Crime And Punishment

Currently I am on page 190, as you can see by looking at that red page/bookmarker in one of the photos that I have posted . I got this novel in 512 rupees , as of my experience till 190 is really good I have read 190 pages in 2 days approx , it's interesting story and hits you hard by psychological point of views I mean if your every thought of committing crime or I would say if you have watched crime petrol or some crime movie then we always wonder that why din this fool did this or did that to hide his crime he could easily get away from trouble...but in this book even if you thought of 100 things then 80 things this writer has introduced already and remember I am on page 190 ... I am sure it gonna shock me more ... I dunno what gonna happen in the end of the story ...btw name of the characters are so complex and hard to pronounce as they are Russian names and somehow it's confusing too ... So I would suggest that after reading 100 or 150 pages .. open Google and write down character names so that you can see whenever you are confused who the hell this guy is .. because I got confused many times and then I had to open Google and check the character ..... Guys go for this book and like my review .. maybe someday I will be famous on youtube ..as a book reviwer and then you all would feel proud that you have liked my post way before anyone else ...

This is my first novel, although I have tried some other novel in past but I didn't like them and left them at beginning but, this one gave me completely new experiences. While reading I find myself getting different feelings. The scenes and conversations are present in such a way it feels like watching a movie and the underlying story gives feelings as I knew them personally sometimes, I find myself pitying for characters and sometimes uplifted from the story. The author did a really great job.

A month back when I started reading this intense psychological thriller by the famous Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) little did I know that this work will recast my notions about crime as well as punishment. As the name suggests, the novel revolves around the very concept of crime and the consequent punishment imparted for it. Without superfluous tracks in typical Dostoyevskian style, it questions a very basic thing- if one kills an epitome of the evil, a vile vermin to save hundreds of innocents, how can it be called a crime and who can decide the befitting punishment for the same?The protagonist Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov is a tall and handsome 23 year old former university student who lives in a suffocating cupboard-like rented room in St. Petersberg, Russia. He publishes an article describing his theory on crime along with a hypothesis relating crime and a high fever. Months later, he shockingly finds himself compelled to brutally murder an old pawnbroker who he considers to be a den of iniquity and a venomous insect. Despite poverty, fever and dilemmas, he comes out unscathed and manages to duck everyone. From police to his intellectual best friend, Razhumihin and from his shrewd landlady to his over-analytical doctor, everyone believes him to be innocent. However, it is his own conscience that he relentlessly grapples with. One day at a cheap tavern, his path entwines with that of a bankrupt alcoholic clerk Marmeladov and later with his dignified but consumptive second wife Katrina Ivanovna (she has three children from a previous defunct marriage) and his religious and timid twenty year old daughter Sonia from his late first wife. When Sonia destroys herself in providing for her starving step-siblings, he bows at her feet, much to the shock of everyone.The novel also has other important characters like Svidrigailov, a 50 year old pedophile all set to marry a 15 year old, Luzhin, a devious narcissist and Dounia, the erudite and charming older sister of the protagonist, fighting her own demons. Raskiolnikov, till the end stays clear and unsuspected yet it is his inner voice that constantly bothers him and he ends up taking odd decisions in order to run away from his own crumbling self. His way of perceiving things is complex yet he manages to convince the reader into agreeing with him. Twists and turns keep the reader on the edge and the ending gives a nice closure to this powerful work. This novel also throws much light on the then Russian society and culture.Not just another run-of-the-mill fiction, ‘Crime and Punishment’ requires contemplation on the reader’s part. It takes one inside the frenzied but brilliant mind of Raskolnikov and argues upon the fundamentals such as of crime, what defines it, who can be called a criminal, what the meaning of punishment is, who actually deserves how much of it in any society, in an era and who deserves to rule the masses. This book breaks old moulds of notions and makes one reflect, that too profoundly. It undoubtedly is a timeless classic.PS- I found this translation to be a bit confusing and messed up at many places hence it is better to get another one from the many available ones.-The scene of Katrina Ivanovna’s depressing death later in the story, literally shook me up and made me cry.

According to price it is very good product.

This is the single greatest piece of literature and the product didn't spoil that experience.Only issue is that the actual hardcover is blank—ie doesn't feature the cover—and it's only the jacket that covers it.

It’s a lengthy read but the story line definitely keeps the reader engaged throughout the book. Makes the reader wonder about human life, thoughts and existence. Through the character Raskolnikov, Fyodor Dostoevsky tells us all a gripping tale about human nature, relationships and thoughts.

Paper quality is not that good

Very good book for any adult to pass the time

One of the best stories out there about the human condition . A must read for those who enjoy like good literature .

Dostoevsky writes a magnificent book, written skillfully and in a professional manner, the story tells about the danger of the pursuit of an idea and the dealings with the truth of it later showing how one person never gets away with anything and that actions have consequences.

"Out of Shakespeare, there is no more exciting reading than Dostoevsky" -- Virginia Woolf. I agree. I would like to add that, in all of Dostoevsky, there is no more exciting reading than "Crime and Punishment." Let me take that a step further. In "Crime and Punishment," there is no more exciting reading than Constance Garnett's translation of THE climactic exchange between murderer Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov and detective Porfiry Petrovitch:" 'Then...who then...is the murderer?' he (Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov) asked in a breathless voice, unable to restrain himself." Porfiry Petrovitch sank back in his chair, as though he were amazed at the question. 'Who is the murderer?' he repeated, as though unable to believe his ears. 'Why, you, Rodion Romanovitch! You are the murderer,' he added, almost in a whisper, in a voice of genuine conviction. "Wow! It just doesn't get any better, any more exciting, any more dramatic than that. Better than any other translator, Constance Garnett knocks the reader out of the armchair!! See for yourself. Compare. I could prove my point by quoting from another translation or two. But that would only bore you. And where's the fun in that? Not there. But here. Here in Chapter Two of Part Six of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" AS TRANSLATED BY CONSTANCE GARNETT.I don't care whether a translation is true to the original or not. Truth has no place in the world of dramatic fiction. If a translation improves upon the original, so much the better. Shakespeare improved upon Plutarch, did he not? For those who insist on literal translation, I would advocate for interlinear translation, which would allow us Engloids to "read between the lines" of the Russian original.I first read Constance Garnett's translation of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" when I was a student at Boston Latin School, fifty years ago. That translation seems to have gotten better with age. I would like to say the same about my self. But I won't. I can't. Why not? I'll tell you why not! I do not live "in the world of dramatic fiction." That's why not.Cheers! Happy reading!!P.S. For more on Dostoevsky and "Crime and Punishment," please see Joseph Frank's "Dostoevsky: the Miraculous Years, 1865-71," and Mikhail Bakhtin's "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics."P.P.S. Eureka! I have found it!! By "it," I mean the "little fact" that Porfiry tells Raskolnikov he (Porfiry) has, but won't reveal. Part Six, Chapter Two. OK. So. Porfiry refuses to tell Raskolnikov what his "little fact" is. Very well. Be that way. I, by contrast, am not so coy. I will tell my fellow Amazonians what Porfiry's "little fact" is. Porfiry's "little fact" is Raskolnikov's phony "pledge" item: a tightly wrapped-and-tied piece of metal-and-wood that Raskolnikov had made at home. Part One, Chapter Six. Raskolnikov told the pawnbroker it was "a silver cigarette case," handed it to her, and then murdered her. Part One, Chapter Seven. It was found in her hand after the murder. Epilogue. So. There you have it. Porfiry's "little fact" you can "get your hands on." Part Six, Chapter Two. How about that! Bingo!! "Never mind all this psychology stuff," as Porfiry might put it. Raskolnikov's phony "pledge" item in the murdered pawnbroker's hand was physical evidence that placed Raskolnikov right there, right then: at the murder scene, at the time of the murder. Got 'im.SECOND THOUGHTS FROM A DOUBTING THOMAS: We readers of Part One, Chapters Six and Seven, know all about the connection between Raskolnikov and the phony "pledge" item that was found in the pawnbroker's hand after the murder. Epilogue. My guess is that said "pledge" item was the "little fact" that Porfiry mentioned in Part Six, Chapter Two. Be that as it may, I ask myself whether Porfiry would have been able to link that "pledge" item to Raskolnikov -- without the benefit of Raskolnikov's confession!? We readers know that the "pledge" item found in the pawnbroker's hand after the murder was Raskolnikov's homemade decoy. Part One, Chapter Six. It was designed to -- and it did -- absorb all the attention of the pawnbroker. Part One, Chapter Seven. Diverted and pre-occupied with untying and unwrapping the "pledge" item, the pawnbroker became unaware of Raskolnikov as he opened his coat, pulled out his axe, and raised it over her head. Id. After the murder, the "pledge" item was found in the pawnbroker's hand. Epilogue. OK. So. There you have it. The "little fact." Part Six, Chapter Two. The thing "you can get your hands on." Id. That raises this question: Was there anything in, on, or about the "pledge" item that could connect it to Raskolnikov? I don't know the answer to that question. I think I'm so smart. And yet, I'm stumped. I really am. Assuming the "pledge" item found in the hand of the murdered pawnbroker came from the murderer, such a murderer must have known that the pawnbroker made loans secured by "pledge" items. Such knowledge, however, was common knowledge. Everybody knew. But not everybody would be allowed in by the pawnbroker. There were no signs of entry having been forced. So, the pawnbroker must have let the murderer in. Whom would she let in? Someone she knew. A known customer, quite likely. A known customer bearing a "pledge" item. Raskolnikov was the last customer to come forward and claim valuables pawned before the murder. So, in a narrow field of promising suspects (i.e., customers of the pawnbroker), Raskolnikov was the one who stood out. But still! Raskolnikov's delay in coming forward is psychological or behavioral evidence, not physical evidence, not a "thing" that you can "get your hands on." Part Six, Chapter Two. By contrast, the "pledge" item found in the hand of the murdered pawnbroker IS physical evidence. Epilogue. How could Porfiry connect Raskolnikov to that "pledge" item? That is the question. The easy answer is that Raskolnikov's confession made the connection. Epilogue. The more difficult question is this: What if Raskolnikov had not confessed? How could Porfiry have connected Raskolnikov to the "pledge" item found in the murdered pawnbroker's hand? By other physical evidence? By psychological and/or behavioral evidence? By something else? By some other way? I wonder.I also wonder whether Porfiry's "little fact" might be the stone under which Raskolnikov hid what he had stolen from the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov told Zametov about the stone; Zametov told Porfiry; and Porfiry asked Raskolnikov to leave a note about the stone if he decided to commit suicide. Such a note would give Porfiry a "thing he could get his hands on," together with Raskolnikov's own handwriting connecting him to it.Oy! All this writing, all this thinking, all this reading, all this . . . What, in the end, what does all this come down to? I am left guessing, wondering, thinking, writing. What if Porfiry's "little fact" was something other than the "pledge"? something other than the stone? something else entirely? something I did not write down? something that did not even occur to me? What then? Who knows? Who can say? I, for one, cannot say. For, I do not know. I want to know. But I do not know. I am left wondering. To this day, this hour, this moment, that is all I can do. I can only wonder. And THAT, to my way of thinking, is not a bad state of mind to be in. Not bad at all. Good, actually. Even wonderful. Yes. Of course. Now I see it clear and say it plain: It is wonderful to wonder!PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPH: By continually referring to Alyona Ivanova not by her name, but as "the pawnbroker," I took away her identity, her personality, her life. I did not intend to do so. Nor would I want to do so. And yet, I did do so -- unintentionally, inadvertently, not knowing what I did. Unfortunately, this is one of those contexts in which a person is identified not by who they are (Alyona Ivanova) but by what they do (pawnbroker). So, please. Help me out here. Do me a favor. When you read "pawnbroker," think "Alyona Ivanova."ULTIMATE PARAGRAPH: Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov deserved the death penalty. Alyona Ivanova and her step-sister Lizaveta did not. Their lives were infinitely more valuable and virtuous than his. They did not coldly and calculatedly butcher two innocent defenseless old ladies. He did. They did not deserve to die. He did.

I’m still a new to reading novels, so my opinion may change in the future, but I have say that for one of my first novels to read I feel like I’ve read a master piece!How the characters in the novel are written, makes them feel real and connectable to.The description of the characters, their personalities and the places where events happened is very likable as well.The way I can hear the characters’ thoughts made me sometime feel like I was the person living and thinking that way, as if I were them! onetime I even felt almost going crazy as one of the characters was going crazy!It is in the psychological genre and it does a great job at it, but I would advise to stay away from it if you’re not fond of that genre.As a last note, as a non English native speaker the novel was a little hard to read(I needed to use the translator a couple of times).TLDR;I felt like I read a master piece.It was enjoyable, makes you feel like you are the character him/her self, the way the characters and their thoughts are presented is fantastic and makes them connectable to and makes the reader able to understand them.I liked it a lot, I definitely recommend it to anyone into the psychological genre.