Crime And Punishment; The Gambler; Notes From The Underground

by DOSTOYEVSKY., Constance Garnett (Translator), C.J. Hogarth (Translator of The Gambler ; Note)

Book by Dostoyevsky, Fyodor

Genres: Fiction, Classics, Russia, Literature, Psychology

696 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1994

Reviews

[Nikos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Garnett's translation has been universally panned, however I found this version of Crime & Punishment so addictive, so accessible that I neglected family over the Xmas break in favour of the dirty and hopeless alley ways of Petersburg and indeed Raskolnikovs mind. In a kaleidoscope of bleakness and madness, hope gets a real asskicking. A must read for anybody that has entertained on his own soliloquy on life.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Of all the Russians I’ve read so far, Dostoyevsky is by far the most challenging, and “Crime and Punishment” his most difficult work. I did not at all enjoy any of it. Let me acknowledge at the outset that the fault lies not in the book but in my ability to enter fully into the Russian literary mind.

Russian literature has always been a challenge for me. Something happens to books as I move east of the Oder River and the Carpathian mountains, and it is not just that the language changes. The Russian way of thinking is different enough from ours as to seem alien to me. Their habits of speech, their manners, even the way they address one another are just a little odd. In most prose, there is a rhythm, almost a cadence that is unique to every author. I can never quite get into the flow of Dostoyevsky. Every time I try to find a rhythm to settle into, up comes an obstacle in the form of a new name for an old character, or an almost completely incongruous statement from a character that seems to stick out at right angles from the story. My train of thought is derailed almost before it leaves the station and I am left to pick up the pieces and start over again.

Even were it not for the difficulties with the Russian style, I am not sure I could ever bring myself to like “Crime and Punishment”. It reminds me of a story Dickens might have discarded because it is too depressing. Most everyone who is familiar with classic literature knows something about the plot. A young man who fancies himself an intellectual conceives and commits a terrible crime, mostly for the purpose of proving to himself that he can do it and get away with it. Already on the verge of a nervous breakdown, the guilt of his crime threatens to push him over the brink of insanity. Haunted by fear, stalked by strangers who seem to know more about him than he knows himself, baited by the police, he walks the precipice of self-destruction until, through the love of his friends, family, and a young woman, he is redeemed. He confesses his crime, pays his debt to society, and moves on to become a good man. Well and good, but it is not the plot that I stumble over. It is the gloom, the oppressive atmosphere that permeates nearly every page of the book.

The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, is the anti-hero who commits the despicable crime. At no point in the book is he likable. Nothing about him is admirable. Obsessed with his own self-importance, or lack thereof, he shambles through the book in a haze of self-inflicted misery. He is surrounded by many who love and care for him, yet he rejects their advances on every side, preferring to stay wrapped in his pain.

He lives in one of the more depressed districts of Moscow, having abandoned his studies at the university and a post as a tutor to live in relative squalor. Not long after he commits the crime, his mother and sister, Pulcheria and Avdotya, move to Moscow. His sister has entered a marriage contract with a strange man in order to save the family from poverty and enable Raskolnikov to continue his studies. They do not understand the true reason he has left the university has little to do with a lack of funds. Raskolnikov objects to the match, particularly because of the willingness of his sister to sacrifice her future for his, which only increases his agitation.

In addition to his mother and sister, Raskolnikov, encounters a number of people who will seek to influence him as he struggles with the consequences of his actions. In his semi-delirium, he seeks out a fellow student, Dimitri Razhumikin, who goes to great lengths to help him get back on his feet. Raskolnikov stumbles into a bar where he encounters Semyon Marmeladov, an alcoholic with a consumptive wife, starving children, and an older daughter, Sofya, who has turned to prostitution to save their lives. Arkady Svidrigailov, a lecherous, adulterous old man who had designs on Avdotya, shows up in Moscow with a fortune in rubles and a burning desire to see Raskolnikov. And Pyotr Luzhin, the man betrothed to Avdotya, who turns on her only to begin a campaign against the seemingly doomed Sofya.

All of these characters drift into and out of the focus of Raskolnikov and are quickly divided into two camps; those who seek to manipulate him to their own ends, and those who seek his redemption. There is a great deal of development in the characters who surround Raskolnikov, but he, himself, is nearly paralyzed by the combination of their influence and his guilt. Manic in his behavior, he alternates between near catatonia and frantic action, one moment huddled on the couch in his flat, the next marching down to the police station to bait, and be baited. Emotionally he swings between radical highs based on his conviction that he has gotten away with his crime, and the despair of believing that everyone knows what he has done and is manipulating him.

Slowly, agonizingly (for me), he finds his way through the fog. In his more lucid moments, Raskolnikov and Sofya begin a tentative relationship. Against his will, he begins to love her, and she him. This love will be the catalyst for his confession and ultimate redemption. But it takes nearly 400 pages of slogging through Raskolnikov’s fog to get to this point. By the time it arrived, I almost did not care. It was too little too late.

So why five stars if I disliked the book so much? Because I cannot deny its excellence and power. “Crime and Punishment” is a brilliant work of art. Dostoyevsky was no hack; he knew exactly what he was doing. If the main protagonist is unlikeable, it is because Dostoyevsky wished him so. But why would a writer like Dostoyevsky create such a despicable hero? “Crime and Punishment” is not about the crime of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. It is about grace. Raskolnikov and the grace he receives are metaphors for the unmerited favor the Christian receives from God when he repents. Despicable as he is, Raskolnikov is no different from anyone who has ever lived and fallen short of the glory of God. He is the mirror image of myself, if I am completely honest. The love that he receives from his family and friends is not unlike the love I receive from God that calls me to repentance.

“Crime and Punisment” is also an amazing study in contrasts and an indictment of false humility. Raskolnikov lives in poverty mostly by choice. His misery is entirely self-inflicted. At any time, he could resume his studies, receive students, and return to a meaningful, productive life. His rejection of these things is akin to the Marxist rejection of the way of life that makes his very life and rejection possible. (Though “Crime and Punishment” predates “Zarathustra”, Raskolnikov gives every appearance of being Dostoyevksy’s response to the idea of the Nietzchean superman and the Marxist ideal.) Raskolnikov imagines himself as a new Napoleon of sorts, one who wants to identify with the poor. This is contrasted against the truly poor Sofya and her family. Victim of her father’s alcoholism, trapped by his sudden death, left with nothing to market but her body, Sofya is the original of which Raskolnikov is the counterfeit, a fact that contributes to his mental agitation.

In spite of her circumstances, she possesses a nobility of character that is a mystery to Raskolnikov. This is another of Dostoyevsky’s contrasts. Not only Sofya, but all those who are genuinely interested in his well being are possessed of noble souls. He is shamed by them, even as he tries to rise above something he considers to be as mundane as shame and nobility. Against them are set the manipulative Pyotr Luzhin and Arkady Svidrigailov, men of wealth and station for whom no act is so low that they will not stoop to it to achieve their ends.

I could go on about the ironies and contrasts, but the most overwhelming characteristic of the book is grace. The love Raskolnikov receives, the grace he is offered are burdens to him until he accepts them. Only when he does so is he fully free, even though he sits in a Siberian prison. Likewise, the love of God is a heavy burden to bear as long as I do not accept it. Like the criminal, I waste away until the time I confess, repent, and accept. Once that is done, it is finally possible, not only for Raskolnikov, but for me, to enter fully into life, regardless of my external circumstances.

For these reasons, and many more, I can recommend “Crime and Punishment”. It is not an enjoyable reading experience, but is one that edifies and rewards the reader.

[Kyle Hendrickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crime and Punishment (part two)
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky simply put was a wonderfully difficult book that with an almost “twilight” finesse kept the reader interested from almost the beginning. The book is thorough, very thorough but in an elegant sort way that gives a wonderful part of a mad mans mind. The story takes place in Russia in the town of St. Petersburg in the mid 1800’s. The protagonist, Rodion Raskolnikov, is when we first meet him sane for the most part, but as the story progresses he commits a crime which in turn aids in the slow loss of his sanity. He is described as a loner, poor, keeps to himself, but he is also very handsome; a strange yet brilliant combination. He is also very bright but with a mind like his it leads to over thinking a situation over and over to the point in which a thought can literally make him sick and cause him to be hysterical and even schizophrenic. Later in the book he shows slowly that his sanity is coming back especially when he decides to tell Sonya what he did but shortly after he became enraged with his mom and sister for a small and insignificant reason; but this small hint of sanity foreshadows what he may be like in the future when the enormous weight is off his chest. The antagonist through out the whole book would be him-self(man vs. self). He constantly struggles with whether or not to confess the crime and this constant back and fourth is the single thing that causes him to completely lose his mind.
The supporting characters are his sister Dunya Raskolnikov who is supposed to marry a man whom Rodion met and disliked with a passion and told hi sister she could not marry him, Pulcheria Raskolnikov Is his mother who plays only a mothers role. His good friend Demitri Razumikhin who helps him to become well when he is sick, and at the end marries his sister. Sonya Marmeladov who is the daughter of a man the Rodion saw be killed and found out the she and her mother has to prostitute them selves to earn money because her father was out of a job, she is the first person that Rodion actually confesses to and later she moves to be near him when he is in a work camp. Pyotr Luzhin is the man Rodion’s sister is supposed to marry and for a short time becomes an antagonist due to the fact he thought Rodion is the cause for his Fiancée’s sudden withdrawal from the marriage.
The story left off with Rodion in bed sick as a dog because the thought of doing anything but pondering what evil he had just committed would kill him. Soon after his sisters soon to be husband walks in and Rodion is not the least bit pleased with him and had no intention of hiding it what-so-ever, and the man leaves, flustered none the less. Later after a few things happen his sister and mother come to check up on Rodion to see how he is doing and in a way scold him for the way he treated Luzhin, while there talking Rodion tells his sister he does not want her marrying that man and they argue, he gets mad and tells him to leave but before they go Soyna walks in and asks is Rodion would attend her fathers funeral and he agrees. Later when his mom and sister came to visit prior, they asked him if he would attend a dinner with Luzhin though he advised against it. There Rodion and Luzhin get into another fight and Luzhin leaves and that Is the end of the marriage. Later in the book Rodion is alone with Sonya and confesses that he murdered the two women she says he should turn himself in but he does not want to. Some things happen which leads back to them meeting again and this time she hands him a cross and he goes and turns himself in. It’s not over though the rest is for you to find out.
One symbol in the story I saw repeated many times is the couch at Rodion’s “apartment”. It was a safe place for him and offers comfort and safety and enables him to think a bit clearer then if he was out and on the busy, crowded, human infested streets. The theme of the book is to do the right thing no matter the consequences. Rodion had committed a crime and murdered two people; he chose to keep it a secret and it ended up eating him from within until he confessed which ultimately brought him peace, tranquility and a girlfriend. When he finally confessed he served 8 or so years at a labor camp but Soyna kept on visiting him and when he was let go it is up to the imagination what happened to them.
Fyodor Dostoevsky is a brilliant writer and one of the few writers who kept me interested though he went into excruciating detail on many insignificant things. The aspect I enjoyed the most was how clearly he could depict how Rodion’s, a madman, thought and how someone like him would think. It astounded me how well he could connect things and create this wonderful image of a half crazed man with a mind of a genius and how he could devise a plan to murder someone and at the time think it completely rationale. That aspect of his writing was a big part of what kept me interested and the way he wrote was not per say as fluid as Shakespeare or Scott Fitzgerald but it had its own sophisticated Virtuosity to it which added a lot to they story. I would give this book a 9.5 out of 10 only because it went into so much detail on little insignificant things. I would recommend this book for someone who wants a challenge and someone who is willing to make time to sit down and read and try to comprehend what Dostoevsky is trying to say but other then that it may be too complicated. I will say that it feels good to finish reading it and a good accomplishment.

[Kurt Brindley · Rating 3 out of 5]

MY CRIME, MY PUNISHMENT
from bojiki.com



My crime?

Posing myself as a Fyodor Dostoevsky fanboy for just about all my adult life.

Why is this a crime?

Because, in all honesty, I never really read Dostoevsky...until recently.

Well, I did pass my eyes over all the words of his NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND (some editions translate it as LETTERS FROM THE UNDERWORLD) back in my early twenties.

But as an early twenty-something, I didn't stand a chance with Dostoevsky seeing that research has proven at that age brains aren't yet fully developed. For all intents and purposes, according to science, someone in their early to mid twenties is still an adolescent. Which, in retrospect, explains many things about my life. And which begs the question, how can someone without a fully developed prefrontal cortex truly appreciate or fully comprehend something as complex and nuanced as Dostoevsky's writing?

As I've come to find out, even with a fully developed prefrontal cortex Dostoevsky is still rather overwhelming and abstruse.

Unlike Franz Kafka, who I also first read in my early twenties, I never went back to Dostoevsky over the years. I don't know why. Perhaps my adolescent twenty-something self did understand more of what he read than I now give him credit for. But over the years, I did revisit Kafka's work - often - and his writing has been, and continues to be, what I consider a foundational pillar of my intellectual being (for better or worse). There are other writers, too, whom I consider foundational to my being. Writers such as Vonnegut, Hemingway, Kerouac, Camus (yes, all the stereotypical white male authors one would expect a stereotypical white male dude like me would admire), among others.

But even though I never went back to Dostoevsky, and even though I am quite sure my twenty-something adolescent self had no clue what the NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND was about, all throughout the years in my mind I regarded him to be just as fundamental to my core as the writers whom I just listed.

Again, I do not know why. Probably because, like I already confessed, I was just a poser who enjoyed thinking that he knew what the hell Dostoevsky was about.

In my defense, I don't think I ever made a public spectacle of myself with any obnoxious proclamations of deep knowledge of his writings; nor did I ever engage in any self-righteous debates or arguments with someone who did know and understand Dostoevsky's works.

No, I believe my fanboy-dom was not a public lie, it was more a self lie. Somehow, somewhere deep down in my subconsciousness I came to believe that Dostoevsky was important to me when in fact he wasn't.

Only the idea of Dostoevsky was important to me.

That is my crime.

So what, then, is my punishment?

Guilt.

I feel tremendous guilt. For, after a lifetime of self-deception in believing that Dostoevsky's work was deeply meaningful to me, I find that after rereading NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND (twice now) and finally reading CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, perhaps Dostoevsky's most acclaimed work, I really do not enjoy his writing as much as I thought I did...or should.

What is wrong with me?

Much.

And in addition to my punishment of guilt, I fear I am about to feel the wrath from Dostoevsky's worldwide, extremely devoted fan base (which includes amongst its global army none other than Pope Francis! I'm doomed...) for what I'm about to write.

Before I get into it, I'll confess that I am quite certain any faults I find with Dostoevsky's works are more than likely due to my lacking intellect than with him lacking any skill as a writer. (Hopefully that confession will subdue the wrath somewhat...but I doubt it.)

I'll start out by saying that I truly enjoyed reading NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND, at least much more than I did CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. In fact, to me they are very similar in content and in feel --- psychologically tormented, self-righteous, megalomaniac protagonists disillusioned by societal norms fall in love with young ladies of ill repute and take it upon themselves to attempt to reform the young ladies but in the end its the young ladies who reform the psychologically tormented, self-righteous, megalomaniac protagonists.

Okay, I admit that is a very superficial synopsis of both stories. And I also admit that it's debatable whether the NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND protagonist was actually reformed at the end (but we do know he felt remorse for his behavior toward the young lady of ill repute and regretted denying her love).

That being said, it seems to me that NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND is what would be left of CRIME AND PUNISHMENT if CRIME AND PUNISHMENT had only been properly edited.

Now, I have no idea what the editing process was for the book; however, I do know that Dostoevsky was in debt for much of his writing life (due in part to an unfortunate gambling addiction and taking on the responsibility of caring for his brother's family) and in an effort to make a quick buck he would whip out his books as fast as possible. Is this the cause for the book's excessive use of words? Who's to say?

However I will say CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is too long, much longer than it needs to be.

The beginning starts out great, though. The protagonist Raskolinkov is faced with a crime he feels compelled to commit: rid the world of an evil person through murder, steal her money and use the money to better himself, thereby bettering the world. He justifies his warped philosophical outlook on community service by comparing it to the actions of men like Napoleon. He believes that great men are not bound by societal norms, such as regarding murder as a crime. Had Napoleon not killed to meet his goals, he never would have been able to conquer Europe, assume the title of emperor, and implement the liberal reforms as he had. Raskolinkov believed that, like the Great Men of History, his act of murder would be justified by the great acts he would eventually perform.

Ends do justify the means.

The writing used to set this scene and to take us within the turmoil of Raskolinkov's psychological debate within himself as he worked up the courage to commit the crime was both beautiful and genius.

It's after this initial burst of beauty and genius that things get convoluted and overly expanded. It's as if in the first one hundred pages or so Dostoevsky was channeled by Camus and displayed his exquisite tendency for existential starkness, and then for the next 350 pages he channeled Balzac and displayed his unfortunate tendency for excessive adornment.

In addition to being overly psychological and rambling, the book has too many characters, each overly psychological and rambling who, naturally, make the book even longer than it should be.

In my view, if Dostoevsky would have focused mostly on Raskolnikov and his psychological torment as a result of the crime he committed, as well as the trials and tribulations of his relationship with Sonia, the young lady of ill repute, then we would have a much better, less cluttered, far leaner book.

Instead we have to listen to the ramblings of ridiculous characters such as Porfiry, the story's ridiculous detective --- of course in a book dealing with murder there is a requirement for a detective but this guy has way too much dialogue, with too much of it not making much sense at all.

And he was strange, like he was trying to be Sherlock Holmes...but while performing as a circus clown.

I could go on listing characters who I believe could have been axed but I think my point has been made:

The book needs a good thrashing with a red pencil.

And what was with all the names? Do Russians really call a person by three different names all within the same block of narrative? If so, no wonder they seem so smart.

Speaking of names, I really like the name Raskolnikov. I have a habit of naming my pets after writers I like, but I think I'll change up my convention a bit and name my next pet after him. Of course the pet would have his complete name: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (which it seems in the book can be used in any order, or even each as a stand alone, if desired). But I would just call him "Raskol." As in, "Here Raskol! Raskol! Bad Raskol!

Get it? Raskol, as in rascal?

Anyway...

Aside from its need for a trim, perhaps the biggest beef I have with the book is the ending.

**SPOILER ALERT**

Oh my God! We go through 400 pages or so of the back and forth and back and forth and back and forth of Raskolinkov's psychological dilemma only to find out in that last few pages of this painfully dense tome that, through the love and dedication of Sonia, the young lady of ill repute, Raskolinkov, the psychologically tormented, self-righteous, megalomaniac protagonist, magically finds God and repents his sin. And we are led to believe that after he completes the seven years he has remaining on his Siberian sentence, he and his young lady of ill repute (formerly) will live happily ever after.

I about threw the book through the window after finishing it.

Look, I've nothing against finding God or for repenting one's sins, but after putting me through over 450 pages of psychological madness, don't give me some cheesy deus ex machina plot device at the book's end.

I mean, come on.

That really hurt.

Okay, that's enough. I'm already guilty in this article of what I accuse Dostoevsky of in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT:

Too many words.

So, to recap...

I committed the egregious crime of being a Dostoevsky poser and for fooling myself into thinking that he was important to my self development. My punishment for this crime is a lifetime of guilt for my foolish youthful false love since I now know, after having actually read his work, that he really isn't all that I thought he was.

But there still must be a way for me to pay off my debt to society, right? There must be a way for me to reform myself so I can once again hold Dostoevsky in high regard?

Considering that I already confessed that any fault I find with Dostoevsky is probably due to my failings and not his, perhaps what I need to do is give him another chance. More specifically, I need to give CRIME AND PUNISHMENT another chance since I already said I enjoyed NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND and I'm already halfway through THE GAMBLER.

Maybe part of my problem with CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is not so much with Dostoevsky as it is with the translator. The edition I read was translated by Constance Garnett. From what I've discovered through a quick search is that the translation by the duo of Pevear and Volokhonsky is the way to go when it comes to reading Russian literature in English.

Maybe.

Maybe, after giving it some time and letting the book sink into my psyche for a while, I will revisit it again, this time reading Pevear and Volokhonsky's translation.

Perhaps (hopefully) their version comes with significantly less words.

[Nitish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book. The writing is very old. Which is rare and beautiful. Books don't come like this anymore. Sad.

[Aussieargie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tremenda historia de relaciones, traiciones, amores y adicciones relatada por quien parece mirar todo desde afuera, sin embargo participa de todo

[Matty Litwack · Rating 5 out of 5]

What the heck !

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having taken a couple of psychology classes in high school and college reading this book was fascinating how complex Dostoyevsky was able to incorporate all aspects of the criminal mind. The reader can actually feel each character's emotions at any given time in the story. The most interesting aspect is that he never corrected or rewrote any of his works. A real genius.

[Elizabeth Branigin · Rating 4 out of 5]

THE story of just one indefatigable male ego and the necessary (predicted) death of the female to achieve his mere co-existence on earth. This book has enabled many a feminism deconstructionist paper I am sure. Still, I was intrigued to the end which begs for a new beginning (for the man, of course).

[Ron Coulter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Happy to say I finally finished Crime & Punishment. In high school I remember being put off by the long letter from Raskolnikov's mother and Marmeledov's long story. Now, having aged some years and having met a few Marmeledov-like people, I realize how brilliant a book it is.

[Ahmed Magdy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must - read amazing novel with wonderful illustration of the psychological conflicts that took place inside the main character and will take place after finishing it inside you ... did he make a crime ?? and was he punished ??

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crime and Punishment was an easier read than I thought it would be. Actually, I liked it. It is very heavy on the pychological struggles of the main character, which can bog you down a bit, but overall, a great read.

[Paula · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best. The greatest. Than which there is no better novel. The one to, as an author, attain to.
Crime and Punishment, especially in the Constance Garnett translation, is simply everything that a book must be.

[Jeroen Berndsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Crime and Punishment heb ik in Bulgarije ergens op de kop getikt en vond het geweldig. Toen kreeg ik later deze omnibus van mijn broertje, erg goed. Ik snap niet hoe zo'n oud boek zo fris over kan komen...

[Karl Gardner · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love his writing. Very dark and disturbing and insightful.

[Adam]

Great book!!!!! Highly recommend!!!!!!!

[Barbara · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gambler - wonderful.

[Marla · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would like to reread Dostoevsky under a different translator than Garnett.