What do you think?
Rate this book
The House of the Dead/Poor Folk
The House of the Dead and Poor Folk, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:
All editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.
Arrested in 1849 for belonging to a secret group of radical utopians, Fyodor Dostoevsky was sentenced to four years in a Siberian labor camp—a terrible mental, spiritual, and physical ordeal that inspired him to write the novel The House of the Dead.
Told from the point of view of a fictitious narrator—a convict serving a ten-year sentence for murdering his wife—The House of the Dead describes in vivid detail the horrors that Dostoevsky himself witnessed while in prison: the brutality of guards who relish cruelty for its own sake; the evil of criminals who enjoy murdering children; and the existence of decent souls amid filth and degradation. More than just a work of documentary realism, The House of the Dead also describes the spiritual death and gradual resurrection from despair experienced by the novel’s central character—a reawakening that culminates in his final reconciliation with himself and humanity.
Also included in this volume is Dostoevsky’s first published work, Poor Folk, a novel written in the form of letters that brought Dostoevsky immediate critical and public recognition.
Joseph Frank is Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature at Princeton University and Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature and Slavic Languages and Literature at Stanford University. He is the author of an acclaimed five-volume study of Dostoevsky’s life and work.
All editions are beautifully designed and are printed to superior specifications; some include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.
Arrested in 1849 for belonging to a secret group of radical utopians, Fyodor Dostoevsky was sentenced to four years in a Siberian labor camp—a terrible mental, spiritual, and physical ordeal that inspired him to write the novel The House of the Dead.
Told from the point of view of a fictitious narrator—a convict serving a ten-year sentence for murdering his wife—The House of the Dead describes in vivid detail the horrors that Dostoevsky himself witnessed while in prison: the brutality of guards who relish cruelty for its own sake; the evil of criminals who enjoy murdering children; and the existence of decent souls amid filth and degradation. More than just a work of documentary realism, The House of the Dead also describes the spiritual death and gradual resurrection from despair experienced by the novel’s central character—a reawakening that culminates in his final reconciliation with himself and humanity.
Also included in this volume is Dostoevsky’s first published work, Poor Folk, a novel written in the form of letters that brought Dostoevsky immediate critical and public recognition.
Joseph Frank is Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature at Princeton University and Professor Emeritus of Comparative Literature and Slavic Languages and Literature at Stanford University. He is the author of an acclaimed five-volume study of Dostoevsky’s life and work.
443 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1861
64 people are currently reading
2344 people want to read
About the author
Fyodor Dostoevsky
3,319 books73.8k followers
Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский
(Russian)
Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .
Many literary critics rate him among the greatest authors of world literature and consider multiple books written by him to be highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He is also well regarded as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (see also Fiodor Dostoïevski)
Works, such as the novels Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880), of Russian writer Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky or Dostoevski combine religious mysticism with profound psychological insight.
Very influential writings of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin included Problems of Dostoyevsky's Works (1929),
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky composed short stories, essays, and journals. His literature explores humans in the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmospheres of 19th-century and engages with a variety of philosophies and themes. People most acclaimed his Demons(1872) .
Many literary critics rate him among the greatest authors of world literature and consider multiple books written by him to be highly influential masterpieces. They consider his Notes from Underground of the first existentialist literature. He is also well regarded as a philosopher and theologian.
(Russian: Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (see also Fiodor Dostoïevski)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
November 7, 2025
Well then Dostoevsky, we have much to discuss. Why did we need to incorporate all five senses into the murder of Alkulah? I know they say show don't tell, but was that really necessary? If this book is truly blue or purple, we shall never know, but hopefully our *other* debates are more enlightening, and less redundant, than the battle of the shades (I mean maybe it's just periwinkle and everyone right)...
September 20, 2017
This is a fantastic novel. Dostoevsky writes with such detail making his experiences in a Russian prison very vivid and real. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is because he often lost me with all of his long tangents and plethora of characters and their individual stories. But I would definitely read it again.
September 4, 2019
I read this in segments, starting with Poor Folk and then moving to The House of the Dead; it follows Dostoevsky’s chronology. With this reading you begin to understand the moving forces behind his development as an author.
Written in the epistolary form Poor Folk tells the story of a young girl and an older gentleman who develop an interesting relationship. The dialogue seems redundant at times but shows the early workings of a Dostoevsky pining for Russian literary greatness. Although before his internment, the novel shows a view of the peasant class in Russia which intrigues Dostoevsky. His fascination with their depravity but comradeship shines a beacon on what will later become the focal point of House of the Dead. All in all a good and quick read that introduces young Fyodor. 3/5.
The House of the Dead is where his style really begins to take stride. After having served 4 years in Siberian exile for association with the Speshnev circle and other Russian socialists, Dostoevsky uses the 300 page account to remember the characters and interactions in the second division. It reads similarly to Thoreau’s Walden in terms of exposition, but dives deeply into character analyses and it’s easy for one to see the early buddings of many characters that will later become his most renowned (via C&P, The Idiot, Demons and The Brothers Karamazov). At times it will drag but given the proper attention the book shines as a brilliant account of his journey in exile, a formal foundation of style and the framework for psychological analyses and opinion that would define later works. 4.5/5.
Cheers!
PS—don’t be fooled, translations matter. Although both great (having read both from P&V and Garner), the Garner translations retain an eloquence of style that seems to illuminate the “gentry”/Russian literati circles that Dostoevsky ran in. The P&V translations while great, give a darker shade to the translation which may fit more appropriately for some readers but tend to diverge from, at least in what I believe to be, the object and intent in Dostoevsky’s style.
Written in the epistolary form Poor Folk tells the story of a young girl and an older gentleman who develop an interesting relationship. The dialogue seems redundant at times but shows the early workings of a Dostoevsky pining for Russian literary greatness. Although before his internment, the novel shows a view of the peasant class in Russia which intrigues Dostoevsky. His fascination with their depravity but comradeship shines a beacon on what will later become the focal point of House of the Dead. All in all a good and quick read that introduces young Fyodor. 3/5.
The House of the Dead is where his style really begins to take stride. After having served 4 years in Siberian exile for association with the Speshnev circle and other Russian socialists, Dostoevsky uses the 300 page account to remember the characters and interactions in the second division. It reads similarly to Thoreau’s Walden in terms of exposition, but dives deeply into character analyses and it’s easy for one to see the early buddings of many characters that will later become his most renowned (via C&P, The Idiot, Demons and The Brothers Karamazov). At times it will drag but given the proper attention the book shines as a brilliant account of his journey in exile, a formal foundation of style and the framework for psychological analyses and opinion that would define later works. 4.5/5.
Cheers!
PS—don’t be fooled, translations matter. Although both great (having read both from P&V and Garner), the Garner translations retain an eloquence of style that seems to illuminate the “gentry”/Russian literati circles that Dostoevsky ran in. The P&V translations while great, give a darker shade to the translation which may fit more appropriately for some readers but tend to diverge from, at least in what I believe to be, the object and intent in Dostoevsky’s style.
January 28, 2022
Basically a less extreme Gulag Archipelago detailing the conditions and experiences of an exiled prisoner in Siberia. A series of anecdotes and descriptions of people encountered during Dostoyevsky's time in penal servitude. Set pre-revolution, this an intimate insight into the human psyche and the historical period, and a very enjoyable, fullfilling read.
April 4, 2019
Dostoyevski may have started the prison novel and I have read so many of them. Yes i know it's strange to think now, but one of the greatest writers ever was considered a felon, a criminal. It's hard to imagine that in this current literary landscape.
Anyway, Dos was imprisoned for being a rebel and sent to Siberia. House of The Dead comes from this experience. And what an experience it is.
It reveals into The Human Condition that only the Master, Dostoyevski can conjure up.
For some reason, this book is rarely mentioned along with his other classics.
Maybe because it wasn't fiction. But nonfiction. Which may have been strange for that day and time.
Anyway, Dos was imprisoned for being a rebel and sent to Siberia. House of The Dead comes from this experience. And what an experience it is.
It reveals into The Human Condition that only the Master, Dostoyevski can conjure up.
For some reason, this book is rarely mentioned along with his other classics.
Maybe because it wasn't fiction. But nonfiction. Which may have been strange for that day and time.
March 26, 2015
I read both the House of the Dead and Poor Folk in this dual B&N Classic Edition. Both of these stories are early works by Dostoevsky and I can tell he hadn't "found himself" yet. These books are not good places to jump in to reading his work. I started with Crime & Punishment and suggest starting there for anyone interested in reading Dostoevsky. These novels did have their moments though. In Poor Folk, I sympathized with the main character and felt what he was going through. House of the Dead was worthwhile because it was basically autobiographical because the author served four years in a Siberian prison for being involved in an underground utopian group. That story follows a fictional character who is serving time in a similar prison, and you see what Dostoevsky probably dealt with while he was in prison. It was insightful of the horrors and personal demons Dostoevsky must have had. Recommended, but read Crime and Punishment first to get a truer feeling for what Dostoevsky can do. Happy reading, and Merry Christmas everyone!
September 13, 2010
The House of the Dead is a semi-autobiographical accounting of his time in the Siberian prison. While many of the stories, experiences, and even the people are true-to-life, Dostoevsky created a fictional narrator, Alexandr Petrovich, who is serving ten years for murdering his wife. By creating a fictional character, Dostoevsky was able to insert biting political and social commentary into his writing; quite the brave thing to do after he had already been imprisoned for disagreeing with the government. Reading like a well-lived man recounting memories, The House of the Dead is a beauteous philosophical ramble that will stay with me for a long time.
February 21, 2020
I believe Dostoevsky will always be one of my favorite authors. His voice in writing (through these Garnett translations anyway) is like hearing long soulful tales from an old man speaking candidly. Often times carried away by the degeneracy of a person through dire situations of society, but always clarifying the sorrow each person goes through and blessing them for taking on such a burden in life.
May 14, 2008
I didn't read Poor Folk, but House of the Dead is awesome!! I read it for a Soviet Lit class. I <3 Dostoevsky :)
July 30, 2016
For HOD, it's well written, covers a multitude of themes within Siberian prison camp life and is mostly about Dostoevsky's own personal accounts. How can't this be regarded as 5 stars?
September 25, 2020
A constantly shocking experience. From the vivid account of crimes long since committed and thought over, to the freshly incarcerated occasionally beaten to the brink of death, Fyodor Dostoevsky-wonderfully captures into segments, the variety of tortures that prison life will bring. The disgusting food, the constant thievery between prisoners, to the astonishing brutality of the guards. Yet through their days imprisoned, they display acceptance towards their lot in life, and even occasionally celebrate the fact that they yet live. Through searches, confiscations, lashings, beatings, and fights, they accept this world as their own. Dostoevsky, through telling the stories of these men, revels in philosophical truths that are disguised as literature, this is the philosophical attitude that has been lost to America.
In “First impressions” Dostoevsky details the horrid conditions of life in a Soviet Gulag.
From the company, corruption, prostitution, and even the joyful exclamations of murderers detailing their brutal and savage killings, nothing is off limits. Yet to denounce that they deserve each other's company is not in the style. No, Dostoevsky's point is altogether more subtle than that. He details that everyone from every walk of life has been imprisoned. From the upper class, to career criminals, everyone, with every crime imaginable, has been sentenced. The author makes the point to humanize these people, flawed as they are, fated to death some may be, yet that which endures is their sense of “criminal-values” within the confines of prison.
The author describes that though these men may be vile and despicable human
beings, they persist in life. Some learn and think about their crimes, others continue to believe that in all honesty they did nothing wrong. In any event, both of these types, and the various others, reflect on their existence, and the nature of how it is that they managed to arrive at the current moment of their lives. As prison magnifies the effect of perceiving the moment-to-moment nature of existence, these prisoners take up litany, booze, parties, mock fights, etc. to stave off the mind numbing effects of prison, though these activities may be barbaric by comparison to softer sensibilities, they are not without regulation: such as when the mock fights turn into real fights, the crowd is quick to pull away the would be contenders. This approach, by describing that regardless of our environment, and the nature of what we have done in order for us to have arrived there, we actively contribute to our worlds, and we participate collaboratively. This is at once, both disturbing and completely novel. Many would have simply shrugged off the question, and declared these men mindless, savage brutes. The author describes that to be imprisoned or not, we function towards a collaborative effort, this function, along with the fact that we must be social in order to maintain sanity, humanizes an otherwise heavily stigmatized group of people and closes the distance between an “us and them” mentality that we see in our highly polarized society.
In “First impressions” Dostoevsky details the horrid conditions of life in a Soviet Gulag.
From the company, corruption, prostitution, and even the joyful exclamations of murderers detailing their brutal and savage killings, nothing is off limits. Yet to denounce that they deserve each other's company is not in the style. No, Dostoevsky's point is altogether more subtle than that. He details that everyone from every walk of life has been imprisoned. From the upper class, to career criminals, everyone, with every crime imaginable, has been sentenced. The author makes the point to humanize these people, flawed as they are, fated to death some may be, yet that which endures is their sense of “criminal-values” within the confines of prison.
The author describes that though these men may be vile and despicable human
beings, they persist in life. Some learn and think about their crimes, others continue to believe that in all honesty they did nothing wrong. In any event, both of these types, and the various others, reflect on their existence, and the nature of how it is that they managed to arrive at the current moment of their lives. As prison magnifies the effect of perceiving the moment-to-moment nature of existence, these prisoners take up litany, booze, parties, mock fights, etc. to stave off the mind numbing effects of prison, though these activities may be barbaric by comparison to softer sensibilities, they are not without regulation: such as when the mock fights turn into real fights, the crowd is quick to pull away the would be contenders. This approach, by describing that regardless of our environment, and the nature of what we have done in order for us to have arrived there, we actively contribute to our worlds, and we participate collaboratively. This is at once, both disturbing and completely novel. Many would have simply shrugged off the question, and declared these men mindless, savage brutes. The author describes that to be imprisoned or not, we function towards a collaborative effort, this function, along with the fact that we must be social in order to maintain sanity, humanizes an otherwise heavily stigmatized group of people and closes the distance between an “us and them” mentality that we see in our highly polarized society.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 17, 2021
It is hard to rate this book, although written in the melancholy style that seems to me the flavor of Dostoyevsky's writing, this not only seems more autobiographical in nature, but doesn't really attempt to follow a story line. It is more like notes of the impressions he gained being in a Siberian prison himself. Having recently finished Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago", the contrast of the conditions between what Dostoyevsky experienced and what would what imprisonment under Communist rule just a little more than 100 years later was hard to see past. I feel that prison life for Dostoyevsky was a concentrated and distilled picture of the struggle that is part of every life. Where do we fit in, the advantages and disadvantages unique to each human experience and yet common to us all, and how do we relate to others in this great big prison cell of life? Dostoyevsky points out that in prison to be middle or upper class was a disadvantage because the contract between the comfort of normal life and prison life is so much greater for the wealthy. Where as the poor may actually experience better living conditions in prison then outside. The emphasis upon class is ironic, as it was this argument that would be used by Marxists to throw the entire nation into the prison of collective totalitarianism 100 years later under which the prisons of Siberia would hold a much more ominous and horrific reputation in history for the torture and death that would become common under Lenin and Stalin.
April 5, 2018
"Some people think that if convicts are well fed and well kept and all the requirements of the law are satisfied, that is all that is necessary. This is an error, too. Everyone, whoever he may be and however down-trodden he may be, demands--though perhaps instinctively, perhaps unconsciously--respect for his dignity as a human being. The convict knows himself that he is a convict, an outcast, and knows his place before this commanding officer; but by no branding, no fetters will you make him forget that he is a human being. And as he really is a human being he ought to be treated humanely." from The House of the Dead
Dostoyevsky was my gateway drug to Russian literature (by way of Notes from Underground). To this day, I'm amazed by his work. As one would expect, The House of the Dead was wonderfully entertaining, insightful, and well-written. The fictionalized account of serving time in a Russian prison is light on plot, which fits the content and themes perfectly. The descriptions are vivid, and I often felt like I was serving the prison sentence myself.
I also enjoyed Poor Folk, but it's probably my least favorite of Dostoyevsky's work, which makes sense when you realize it was his very first novel. I would have liked it much better if it hadn't been written as a correspondence between two people. For me, the technique grows tiresome quickly.
Dostoyevsky was my gateway drug to Russian literature (by way of Notes from Underground). To this day, I'm amazed by his work. As one would expect, The House of the Dead was wonderfully entertaining, insightful, and well-written. The fictionalized account of serving time in a Russian prison is light on plot, which fits the content and themes perfectly. The descriptions are vivid, and I often felt like I was serving the prison sentence myself.
I also enjoyed Poor Folk, but it's probably my least favorite of Dostoyevsky's work, which makes sense when you realize it was his very first novel. I would have liked it much better if it hadn't been written as a correspondence between two people. For me, the technique grows tiresome quickly.
February 2, 2024
I read this book b/c it was on the Tristian & the Classics book list for January 2024. It wasn't as depressing as I was expecting it to be but more informative. I was impressed by the amount of humanity in the prison camps; prisoners manage to earn money, have businesses of a sort, procure privileges from town (alcohol, women) in a way that seemed more humane than my understanding of contemporary American prisons. From reading/listening to other reviews, I understand that Doestovsky had to write to appease censors so that might have had a factor in his depiction and that the prison camp was actually much worse than he depicted.
This book is a more accessible way to read Dostoevsky than the longer C&P and BK.
Overall, it's not a favorite book but it is one that I have continued to think about, now weeks after finishing and that is the mark of a good book.
Things that surprised me:
• That the death penalty wasn't used more. There were convicted murders in the camp - I would have expected the Russian state to execute such as these. I imagined justice back then was more like an eye for an eye, a life for a life.
• Terrible crimes occurred back in the times before media -- the man who murdered children, the man who murdered 6+ people just because he could. Somehow I thought that crime today is worse and more random than it used to be.
• That the staff allowed prisoners to go to the hospital on occasion for a break, the prisoners were taken to church and the bath house, worked in the environs of the community and were off the prison campus (under guard) upon occasion. Prisoners w/ money could buy things (via an intermediary) to alleviate their suffering (Dostoevsky had tea)
• That the town's people gave alms to the prisoners because of their Christian faith. That is something I don't see many American Christians doing even though it is commanded in the New Testament.
• That the prison's sole Jewish prisoner was taken to the synagogue each week. I was impressed at the czar's concern for the souls of his citizens in general.
Themes and reflections:
• Was it fair that the upper class suffered more in prison than the lower class? Originally I felt it was unfair; but upon reflections I decided that yes, I think is fair that the rich/upper class might suffer more in prison than others. They are given more privilege and more is expected of them. As a contemporary example, do I feel sympathy for SBF? No. I have no problem if he suffers more in prison b/c he can't find people from his background.
• The violence in the book is disturbing - but not dis-similar to what was going on in other countries at the same time (1840s). Consider the indescribably inhumane treatment of the enslaved in the US at the same time.
• The prison is one of the few places in 1840s Russia where men of different classes and regions were together. The military might have been another. There probably aren't many other books from 1840s Russia that have as diverse a cast of characters.
This book is a more accessible way to read Dostoevsky than the longer C&P and BK.
Overall, it's not a favorite book but it is one that I have continued to think about, now weeks after finishing and that is the mark of a good book.
Things that surprised me:
• That the death penalty wasn't used more. There were convicted murders in the camp - I would have expected the Russian state to execute such as these. I imagined justice back then was more like an eye for an eye, a life for a life.
• Terrible crimes occurred back in the times before media -- the man who murdered children, the man who murdered 6+ people just because he could. Somehow I thought that crime today is worse and more random than it used to be.
• That the staff allowed prisoners to go to the hospital on occasion for a break, the prisoners were taken to church and the bath house, worked in the environs of the community and were off the prison campus (under guard) upon occasion. Prisoners w/ money could buy things (via an intermediary) to alleviate their suffering (Dostoevsky had tea)
• That the town's people gave alms to the prisoners because of their Christian faith. That is something I don't see many American Christians doing even though it is commanded in the New Testament.
• That the prison's sole Jewish prisoner was taken to the synagogue each week. I was impressed at the czar's concern for the souls of his citizens in general.
Themes and reflections:
• Was it fair that the upper class suffered more in prison than the lower class? Originally I felt it was unfair; but upon reflections I decided that yes, I think is fair that the rich/upper class might suffer more in prison than others. They are given more privilege and more is expected of them. As a contemporary example, do I feel sympathy for SBF? No. I have no problem if he suffers more in prison b/c he can't find people from his background.
• The violence in the book is disturbing - but not dis-similar to what was going on in other countries at the same time (1840s). Consider the indescribably inhumane treatment of the enslaved in the US at the same time.
• The prison is one of the few places in 1840s Russia where men of different classes and regions were together. The military might have been another. There probably aren't many other books from 1840s Russia that have as diverse a cast of characters.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 30, 2021
I just couldn't bring myself to read any further than about 100 pages. This heavily reminded me of George Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London' but to Orwell's credit he could at least keep himself on task about the point he's trying to make. With Dostoevsky, he would start each chapter talking about one thing then would start to ramble on about someone or something that came up during his explanation of whatever point he'd started on, then he'd get distracted again during the first distraction and would eventually circle back around to whatever he was talking about in the first place. While some readers would find this charming, those of us (like me) that can only read their books a little at a time would find it difficult to remember what the first point of what Dostoevsky was talking about was about. It was impossible for me to remember details since Dostoevsky structured his novel so haphazardly. Such a shame too, because I was really interested in the premise and I was enjoying myself up until I reached the chapters where the direction changes really got out of hand and I couldn't figure out what Dostoevsky was even talking about anymore.
July 30, 2019
I don't know what I expected from a novel with that depressing a title, but the whole premise was just barely interesting; the aspect and mentality of the prisoners as described by Aleksandr Petrovich Goryanchikov, who was sentence to a Siberian prison camp for murdering his wife (which I kinda wanted more detail on, but I knew they wouldn't touch on it as the focus was to be on the prison experience); it kept my attention only because I knew these descriptions and accounts to be based on the real life experience of Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
"Poor Folk" was also a bit of a let down. I am not too fond of novels written in a series of letters to characters, as I feel too much information is left out and if it is all told in the letter, it seems forced. In addition to liking character descriptions, having to rely on a character's skewed view point made me doubtful of their truth. The ending was also a bit underwhelming.
Overall, it was 'tolerable'.
"Poor Folk" was also a bit of a let down. I am not too fond of novels written in a series of letters to characters, as I feel too much information is left out and if it is all told in the letter, it seems forced. In addition to liking character descriptions, having to rely on a character's skewed view point made me doubtful of their truth. The ending was also a bit underwhelming.
Overall, it was 'tolerable'.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 27, 2023
What a beautiful and profound writing.
The book is a collection of all the stories of the inmates who Fyodor acquainted when he was a prisoner in Síria for the 6yrs of his life.
You see the sadness, the anxious, the angriness, the desesperation of them. The dead, the pain, the injustice, the hope, the pride and the shame, or the sadness of some of them that just simply gave up.
The daily basic of the prison life, and how he made friends and still to his surprise that he was still not included within the group of the criminals.
I absolutely loved it but as it‘s a quite a long and can be a pretty despressed book, i had to switch many times to other easier readings just to have a lighter feel.
i strongly recommend this.
The book is a collection of all the stories of the inmates who Fyodor acquainted when he was a prisoner in Síria for the 6yrs of his life.
You see the sadness, the anxious, the angriness, the desesperation of them. The dead, the pain, the injustice, the hope, the pride and the shame, or the sadness of some of them that just simply gave up.
The daily basic of the prison life, and how he made friends and still to his surprise that he was still not included within the group of the criminals.
I absolutely loved it but as it‘s a quite a long and can be a pretty despressed book, i had to switch many times to other easier readings just to have a lighter feel.
i strongly recommend this.
October 6, 2023
I enjoyed this book a lot. Maybe I enjoyed it because it’s the first work by Fyodor Dostoevsky I read and because I haven’t read a lot of classics.
I related a lot to Makar’s character because when he is good he makes good decisions but when he is suffering or distressed he makes the worst decisions and I used to be like that too. For Varvara’s character I sympathize with her but her story is quite sad and I hoping to at in the end her husband would be good to her but I imagine that Makar and her met again and ran away together.
I related a lot to Makar’s character because when he is good he makes good decisions but when he is suffering or distressed he makes the worst decisions and I used to be like that too. For Varvara’s character I sympathize with her but her story is quite sad and I hoping to at in the end her husband would be good to her but I imagine that Makar and her met again and ran away together.
January 13, 2021
While I liked the House of the Dead for what it was, it lacked something for me. Something that I found in the accompanying novel in this bind up, Poor Folk. What a lovely book. For reference, The Idiot and White Nights are couple of favorites of mine. Poor Folk really showcases FD’s potential and I don’t understand why it gets the hate that it does. I have flat out heard people say that his first works were bad. They couldn’t be more wrong. I would say this one is on the same level as The Adolescent.
October 3, 2019
I read The House Of The Dead only. Very different from the later and longer works. Primarily a series of stories concerning his fellow prisoners and unique events that occurred. My favorite passage is the scenes concerning the Christmas plays the convicts organized.
January 20, 2020
This book is just not for me. I was looking to read a story and this is more a depiction of Siberian prison life that is both honest and probably accurate. It's just not a book I could immerse myself in.
July 23, 2022
I normally love Dostoyevsky but this one wasn’t it. It is two separate parts. The House of the Dead is written like a memoir of a man in prison. I enjoyed these chapters. The second part, Poor Folk, is a series of letters back and forth. I did not like this part. The letters rambled on and on.
February 7, 2018
This was one of the worst books I've ever read, pure torture. Poor Folk was ok, but House of the Dead was utterly depressing and awful. More like a diary than a story.
November 8, 2019
Another classic of dostoyevsky during his so called "
July 29, 2021
Another gift from Deirdre
Fantastic. I'm pretty sure I previously read House of the Dead in another Russian prison lit phase.
Fantastic. I'm pretty sure I previously read House of the Dead in another Russian prison lit phase.
October 15, 2022
Boring. Did not finish.
November 9, 2023
Can i read the house of the dead without poor falk or u have to read it after the pour falk to understand?
December 6, 2023
A very good slow paced conglomerate of once vivid memories, good read for Dostoevsky enjoyers.
January 21, 2025
Very good classic. It really takes you to another far away but real world
August 20, 2025
i loved the way poor folks was written, i could feel the connection between Makar Dievushkin and Varvara Dobroselova, love them lots.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews