
Floating in the Air: The World That Made Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment - lermontov
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-world-of-crime-and-punishment/
======
te_platt
A few years ago I re-read Crime and Punishment, 30 years after trying to get
through it in high school. I was blown away by how deeply it affected me this
time around. It's not so much a crime story as much as a "why is there crime?"
story - or even a "what forces in my mind and in everyone else's minds are
really shaping my moral actions?" story. (I just searched the internet for
that last quote and apparently I need to read more Kant). I had some Russian
friends where I was working at the time and asked them about Crime and
Punishment and they all just frowned and nodded for a minute before one of
them said "yes... very dark..."

For any of you here who may have read it too young I highly recommend going
back and reading it again

~~~
ianai
His “House of the Dead” was amazing too. It was not unlike watching “Lock Up”
but from mid 1800s Russia.

------
pmoriarty
One of the things that struck me upon rereading Crime and Punishement recently
was how forcefully and persuasively Dostoyevsky argues for both sides of
issues. Whereas with lesser authors one can easily tell which side of an issue
they are on, with Dostoyevsky it's not so easy (though you can infer from the
mere fact that Dostoyevsky chose to write about them at all that he cares
deeply about them).

The most unsympathetic of his characters are also portrayed quite
sympathetically and compassionately. The reader really understands how they
can do the reprehensible things they do, can understand what brought them to
this end, and even sympathize with them. They are the polar opposites of the
flat, two dimensional cardboard cutouts that pass for characters in most other
books.

~~~
atomic77
I also coincidentally re-read Crime and Punishment a few months ago and was
also struck at how differently I saw it today than as a college student.

I would be interested to understand how you came to the conclusion that he
argued for both sides? I saw a scathing repudiation of the socialist utopians
of the era (and 'rational' ideologues of all sorts). He 'argued' their sides
too, but with the goal of making them appear ridiculous. By the time
Raskolnikov's fictional essay about the "extraordinary" comes up, i think it's
pretty clear what Dostoyevsky is trying to say. Though that's just my
interpretation.

~~~
stochastic_monk
The fascinating thing about Dostoevsky is that he seems to argue the points he
doesn’t believe in better. I walked away from Demons and Brothers Karamazov
thinking that the points for atheism were more firmly established than the
religious worldview he himself espoused.

Yes, the nihilism points were argued to be a point of comparison against, but
his aim was didactic in the political realm. He explores this further and more
completely in Demons.

~~~
atomic77
Interesting, so you would tend to agree with the parent comment, especially if
you hadn't known anything about the author beforehand? It's a great
illustration of the range of interpretations possible of any artistic work.

I've also read that Demons expands upon many of the ideas in C&P though I had
a bit more trouble getting into it. After hearing about these newer
translations though I might have to give one a try.

~~~
stochastic_monk
I do, although [spoiler alert] Raskolnivok’s ultimate spiritual transformation
and acceptance of Christianity as his morality, without a rational argument
behind it, gives away the author’s prejudice. I see Dostoevsky’s characters as
analogous to set theories without the axiom of choice: self-consistent yet
incomplete. I even felt empathy for the characters I didn’t like because they
still felt human to me.

The most unrealistic thing about his writings is that normal conversations
don’t have alternating monologues which each go on for pages. Clearly he’s
effectively writing inline dueling essays.

Demons is a little more work to get into, as it takes longer to get going than
C&P, but the payoff is well worth the setup.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" The most unrealistic thing about his writings is that normal conversations
don’t have alternating monologues which each go on for pages."_

Unfortunately, there are way too many people in real life who do talk in
monologues and rarely let others get a word in edgewise -- especially if
they're drunk, but sometimes even when they're perfectly sober.

At least Dostoyevsky's characters have something interesting to say.

------
stochastic_monk
Crime and Punishment is a stunningly powerful novel.

For anyone who enjoys it or Notes From Underground, I highly recommend Demons,
which extrapolates the ideas from both previously mentioned to societal scale.

I think it's his best by far.

A note on translations: I've read at least two translations for each book of
his I've read. I generally prefer the Pevear/Volokhonsky translations, but
there are times when the Garnett translations capture the spirit a little
better. Both options are excellent, but read the Pevear/Volokhonsky if you
have to pick one. Reading multiple translations can ultimately help provide a
fuller experience.

------
malvosenior
I find Dostoyevsky to be incredibly approachable to the modern reader. There’s
a wry sense of humor in his work (and other contemporary Russian authors) that
feels closer to Seinfeld than say Shakespear. It’s very dark but the themes
and internal dialog of the characters are shockingly fresh. The Brothers K is
also an excellent read.

------
robin_reala
If anyone hasn’t read Crime & Punishment and wants to, I produced a nice
public domain edition of the Constance Garnett translation for Standard
Ebooks. I was particularly pleased with finding the cover art, which is a
self-portrait by Edvard Munch.

[https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/crime-
an...](https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/crime-and-
punishment/constance-garnett)

~~~
eterm
The first version I read was the Constance Garnett version, but re-reading I
read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation and I'd recommend that version.
(Although that one is not public domain yet of course).

------
telesilla
Ah Raskolnikov - I had a literary crush on him as an 18 year old girl.
Dostoyevsky helped clarify my late-teenage ideas, along with other authors of
his ilk, that morality is a construct created by humans and is not a fixed set
of laws based on natural order to be blindly followed. Like his fictional
love-interest, I was disappointed in Raskolnikov's carrying-through with the
crime, but pleased with how the book elaborated and continued on important
human themes of self-discovery (not to add any spoilers for those yet to enjoy
this wonderful novel). I think this book is best for young people who are
forming their ideas, but if you read it as a fully-formed adult you'll
certainly still enjoy the prose.

~~~
isoskeles
Would there have been a novel to write if Raskolnikov didn't carry through
with the crime?

~~~
telesilla
It's the critical part of the novel, that he does! That was understood, but
it's like watching a movie yelling at the screen, don't go in there!

------
FeepingCreature
> Some would argue that, with the election of Donald Trump, the American
> public made the most self-destructive and irrational decision in our
> nation’s history.

 _Some_ would argue that those people are blistering idiots with a complete
lack of knowledge about their nation's history.

~~~
Nomentatus
Some would - but not you, as you give no argument, or point to any. Gainsaying
is not a contribution.

~~~
FeepingCreature
Manifest Destiny. Smallpox Blankets. Trail of Tears. Slavery. Going to war to
defend slavery. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Vietnam. Iraq. Iraq again. The prison
system. Prohibition. Segregation. War on Drugs.

I'm not even an American.

Trump is _embarassing_. America has done a _lot_ worse than embarassing.

~~~
Nomentatus
There's good evidence the British used smallpox (shards of cloth carefully
sealed, not whole blankets) vs natives in N.A. Less evidence of U.S. (or
Trump) involvement I believe.

I'm not a Trump guy, I just like evidence more than assertion.

------
fictionfuture
Jordan Peterson says this book is a masterpiece of psychology and modern
philosophy. Maybe it's time to pick it up

~~~
watwut
It is pretty good at describing psychology of nearly sociopathic random
murderer. It is not really about general psychology of majority of people who
don't kill without reason.

