So I just finished reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. Could someone explain the hype?

So I just finished reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. Could someone explain the hype?

Why do you care about the hype?

I didn't dislike the book, but I don't understand why it is so praised. I'd like to hear what people have to say about it.

everything leading up to the crime and the crime itself is god tier. rest ist filler

It was popular when nihilism was a threat more than the status quo it is now

People pretend that every sentence is a work of extremely profound philosophical and psychological insight and if you disagree then you're stupid.

This pleb doesn't appreciate the intense scenes with Porfiry and the mindless wanderings of a lost mind looking for any kind of reasoning to justify its deed.

Deplorable.

I liked the final part, as I didn't read it in english I don't know how it is organized, but everything regarding Svidrigáilov's suicide (including the facts leading to it) and beyond that point was pleasing for me to read, but the middle isn't as interesting in my opinion, besides some particular events.

It's interesting that Nietzsche praised Dostoyevsky so much, since his (late) thinking in general and in this book in particular go beyond Nietzsche's thought, past the übermensch.
Also,
>If anyone be in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed, behold, new things have come

I am about 40% into it right now and its enjoyable, though its definitely slowed down after the murder. Still fun reading about Raskolnikov making himself ill and pissing everyone he knows off.

the end is god tier too

Some book shouldn't be given to plebs like you.

I've finished it a few weeks ago, i loved it. I agree it definitely slows down after the murder. 1 part of 6 is the murder, everything is the after part.
Raskonlikov mindfucks himself. I like the parts also when you he's talking to himself when he's walking down the streets.
and when characters mention they've noticed this behavior in not only him, but other young men in st petersburg

I think Sonia is the most beautiful character of the book. Unconditional love even after he confessed her the murder.

>Sonia
>not Raskolnikov for all his underlying compassion behind his actions

No Raskolnikov is a shit person and he realises that all through the book. Sonia loves him beside that. True godly love

Raskolnikov is a selfish and arrogant stupid little bitch.

He's interesting because he's like all of us but Sonia is the true patrician choice with Porphyre

Whores with hearts of gold type characters are the 19th century equivalence of animay waifus. Dosty was a sperg.

Character with pure beauty in their heart is what everyone wants. Only edgy teenagers would idolize someone like raskolnikov.

It's telling how OP isn't responding to much of anything in his thread
Really makes you engage the old axons and whatnot. Unless you're OP apparently

>axons
Look what you did there

I'm sorry, I went out to eat. I agree with what the anons said about Sonia being a beautiful character, and I also agree with the user who said that Raskólnikov spends most of the book realizing how shitty he really is, considering that the book basically ends when he accepts that he is no better than any other normal man.

I also wanted to mention that I got extremely annoyed and unsettled with the endless speeches of Porfiri.

Okay, thank you OP
Yes, Dostoyevsky did have a tendency to make his characters into artless mouthpieces

Do you have a recommendation on what I should read next, considering that I've just finished Crime and Punishment? It doesn't need to be Dostoevsky or Russian, desu, I just would like a recommendation.

*leans into mic*
"Wrong."

I read a few hundred pages of brothers Karamazov in Russian. It seemed to touched upon faith against human nature but nothing of value have I learned for myself. My Russian uncle is a big drunk who produced some children and the book bascially describes him very well.
>drink vodka
>get delusional
>upset the children
>uncle is hated
>uncle is killed
Basically my russian uncle who drinks vodka everyday and goes to work hungover every morning to manage a factory then bang some desperate single mums. I literally cannot stand him whenever he is on skype , he just downs a whole bottle of vodka during a skype call and teaches his 8 year old how not to talk to people. I don't wanna read anymore of the book because I already seen The Leviathan film and am aware of the disgusting vodka habit that the Russians have. Is it worth to carry on? I do not belive in christianity or god or morals sent from above. Will I discover more for myself?

I'm a big Dostoyevsky, so I think a lot of his stuff is worthwhile. Some of his shorter works like The Double, The Gambler, and Notes from the House of the Dead, are especially underrated But maybe you'd like a break from him for the time being. Maybe you'd like to explore the big Dosto-or-Tolstoy [-or-Chekhov] debate for yourself, or explore some earlier Russian like Pushkin or someone later like Gorky or Erofeyev, but again maybe you'd rather do something non-Russian for now.
Gosh, it's wide open. Maybe a short-story collection, something from Borges, or Joyce, or Wallace, or Saunders, or someone else you've been wanting to get into

I read this book earlier this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, I don't really understand Svidrigailov's character. Was he suppose to be Raskolnikov's end game?

I got fed up at the point he trolled the monastic dinner just b/c he could. Don't know why I was so annoyed back then. Haven't picked it back up.

underrated

Crime: False representation, fraud, conspiracy, criminal harassment, employment fraud

Punishment: Punitive damages

Seems fair to me desu. That's what the book is about right?

lolwut

I thought that what people were memeing this book for. I'm joking, I know it's good, I haven't read it but I do enjoy Dostoevsky

I'm having trouble understanding the ending. It doesn't seem to me that Raskolnikov ever changes his mind about the murders being justified, he talks about his conscience being clean just a few pages from the end. He does change in that he starts loving Sonja openly, and he does feel bad about hurting her - but never for committing his crime.

I'm not saying the book HAS to end with him seeing his wrongs, but a lot of people seem to think that that was the point. And it is what Raskolnikov struggles with throughout. So it feels like I'm missing something.

The point is that he recognizes himself as being a normal, weak man, rather than superior human being as he though on the beginning of the book.

Yeah, I just don't really see where he realizes that, or what triggers it. Is it the fever dream? Sonja's unconditional love?

I remember him talking about that article he wrote about extraordinary people and ordinary people, and for a while he was wondering if he was a napolean but he deep down knew that when he asked this question, that answered the question. if he had to ask, he was no napolean.

im the 3rd user again.
i feel like these two things are seperate. him seeing himself as a weak man and the justifications for his crime. What he found out was that he was no napolean, and he couldn't simply step over a life like that. He still justifies that he was going to do good with the money, but his psyche couldn't handle it.

So am I right to think that he maintains his thinking that great men are "allowed" to commit crime? Just that he wasn't one of them?

I think he's supposed to be the self-justifying man that doesn't accept others or humility into his life. He's what Raskolnikov would have been had he not met Sonia and put his faith in her.
Suicide scene was heartbreaking, btw

i agree with this

Nietzche praised him for his psychological insight, not necessarily for the existential insight. One thing people forget about Dostoevsky is that a secular interpretation of his works is not impossible. Moreover I think that Dostys characters perpetual struggle with nihilism fits right in with Nietzches existential worldview, the only difference being that Dosty believes theism to be the answer, while Nietzche prefers synthesis of your own meaning.

Their main point of disagreement is visible in both Crime and Brothers, in that Raskolnikov and Ivan both make it apparent that Dostoevsky believes there to be a moral (or cultural for a secular interpretion) core, that in the presence of an amoral life or lack of belief in our ingrained belief system will cause us suffering. I think Nietzche believes that we can fill this gap ourselves, Dostoevsky believes faith is what best fills this gap.

Sorry for any misspellings, I have to head home from work very soon and I'm racing against the clock.

Not enjoying фёдop фёдopивич

Plebeians tbqh

Raskolnikovs endgame, also an assertion of Dostoevskys idea of intrinsic morality.

Despite his rationalisation, Svidrigailov could never rid himself of the black marks on his soul, from mistreating others and living without meaning. Deep down he was truly disgusted at the effects of his nihilistic actions and lifestyle had on others. He is to be the logical conclusion of Raskolnikovs worldview.

You can acknowledge and atone without logically thinking what you did was wrong.

Dostoevsky believes morals and logic to be seperate. Raskolnikov atones for his egoism and nihilism. The crime itself is secondary and he still considers it logically sound. It simply was a morally heinous act. He is morally atoning

Somehow killing a thousand people under the banner of the military is alright and morally good, yet killing one damn greedy and senile granny is wrong. Where the fuck is the justice in that, eh??

I would recomend th red and the black from standhal. It is a great book. And it's main character really reminds you of raskolnikov.

Yes I would recommend the Very Hungry Caterpillar

Seems fair to me.

It does, but that's not what the book is about. I dunno if it's a meme or not.

You didn't understand the book at all.

dostoevsky isn't the one behind how fucked russia is, my man

It's still a threat

Raskolnikov has always had the internal struggle between ego and genuine love. To call simply just a regular old selfish bastard is way too shallow. There are tons of examples and anecdotes of his kindness throughout the book.