Crime and Punishment (AmazonClassics Edition) Paperback – 10 Oct. 2017

In all key themes, it is as relevant today as it was well over 100 years ago.A university student in Russia kills a female landlady and her daughter. Why, and what does it do to him and those around him?

The start of this book potentially can come across as rather slow, although if you stick through it to get to part 2, you are invited into a glorious exploration of morality and the psychology of a troubled man confined by guilt.More than just a novel of crime and justice, but a poignant tale of society and psychology.

Crime and Punishment is set in Russia in the 1800's. It is written from the perspective of the protagonist Raskolnikov; a young student. Despite its reputation as being hard going, I found it easy to read and impossible to put down.Due to financial hardship and circumstance Raskolnikov commits murder. Russia was economically and politically unstable at the time of writing and one of the greatest arguments in favor of socialism is that, if people were equal would crime be eliminated? Would the reason for acting criminally no longer exist? The novel spreads this message, without focusing politics as a major theme. Drawing upon the writings of Marx and Engels, Russia became Communist in 1917 under Lenin, succeeded by Stalin after Lenin's death in 1925.As the title suggests the crime - one man murdering another and; punishment - the guilt, paranoia, mental deterioration and then incarceration are the major themes, the content of the entire novel. Other plot-lines such as romance take a significant back seat. Love does indeed suffer as a consequence of the crime, part of the punishment I guess.A tale of love, justice, psychology and suffering; this is a wonderful read, and despite what Willy Mason says, you should read Dostoevsky at your age.

In my experience, all "great" fiction works on more than one level, and continues to compel readers' attention for many decades after it was written - something I certainly found true of Crime and Punishment.Other reviewers have said how gripping the story of Raskolnikov is. He is a psychopath of a type familiar from a thousand 20th and 21st century thrillers, in print and on screen. I could well believe that Hitchcock read this book and learned from it, because the build-up of tension is Hitchcockian.Nabakov was not a fan of Dostoevsky, thinking him a bit of a bore and an eccentric - and not a particularly accomplished writer. Humbly, I have to disagree. As well as being a brilliant psychological drama, it's a critique of Russian society and the intellectual climate in the 1860s, just a few years after the emancipation of the serfs, when ideas like nihilism were in the air. If Raskolnikov had 'lived' 60 years later, he might have found a focus for his life in Bolshevism. Although that, as we know, might have involved him in mass-murder, or even genocide as one of Stalin's henchmen, rather than the single murder he commits in Crime and Punishment.

I read this book because its a classic and I felt I had to. The plot is relatively simple, but its in depth nature of every tiny aspect of Rodyas thought processes and psyche make it hard going. A battle of wills develops between Rodyas and the a police, although his battle is really with himself. I thoroughly enjoyed the concept, but simply found all the similar Russian names and lengthy prose a bit too heavy going for my tastes.

The story is obviously the classic masterpiece but how the story is told in audiobook, it's amazing!

It doesn't reach the heights of Brothers Karamazov, and perhaps isn't as strong as Demons... but this is a pivotal book and required reading. I read Dostoyevsky's collection in my adolescence, at a perfect time. I took away so much from these novels, and perhaps more from this one than all the others (despite, as aforementioned, thinking BK and maybe even Demons are better).If you want to read a very philosophical story about a man who suffers an extreme moral conundrum after committing a dreadful act, then look no further.

Very complex storyline, however beautiful. Very well written and tragic, it really keeps the reader on the edge.

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

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 ...

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.