Crime e Castigo (1866)

Date approximate ( )

I know several people who have raved about (and therefore, insisted I read) this book for years. Perhaps that is the problem. I went into it with high expectations, despite having read and hated his "Notes fro the Underground." I have no particular complaint or even strong feelings about the book; it was just sort of okay for me. ( )

After 40 years of owning the books and 5 days of reading I can now honestly say not only have I read Crime and Punishment, but I enjoyed it very much. I found it an interesting literary explanation of the society of St Petersburg in the mid to late 1800s when St Petersburg was the capital of Russia. it is sad to realise that so many of the themes are still common today, Undiagnosed mental illness, poverty, homelessness, debt, gambling addictions, anarchy, predators of women and children, the only thing unmentioned is homosexuality. The main character is Raskolnikov, who believes he has planned the perfect crime with his intention of murdering an old woman who is a money-lender. The pathology of Raskolnikov's mental health includes bi-polar, mania, probably anxiety enough for a school of psychologists to work with. He is also described as a hypochondriac, and may well have been by the definition of the day, but not by today's standards for he is not a malingerer, he is severely depressed, failing to eat for day on end,quitting university, pushing away people who want to help him, yet at the same time, he tries to help the most destitute of individuals even giving away money his mother has given him, to a widow with three children and a step daughter so that the widow can giver her husband a proper funeral. Underneath the character of Raskolnikov is an educated and kind man trying to get out. He is surrounded by scoundrels who use their comparative wealth to impress those around them especially the poor, and who use their wealth as 'evidence' of their moral character as they so believe themselves to have. Again, 200 years have passed and not a lot has changed, and of all the themes of Crime and Punishment, this, I think the writer would be horrified to discover. Recommended for a holiday read - really, you the reader will look super intelligent and you will gain tremendous insights into humanity. ( )

I read this in high school and then again shortly after college, but it's been a couple of decades. I saw this new translation in the new books section of my library and picked it up to revisit the classic. I liked the translation. It was very accessible and for better or for worse felt fairly contemporary. I think it conveyed some of the madcap mayhem of some of the scenes (e.g. the funeral dinner) better than I recall drier translations I had read in the past doing. The translator purports to try to offer a variety of voices to match what Dostoevsky did, and I feel like he accomplished this; my sense is that he does so better than what I've read in past translations, but the passage of time may be playing tricks on me there. The story does drag a bit, especially in some of the more psychological passages, and I had forgotten how much (or maybe this translation simply highlighted) I liked some of the later passages involving Sonya, Svidrigaylov, and Razumikhin. I'm glad to've revisited the book and am also glad to have its 604 pages behind me. ( )

Me he sentido francamente desconcertado leyendo esta novela. Y es que las novelas de tesis me descolocan. Por momentos, no sabe uno si le están contando una historia o si le están soltando un sermón, o ambas cosas a la vez. Los personajes se entregan a largas parrafadas, consigo mismos o con otros, sobre esto y aquello, pero estos discursos se integran en una historia por lo demás bastante embrollada. Quiero decir que no son pegotes en absoluto. Imagino que se trata de explicar los motivos profundos que tienen los personajes principales para actuar como actúan, de indagar en su psicología y en su filosofía de vida para que los lectores nos hagamos preguntas: ¿por qué Napoleón, que envió a la muerte a millones de ciudadanos, es un heroe mientras que si yo mato solo a uno por motivos similares (para alcanzar la gloria, por ejemplo) soy un asesino? ¿Hay personas a las que se les debe perdonar todo? ¿El fin justifica los medios? Preguntas así planean contantemente por todo el libro.

Todo esto es bueno, incluso muy bueno. pero yo, humildemente, me he perdido en muchos momentos. No sé si es la enorme imaginación rusa para nombrar a las personas, o esa costumbre de meterse en cualquier casa sin llamar y hasta la mismísima cama (las puertas parecen estar siempre abiertas) o precisamente las parrafadas dando vueltas sin casi nunca afrontar directamente el tema. No sé, pero algo me ha desorientado. Debo decir que a partir del último tercio todo empieza a encajar mejor y uno empieza a ver el sentido de muchas cosas (y muchas palabras) anteriores, lo que ha animado mi espíritu. En fin, que no le quitaré méritos a la que pasa por ser una de las mejores novelas de la literatura universal, pero quizá es que Dostoievski me puede. Bueno, hay gente que dice que no le gusta el Quijote. Tiene que haber de todo.

Por cierto, la traducción pretende ser original, y utiliza palabras demasiado cotidianas para una novela del XIX, lo que hace que el lector piense en el traductor, y eso no es nada bueno. ( )