Book Analysis : CRIME & PUNISHMENT

[Tambora]

Crime and Punishment
by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky


This book is not any easy read; meaning it is not one you would suggest to someone to read for entertainment.
It is one of those thought provoking books about humanity, societal beneficiary, and morality.
And it delves into those issues brilliantly and in depth.

The book does not give a final opinion of which choices were "better", but leaves that entirely up to the reader.

If I had to choose one word as an alternate of the book title, it would be Dilemma.

Dilemma --- a difficult choice to be made between two or more equally undesirable alternatives​

The basic premise of the book ask the same question in multiple ways ----- is it OK for one (or a few) to have to suffer for the benefit of many?

The book centers mainly around 7 characters, each of which make a life choice that they assume will make life "better" for those around them.
I'll give a short synopsis of 3 of the characters:

a cheat (money wise)​

a murderer​

a prostitute​

On the surface one may already assume a moral judgment.
But as the old saying goes ..... there's another side of the coin.



The cheat is a pawn-broker that pays little for the goods and overcharges the sell of those goods because the cheat desires to donate all their earnings to a monastery which would help to provide needed help to the suffering poor.
The murderer kills the cheat because everyone hates the cheat for being greedy.
The prostitute sells her body and endures the shame because her mother and younger siblings are starving and living in squalor.


The book questions "logic" when applied to morality.
Logically one would choose to save the crate that has 10 apples rather than the crate that has 1 apple.
Apply that same logic to this scenario: A ship sinks in shark infested water and 5 people make it into a small lifeboat. But the weight of the lifeboat can only 4 people or it will sink. Is it moral to throw 1 person out of the lifeboat to save 4?

The book also divides mankind into 2 groups politically and class wise and asks which YOU prefer to be in.

1. The elite that are above the law, ie. make the laws for everyone else to follow. (think King, Emperor, Government)​

2. Those that comply to the law made out of fear of repercussion.​

Have you read the book?
What are some of your thoughts on it?

 

[annabenedetti]

I read the book and wrote a final exam paper on it in a college class about 10 years ago or so. I still have it, boxed up with my papers somewhere.

I should try to find it.

 

[Tambora]

I read the book and wrote a final exam paper on it in a college class about 10 years ago or so. I still have it, boxed up with my papers somewhere.

I should try to find it.

That would be great!
There is sooooooooo much to contemplate about this book with no easy conclusion as there is a flip side to every scenario.
It's shows how easily one's scrupulous actions can be justified for "the beneficial good of others" and what type of society that really leaves us with depending on the perspective you view it from.

 

[Stripe]

The description of Rascalnikov almost arriving at terms with himself was harrowing.

 

[ok doser]

Read it for a college English course decades ago don't remember any of it. I bet I can find it on tape.

 

[Stripe]

Philistine.

Wait. Dostoevsky was Russian, right?

BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!!111

 

[marke]

Crime and Punishment
by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky


This book is not any easy read; meaning it is not one you would suggest to someone to read for entertainment.
It is one of those thought provoking books about humanity, societal beneficiary, and morality.
And it delves into those issues brilliantly and in depth.

The book does not give a final opinion of which choices were "better", but leaves that entirely up to the reader.

If I had to choose one word as an alternate of the book title, it would be Dilemma.

Dilemma --- a difficult choice to be made between two or more equally undesirable alternatives​

The basic premise of the book ask the same question in multiple ways ----- is it OK for one (or a few) to have to suffer for the benefit of many?

The book centers mainly around 7 characters, each of which make a life choice that they assume will make life "better" for those around them.
I'll give a short synopsis of 3 of the characters:

a cheat (money wise)​

a murderer​

a prostitute​

On the surface one may already assume a moral judgment.
But as the old saying goes ..... there's another side of the coin.



The cheat is a pawn-broker that pays little for the goods and overcharges the sell of those goods because the cheat desires to donate all their earnings to a monastery which would help to provide needed help to the suffering poor.
The murderer kills the cheat because everyone hates the cheat for being greedy.
The prostitute sells her body and endures the shame because her mother and younger siblings are starving and living in squalor.


The book questions "logic" when applied to morality.
Logically one would choose to save the crate that has 10 apples rather than the crate that has 1 apple.
Apply that same logic to this scenario: A ship sinks in shark infested water and 5 people make it into a small lifeboat. But the weight of the lifeboat can only 4 people or it will sink. Is it moral to throw 1 person out of the lifeboat to save 4?

The book also divides mankind into 2 groups politically and class wise and asks which YOU prefer to be in.

1. The elite that are above the law, ie. make the laws for everyone else to follow. (think King, Emperor, Government)​

2. Those that comply to the law made out of fear of repercussion.​

Have you read the book?
What are some of your thoughts on it?

Those who read and obey God recognize that evil does not produce good. Only good produces good. We are commanded by God to work and not be greedy. Rebels against God may work but will also be greedy. Putting the government in charge of controlling greed cannot help because government officials themselves are also prone to greed and corruption. The only answer is for Christians to influence the government and society to seek God and do good.

 

[Stripe]

evil does not produce good.

Genesis 50:20

 

[marke]

Genesis 50:20

Genesis 50:20
But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Contrary to some who misunderstand God, God does not do evil that good may come.

Romans 3:8
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

 

[Idolater]

Philistine.

Wait. Dostoevsky was Russian, right?

He was a Christian.

BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!!111

The most salient thing in the book for me is telling the murder from the murderer's perspective.

 

[Stripe]

He was a Christian.

The most salient thing in the book for me is telling the murder from the murderer's perspective.

There was a short story by Stephen King called Dolan's Cadillac. It's hard to describe, but it reminded me of Raskalnikov.

 

[Idolater]

There was a short story by Stephen King called Dolan's Cadillac. It's hard to describe, but it reminded me of Raskalnikov.

I love stuff like that!

 

[annabenedetti]

That would be great!
There is sooooooooo much to contemplate about this book with no easy conclusion as there is a flip side to every scenario.
It's shows how easily one's scrupulous actions can be justified for "the beneficial good of others" and what type of society that really leaves us with depending on the perspective you view it from.

I couldn't find the final exam, I remembered it was a Blue Book exam, written in class without knowing ahead of time what the writing prompt would be (just writing as fast as possible for 50 min. haha), and then - I remembered that because it was a final exam, I never got it back. But I do have some notes, and a research paper on the book I had to write for the two classes I had that were connected that semester, English and Philosophy, so the paper had to draw distinctions between the book and various philosophers/philosophical ideas. I'll throw a couple thoughts out there later, for what little they're worth, but thanks for the thread, it's a nice respite.

 

[marke]

He was a Christian.

The most salient thing in the book for me is telling the murder from the murderer's perspective.

Dostoyevsky may have been a Christian of a sort, but he never seemed to arrive at the truth about needing to repent of sins and seek Jesus' forgiveness and salvation.

Dostoyevsky and the Problem of God

community.middlebury.edu

In contemplating the creation of the novel The Idiot, Dostoyevsky wrote in a letter to A.N. Maikov that he hoped to focus the work around a question "with which I have been tormented, consciously or unconsciously all my life--that is, the existence of God."1 Dostoyevsky's personal struggle with the question of faith, and also his own experience with trying doubts as a believer, are manifested in the characters he writes. A large number of Dostoyevsky's books are written within the framework of a Christian doctrine, juxtaposing characterizations of believers and non-believers, enforcing the ultimate good and reason that follow from possessing a faith. Dostoyevsky also describes however, the mental suffering and questioning inherent in the step of realizing the "truth" of Jesus Christ. Berdyaev, in a discussion on Dostoyevsky's mission, states that "he did not have to solve the divine problem as does the pagan, but the problem of mankind,which is the problem of the spiritual man, the Christian."2

 

[Tambora]

I couldn't find the final exam, I remembered it was a Blue Book exam, written in class without knowing ahead of time what the writing prompt would be (just writing as fast as possible for 50 min. haha), and then - I remembered that because it was a final exam, I never got it back. But I do have some notes, and a research paper on the book I had to write for the two classes I had that were connected that semester, English and Philosophy, so the paper had to draw distinctions between the book and various philosophers/philosophical ideas. I'll throw a couple thoughts out there later, for what little they're worth, but thanks for the thread, it's a nice respite.

I hope you do contribute some thoughts since you have read the book.

What I found fascinating about the characters in the book is that one could condemn or praise each of them depending on the perspective.
Each thing one might condemn them for was thought of (in the character's eyes) as something needful to be done to make things better for others.
And that it actually reflects the attitudes of our society has today (that behavior can be deemed bad or good depending on the perspective one chooses to view it from).
In other words, any of the character's judgements of others were probably our own judgement of someone else at some point in our life.

 

[Tambora]

The description of Rascalnikov almost arriving at terms with himself was harrowing.

Could you elaborate.

 

[Tambora]

Dostoyevsky may have been a Christian of a sort, but he never seemed to arrive at the truth about needing to repent of sins and seek Jesus' forgiveness and salvation.

Dostoyevsky and the Problem of God

community.middlebury.edu

In contemplating the creation of the novel The Idiot, Dostoyevsky wrote in a letter to A.N. Maikov that he hoped to focus the work around a question "with which I have been tormented, consciously or unconsciously all my life--that is, the existence of God."1 Dostoyevsky's personal struggle with the question of faith, and also his own experience with trying doubts as a believer, are manifested in the characters he writes. A large number of Dostoyevsky's books are written within the framework of a Christian doctrine, juxtaposing characterizations of believers and non-believers, enforcing the ultimate good and reason that follow from possessing a faith. Dostoyevsky also describes however, the mental suffering and questioning inherent in the step of realizing the "truth" of Jesus Christ. Berdyaev, in a discussion on Dostoyevsky's mission, states that "he did not have to solve the divine problem as does the pagan, but the problem of mankind,which is the problem of the spiritual man, the Christian."2

Perhaps.
But the where the book ends, the story does not.
For while he did indeed confess his crime which was more or less prompted by Sophia the prostitute.
She warned him that he would not be forgiven unless he confessed.
Interesting that Sophia is a name of Wisdom in scripture.
And it was his relationship with Sophia that gave him hope and a sort of peace for the future as he waited in prison to complete his sentence, coming to the realization that he loved her.

 

[Stripe]

Could you elaborate.

Not sure I can.

It was like looking into the abyss.

 

[Tambora]

Not sure I can.

It was like looking into the abyss.

Yeah, I get it.
It ain't no fairy tale!
Then again it might be more apt to real life as there is someone like each character in the book in every community.

 

[Stripe]

It's like Dostoevsky took a murderer and showed how even "minor" sins led to the same end. It's difficult to say as well as convey.

It's like he put the man who would say "but I never killed anyone" into the shoes of a murderer.

Does that make sense?