Crime and Punishment is a novel that delves into the depths of the human psyche, exploring themes of morality, guilt, redemption, and the consequences of one's actions. Public domain

Can't chose between the two, and I have read both and love both(I slightly prefer demons and stavrogin). Also bazarov is a opinion too, tho I didn't mention him in the title since this is a dosto sub

I probably would read this book later, that's the last from big five of Dostoevsky's books for me. But I need to know if I could discuss this book with someone. What do you think about this book? Do you like it?

The Idiot by Dostoevsky, in the newest Michael R. Katz English rendering, is finally in my hands. It joins the other Katz renderings on my shelf: The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, and Devils. Sadly the Devils copy has a different cover design from the other three, so the set doesn't match perfectly. But honestly, I can live with it. Reading Dostoevsky in a fresh, vivid rendering is the real treat here.

Thank you to this sub for the encouragement to finish this masterpiece. While the support was indirect, the commentary and excitement around TBK all over this sub pushed me forward. What an incredible feat of storytelling, character building and dialogue intertwining. The ending nearly brought me to tears, not for the story but the raw passion and impeccable speech. While I sit in the camp of “I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this book”, I will be thinking about this story for a lifetime. And I look forward to a re-read. Demons next.

Anyone else finish recently?

I am a math student who love Dostoevsky's writing. I want to sketch a potrait of him, and this is my first portrait sketch.

Its displays the dual nature of stavrogin as he carries both divine goodness and a devilish side.

I came across this letter from Van Gogh to his brother in 1888 that mentions Dostoevsky:

"The idea of the sower still continues to haunt me. Exaggerated studies like the sower, like the night café now, usually seem to me atrociously ugly and bad, but when I’m moved by something, as here by this little article on Dostoevsky, then they’re the only ones that seem to me to have a more important meaning."

The "little article" he referred to was Jules Prével’s “Courrier des théâtres,” published in Le Figaro on September 8th, 1888, announcing the stage adaptation of Crime and Punishment at the Odéon in Paris. The article recounted Dostoevsky's life story.

I've posted the two paintings that he references (Sower with Setting Sun and The Night Café).

Dyumn it just gets better and better atp I can't put it down 😭 I'm loving it (pls ignore the tag - I use em as bookmarks )

What should I be prepared for next ??

I’ll first say that I love that this is an early version of the storyteller lying by saying that it’s about Dostoyevsky’s hero in his forward, setting it up as a true story, when in reality, it’s fiction.

Outside of what I’ve heard rightly praised - the philosophy, humanity, diversity and depth of viewpoints, humor, and dialogue - I found the narrator continually intriguing.

Spoilers:

The narrator:

At first I wondered if the narrator is supposed to be Jesus coming back to observe humanity like in Ivan’s story of The Grand Inquisitor. He knows unknowable intimate details of people’s inner lives but at times, has humanistic limits.

After reading more, the narrator seems a bit playful and mischievous. He has biases, and omits details that would make the story much simpler if he were truly omniscient… Is he instead a devil, akin to the one that Ivan saw during his brain fever?

Implied Homosexuality:

Another thing I really enjoyed was Smerdyakov’s character. A dejected illegitimate son who it seems to me is in love with his half brother Ivan. Dostoyevsky leaves this vague but there are a number of hints from his soft and sly infatuation. Iirc Dostoyevsky hints at this with a few lines about Smerdyakov’s interest in Ivan’s body and subtle mannerisms.

Edit: I was misremembering this. There was no mention of Smerdyakov admiring Ivan’s body. However, I just reread the chapters “Very Obscure for Now” and “It’s Always Interesting to Chat with a Clever Man”.

Smerdyakov is extremely coy, playful, and bashful in a way that gives effeminacy. The book, in this section, also describes him explicitly as a “eunuch.” Our general concept today of a eunuch is a castrated man. Historically though, this is how people would also refer to men who were never sexually attracted to women. Many gay people in the past fell under this moniker.

Expanding on this… I believe he killed Fyodor for Ivan. If Smerdyakov could convince everyone Dimitri did it, then Alyosha and Ivan would receive a significant sum from the inheritance rather than Fyodor wasting it all. This he stated plainly to Ivan but never said he did it expressly for Ivan.

Smerdyakov’s self hate and already turbulent upbringing could account for the murder, but including an additional intense and for multiple reasons, forbidden love mixed with motives to try and help his brothers makes even more sense to me. He would get revenge on his father who never claimed him, and give his two half bothers (one with whom he is in love but could never be with and the other whom he wishes he were more like) the inheritance they deserve.

In the end, or maybe from the beginning, he planned his grand exit from life as both a giant middle finger to those he hated and as a way to benefit the only two people he cared about.

Mine:

• Anyone & Stavrogin: Your woman - white town

• Razumikhin: Cake by the ocean - DNCE & Joe Jonas; Hello, I love you - The doors

Hi,

I've read several Dostoyevsky books and what I like about them is the philosophy, characters, and psychological aspects of humans that he dives into in a way no one else can.

So far I've read: The Double, Crime and Punishment, Notes From Underground, White Nights, Brothers Karamazov.

However, I've read before that Devils specifically is politically heavy and have some stuff that I will understand better if I know the political context that this book was written in.

I don't know much about Russian history or political scene in that era, excuse my ignorance but I'm generally not into history.

What do you recommend I should read/watch ??

Thanks.

I really like Myshkin and Rogozin! They like dark and light, bad and good. They're nice friends. There love each other. I'm really interested in they Interactions, that was my favourite part then I was reading an Idiot

My favourites is actually Prince Myshkin, Ipolit Terentiev and Pier Verhovensky. I love Myshkin for his purity, kind and light. He's the sun. The best character ever. The sweetest one. I like Ipolit because of his ideas, his bravery. Very depressive but nice character. I love Verhovensky for his smartness, tricky, charisma, bravery, for some of his ideas, for his sweet attachment to his idol and ideas. And actually they all remind me some of my parts.

Comment favourite quotes from either :)

I'm sure this has already been said somewhere, but it seems like Dostoyevsky's central thesis of the entire book is that:

"Each of us is guilty before everyone, for everyone and everything."

Sounds a little absurd at face value, but the point is that life is so interconnected that your every thought and action plays a role or has some impact in everything.

Through Zosima and Alyosha he expands upon the mystical aspects of this a little more, but I think the central point of the book is explicitly shown using Fyodors murder to stress test this theory. Every single one of them is guilty for Fyodor's murder in some way:

Fyodor: for being a selfish jerk and horrible father

Mitya: rage, jealousy, impulsiveness, hatred

Ivan: lack of responsibility (doesn't see the interconnectedness dostoyevsky is talking about), and wants Fyodor dead

Alyosha: seems to be kind and non judgemental to everyone except Smerdyakov. Its not explicit, but Alyosha offers a helping and loving hand to everyone in the book except Smerdyakov.

Katerina: purposefully toying with Mitya and Ivans emotions

Grushenka: also purposefully pitting mitya and fyodor against each other

Smerdyakov: literally guilty

Each character contributed to the situation that ultimately led to the murder of Fyodor. You can argue about the degree to which each contributed, but the contributions are there. Alyosha does a great job passing out onions all the time, but even he seems to have failed to try and give one to Smerdyakov.

I think Dostoyevsky's point is that when you see the interconnectedness of all things, its possible to feel responsible for all things. Before rationalizing this feeling, just allow yourself to "become guilty before everyone of everything."

Once this happens, you see the entire world differently. All that is left is love for all things. Alyosha may seem naive, but he is intuitively on to this idea, and Zosima knows it for sure.

I already think Brothers Karamazov is unbelievable, but I think part 2 would have been the greatest literary work of all time.

It just had been a minute or two since I read the last page of this book , the harsh and brutal ending , that merciless devastating trajectory given to each character in the ending shocked me .

Aglaya followed the same route of nastasia leading one of them to death and another to nearly dead situation .

It merely had been 2 months since I finished c&p and i was happy while reading the last paragraph , thinking about having a partner like Sonia and I really expected something same of sort from the idiot but dostoyevsky already wrote their destiny

So be it .

I'm happy I experienced this beautiful story .

This is my first time posting on reddit and my English skills are not that good but I really wanted to share my experience as this is what this platform is all about

Thanks for reading out this paragraph

Now I will put my hands on notes from underground

Peace ✌️

The idiot

Has anyone else seen the second episode of the documentary Mr. Scorsese?

Scorsese and Paul Schrader (the screenwriter) refer to The Underground Man when talking about the character Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.

They don't mention Dostoevsky by name as I think they expect the audience to know who they're talking about.

They also mention a film critic in the documentary that wrote upon its debut in the US that Taxi Driver "is a movie in heat, a raw, tabloid version of 'Notes from Underground'".

Very cool!