Public reader discussion about Crime and Punishment in the WeRead Catalog by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
By marginCedar3
Okay don’t come for me, but I tried to get through Crime and Punishment and I just couldn’t stay interested. I was reading and then it kind of dragged for me about halfway through. I get that the whole “punishment” thing is more in his head than anything, but once the crime happens it just got boring and I had trouble getting back into it. Does anyone have suggestions for books with a similar vibe/plot but that are faster-paced?
By CalmDesk
I’m not really a reader usually, but my girlfriend just got me this book. Before I came home I looked into it a bit, and a bunch of people say it’s one of the best in literature… But I’ve also heard that a lot of philosopher-type books can be pretty hard to follow. Is that true with Crime and Punishment? And one more thing—since I’ve never read a book that has an introduction, do I need to read the intro too, or should I just jump straight in?
By moleFog16
Hey, I’m 21 and my gaming PC basically decided I needed a break—so it’s in the shop right now. Since I can’t game, I picked up *Crime and Punishment*. I’m hoping to finish it tomorrow, and then I’ll need a new book soon because I’m leaving for vacation. I really liked the whole idea around Raskólnikov’s theory—like how some people think they have some kind of “permission” to murder for a bigger reason. What I enjoyed most was reading the thinking/logic behind doing something awful, instead of the usual “he’s just crazy” explanation. I also liked the back-and-forth between him and Porfiry, and honestly I kept smiling through those scenes. Porfiry trying to wear him down was done really well. I don’t really have anything to compare it to though, so maybe it was just fine? What should I read next? Any suggestions for something in the same vibe—like a dark, “killer” story? Thanks!
By YellowVelvet7
This book came out in 1866, and from what I know a lot of what we call modern psychology (and especially criminal psychology) just wasn’t really a thing yet. Still, a bunch of academic stuff praises it for being spot-on about the mindset of a criminal through Raskolnikov, and even how Porfiry does interrogation like modern police. I can’t help but wonder though—did it actually influence how psychology or criminal profiling developed at all?
By cosmicChair98
No spoilers, but this passage really jumped out at me. I’ve read a handful of Dostoevsky books, and C&P was good, just not his best imo, but this part stuck with me. What do you think he was getting at here? >He was in the hospital from around the middle of Lent until after Easter. Once he got better, he recalled the dreams he’d had while feverish and delirious. He dreamed that the whole world was doomed by a horrible new plague that had reached Europe from deep in Asia. Everyone was to be wiped out except a very small chosen group. Some new kind of microbes were attacking people’s bodies, but these microbes had intelligence and a will of their own. The people infected by them became instantly mad and enraged. Yet never had they felt so smart and so certain of the truth as these victims, and never had they thought their decisions, scientific findings, and moral beliefs so beyond doubt. Whole villages, whole towns, entire peoples went insane from the disease. Everyone was agitated and no one understood anyone else. Each person thought only he had the truth and felt miserable seeing the others, beat his chest, cried, and wrung his hands. They didn’t know how to judge anything and couldn’t agree on what was evil and what was good; they didn’t know who to blame or who to defend. People killed one another in a kind of pointless rage. They formed armies against each other, but even while marching the armies would start fighting among themselves, the lines would break, and the soldiers would fall on one another, stabbing, slashing, biting, and devouring each other. The alarm bell rang all day in the cities; people ran together, but no one knew why they’d been called or who was calling them. The most basic jobs were left undone because everyone had their own ideas, their own fixes, and they couldn’t agree. The land was abandoned too. People met in groups, came to agreements, swore to stay united, and immediately started doing something totally different from what they’d planned. They blamed each other, fought, and killed each other. There were fires and famine. Everything and everyone was caught up in destruction. The plague kept spreading farther and farther. Only a few people could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, meant to start a new race and a new life, to renew and cleanse the earth, but no one had ever seen these people, and no one had heard their words or their voices.
By BraveTicket
Just finished *Crime and Punishment* and I can’t really shake it. I kept thinking I relate to Raskolnikov more than I expected. He’s basically smart and (at least in his own head) has that “special” vibe, but people don’t like him because he comes off cold and kinda snide. And honestly, that’s something I worry about too—like I can have a haughty way of acting that makes it harder to connect with people, even if I’m not trying to be. Then there’s the whole mental health part. I had a rough depressive episode in 2010/11 and it’s messed with my life in a way that makes “wasted potential” feel way too real. His ideas about ordinary vs extraordinary really hit me too, because I feel like a lot of us want to believe we’re above the average stuff—like we’re somehow meant for more. I definitely want to think I’m clever and talented (and I am, to a point), but I’m not a genius or some prodigy in anything. Which makes me wonder why I’m so quick to look down on people with that cynical attitude. It’s just… built into me, I guess. What really stuck was how the ending feels like he finally accepts he’s just part of the ordinary crowd, not one of the few “special” ones. And I feel like most of the book he’s still wrestling with that idea. Accepting you’re going to live a pretty normal life and never do anything that gets remembered seems really hard. I hope most people don’t need to go as far as he did to reach that realization, though. Sorry this is kind of rambling and not super about the book itself, but it’s just the kind of thoughts it dragged up for me and I wanted to get it down.
By folio_zymome
I’m not totally confident, but I feel like Crime and Punishment was kind of a reaction to all the Enlightenment stuff and the more nihilistic ideas spreading around Europe. Does anyone know of any specific novels, plays, or other writing that were pushing the whole Ubermensch / beyond-morality angle that might’ve helped spark what Dostoevsky went for?
By hardcoverStorm
I got really hooked by the dream stuff pretty early on. I’m not done with the book yet, but it feels like Raskolnikov’s dreams and his sleeping are kind of a big turning point in what’s going on. I’ve got a couple questions I keep coming back to: - What do you think about the horse dream? And does it make sense to you that each person in it is supposed to stand for a different “side” of Raskolnikov? I’m curious how you’d read it. - Also, what do you think sleep is doing here besides him just being wiped out from guilt and stress after the murder? I can’t say for sure yet since I haven’t finished, but I do like the critic’s Freudian angle on the dream. Even though Freud feels kind of anachronistic for the time period and maybe not what the author intended, it still kind of clicks for me. Like, I don’t just read it as him attacking society. It feels like he’s also fighting himself—trying to go after his own weakness and that darker streak inside him. He’s a struggling, sort of failed student, stuck in a self-made kind of poverty, and he’s not wrong to notice how fake and morally rotten parts of society can be. Meanwhile the most vulnerable people get crushed and have barely anything. And I guess I’m seeing something like split behavior when he’s asleep vs awake: one minute he seems like this genuinely kind, Christian guy who feels for people (Marmeladov and his family, giving money away, protecting a drunk woman from getting assaulted), and then his murderous/diabolical side kind of slips away into the background—like it’s living underneath everything. Then when he sleeps, it’s like he goes into these deep states where he’s not fully himself, raving or feverish while he’s basically out of it, and somehow he switches between being totally locked in on his goal and then totally powerless/unconscious. So yeah, I don’t really think any of us can fully control the ugly parts of ourselves, even if we want to believe we can. They show up when you least expect it—especially when you’re weak—and they find a way in. Anyway, I’m still early enough in the book that I’m not certain, but I’d really love to hear what everyone else thinks once they’ve gotten further.
By BraveWonder
I really liked how Dostoevsky pulls you into all that inner psychological mess and that heavy guilt feeling. The only reason I picked it up in the first place was for those two lines—“deeper to grief closer you are to god” and “fear of appearances is the first sign of impotence.” That said, it is still a good read. It’s kind of unsettling in a way that makes you feel like you’re inside a murderer’s head. But I don’t think it deserves to be called one of the absolute greatest books ever. It’s super famous even now, and I get why people love it, I just can’t make it my kind of book. I’m honestly torn: I can appreciate the plot, but the message doesn’t land with me enough for me to enjoy it. Curious what other people think?
By orangeBear
That shadow has to be my husband, right?
By james_chicago
I’m reading Crime and Punishment for the first time too. I studied English lit, but for some reason I never really got around to Russian lit until this year. I read Notes from the Underground first since I’d heard it was a good way into the kinds of themes Dostoevsky keeps coming back to, and I honestly liked how it made me think about philosophy, psychology, social rules, and all that in a pretty uncomfortable way. I’m maybe halfway through Crime and Punishment right now, and I’m listening to the audiobook. There have been a few really interesting parts, and it still feels like it’s building a lot toward what’s coming later. But I’m having a hard time getting fully into it. I did like the drunk people/society stuff a lot — my intro mentions Dostoevsky originally planning a whole separate book called “The Drunkards” that later got folded into Crime and Punishment — and the way it looks at what alcoholism does to society. The psychological stuff is interesting too. It just feels like it’s moving a little slowly for me. So I’d really like to know, with as few spoilers as possible if possible, what people love so much about this book. I’d also like to know what themes or scenes I should be paying attention to if you’ve read it, since I’d love to catch whatever it is that makes it such a big deal. Thanks! Update: Thanks for all the comments and thoughts! I finished Crime and Punishment and ended up really loving the second half, especially Svidrigailov’s arc and Raskolnikov’s redemption arc. I also loved all the symbolism and themes I could finally spot at the end. Appreciate the help in making it a good experience!
By ApronFish38
I got this huge book for Christmas and I’ve never tackled anything that big before. I’m probably going to need a bit of encouragement just to get through it—like, tell me what you think about it and whether it’s actually worth it or not.
By oceanlost
I just finished reading Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment today, and wow, it’s probably one of the most brilliant books I’ve ever come across. It brought up some really deep philosophical ideas that are honestly way beyond me to fully answer, but they’re still really interesting to sit with. Going in, I only had a basic idea of what it was about — sort of a critique of nihilism, utilitarianism, rational egoism and all that — but I didn’t expect it to be so intense and psychological. I was seriously amazed by how well he captures the strange little workings of the human mind in such a sharp way. I feel like there’s at least a little Raskolnikov in all of us. And the actual story was really gripping too. It did take me a bit to get properly into it, but once everything started moving, I was completely hooked and couldn’t stop thinking about it.
By ShelfHeron6057
I remember hearing that Nabokov wasn’t really into Dostoevsky and that he wrote a bunch of stuff dragging his work, so I’m not surprised there’s some disagreement there. But I just recently came across the claim that Nabokov specifically took Dostoevsky to task for how prostitution is handled in *Crime and Punishment*—like he thought it’s somehow being treated as morally similar to murder. I can’t find the exact wording anywhere, though. It keeps getting mentioned in comments like it’s a real thing. Is that actually what Nabokov meant? Because when I read it, I didn’t feel like Dostoevsky was literally putting prostitution and murder in the same moral bucket. It felt pretty clear to me that Raskolnikov is trying to connect his guilt to Sonya’s during that breakdown in her place, and the whole thing reads more like him scrambling for excuses than Dostoevsky himself making some statement. And honestly, every time the book compares them—sin, redemption, all that—it seems like Sonya’s choices are shown as understandable, even basically right (for her family), while Raskolnikov’s killings come off as pointless and sad, tied to his big philosophical talk that doesn’t actually hold up. Am I missing something obvious? Or am I just reading it with too “modern” a vibe? Nabokov may be way smarter than me, but I really didn’t come away with that interpretation at all.
By InkMouse1989
I just started The Brothers Karamazov and so far it feels way harder to get through than Crime and Punishment. I’m past page 100 now and I can’t tell if it’s mainly because there are so many characters and it’s a bit confusing, or if there’s actually more going on underneath that I wasn’t expecting. What do you all think? Please no spoilers though.
By LampMarten16
I was actually pretty into it at first, and then Marmeladov starts going off and it’s like… a whole bunch of pages of rambling. I just couldn’t get myself to care what he’s saying, because it kept going so long. I pushed through, though, and then right after that you get the letter from his mom in the next chapter, which is also basically another giant monologue. The bits between those long speeches do grab my attention and I’ll keep reading, but those ten-page stretches are brutal to stay invested in. I really want to like this book, and I’ve even tried rereading those monologues a couple times, paying closer attention, like maybe something will click. But so far it feels like there’s a lot of telling and not much showing, and it just isn’t landing for me yet. Maybe I’m missing something—can someone tell me what people find so interesting about these monologues, or what I should be looking for?
By Bookworm_Cougar
Honestly, what hits me most about Dostoevsky isn’t only that he’s brilliant—it’s that he seems really brave too. Anyway, hi everyone—I’m kicking things off with some early thoughts before we dive into *Crime and Punishment*. The schedule’s in the sidebar, and the usual bookclub rules apply. We’re starting Feb 18, and it’s about 7–8 pages a day, so you can either keep up a little each day or just knock it out over the weekend. You don’t have to match the pace exactly; just jump in when you can. If you’re joining, I’d love to hear: - What made you want to read this one? - Have you read Dostoevsky (or other Russian novels) before? - Any thoughts on the author? - What translation of *Crime and Punishment* do you think is best? - Any essays you’d recommend? And if this whole thing feels like too much, no stress—feel free to just say hi. Hope you’ll hop in with us for the read.
By marten_meadow
I’ve heard for ages that a lot of academic people think this is the best book ever or something like that. I got curious though—so I looked around online for what regular readers thought, and I even saw a couple people saying it’s a total page-turner. But when I actually tried reading it, I just couldn’t really get into it at all. That said, I’ve found Richard Wright’s Native Son way more gripping, even with a lot of the same kinds of themes. So I’m wondering—what do you all think?
By StoryGolden1974
Just finished rereading *Crime and Punishment* again and I had this weird thought that totally changed how I read it. There’s that bit at the end about Raskolnikov ending up in prison, and the mention of Poles—political people the Tsar’s regime basically shipped out. And Raskolnikov himself is pretty harsh about them. It made me think about how Dostoyevsky, when he was stuck in a penal colony, also wasn’t exactly warm toward Polish political prisoners. So yeah, his whole Russian imperial vibe is hard to ignore. And that angle made the book hit harder for me, but in a slightly frustrating way too. Like, sure, Raskolnikov still ends up “guilty” in the broad Dostoyevsky sense—evil living inside a person—but it also feels like his real guilt might be tied to all the chauvinist stuff he believes in without really questioning. The ideas that let him accept and even rationalize whole brutal conquests and atrocities. I also don’t fully buy the “you can save yourself through suffering” thing. Raskolnikov doesn’t even manage to see where the evil is. It’s not only in what he did, but in the mindset that made the harm feel explainable, or at least not fully seen as evil. So the ending kind of reads differently to me: it’s like he goes off thinking love and faith will fix everything, but nope—he’s still a killer, and worse, he doesn’t even really understand he is. And I keep coming back to this: the story assumes guilt is something you can always reach, when maybe the worst part is that the real crime can be in the stuff you don’t notice in yourself at all. Also… salvation feels kind of impossible, because you can only fix what you can even recognize—and that means you’re always only saving yourself halfway.
By velvet_zooecium
So I’ve been reading *Crime and Punishment* for about two months, and I’m still honestly confused about all the “classic” hype. I’m not a picky reader and I don’t avoid long, dense books—I like plenty of stuff that takes effort. But this one just didn’t click for me. For context, it’s my first Dostoyevsky. I picked *Crime and Punishment* as an “easy” starting point, mostly because I’ve wanted to try him for a long time. Still, I didn’t get much out of it. The biggest problem for me was how much of the book feels like the same two things over and over: people talking and the main character thinking to himself. Sometimes it genuinely felt like I was watching a play—lots of parlor-room conversation that goes on and on, then long walks around town, then more thinking. Over and over. It was like “talk, talk, talk…walk, walk, walk.” I did find a few moments interesting (the actual murder, and the funeral + what happens to Mrs. Marmeladov after that—seriously, that part landed, and her spiral into illness/madness was intense). But overall I was pretty bored with most of it. Also, the writing style didn’t really wow me. I’m using the Penguin Classics translation (David Magarshack), so maybe that’s part of it, but even then I found the prose kind of stiff and dull, and it didn’t feel like what I expected from Dostoyevsky. So yeah, I feel like I must be missing something—maybe historical context, or some angle I’m not aware of. I really wanted to like it. I even had this whole “today will be the day it finally makes sense” thing going every morning, knocking out my 30 pages like a little promise to myself. And… it never really happened. If you’ve read it, what did you think? What makes it important? And is there a better Dostoyevsky pick if *this* wasn’t my vibe? TL;DR: I found *Crime and Punishment* boring and repetitive—what am I not getting?