Why did Dostoyevsky write Crime and Punishment?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why did Dostoyevsky write Crime and Punishment?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/11/dostoyevsky-crime-punishment-birmingham-sinner-saint/620175/
99 comments
I guess to get some food money
There's an (apocryphal?) Nabokov quotation: I write for love, but I publish for money.
Thats why he did some work for which he could earn money. It's not why he wrote that particular book, the way that he did.
Interestingly enough, one of his lifelong dreams was to earn a million.
If we take inflation into account and use USD (I am not as easily able to find Tsarist ruple inflation information) and checked it to the years of his birth and death that would be about $24M to $26M. Quite an ambitious number then. Now as an inevitable consequence of continual inflation a million dollars is good for an estimated 19 years of retirement income with investments. Certainly nothing to sneeze at today but not the same great wealth it once was.
He should have waited to born until he could practice some leetcode and get a FAANG job then!
Honest question; are you actually 'set' once you get past the leetcode interview phase, or are there frequent performance reviews and the like with the risk of getting sacked if you suck at your day job?
Hopefully someone better than me can answer...
But for what I read on HN, leetcode it's just a filter to get in like having harvard or stanford in your resume is too...
Once you pass the filters, however you do, I say there are much more important stuff to know than leetcode that can predit how well you will do... Also in any big company the size of those, it's literally a gamble as in the team you'll be working with will be the most important thing affecting you, besides salary or whatever... So you've a lot of variance on success on those big shops.
I've never tried/had a leetcode interview tbh, 4-8h take-home code challenges (in frontend positions I apply) are more abundant in my experience. But I'm not in the US so who knows...
But for what I read on HN, leetcode it's just a filter to get in like having harvard or stanford in your resume is too...
Once you pass the filters, however you do, I say there are much more important stuff to know than leetcode that can predit how well you will do... Also in any big company the size of those, it's literally a gamble as in the team you'll be working with will be the most important thing affecting you, besides salary or whatever... So you've a lot of variance on success on those big shops.
I've never tried/had a leetcode interview tbh, 4-8h take-home code challenges (in frontend positions I apply) are more abundant in my experience. But I'm not in the US so who knows...
There are certain companies that come with a significant risk of getting sacked for performance reasons: Amazon, Netflix, Facebook primarily. Others like Google, Cisco, Microsoft are known for being very chill on non-cloud teams and would be pretty hard to be fired from if you're doing the bare minimum.
Because crime without punishment?
That, or punishment without crime.
https://wiki.ubc.ca/The_Mock-execution_of_Fyodor_Dostoevsky
https://wiki.ubc.ca/The_Mock-execution_of_Fyodor_Dostoevsky
There was a crime though.
To pay off gambling debts?
Indeed! and another novel at the same time:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17898248
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152240
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17898248
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21152240
Did anyone else get to the end of this article and ask themselves, "So why did the article's author think Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment?" I felt I reached the end of the article without it substantially addressing the headline.
Or maybe I'm just not deep enough.
Or maybe I'm just not deep enough.
I can't remember ever being satisfied with an article having a title that starts with the word "Why."
I'm going to stop reading them. Anything that starts with the word "Why" is clickbait to me now. I'm done. Also any "Top 5 blah," and any phone call where they immediately mention my car warranty.
I'm going to stop reading them. Anything that starts with the word "Why" is clickbait to me now. I'm done. Also any "Top 5 blah," and any phone call where they immediately mention my car warranty.
I like this, I think I'll join. I have a similar list, which also includes paywalled content even when a free option exists.
Kind of like a corollary to Betteridge's Law of Headlines. Just as the answer to any yes/no question in a headline is "no", the answer to any "why" question in a headline is not given in the article.
Same here. It's a bunch of facts, some context, and more of a rant about the question than any attempt at answering the question.
You could even write an article asking why that original article was even written, and it might make for more interesting content.
You could even write an article asking why that original article was even written, and it might make for more interesting content.
So as to not become another Lacenaire
My reading was that the article just didn't get much deeper than "because of course this is the kind of book an indebted gambling addict with a history of physical health problems and political persecution would write."
it's your fault for reading an article that starts with "jesus meets D"
We are getting really good at mind reading.
In modern times a common reason would be to pay off alimony payments.
> Drunken degenerates say limpid and beautiful things.
Such as drunkard Marmeladov (soon to be run over by a horse carriage) in a tavern, to Raskalnikov: “May I venture, honoured sir, to engage you in polite conversation? Forasmuch as, though your exterior would not command respect, my experience admonishes me that you are a man of education and not accustomed to drinking. I have always respected education when in conjunction with genuine sentiments, and I am besides a titular counsellor in rank. Marmeladov—such is my name; titular counsellor. I make bold to inquire—have you been in the service?”
Such as drunkard Marmeladov (soon to be run over by a horse carriage) in a tavern, to Raskalnikov: “May I venture, honoured sir, to engage you in polite conversation? Forasmuch as, though your exterior would not command respect, my experience admonishes me that you are a man of education and not accustomed to drinking. I have always respected education when in conjunction with genuine sentiments, and I am besides a titular counsellor in rank. Marmeladov—such is my name; titular counsellor. I make bold to inquire—have you been in the service?”
I immediately got a GPT3 vibe.
I seem to end up blowing my own trumpet on every classic book thread on HN, but if you’re looking for a nice and libre ebook of Crime and Punishment (Constance Garnett translation) I put one together for Standard Ebooks, with bonus astounding Edvard Munch cover.
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/crime-an...
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/crime-an...
If you’re interested in reading Russian literature, do yourself a favor and avoid the Constance Garnett translations. Her main goals were speed and volume of translations, rather than to actually make the translated works a pleasure to read or keep them true to the original author's intent.
> “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.”
> Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translatio...
> “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.”
> Garnett’s flaws were not the figment of a native speaker’s snobbery. She worked with such speed, with such an eye toward the finish line, that when she came across a word or a phrase that she couldn’t make sense of she would skip it and move on.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translatio...
If Dostoyevsky is a pleasure to read, you have a bad translation. It is not a pleasure to read in Russian. His language is rather difficult.
Source: I'm Russian and have read Dostoyevsky.
Source: I'm Russian and have read Dostoyevsky.
I haven’t yet read Dostoyevsky, though I have read Chekhov and Pushkin in translation. I’m speaking more generally about Garnett’s translations rather than a specific work.
I’m currently learning Russian, and I’m sure it’ll be a while before I can read Dostoyevsky in it’s original form; though I have read some Chekhov and he is an absolute pleasure to read in Russian.
Chekhov and Pushkin are extremely easy to read in russian. Always straight on point, with few distractions, rarely engaging in highbrow ornamental phrases. Good choice when learning a language.
The Brothers Karamazov is probably the only book I never finished reading. I since have never tried to read anything from Dostoyevsky and was wondering whether reading his book in Slovak language (my native language which is relatively close to Russian and as such should provide a better translation) would help me (I bought english print at airport). It eases my mind a bit knowing it is difficult also in the language the book was written in.
The Brothers Karamazov is one of the few books I've started but abandoned without finishing. Perhaps it was related to the particular translation I had (I don't remember details of it now), but it just wasn't working for me.
Crime and Punishment, on the other hand, I found utterly compelling, and will probably re-read some day (which is a status few books achieve in my world).
Crime and Punishment, on the other hand, I found utterly compelling, and will probably re-read some day (which is a status few books achieve in my world).
Highly recommend the translation by Andrew R. MacAndrew if you want to give it another shot
Is it possible that he was a pleasure to read back in his time? Translations have the benefit of using a more recent language. Russian lacks that advantage.
Sure, his prose requires a little bit longer attention span than what is common today, but otherwise Karamazov brothers was one of the most captivating and pleasant books I've ever read.
Source: I'm Russian and read Dostoevsky.
You don't happen to know a good translator..? I was going to try the Garnett version but now I'm having second thoughts.
Do you have an alternative you recommend?
I find Garnett pretty readable, even if she doesn’t capture the original Russian as well as others.
The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett, and if we could, they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.
The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett, and if we could, they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.
> The big problem, though, is that we’re constricted by the supply of public domain translations. We simply can’t typically offer much more than Garnett
Certainly! If your reading is constrained to public domain works, you have basically no other option. I've read many books in translation and before I learned about the Constance Garnett controversy, I paid little to no attention to who translated the work that I'm reading.
I guess I'm trying to spread the word that the translation matters almost as much as the original work itself, and it may be worth doing research on various translations before picking one to read. And although the original works are still as great as ever, it seems to me that the translating profession has really come a long way since the 1800s. As a result I tend usually to look at more recent translations first.
> they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.
I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
Certainly! If your reading is constrained to public domain works, you have basically no other option. I've read many books in translation and before I learned about the Constance Garnett controversy, I paid little to no attention to who translated the work that I'm reading.
I guess I'm trying to spread the word that the translation matters almost as much as the original work itself, and it may be worth doing research on various translations before picking one to read. And although the original works are still as great as ever, it seems to me that the translating profession has really come a long way since the 1800s. As a result I tend usually to look at more recent translations first.
> they’re usually worse to read from a purely side-by-side English view, even if they’re more authentically Russian.
I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
Interesting. I have long thought that "Crime and Punishment" should have been called "The Idiot" due to the protagonist's infuriating idiocy, (all he had to do was keep his mouth shut), but now I wonder if the translation I read (which was Constance Garnett, it turns out) was just terrible.
Crime and Punishment doesn't tend to be what most Americans would expect. The major plot points happen up front and the remainder of the book is a philosophical exploration of, well, crime and punishment. The fact that the protagonist was free of the justice system but still tormented by what he did was the whole point.
You didn't quite understand the protagonist's problem and his motivation to commit crime.
I agree with you, thoroughly, but I don't think it's entirely fair to write a one-liner like this. If you're going to say this, you should write an explanation for why.
"Crime and Punishment" is such an important landmark in world literature, that there are literally millions of words written on this subject. Whatever my own interpretation, I could hardly write something that would meaningfully add to the existing works. However, I thought it fitting to point out that Raskolnikov's real motive wasn't raising some cash and getting away with it.
who in this thread claimed that Raskolinov's real motive was "raising some cash and getting away with it"?
You can provide a sort summary of an argument you find compelling regarding Raskolnikov's motivations without adding about to the millions of words written on this subject. You are also free to describe your own interpretation without feeling obliged to add something novel or useful to what's already out there.
Considering how much I agree with you that Raskolnikov didn't "just need to keep his mouth shut" (a phrase that did show up in this thread), I'm actually and sincerely very interested in your interpretation.
You can provide a sort summary of an argument you find compelling regarding Raskolnikov's motivations without adding about to the millions of words written on this subject. You are also free to describe your own interpretation without feeling obliged to add something novel or useful to what's already out there.
Considering how much I agree with you that Raskolnikov didn't "just need to keep his mouth shut" (a phrase that did show up in this thread), I'm actually and sincerely very interested in your interpretation.
Raskolnikov was literally going insane even before he said anything of his crimes. I don't think everything would have been fine for him if he just didn't talk to Porfiry
[deleted]
I found it very illuminating to read Dostoyevsky's works alongside Goethe's Faust when thinking about the protagonist.
[deleted]
This reminded on another "lost in translation" article from The New Yorker on Albert Camus and The Stranger:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translat...
And the article you cite is by David Remnick who was instrumental on spreading Iraq war lies at the New Yorker. Should we trust him now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Remnick
"A lot of the people who made those mistakes are still occupying prominent positions, their credibility undamaged thanks to a new legend best articulated by New Yorker editor David Remnick, who later scoffed, “Nobody got that story completely right.”
Nobody except the record number of people who marched against the war on February 15, 2003 — conservative estimates placed it between six and ten million worldwide (I marched in D.C.). Every one of those people was way ahead of Remnick."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translat...
And the article you cite is by David Remnick who was instrumental on spreading Iraq war lies at the New Yorker. Should we trust him now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Remnick
"A lot of the people who made those mistakes are still occupying prominent positions, their credibility undamaged thanks to a new legend best articulated by New Yorker editor David Remnick, who later scoffed, “Nobody got that story completely right.”
Nobody except the record number of people who marched against the war on February 15, 2003 — conservative estimates placed it between six and ten million worldwide (I marched in D.C.). Every one of those people was way ahead of Remnick."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...
If anything, the fact that he's such a good propagandist should be an _endorsement_ of his literary opinion, evil notwithstanding. He clearly knows how to communicate well!
The marchers weren't necessarily right. How many of those people would have been marching against a totally just, necessary war? Probably many of them. Many Americans didn't want the US to get embroiled in WWII, even after Dec 7th
Personally, I've always found the underlying structure of Crime and Punishment extremely tedious, never mind how any particular line or paragraph is translated. Obviously that makes me a philistine, etc., but there is some classic literature that I just find to be an utter slog, and that's one of 'em. Proust is in the same category for me. I think Dostoevsky's short fiction is wonderful.
Agreed. The best translation of this book is done by Oliver Ready or Michael Katz-- I found these the translations the most readable and enjoyable.
My favorite translation is by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky - I prefer it to Katz anyway. I haven't examined the Ready edition. (I ended up aquiring all of Dostoevsky in Pevear/Volokhonsky translations, I like them so much -- I understand other dislike their editions for a number of reasons, tho)
I also really liked David McDuff's translation years ago.
Any of these are going to be miles better then Garnett, though.
I also really liked David McDuff's translation years ago.
Any of these are going to be miles better then Garnett, though.
There is an opinion that Pevaar/Volkhonosky translations are not up to the mark, and that their text is rather plain.
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-...
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/pevear-and-volokhonsky-...
I know all about that. And for some reason they still work for me.
The only really recommended Dostoevsky translations are by Svetlana Geier. Not into english though.
Personally, I really liked the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky. But it is also the only version I have read.
Their translation has been found to have many faults as well. It's like the speech of Ahti from Control: a literal translation of the source that adds "Russian character" to everyone, obscuring actual differences between the characters.
There are seven in-print translations of Crime and Punishment (and another six that are out-of-print). Which one is best depends on who you ask, or what you're looking for. The Garnett translation is itself considered a classic, and is in the public domain. The trendy one is Pevear and Volokhonsky. But there are other well-regarded versions to consider. This page lists them all and has extracts and links to articles to aid comparison.
https://welovetranslations.com/2020/04/25/whats-the-best-tra...
That's an interesting article -- thanks for posting.
One thing that struck me: two of the translation samples included the (correct/reasonable?) names for the street and bridge (Stolyarnyi Lane, Kokushkin Bridge). The others replaced the words with S-----i Lane, and K------n Bridge (or S. Lane etc).
I think I understand the problem. Cyrillic alphabet doesn't map to Latin alphabet, and there was no established English-language translation for the names in question. The two that attempted it even had slightly different spellings, akin to the problem we see with many Arabic names in English today.
This makes a big difference in readability, to me. The setting is supposed to be foreign and a bit unfamiliar to excultural readers, but K-------n looks like an error, a misprint, or an "(unintelligible)" in a transcription. That becomes part of the story, and it isn't intended as such by the author.
For this and other reasons, my vote goes to Sidney Monas, 1968. I'll add that note to my long and ever-growing TOREAD list. :)
One thing that struck me: two of the translation samples included the (correct/reasonable?) names for the street and bridge (Stolyarnyi Lane, Kokushkin Bridge). The others replaced the words with S-----i Lane, and K------n Bridge (or S. Lane etc).
I think I understand the problem. Cyrillic alphabet doesn't map to Latin alphabet, and there was no established English-language translation for the names in question. The two that attempted it even had slightly different spellings, akin to the problem we see with many Arabic names in English today.
This makes a big difference in readability, to me. The setting is supposed to be foreign and a bit unfamiliar to excultural readers, but K-------n looks like an error, a misprint, or an "(unintelligible)" in a transcription. That becomes part of the story, and it isn't intended as such by the author.
For this and other reasons, my vote goes to Sidney Monas, 1968. I'll add that note to my long and ever-growing TOREAD list. :)
I think it is just the opposite, and I'm not sure how much Dostoevsky thought about excultural readers. The setting is supposed to be familiar, or at least feel familiar, to many of the readers, to the point where certain names are redacted to give the feeling that the author is "protecting the innocent", or avoiding accusations of libel, because you are actually reading a true story and not something made out of whole cloth.
The first line of the original is (asterisks mine, indicating where Dostoyevski intentionally did not write the name of a street or bridge):
"В начале июля, в чрезвычайно жаркое время, под вечер, один молодой человек вышел из своей каморки, которую нанимал от жильцов в **С — **м переулке, на улицу и медленно, как бы в нерешимости, отправился к **К —** ну мосту."
In English:
"On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge."
The first line of the original is (asterisks mine, indicating where Dostoyevski intentionally did not write the name of a street or bridge):
"В начале июля, в чрезвычайно жаркое время, под вечер, один молодой человек вышел из своей каморки, которую нанимал от жильцов в **С — **м переулке, на улицу и медленно, как бы в нерешимости, отправился к **К —** ну мосту."
In English:
"On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge."
I see. Well that changes things completely!
I assumed that the redactions were not in the original, and that the translators were avoiding complexity by presenting the English-speaking audience with a digstible form.
I guess I underestimated the translators, or the reading public. Thanks for the correction.
PS: I did not mean that Dostoevsky intended excultural readers to feel unfamiliar, but that excultural readers should expect (and maybe prefer) a certain amount of unfamiliarity in foreign works. I thought the translators were insulating their readers from it, which felt inauthentic.
I'm even more bothered by the idea of the translators "filling in the blanks" that were intentionally placed by the author. Curious that both translators who did so, used roughly the same names for each -- perhaps they are the real names that we know the author was referencing? Still, that's a bit presumptuous, I think.
I assumed that the redactions were not in the original, and that the translators were avoiding complexity by presenting the English-speaking audience with a digstible form.
I guess I underestimated the translators, or the reading public. Thanks for the correction.
PS: I did not mean that Dostoevsky intended excultural readers to feel unfamiliar, but that excultural readers should expect (and maybe prefer) a certain amount of unfamiliarity in foreign works. I thought the translators were insulating their readers from it, which felt inauthentic.
I'm even more bothered by the idea of the translators "filling in the blanks" that were intentionally placed by the author. Curious that both translators who did so, used roughly the same names for each -- perhaps they are the real names that we know the author was referencing? Still, that's a bit presumptuous, I think.
[deleted]
Standard Ebooks is such a great project, a big thank you to all the volunteers.
This is a wonderful resource, thanks for posting.
Yeah you do. But this thread isn't about you. So, I find it pretty irritating.
I managed to read Crime and Punishment in my late 20s. I was a decent read at the time but I wasn't struck by it. In the ~20 years since however, the visuals that were created in my mind while reading it have really stuck with me and have developed. I'm now hoping to be able to go to St Petersburg, just to walk around.
I am by no means in to literature in any significant way, but russian literature truly is something special. I've read a few chapters of War and Peace as well. Very different styles, but there is clearly some commonality in the way the authors use elaborate descriptions to create very robust mental models for the reader. I never feel like I get that in western literature other than some of the stuff like Chatwin and Carra from the 70s.
I am by no means in to literature in any significant way, but russian literature truly is something special. I've read a few chapters of War and Peace as well. Very different styles, but there is clearly some commonality in the way the authors use elaborate descriptions to create very robust mental models for the reader. I never feel like I get that in western literature other than some of the stuff like Chatwin and Carra from the 70s.
> I'm now hoping to be able to go to St Petersburg, just to walk around.
You'd better to hurry. Historic districts are in a sad state and city administration wants do nothing about it. It's pretty depressive atmosphere but completely off comparing with Dostoevsky's time.
You'd better to hurry. Historic districts are in a sad state and city administration wants do nothing about it. It's pretty depressive atmosphere but completely off comparing with Dostoevsky's time.
That's a good point and not something I considered. I wish I had made the trip 15 years ago when I had the chance. "I'll be able to do a proper trip soon" I said to myself.
not going to delve into the mind of an author remotely- as a reader of CaP it was really captivating (english translation). I read it at a similar time as some classic existentialist novels from Camus and Sarte. The language, the setting, the pace and sometimes lack of pace are all notable and make the book worth the time. What I do not see so far in these comments are an engagement of the psychological conditions. There is no "answer" so maybe part of why an analytics/math crowd is on unfamiliar ground -- the ground of ambiguity, feelings of being lost, and perhaps even mild delusion.
The development of a sense of "right and wrong" is not a sure thing, even among intelligent, functional people. A sense of "conscience" (pick your definition) even less so. Consider this minute example - you walk into a garden and see a beautiful butterfly, you admire it, it seems nice, then as you watch, it flies into a spider's web, is caught and killed by the spider. Is this a moral situation? very likely, not at all..
Next example, a sports team at your school when you are 15. You do not play for that team, and do not care for the sport much. The team plays another school, and there is group support, yells, matching colors, perhaps name calling and villification of the opposing team. Do you support your school, about something you do not care about. What about the players on the other team - do you direct insults or hostility towards these others that do nothing to you personally? Is this a moral situation? How do you feel about the people yelling so much, either side?
You are on your own in a city, and it is clear you need money to pay bills. The people around you appear to be petty, flawed and self-interested. You can quickly find contradictions, "white lies" in their actions. Yet you must pay your bills to these people personally, or face expulsion. Is this a moral sitation? How do you feel about yourself when interacting with these people? Your own sense of self may be compromised, injured.. actually everyone's is in some way .. or you may have a larger kind of sight, to see the universal in the everyday, including these people and their ways. That warps your reactions..
at any rate, there are many gray areas, and ambiguities, possible in examples like this, and the sense of being lost, of confusion, of wilting in the face of contradictions.. are embodied in the tale. It has been a long time since I read that book, but a copy is sitting about ten feet from me now. Maybe it is worth a look.
The development of a sense of "right and wrong" is not a sure thing, even among intelligent, functional people. A sense of "conscience" (pick your definition) even less so. Consider this minute example - you walk into a garden and see a beautiful butterfly, you admire it, it seems nice, then as you watch, it flies into a spider's web, is caught and killed by the spider. Is this a moral situation? very likely, not at all..
Next example, a sports team at your school when you are 15. You do not play for that team, and do not care for the sport much. The team plays another school, and there is group support, yells, matching colors, perhaps name calling and villification of the opposing team. Do you support your school, about something you do not care about. What about the players on the other team - do you direct insults or hostility towards these others that do nothing to you personally? Is this a moral situation? How do you feel about the people yelling so much, either side?
You are on your own in a city, and it is clear you need money to pay bills. The people around you appear to be petty, flawed and self-interested. You can quickly find contradictions, "white lies" in their actions. Yet you must pay your bills to these people personally, or face expulsion. Is this a moral sitation? How do you feel about yourself when interacting with these people? Your own sense of self may be compromised, injured.. actually everyone's is in some way .. or you may have a larger kind of sight, to see the universal in the everyday, including these people and their ways. That warps your reactions..
at any rate, there are many gray areas, and ambiguities, possible in examples like this, and the sense of being lost, of confusion, of wilting in the face of contradictions.. are embodied in the tale. It has been a long time since I read that book, but a copy is sitting about ten feet from me now. Maybe it is worth a look.
Crime and Punishment is pretty well-known, but not many know that Joseph Conrad wrote at least one novel in direct reaction to it / to Dostoyevsky.
Under Western Eyes (1911) is a novel by Joseph Conrad. The novel takes place in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Geneva, Switzerland, and is viewed as Conrad's response to the themes explored in Crime and Punishment; Conrad was reputed to have detested Dostoevsky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Western_Eyes_(novel)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/26/featuresreview...
Under Western Eyes (1911) is a novel by Joseph Conrad. The novel takes place in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Geneva, Switzerland, and is viewed as Conrad's response to the themes explored in Crime and Punishment; Conrad was reputed to have detested Dostoevsky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Western_Eyes_(novel)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/26/featuresreview...
I had no idea this book existed.
The best Russian writers (Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Tolstoy) were something like Russian chauvinists. They thought Russia -- in particular, culturally and religiously -- was above all other nations. There was propaganda in the 19th century about Russia being the "protector of the Slavic peoples" which the targeted countries didn't exactly want. It's an idea that still resonates both in Russia and among her ex-pats.
Skimming the Wikipedia page, Conrad seems to have taken offense to precisely this. The book looks fascinating.
The best Russian writers (Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Tolstoy) were something like Russian chauvinists. They thought Russia -- in particular, culturally and religiously -- was above all other nations. There was propaganda in the 19th century about Russia being the "protector of the Slavic peoples" which the targeted countries didn't exactly want. It's an idea that still resonates both in Russia and among her ex-pats.
Skimming the Wikipedia page, Conrad seems to have taken offense to precisely this. The book looks fascinating.
Where does Dostoyevsky advocate such ethno-nationalism? Don't remember any such from my readings of either Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov.
I don’t think I’d call it ethno-nationalism. It’s more of the equivalent of American Exceptionalism.
And since we are talking about Conrad, Poland has/had a similar phenomenon at the same time, called “The Christ of Nations.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Europe
Many of these ideas had roots in 19th century romanticism.
And since we are talking about Conrad, Poland has/had a similar phenomenon at the same time, called “The Christ of Nations.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Europe
Many of these ideas had roots in 19th century romanticism.
> I don’t think I’d call it ethno-nationalism. It’s more of the equivalent of American Exceptionalism.
That's exactly it.
In retrospect, calling it Russian Chauvinism may be a loaded term on my part.
That's exactly it.
In retrospect, calling it Russian Chauvinism may be a loaded term on my part.
All three sound the same to me. shrugs
"Ethno-Nationalism" is not the word I'd use to describe it.
The question is broad and difficult to answer but I can out a few examples of what I mean. [0] Lots of ideas about Russia's unique place in the world and why they're better than others (e.g. Dostoyevsky on why Russian Orthodoxy was better than other forms of religion). Most of these writers had spent time in the west, did not hold high opinions of it, and were vaguely Slavophiles. [1] There was a reason Dostoyevsky returned to Russia after living in France for some time, even after going to Siberia.
Solzhenitsyn did write about other ethnic groups in the Gulags and these often get misinterpreted in their English translations as "kind and meek" whereas their Russian originals would imply something more like "Good-natured simpleton." [2] He, of course, wrote far more controversial books, to put it mildly, but I won't link to those here.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_soul
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophilia
[2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43210399
The question is broad and difficult to answer but I can out a few examples of what I mean. [0] Lots of ideas about Russia's unique place in the world and why they're better than others (e.g. Dostoyevsky on why Russian Orthodoxy was better than other forms of religion). Most of these writers had spent time in the west, did not hold high opinions of it, and were vaguely Slavophiles. [1] There was a reason Dostoyevsky returned to Russia after living in France for some time, even after going to Siberia.
Solzhenitsyn did write about other ethnic groups in the Gulags and these often get misinterpreted in their English translations as "kind and meek" whereas their Russian originals would imply something more like "Good-natured simpleton." [2] He, of course, wrote far more controversial books, to put it mildly, but I won't link to those here.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_soul
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavophilia
[2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43210399
Crime and Punishment is probably my favorite novel of all time. Never before/since have I been so completely immersed in the mind of character.
There were times while reading the rationalizations/thought processes of the main character that I started to feel physically nauseous and had to take a break.
If you are at all interested in psychology, sociology, history, and/or philosophy, give it (or the audiobook) a go.
There were times while reading the rationalizations/thought processes of the main character that I started to feel physically nauseous and had to take a break.
If you are at all interested in psychology, sociology, history, and/or philosophy, give it (or the audiobook) a go.
The piece of art the gave me that feeling is the movie Taxy driver.
A great, disturbingly accurate, representation of what happens when loneliness starts to eat away at a person's mind.
A great, disturbingly accurate, representation of what happens when loneliness starts to eat away at a person's mind.
I enjoyed Crime and Punishment for similar reasons. Tolstoy was masterful at engaging the reader in the mind of an unsteady protagonist.
I just finished reading Crossroads, a new novel by Franzen. There are some similarities you might like. No murder, but Franzen has gotten quite good at inhabiting the mind of unsteady, sometimes unwell characters.
I just finished reading Crossroads, a new novel by Franzen. There are some similarities you might like. No murder, but Franzen has gotten quite good at inhabiting the mind of unsteady, sometimes unwell characters.
You probably mean War and Peace. You are right, it is an excellent book.
Sorry, brain fart on Tolstoy/Dostoevsky. Though yes War and Peace I really enjoyed as well. I don't fully agree with him on his absolute takedown of the 'great man theory' in W&P, but it's an incredible story.
I actually think he has a point with the great man theory. What we call a great man is a carefully engineered product and is the result of work of many people. A Steve Jobs or a Napoleon is a head node of a massive computing cluster. Is someone like that necessary? Of course. Would they be powerful at all without all the resources behind them? Not really. And this is sort of what I took away from W&P: Napoleon was a product of his time, and due to circumstances people happened to connect themselves into this giant borg with Napoleon at the helm.
I think I agree with you, but my reading of Tolstoy was that his position was more absolutist: the Great Man didn't matter at all, and someone else would be in his place if he wasn't there and that person would make the same decisions with the same results. His metaphor was a herd of sheep that wandered randomly this way and that, and that through the lens of history we look at whichever sheep was at the leading edge of the direction the herd was moving at the time as a "great leader," because the rest of the sheep seemed to be following that sheep.
I do agree that we make a "Great Man" to be much more than they are: that the achievements we ascribe to them would be impossible without support, work, and desire by a great number of people for the thing the leader wants to do, and that this leader can't unilaterally substantially change the course of history without immense support.
Where I disagree is the idea that that person is completely inconsequential; that a similar person would rise just the same, given the circumstances of the time, and that the results would be of no difference.
I'm open to the idea that Tolstoy was just taking an absolutist approach as a method of rhetoric and that he didn't actually believe that leaders have no consequence.
I do agree that we make a "Great Man" to be much more than they are: that the achievements we ascribe to them would be impossible without support, work, and desire by a great number of people for the thing the leader wants to do, and that this leader can't unilaterally substantially change the course of history without immense support.
Where I disagree is the idea that that person is completely inconsequential; that a similar person would rise just the same, given the circumstances of the time, and that the results would be of no difference.
I'm open to the idea that Tolstoy was just taking an absolutist approach as a method of rhetoric and that he didn't actually believe that leaders have no consequence.
Another excellent book that injects you into an unstable protagonist is Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground. Can be read in a day. Highly recommend. This was my first intro to Russian lit.
At the time I read it, I found myself hating the book and its characters, yet unable to put it down. It wasn't until long after I had finished the book that I realized that there were no novels that had ever made me actually feel such strong emotions before, and that's precisely what makes it a masterpiece. I ended up reading the rest of his major works, and to this day I don't think any other author I've read can compare in terms of getting inside your head.
Crime and Punishment had a big influence on my when I read it in 12th grade. Prior to it, I had been reading Ayn Rand and thinking a lot about objectivism/libertarian ideas. Crime and Punishment was like an antidote. I don't think C&P actually addresses libertarian ideas, but it is a rejection of some kind of cold, rationalist philosophy. Anyway I remember it fondly and should probably reread it at some point.
Because his publisher made him change the original title, "Crime and Getting Away With It."