Crime and Punishment (Penguin Classics)

Love it!

Strangely enough, whenever I reread this book, I find the image of the heroin Sonya being more overshadowed by Marmeladov and his wife Katerina Ivanovna. They are minor characters and their story is told apart from the main story. But despite that, they are presented with such wonderful power, solidity and distinctness that, even though you may not quite believe in them, you can never forget them. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Raskolnikov has had as much influence from them as from Sonya. There is one more point I would like to point out. Why does Svidrigailov commit suicide? I think that his suicide requires a good deal more explanation than Dostoyevsky has given it. All things considered, he is the least likely man to commit suicide, isn't he? For what reason did Dostoyevsky sacrifice verisimilitude and credibility which are the essential requirements of good novels? In other words, why did Dostoyevsky have to kill Svidrigailov? I think that behind the reason lies another key to get more understanding about Dostoyevsky. Let me relate my thinking just a little. I think Svidrigailov represents the dark side of Dostoyevsky himself, which he admits he has, and which he desperately wants to rid himself of.

"Crime and Punishment" should be mostly read in this modern days now. It will be very helpful in order to understand the novel if you would know what the pre-world of Russian Revolution in 1917, what its effect including especially the upper class of Russian people's feeling for the revolution. It will also be preferable to understand it if you could well imagine that Raskolnikov had thought his father's death, his mother's and his sister's affection for him, as well as Raskolnikov's affection for Sonya and his friendship with Razumikhin. It will probably be better welcome to know about Dostoyevsky's life itself and his way of thinking about the sing of the Revolution. Then I know you will most enjoyable "Crime and Punishment" from the bottom of the heart, and you will well understand Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" and "The Devils", too.

Me gustó el guión de la novela. Es un clásico que merece ser leído.

O livro chegou no prazo e sem danos.

Zeer interessant boek

The current Ukrainian conflict has brought into focus how differently many Russians seem to view the world, so it felt timely to read this classic novel and compare it to works by contemporary British novelists such as Dickens and Elizabeth Gaskell. In the same way that Putin, although constantly dealing in falsehoods, appears disinterested in Soviet-style depictions of utopian Russian society, so Dostoyevsky seems content to portray a dysfunctional and bleak St. Petersburg whilst evidently still convinced of the perceived evils of Western liberalism. I suppose the point is that, like Dickens, he was predominantly writing to entertain a domestic audience. The book does refer to topical philosophical and political debates but the author only subtly alludes to his own views (most notably concerning morality and the merits of religious faith). I don't think I've ever read a novel before that's so heavily comprised of dialogue; indeed many chapters are essentially a conversation between two (and sometimes a larger group) of characters. The scenes Dostoyevsky creates are consistently vivid and the exchanges credible: this is due to the skill not only of the author but also the translator. Occasionally you come across words, such as drinking-den, which you suspect sound much more evocative in Russian, but generally the English text flows well. Although there is a fair degree of plot overall, there are stretches in the book where not much is actually happening, providing an interesting contrast to Dickens. The fact that the latter tended to publish in weekly instalments, whereas Dostoyevsky apparently published each of 6 parts in one go, may go some way towards explaining this clear difference in styles. The book is not difficult to read, but I confess that the complexity of the names (and interchangeability of familiar and formal forms) drove me to the internet a few times to check I wasn't confusing different characters. The most unsatisfying part of the novel is its short epilogue ending, when the main protagonist undergoes a sudden shift in attitude that's hard to find entirely plausible. But I won't say any more about the plot, except to say that the main concept suggested by the title is masterful and wonderfully sustained. Finally a plea to publishing houses. Why they persist in putting pretentious essays that give away the entire plot as the introduction to classic literature is beyond me. Hopefully, like me, you will enjoy the book first and, if you can be bothered, scan through the scholarly opinions afterwards.

Increíble hostoria, muy bien escrita. El material físicamente del que esta hecho es excelente