If I don't care about religion or morality is there any point in reading this?

it's a repeat thing for little girls to come in and change dostoevsky's characters' world views. Svidrigailov is another example.
oh and if you read "Dream of a Ridiculous Man" you'll see that the protagonist turned corruptor and ultimately prophet, was influenced by a little girl before he attempted suicide. Dostoevsky's real appeal is the paranoia. the conveyance of emotion, his characters are spastic freak birds who bounce about in their literary cages and sing hideous songs.
if you're reading Dostoevsky for anything other than his characters, you're reading him wrong. Philosophy is far better addressed elsewhere.

Hmm I could get behind that. I do think it is silly to call it just a thriller though.

>No, it's about how the love of a cute girl will inspire a man to better himself and avoid being self destructive.
Did you read the fucking book at all? Jesus christ this board is so stupid now

read it again and omit the false epilogue, you'll know i was right the whole time.
really though, if you get moral or religious significance from Crime and Punishment, more power to you. for my money, it always seemed the character was ever more on display the more frantic their revelations were. how susceptible people are to ideals, and their interactions therein.

>grr, they disagree with me, it must be because they never read the book! that will secure me against the possibility that their dissent is more convincing than my own initial arguments, and because i am not in the mood for an in depth discussion, i'd rather resort to ad hominem anyway!

Does anyone know the meaning behind the passage of Svidrigailov talking about the ghost world? I didn't understand that. I've only read it once.

What about the whole Lazarus stuff not in the epilogue

let it rest like a fine wine. the false hope for redemption from a wicked and senseless crime.

speaking of, the book is called crime and punishment, not crime and rehabilitation.

The only way I can imagine someone came to the conclusion the poster did was if,

1. They did not read the book

2. They have no knowledge to the author, the period, or the setting in which the book was written. Only slightly worse than not reading the book.

3. They lack basic critical thinking skills.

>the only way i can imagine
why do you ffeel your imagination is a compelling source of influence to anyone but yourself?

Do you have literal autism?

Does anyone think that the crime was actually the fact that Raskolnikov was not able to do good out of the murder, not the actual murder itself. The punishment for that crime was the psychological torment he went through trying to cover it up?

nope, the crime was definitely him smashing in the skulls of innocent women. pretty sure that was the real crime, not the crime against humanity that he didn't suddenly become superman.

There was no discussion of punishment the entire novel. I don't think that the punishment was the jail time.

Raskolnikov was correct in saying that morality for a leader is much more relative than mere law. By that logic, his punishment was not being the "superman".

The literal definition of crime is breaking the law, but you can look deeper into the text here...

i said nothing of punishment. you can look into that all you like, i spoke of the crime. which was murder.
I don't disagree that the punishment was his squirmings, which reminds of the telltale heart, incidentslly.

post counter arguments or quotations from the book to back up your claims instead of funnyjunk memes

i do think i understand what you mean, however. that by the standards that raskolnikov held, the crime was not the death of innocents, but that it was a crime that his actions did not lead to a positive result for humanity, but the problem with that sentiment is one must view the world through his loony morality. If you want to define his crime as not following through with the ultimate goal of his revolutionary ideals, be my guest. I prefer to say it was the repugnant murder of innocent and defenseless women.

I frankly don't understand what you're asking for. My basic statements are that Crime and Punishment is primarily enjoyable from the perspective of his characters and their interactions rather than the hackneyed cliche of the whore wih the heart of gold.
How exactly can I show evidence of my enjoyment superceding the enjoyment I would have if I strictly relied on Dostoevsky's religious and moral commentary?
If you mean to say I should take up the mantle for this post
then I think you're going to have a bad time. The end of the novel is redemption due to an actual prostitute. it isn't exactly a contested aspect of the book. if you want to make this argument
then one can simply say you're right, and the vehicle used was the love of a cute girl to come to that philosophical end.

>saintly prostitute
Sonya is a symbol of the christian faith/love, rather a symbol than a mere character.

right. and we all know christian love is best symbolized by giving wicked handies in the quick trip parking lot at 6pm

How common is this cover of Crime and Punishment?

But since God isn't real it's just a projection. Once we scrape off the slime and see things clearly we can appreciate them for what they are as corporeal, timebound, sensual, unvarnished joys of that grow out of the earth rather than fall from heaven like manna. Scrape the surface and what do we see? Not a mafonna, but a qt girl to cuddle with and hold hands with and stuff. This is the true kernel of all of Dostoevsky's work once it's stripped of its Christian trappings and non-essential fluff.

this guy gets it. i wouldn't be surprised if the government censors forced him to insert all that religious fluff. by the time karamazov rolled around they had broken his spirit. Demons was his last attempt to warn of their control over him.

>Lmao. It's specifically about how turning to religion can resolve nihilism. The murder is just a device to express chaos.
Did some youtube review tell you that?

Well, I think when looking at a lawful punishment it would make sense to have a lawful crime. Well, the lawful crime and punishment are there. That's not controversial. I am, I guess, purporting that THE crime and punishment (as in reason the book was called such) of the text was not the unlawful offenses, it was the incompetence that followed.

Using a symmetrical view, we have a description of the unlawful crime, a focus on Raskolnikov's thesis, a focus on psychological torment, and then a description of lawful punishment. Symmetrically the crime should be a psychological crime. A violation of morality where either murder is wrong, or murder should be justified. I think it is the latter. I also think Dostoyevsky was a fan of symmetry in the book (I read on Wiki that each part alternates between a viewpoint or something). He crafted the structure of the book with purpose.

What I would concede as being immoral is the fact that he killed the second innocent lady without remorse, the rental properties sister. The landlord was actually known to be immoral in her actions and the reader is led to have no empathy foe her death. In response to this, I believe that this is indicative of Raskolnikov's recklessness and incapability of being the superman and genius planner he thought himself to be and a way of showing how emotional and nervous his character is able to become. It also makes it so that more is on the line for him to do good for humanity.

If this person is correct, that censorship was involved in the book, then that would I think show that Raskolnikov is speaking Dostoevsky's observstion on morality being relative to one's efficacy, perhaps not though, this is just conjecture.

This is the only Dusty book I've read. I'm not a huge reader, I'm currently trying to become more well read so I cannot speak as to what Dustys views are or the context in which the book was written.

No, I read the book and pondered on the themes. I'm open to discussion though. It seems as if choosing to devote his life to religion and Sonya gave him meaning.

Disclaimer: I've only read the book once.

Unlawful crime*

...

read the wodsworth classics edition

I think this is an extremely well put viewpoint on the novel, and for the most part, I can agree to your sentiment that there is a certain symmetry, i would certainly agree that the crime is not only one based on laws but absolutely a moral and naturally a psychological crime as well. hence why i found enjoyment reading his works, Dostoevsky to me is far more a psychologist displaying neurotics and idealistic people rather than a moralist. Though obviously it was Dostoevsky's intention to have a moral and ultimately theistic message. I do feel his strengths and lasting impacts came from his depictions of emotions at their most heightened levels.

the censorship post was mine, and honestly a bit of a joke, i doubt there was much interference, as I imagine Dostoevsky genuinely believed much of his religious commentary.
In the end, I don't think your assessment lacks validity, nor is it a bad reading of the novel, and what one would expect, as most would offer a similar review of the structure and themes in the novel.
I'm glad you're open to dissent and discussion, it marks a kind heart and an open mind. I do think you deserve to be a bit more confident about your opinions though!

I just finished this book. I don't believe in any religious or cosmic order. I am basically a nihilist, though if there's anything I believe in then it is not harming other beings as much as possible. I thought the author expressed the endless inescapable blameless meaningless suffering and evil and stupidity of existence very well and these parts of the book often made me want to cry (e.g. marmeladovs story, raskolnikov tormenting sonya, katerina ivanovnas final mental breakdown). The whole book, it seemed to me, was dedicated primarily to drilling this point home. But the ending, which I took to be a sort of answer or solution to this picture of life, seemed entirely empty and futile, and doesn't at all address the suffering of life that was so insightfully recognized and illustrated in the rest of the book.

I think the book is well worth anyones time, and I would say for anyone considering it that they should read the first two chapters and if the second chapter doesn't convince you then don't bother with the rest.

I think this was my initial feeling upon finishing the novel, which eventually developed into my thoughts on ridding the book of its epilogue. you can truly sense that Dostoevksy was not in the same frame of mind while writing the rest of the novel. I think that is primarily why it feels so tacked on. If he had that epilogue in mind during the novel's creation, it probably would have resulted in a far more organic novel.

>I am basically a nihilist
>if there's anything I believe in then it is not harming other beings as much as possible

...

To clarify briefly: the fact that reality exists =/= reality having any meaning. But it's still real. It doesn't mean anything, but it's happening. And suffering and pain plague everyone, sometimes in extreme ways, and outside of the West billions are born into terrible lives through no fault of their own that they'll never escape. Pain is real. I don't like pain. So try not to cause pain, whether you believe there's a reason to exist or not.

This thread is a sad glimpse of people who don’t know and don’t care to know Dostoyevsky’s spiritual background and his attitude towards the themes in the novel. You people take the novel at face value in a materialistic (psychological) way without understanding the deeper themes. A depressing example of the modern reader for sure...

Just finished the book yesterday, I quite enjoyed it. That said, I care about religion and morals, but I think that it's a good book regardless.

A bunch of nihilistic Raskolnikovs themselves, funny how they don’t see the obvious.

Heh.... you guys r amatuers.... psh nothing peronnsell, modern pelbs....

If you feel we have erred in this thread then feel free to share your viewpoint and correct us.

Thanks, I appreciate the response. I thought that was interesting what you said about censorship, but if it isn't true then oh well.

Do you mind enlightening us of the views we are so ignorant of? It'd be insightful to see the due diligence you think one should take before starting a read.

NO, it is preposterous, all Dosto's women are neurotic bitches, it has no relevance whatsoever in today's world. Sorry, but this book is expired, move on!

I would say that your estimation of psychology being somehow less deep or thematic is shortselling the effects idealism has on a person's actions, and how difficult it is to display those aspects of human interaction.
Religion and spirituality is very important, but arguably what is more important is the way it makes us live our lives. How we see the world, and in what way we choose to deal with complex problems. This book is a multifaceted, deep, and challenging view into the mind of our fellow man, not only as a display of ideologies, nihilism, theism, optimism, hedonism, what have you, but also a display of the emotional havoc our actions can instill on us in spite of or caused by these ideals. To throw them out and to concentrate simply on themes or symbolism, now there is a narrow and bleak view of any given work. It's no less valid, but no more complex or rewarding.

I'm sorry you feel that people here somehow lack the capacity to understand depth in a novel due to their focus on one aspect over another. I think perhaps you should work on your ability to observe others.

interestingly enough, the censorship may not have been too far off the mark.

I wrote [this chapter] with genuine inspiration, but perhaps it is no good; but for them the question is not its literary worth, they are worried about its morality. Here I was in the right—nothing was against morality, and even quite the contrary, but they saw otherwise and, what's more, saw traces of nihilism ... I took it back, and this revision of a large chapter cost me at least three new chapters of work, judging by the effort and the weariness; but I corrected it and gave it back.
— Dostoyevsky's letter to A.P. Milyukov[14]

>religion isn't important
>despite it literally being the foundation of everything you know and believe
I say this without a shred of irony...bloody post modernists!

This is just sad... I’ll pray for you guys

>its another bait thread on Veeky Forums

So, you complain about religious and spiritual depth, then insult theistic tradition with mocking prayers. sounds like you have a lot to learn.

Another truly horrible thread

>If I don't care about religion or morality is there any point in reading this?
>Do you mind enlightening us of the views we are so ignorant of?
Raskolnikov was very sure of himself too...until he murdered the old lady and her sister. There's a difference between what you know and what you believe, between reading reading a thing and living it. OP is a stupid faggot who claims to be amoral but I don't doubt he satisfies most of the conventions of the abrahamic moral code every single day of his dumb life.

Ahhh, so theoretically, if OP did not care about about religion or morality AFTER having done extensive research on the subjects and learning how they influence his culture and behavior today, then you would have no beef with him?

It'd be impossible to understand the aforementioned and still make that claim.

I have bought that book and i want to start with James Joyce. Is it a good start? I was thinking in Ulysses but everybody says it's 2deep4me.

What do you think?

The lack of an universal justification for morality scares the shit of me. At the end, is morality just a consequence of a power process where we are on the lowest level?

I'm not trying to be edgy or amoral. I just need a justification to follow ethics and don't be an asshole. Some recommended lecture ?

those are the reasons you need to read it

...

That may be so, but we are speaking hypothetically. I imagine you wouldn't have your original issue which i understand to be OP being a closed-minded fool who operates within and holds opinions on a meaning system he doesn't understand yes? Because then he would understand it and have an informed opinion.

good move

what a worthless fucking stance you are taking senpai

The point is that OP2 is projecting onto OP1. He knows nothing.

sounds like you're not a nihilist then

I'd read dubliners first

guys which is better translation. mcduff, p/v, or the new oliver ready?

I spent an impoverished year scraping by, living in a warehouse and generally being a shut-in. I left in spectacular fashion.

On these grounds, the book made tears well in my eyes. Raskolnikov even thought in my words.

Not being interested in a topic is something entirely different than feeling superior to it.

The punishment is the psychological distress of being excommunicated from society. Durkheim calls it Egositic suicide, but Rodya's suicide is spiritual, his soul dissipated by nihilism. This is a recurrent theme in Dostoyevski, the Ivan Karamazov type.

>I don't care about religion and morality.

Why is it always the developmentally stunted individuals that hate these topics. Do you even have a spiritual side or are you that much of a mental midget you can't comprehend or appreciate the profundity of religion, spirituality, morality and higher being?

Yea dude. Great detective thrill in that book

>Translated by Constance Garnett
>is there any point in reading this?
No

>hypothetically, if up was down...

>This fucking thread.
Veeky Forums is dead

Yes, particularly then.

Perhaps this is more your style?

>all these people butthurt that their literary champion's true strength in crime and punishment was genreshit psychothriller

The Idiot was better, but Dostoevsky isn't as deep as you guys keep making him out to be. He had plenty of allusions and references, but to build Crime and Punishment up to levels similar to GR or The Recognitions is silly and misleading. The ideas represented in Crime and Punishment are quaint. The depictions of emotions based on these ideas are what has helped this novel stand the test of time and become a widely known classic.
If you can't accept this, you're deluding yourself, and possibly deluding your future in literary analysis. The well is far deeper than Dostoevsky's bucket goes.

>t. pleb

Read it and you will be forced to care.

>purporting knowledge and interest are conjoined. Hurr durr you have to be interested in what you know about.

Hmm, wouldn't the novel be about his soul's return from nihilism. I agree with you, THE punishment is the psychological distress, but what I'm suggesting is that the crime was the failure to be the superman genius he thought he was. I think that could also coincide with the Durkheimian tone because that would be a necessary gamble that was being made (i.e. he committed an offense to society by trying to transcend their laws, he couldn't transcend, so he was banished).

I'm saying that THE crime of the novel was his failure to transcend laws in the name of a transcendent cause.

Is it though?

Depends on the mind of person you are but I would recommend it. Had a hand in preventing me from going on a spree, I think my professor gave it to me for that reason. There's a lot of themes but the big thing I got out of it was the danger of moral hubris, Raskolnikov thinks he knows everything about her motivations and her spirit but ends up getting an ugly dose of reality when he finds out he doesn't know jack shit and put himself in an even worse situation. I found myself hating Raskolnikov, but by the end I realised the parts of him I hated I identified with the most. I got my shit together and got my degree.