CRIME And PUNISHMENT?

[Dave Vicks]

Is Crime And Punishment
A good read?

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

I would say so.

I am married to a big Dostoevsky fan, so I've read much of his work. Although The Brothers Karamazov and The Idiot might be considered the major works, I actually prefer Crime and Punishment. It's more concentrated, if you see what I mean; the other two novels are broader in scope.

 

[Extollager]

Yes, to be sure, and better in the rereading.

 

[Dave Vicks]

Thanks .Silverwolf & EX.

 

[Extollager]

One way of focusing is to consider the novel as being about the four loves (though it's more than that) and the absence of love.

Affection: the fond love felt for a familiar person or even pet. I'm not sure now how important this love is in the novel because it's a few years since my last reading.

Friendship: very important.

Sexual attraction, romantic love: Watch for the developing relationship between Razumikhin and Dunya; this is a healthy romantic love. But watch also for the sick passion for Sonya felt by Svidrigailov, and his spying upon Sonya.

Self-giving love, charity: very important.

Dostoevsky often writes in "scenes," with something like summaries between them, rather than with a more even, "novelistic flow."

I'd give up most of the fiction, including sf, in my collection before I'd give up this book.

 

[Extollager]

PS I recommend the translations by Oliver Ready, and Pevear and Volokhonsky. I don't know Russian, but these translations read well.

 

[Bookworm]

My favorite novel by Dostoevsky. I've read it 5 times, and at different ages, I experienced the book completely differently, but each time it was an emotional event.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It's a lengthy novel, but it's not War and Peace.

 

[Extollager]

It's a lengthy novel, but it's not War and Peace.

Amazon lists 608 pages for the Olver Ready translation and 565 pages for the Pevear and Volkhonsky translation.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Amazon lists 608 pages for the Olver Ready translation and 565 pages for the Pevear and Volkhonsky translation.

It does make you wonder just how much is lost in translation. Even when I watch a tv/movie with subtitles on, the disparity between what is said and the text onscreen can be quite noticeable. Often it can be down to the interpretation taken by the interpretor.

As for whether it's worth reading? The answer is the same for all the great literary works of Dickens, Austen, Tolsty and Dostoevsky - a desounding 'yes'.

It's worth looking up an episode of 'In Our Time' on the BBC Sounds app which discusses the novel.

 

[Dave Vicks]

I know Dostoyevsky was a gambling addict and Epileptic. He also had a tough time in prison.

 

[Extollager]

It does make you wonder just how much is lost in translation.

My attitude is that, once a translation is published, it exists; as a work in its own right. I want a faithful translation, and yet conceivably a translation that could be faulted on that score could still be well worth reading in its own right. I wonder if that's the case with the Urqhart translation of Rabelais. (I've never read any translation of Rabelais, btw.) Both of the translations of Crime and Punishment that I've recommended have been praised, and in any event I got very involved in reading both of them -- though I've no doubt someone who could read the original fluently would be reading a somewhat different book from either of these. Fine -- and I wish I could read the Russian too. But I know either translation has been greatly worth reading for me.

 

[Peppa]

I know Dostoyevsky was a gambling addict and Epileptic. He also had a tough time in prison.

Dostoyevsky was also a former terrorist, if I remember correctly. But that doesn't make his books any worse.

Sometimes not very good people write very good books. Besides, his own life must have taught him a lot about crime and punishment, making him something of an expert on the subject.

 

[Extollager]

Dostoyevsky was also a former terrorist, if I remember correctly. But that doesn't make his books any worse.

Sometimes not very good people write very good books. Besides, his own life must have taught him a lot about crime and punishment, making him something of an expert on the subject.

He was an interested observer at meetings of a radical organization, was arrested, and served his sentence (eight years?) in Siberia. Joseph Frank's 5-volume biography is the one to go to if you have the interest and the time. He has a one-volume edition. A lively popular biog from a while back is Firebrand, by Henri Troyat.

 

[hitmouse]

Dostoyevsky was also a former terrorist, if I remember correctly. But that doesn't make his books any worse.

Sometimes not very good people write very good books. Besides, his own life must have taught him a lot about crime and punishment, making him something of an expert on the subject.

He was part of what might be termed a dissident literary group, which nearly got him executed, and which led to hard labour in Siberia. No doubt those who prosecuted him would have demeaned his character and his works on this basis, though history has clearly had the last laugh.
I am not aware that he took part in any terrorist activities. One needs to be careful with these labels.

 

[Bren G]

I read it quite recently. I found it frustrating at times (esp. all the names to remember!) but it was mostly because I naively thought it would flow like a contemporary novel. It's not of course, but more a work of art to be studied and admired. I am glad I stuck through the early bit.

 

[Peppa]

He was an interested observer at meetings of a radical organization, was arrested, and served his sentence (eight years?) in Siberia. Joseph Frank's 5-volume biography is the one to go to if you have the interest and the time. He has a one-volume edition. A lively popular biog from a while back is Firebrand, by Henri Troyat.

In fact, it was four years. The emperor pardoned Dostoyevsky and he stayed in Siberia for only half the time.

But he was actually sentenced to eight years. So you can find references to both eight and four years in different sources.

He was part of what might be termed a dissident literary group, which nearly got him executed, and which led to hard labour in Siberia. No doubt those who prosecuted him would have demeaned his character and his works on this basis, though history has clearly had the last laugh.
I am not aware that he took part in any terrorist activities. One needs to be careful with these labels.

My words about the former terrorist were a stupid joke. I know that the members of the so-called The Petrashevsky Circle were simply discussing plans for a possible democracy in Russia and were not real terrorists in the modern sense of the word.

The problem is that they were accused of preparing an armed rebellion and were therefore judged as if they were real terrorists. The Petrashevsky Circle was made up of very different people and they disagreed about the best way to achieve the good they wanted to achieve. Some of them discussed possible assassinations of imperial officials and other such things. But, of course, they had no time to carry out anything like that, or even to come up with a general plan of action. Theoretically, I could quote the letter from Liprandi (the chief of the secret service) that led to these controversial accusations, but I'm not a very good translator.

I also know about the mock death penalty and other horrors, and about Dostoyevsky's stay in Siberia. I even read his book The House of the Dead about that time.

In Siberia, Dostoyevsky was around real criminals (robbers and murderers). So when I wrote that he was an expert on the subject, it was no longer a joke. Because of his four years in their society, Dostoyevsky must have known how criminals' brains worked.

I also think that this mock death penalty story must have had a serious effect on him and his subsequent books. Very few people have to go through that.

I read it quite recently. I found it frustrating at times (esp. all the names to remember!) but it was mostly because I naively thought it would flow like a contemporary novel. It's not of course, but more a work of art to be studied and admired. I am glad I stuck through the early bit.

It's a very old book. Even in Russian editions, Crime and Punishment often comes with a glossary and commentary by historians, because many of the Russian words Dostoevsky used have disappeared or been gradually replaced by new ones.