I read this twice and all I remember was a few moments of the gloomy city, poverty life, the bludgeoning, and the end scenes of the mcs going their ways. What important scenes am I forgetting? The thing is I remember being fond of this book and hating what I read of Kafka, but I remember Kafka's novels far better.
>What important scenes am I forgetting?
The nightmare about the horse.
Nietzsche was a dosto fanboy
i dont know about "important" but i like Marmeladovs story and the bit where razumikhin is drunk escorting raskolnikovs mother and sister home
i just finished it
the book is beautiful
about the triumph of slave morality over master morality, of life love and faith over cold reason
when you read of characters, especially the males, even the ones who seem to be foils or contrary to raskolnikov, compare them to raskolnikov, with rask's arc. Youll see many of them are accelerated versions of him if you will, versions of him that diverged on a certain point
svidrigailov my favorite character for example shows that grass is not greener on the side of those born "extraordinary"
was svidrigaylov a napoleon?
I've never been a fan I think his books explore irrelevant moral dilemmas
The spooky and delirious dream with the red moon and the pawnbroker woman sitting in the chair, staring at him.
the part when he's sleepy
The drunkard in the second chapter, and then how he gets killed. Simraildigov killing himself infront of a israelite. Raskolnikov finally confessing. Frick bros why is it so good
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.
If you don’t remember anything with Svidrigailov then you didn’t really read the book.
Not really, the reason why I forgot about him is because he's a dollar store ubermensch. Appraising him too highly is like thinking Ahab or the Judge are masters when they're honestly just fine and skilled at exploiting the lower classes. As a religious man I dislike Nietzsche, but lit's an excellent place to get acquainted with the psychology of manipulators. Russian literature is strong but the French do cunning characters better.
Did you read Injured and Insulted? Svidrigalov is just redoing Prince Valkovsky but having him save everyone at the end with his money since Valkovksy was obsessed with money and status, it's a way to make the character more pure. The dinner scene where the characters confess everything while eating and drinking really fast happens in both books. The whole point of Svidrigalov's character is that he's supposed to represent the purest form of all those motivations and ambitions through him molesting young girls and having the nightmare where the five year old wakes up and winks at him like a French prostitute. Dostoyevsky is grounding all that stuff in an inherently nasty and low thing since it all has to rest on an attack of innocence. It's a direct visual representation of what's wrong with that stuff. At the same time making Svidrigalov seem more intelligent and clever for being directly passionate and simple about it instead of trying to intellectualize or be ambitious, that's why he bullied the amateur philosopher to death and got all his money from doing nothing. He's above it all but his motivations are the lowest of the low with no intellectual substance. Yet Dosto still makes him more passionate than those intellectually ambitious people and thats why he's the hero that solves everyones problems and then blows his brains out because his virtuous tomboy gf won't love him for being so bad.
good post.
I understand what Dosto was trying to get at but it doesn't stop him from being an entry level example of the archetype. C&P keeps its presence here because it's entry level and attracts each new class of college students.
You can't be serious...
>the nightmare about the horse
>the totally incidental circumstance about Lizaveta that prompted him pulling the trigger on his plan; Lizaveta getting caught in the crossfire.
>the first encounter with Porfiry Petrovich
>the second encounter with Porfiry Petrovich
>the "meeting" with Luzhin and his sister
>the third encounter with Porfiry Petrovich
>Svidrigailov's scenes (various)
>Luzhin
lol what the frick was his problem
He thought he was entitled to prime Russian pussy without any of the moral responsibilities. Many such cases!
It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.
he was intelligent?
>the (almost) opening scene when Marmelodov tells him about his family and his various frick-ups.
>the scene when Luzhin tries to frame Sonya
>the funeral scene for Marmelodov
Jesus, the tragedy...
I read it nearly 20 years ago and mostly remember Raskolnikov being ill in his garret.
My father read it recently and kept referring to Pofiry as 'Russian Columbo'. (I don't see why you liked this book so much, anon. Russian Columbo solved the crime right away, but the novel went on for another two hundred pages!)
I remember finding the ending unsatisfactory. But it was the first time I felt like a 'classic' novel could be interesting.
Porfiry's scenes might be the best parts of the novel. Svigrailov is a close second.