous tome, you need to be a special kind of idiot)
    Besides Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov is my favourite character. Unlike Raskolnikov, he actually is the great man that Rodia wanted to be

    >Gamble so much you fall in debt
    >Rich mommy will pay your debts as long as you marry her and stay in her estate
    >She has a cuck fetish and allows you to frick the maidservants as well
    >Bully a waiter to the point of suicide. He still serves you in the afterlive
    >Fall in love with mean tomboy that doesn't fall for your charms
    >Like actually fall in love, you didn't even know this was possible.
    >Dommy mom gets jealous and kicks her out of home
    >"suddenly" dies, leaving you with enough money to live withhout working a day in your life anymore
    >Does sex tourism to alleviate the pain of Dounia rejecting him
    >arranges marriage to a 12 year old (uoh)
    >Still get disgusted at a wet dream with a 5 year old (Ephebo, not pedo)
    >gets rejected again
    >Gives money to your crush's brother's not-girlfriend to help him
    >Doesn't snitch on him
    >traumatizes a israelite by killing himself in front of him

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Were was stated that the guard was a israelite?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ha лицe eгo виднeлacь тa вeкoвeчнaя бpюзгливaя cкopбь, кoтopaя тaк киcлo oтпeчaтaлacь нa вceх бeз иcключeния лицaх eвpeйcкoгo плeмeни.

        I don't know if this is lost in some translations and I don't care to check, but he does outright state the guard's a israelite.

        The entire chapter preceding Svidrigailov's suicide is nightmare fuel, honestly. It's one of Dostoevsky's finest texts, on par with the best The Brothers Karamazov's parts, The Idiot finale and that "deleted" Demons chapter. Btw, can someone confirm if that chapter is restored in modern English translations?

        Tolstoy still reigns supreme, though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The finnish translation explicitly states the guard is israeli.
        It also has Luzin cursing himself for being such a israelite by not covering the travel expenses of Raskolnikov's sister and mom to st. Petersburg

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I remember that, I had marked it down. I believe there's a third mention of israelites as a stereotype but I can't remember where exactly.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's great. TBK and Demons are even better so now you have something to look forward to.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      REALLY okay I’m so so so excited. Should I read demons before TBK?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        NTA, but I just finished TBK and it was so good I'm worried I won't enjoy reading anything else ever again.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Read Brothers Karamazov before Demons. That anon lied about Demons being better than C&P, but it is still good.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s simply amazing. Avdotya, besides Raskolnikov, is simply my favorite character. Her righteousness and unyielding love for Raskolnikov is admirable.

    Also.. dude. Razumihin..! The way he stood by Raskolnikov — was so brilliant, yet had a childlike interest in Raskolnikov being the killer, and couldn’t hide his curiosity of it yet still somehow couldn’t get the picture until told frankly..

    Absolutely unreal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like how Dounia is treated as an antithesis to Rodia as they're often compared in their qualities, but Dounia has much more strenght if character than her brother. Her love and dedication to his brother also contrasts with Rodia's desire of isolating from his family

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >unironcially shilling this christcuck crap

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Go to bed, Vladimir.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Okay luzhin

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Luzhin was literally the best character in the novel until Dosto realized it and made up the most contrived nonsense about planting money on someone in full view of another person who hated him.
        >"Oh no, a well off person wants to marry a pretty girl who happens to be poor, what a monster!"
        Do you anons really?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He was obviously taking advantage of her and had no love or affection for her whatsoever. She was a tool for him.
          And if anyone asks: Svidrigailov is the best character in the novel.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Svidrigailov is the best character in the novel.
            Based. I read it a few years ago and don't remember much but a scene with his dream was unforgettably good.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Luckily you have three more masterpieces by Dostoevsky to read. If only he could have finished his planned trilogy as his writing is so much better in his last novel.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What are the other three masterpieces?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not the anon, but Crime and Punishment, Demons, and The Idiot. The Idiot came out before Demons but I think Demons is superior.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The Idiot
          I personally didn't like that one as much. The first part is excellent and there are bits of genius spread throughout, but it felt a bit muddled compared to some of his other works.
          Demons is the only major Dostoevsky work I still need to read.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Idiot is literally me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I hear that. I was a bit too young when I read it, but still remember the splashes of genius throughout. The scene I loved the moved when I read it was Hippolyte's "suicide" speech.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My favorite part was when Lebedev went on about railroads.
            Felt very prescient in regards to the fast-paced, instantly gratifying type of lives many have today.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can't wait to reread it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Demons is great and my second favorite behind TBK, but just as a heads up it definitely takes a while to get going. It's also by far his funniest work.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Glad to know, I just ordered a copy 🙂

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not the anon, but Crime and Punishment, Demons, and The Idiot. The Idiot came out before Demons but I think Demons is superior.

        Sorry, thought I was in the Brothers Karamazov thread. Brothers Karamazov is the final masterpiece.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And she fricking did

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Female hands typed this post. I've seen women who read this book talk the same why. What is appealing about Raskolnikov

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Literally in the first chapter
      >"He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair."
      It's also this

      https://i.imgur.com/K6S6xRQ.jpg

      but unironically

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are there any translations that aren't horribly dry?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm afraid that's just how Dosto wrote

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oliver Ready's translation is good if you're okay with all the British-isms.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    overrated. only memed by pseuds

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >one of the most well known novels ever
      >is wildly entertaining, enthralling and even humorous at times
      That's the opposite of being a pseud. You sound like an idiot that got filtered and couldn't derive pleasure from reading it because of your inability to grasp the basic narrative and plot.

      • 4 weeks ago
        sage

        If you read Dosto's novels, they are chock full of a grotesque macabre fascination with suffering and shame, with murder and sex and the subsequent groveling misery of those who find themselves in such situations. This type of tripe is 100% on the level of a typical harlequin romance novel, but because it's some old Russian who added Christian Orthodox themes as an accent to the sadomasochism, IQfy eats it up. It's perverse. Also, "one of the most well known novels ever which is wildly entertaining, enthralling and even humorous at times" could be said by any wine mom about Fifty Shades of Grey. And just like C&P, it wouldn't change the fact that it is shit that morons lap up like dogs.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You wouldn’t get it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hey man let me ask you something man, where'd you get that jive turkey smack you talking about man? Raskolnikov is literally me, man!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >a grotesque macabre fascination with suffering and shame

          ?si=eIEFhNKsqidkDWgM

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hello there. You still mad that Crime and Punishment literally broke Nietszche?

          • 4 weeks ago
            sage

            Nietszche is shit also, congrats on referencing the most overrated philosopher in defense of the most overrated novelist.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this guy is a disney star wars fan 100%

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The fact you specify Disney, as if to imply the earlier movies were any better and it wouldn't be embarrassing if he liked those, makes you the goof here.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >thinks disney star wars is just as good as the OT
            >calls people "goof"
            how does someone reach this level of homosexualry? just constantly sucking off dudes every waking moment?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The point was they're all shit, none of them were ever good and you're a moron for thinking one awful space wizard movie is better than the other. Frick off.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he actually watched the disney star wars
            it was already obvious you are reddit but now you're just glowing

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A theory I have is that Notes from the Underground is an alternate timeline of Rodion, where he did not have to courage to act and just let fate decide everything for him. He even meets the same prostitute with the heart of gold-character with just about the same name, to which he gives confession to about what a loser he is, but he is so weak and she is so put off that it doesn't work out. Nothing works out.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He even meets the same prostitute with the heart of gold-character
      She is not evil by any means but she is nothing like Sonya, she needs to be fixed, not to fixed the underground man
      The underground man pretends to care for her only to break her heart out of pure malice
      I can see where the comparison comes from but I think the characters are nothing alike

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >loosing
    Why do people struggle to differentiate lose and loose now?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, I’m just moronic sometimes okay 🙁

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are you a woman? You called raskolnikov your baby, wanna frick bby?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does everyone think Im a woman just because raskolnikov is my babygirl

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To men he's an unpleasant cringelord, to women he's fantastic.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's only two parts out of the six I thought were a little weak but otherwise loved it was such a slow burn in the begining but once Raskolnikov killed the old woman and her sister it became almost impossible to put down

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Raksolnikov is not literally me because he's tall, on the other hand I have no redeeming qualities

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only girl that told me she read this book said Raskolnikov was cute.
    >he was a mentally ill murderer, even if he was kind and selfless at times
    >but he was a good guy overall

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's just how women are okay? But if it makes you feel better she probably imagined he looked like Benedict Cumbnatch or whoever.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The book is basically the epitome of: NOTHING EVER CHANGES. So is Anna Karenina, rereading Dostoj and Tolstoj right now and it literally feels like that. Everything that happened back then still happens today,

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I own the Constance Garnett translation but everyone says it's shit. Yet all the great writers in history read the Garnett translation and still considered Dosto a genius. So how bad can it be?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's really not. It's true that Garnett skipped over stuff she didn't understand, but ironically it helped smooth over Dosto's prose for English-speaking audiences. Garnett translations, by themselves are classics, they're just not the most accurate or literal.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Although some Holocaust survivors truly found joy after being freed from Auschwitz, for many it was a very different story - and one that most definitely does not offer us a happy ending.
    >A story of abuse, rape, theft and terrible betrayal.
    >For a start, despite being friendly to the victims, the Russians were strangely unaffected by what they saw at Auschwitz.
    >Two of them were Helena Citronova and her elder sister. Helena was a pretty young woman in her early 20s; her sister was ten years her senior - but looked almost old enough to be her mother.
    >Helena and her sister trudged the roads of Poland by day, trying to get home to Czechoslovakia, and then sheltered in hedgerows or barns at night.
    >Often, they would share whatever shelter they could find with other women, also newly freed from Nazi camps.
    >They soon discovered that, in the darkness, Red Army soldiers would search for women.
    >'They were drunk - totally drunk,' says Helena. 'They were wild animals.' Red Army soldiers looked 'for cute girls and raped them'.
    >In order to try to escape the attentions of the Soviet soldiers, Helena would often hide, helped by her older sister who would make herself look as unattractive as possible.
    >As a result, it was the other women cowering alongside them who suffered.
    >And Helena was all too aware of exactly what was happening: 'I heard screaming until they were quiet and had no more strength left.
    >'There were cases where they were raped to death. They strangled them.
    >'I turned my head because I didn't want to see because I couldn't help them.
    >'I was afraid they would rape my sister and me. They were animals. No matter where we hid, they found our hiding places and raped some of my girlfriends.
    >'They did horrible things to them. Right up to the last minute we couldn't believe that we were still meant to survive.
    >' We thought if we didn't die of the Germans, we'd die of the Russians.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247157/How-survivors-Auschwitz-escaped-nightmare-faced-unimaginable-ordeal.html

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *