What did you take away from this? With Brothers K, I remember I kept thinking of it for like a week after finishing...

What did you take away from this? With Brothers K, I remember I kept thinking of it for like a week after finishing, but for C&P I just finished with an "oh ok". I can recognize the depth and how well formulated it is, and I can even relate to Raskolnikov, but it just doesn't stay in my mind. I'd like to hear other perspectives.

I read it like 5 years ago, currently rereading it. I mean Brothers K is Dostoevsky's magnum opus, but you can see him formulating his ideas in Crime and Punishment. It's a beautiful work on the moral and philosophical struggle between Nihilism/utilitarianism/rationalism/atheism on the one hand, and religion and Christianity on the other. It was the first book by Dostoevsky I ever read, and it made me want to read more and more. Now he's my favorite author.

When I originally read it I was a bit of an atheist edgelord, but nowadays I'm seeking a deeper moral truth, and meaning in life. I have to attribute that to Dostoevsky.

>tfw Brothers Karamazov was only part 1 of the two part series Dosto planned

Oh and another thing I forgot to mention is that this book helped turn me away from libertarianism. One theme of the book is how poverty leads to crime and moral degradation. Before reading it I might have blamed criminals and blamed the poor for their station in life, but 5 years ago the book got me thinking about the topic more.

I know. Pic related.

I was the same way after finishing C&P.
took literally weeks and a few discussions before it really sunk in and I appreciated the message more fully.

start by contrasting the characters of Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov, and Petrovich; they are each variations of the same nihilist character.

add the obsessional jesting recluse narrator of notes from the underground

So Rasky is the nihilist who craves meaning but denies himself it and goes insane with guilt and the feeling of a world truly without rules.

Svidrigailov is a hedonist who forms no meaningful connections and rationalizes every bad thing he does. He ends up shooting himself after he can't rape Dunya because he realizes that humanity still exists within him even after all the terrible acts he has committed, but it's that same humanity that means he can never forgive or rationalize himself.

I'm a little stuck on Petrovich, but I think he's more of an egoist who sees no problem with manipulating people into personal gain.

Man is weak and longs to be a slave.

>Do you know that ages will pass and mankind will proclaim in its wisdom and science that there is no crime and, therefore no sin, but that there are only hungry people. "Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!" — that is what they will inscribe on their banner which they will raise against you and which will destroy your temple.

Part of the reason why I'm rereading it is I feel like I didn't really understand it that well the first time either.

yeah, but no.
they are each nihilist-egoists, but it's their environments and circumstances that guide their actions and ideals.
it is mentioned in the book at some point that "it is a man's environment defines him, there is no man just circumstances" or something to that extent.
Anyhow,
>Raskolnikov
very poor, very low social standing.
a loving family(this is most important) and good friend Razumikhin. He is supported and provided for by his mother, sister and friend, whom he loves dearly. Also Sonia, whose love contrasts everything Rodia believes he deserves, and he in turn looks down on her for it. Their love isn't necessarily what defeats his nihilism, but their love is what keeps his nihilism from defeating Rodia.
>Svidrigailov
a direct foil of Rodia except 1. He's wealthy and 2. No one loves him. So he's taken care of financially, but not spiritually, so he is the inverse of Rodia. His low social standing ensures this. There is no love to combat his nihilism and egoism and this leads to his suicide.
>Petrovich
Wealthy, high social standing.
His social standing partly combats his nihilism, and partly fuels it. He's the only one who hasn't killed anyone, so obviously he's well respected, but he also lacks the spiritual depth provided by familial intimacy. His nihilistic egoism in the end defeats his attempt at artificial love because the only love he is capable of is artificial; material, societal, worn as an adornment. An unwillingness to truly sacrifice a part of himself, only giving what he can easily afford and lacking spiritual depth and intimacy.

The moral resolution is that only love can defeat nihilism and egoism, otherwise they will destroy the person who indulges in them, mistaking them for freedom.

Thanks for this post, good viewpoint

>mistaking them for freedom.
I wish someone could provide a simple explanation for Dosto viewed as freedom. He said a lot of powerful things on what isn't...but what's the 'answer' so to speak?

I really identified with Raskolnikov as I had recently been diagnosed with bipolar. His character and particularly his interactions with Petrovich made me consider whether my mental conditions was not a simple physiological condition as had been suggested to me, but a much deeper problem in my psyche rooted in a poor philosophical view of the world (I think there is a passage that almost states that exact idea). I started devouring secondary sources of western philosophy and religion in an effort to understand and eventually ended up reading some Jung who's work seemed to mirror and expand upon my own thoughts that I could not seem to elucidate. I've never been happier now and if I feel any "bipolar" symptoms I can listen carefully to my body and understand the deeper pyschological and spiritual nature of the thoughts and make changes to better myself, my life and the world. Pretty positive effect I would say.

Huh, strange... It's just me that cherish more C&P than Karamazov?

Same here. I loved the book, but right after I was done I couldn't remember a bunch of things and I didn't think about it much either.

This was supposed to be a deep psychological study and I must have missed what made it special. I remember Raskolnikov being sick in bed, but I can't recall everything he deliberated on. I'll take notes next time.

Me too

>no matter what you do, you'll never write anything nearly as good as even a chapter of C&P

really wished the epilogue had never existed, it's called crime and punishment, not crime, punishment, and redemption ffs. the idiot was better, and bros k was better than that. turgenev bests all of dosty's work though,

*translators note: Raskolnikov means a split, division*

I read it when I was an edgy teenager and made me experience an existential crisis but fuck me if I can remember right now what the whole book was all about other than "Nihilism is bad mkay".

It made me empathize with humans more and understand people's pain. Seeing a lot of the self hatred in Rasko made me recognize my own insecurities and self hatred, because I uncomfortably found myself identifying with him, it was a wake up call to audit my thinking and hypocrisies in a way. It also made me realize it's a pretty common human trait and I'm not the only one. Smart people can still have this low emotional intelligence. It gave me some good perspective and self awareness.

On the subject of Dostoevsky, I have the Garnett translation of TBK. I heard the Norton Critical revision of Garnett's version is superior because it roughs up some of the "cleaned up" language. I don't have the Norton one though, I have the Garnett one. Is it worth the autism to wait until I pick up the Norton one (Garnett's translation slightly revised by Matlaw) or can I just start the freaking book now?

Just start it! Garnett is fine in my opinion.

felt like this about the idiot.
perhaps that book is about the frustrations of writing for a society of idiots who don't understand your work.

amor fati

Norton is the edition.
Constance Garnett is the translator.
You're fine.

Yes but to my understanding, Matlaw makes worthwhile revisions to her translation in the Norton edition. It's still her translation but he changes some words to better reflect the idiosyncrasies of Russian. So he says in the Notes from Underground copy I have of his revision

I wanted a part 2. But I also want to know how Alyosha dies.

What, Alyosha was supposed to die? I don't think I could've taken that.

That's a good thing.
Dont read unrevised Garnett. I would even opt for the Norton 2nd edition with a second revision by Oddo

i took away that raskolnikov was definitely an over thinker and definitely made me feel better about myself as i tend to delve too deeply and stress over everyday decisions that are based on moral principle.

i read crime and punishment first, so it was the first time i was exposed to a writer who put those elements so emphatically into a character. made me feel more secure about myself in understanding that my consciousness speaking loudly is not a bad thing.

>me...me...me..i...i...i..my..my..my
kys

You should learn Russian and read C&P in the original. English translations of Dostoevsky's books have lost their self-relective, "self-eating" structure.

Apparently Alyosha was going to get involved in a conspiracy plot to assassinate the Tsar, he would get caught and executed.

>Revision
>Revision
>Rerevision
Kek

I'll consider that. And what about the P&V translation? The rest of the internet seems to suck it off as the superior Dostoevsky translation. I'm loving their Anna Karenina though

Yeah I think the beginning mentions how his death is sad or something like that. So I wanted to know how messed up his ending was going to be. But that was before I saw there was supposed to be a part 2. I thought he was going to die in a freak accident by the end.