Talk:Crime and Punishment/Archive 1

Some reviewers
"Some reviewers have seen in the novel a criticism of modern American life, including the American penal system; towards the end, the character Svidrigailov shoots himself and instructs the only witness to tell those who ask that he was 'going to America'." While it is a common thread in Dostoevsky's works to have characters off themselves rather then flee to America, I don't get how its a critisim of the modern American penal system, considering the book was written just a couple years after the US Civil War. Is there any thing to back up this statement? ScottM 16:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this seems absurd. john k 18:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Analysis
Just some comments on the Analysis section. While I think the section is a good addition, some of the content doesn't seem right to me, hopefully it can be fine tuned.

First, I really don't think Raskolnikov "revels" in his suffering, it's much better to say that he ultimately benefits from his suffering since it guides him towards redemption. Revelry implies enjoyment and merryment, which he doesn't express.

I agree, he revels in nothing, such is not his personality, he bears it as a necessity. If anything he despises it just as he oes every thing else. He sees it as the inevetible outcome as his failure to prove his "Napoleonic" status. An interesting question I would like to see addressed is whether or not Raskolnikov still believes in his little "Human-Superhuman" theory after his "rebirth" in the epilougeFeromors 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 

Second, "He constantly tries to feel" is really vague. What is he trying to feel? Resolve, purpose, kinship?

Third, "his depravity is commonly interpreted as an affirmation of himself as a transcendent conscience and a rejection of rationality and reason" should be expanded and clarified or deleted. There should be specific reference to who (a critic, a school of thought, etc) interpreted it as such, otherwise it can fall under original research. Depravity is also really vague. What depravity in particular?

Hopefully there can be collaboration on this section to make it work, since this is a really important novel. --TheMidnighters 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some editing of the analysis section but regarding the philosophy in the novel I could only mention a few people who had similiar views in their writings, and none who shared it exactly. I'm sure there are more links that can be put in regarding this and if anybody knows of any please add. I'm sure there's such a thing as Dostoevskiism out there too if somebody wants to look. Raskolnikov The Penguin 02:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

haphazardly
haphazardly planned murder?? -193.77.233.76 08:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dostoevsky's Contract
The story about the contract with the editor Stellovsky, who gave D. an advance on the condition that he would have free right to all of Dostoevsky's books, present and future ones, if D. didn't give him a new novel by the fall of 1866, is true, but it doesn't apply to Crime and Punisghment, instead to The Gambler. The contract did not exist when D. started out on C&P, which was sold to another publisher, Katkov. The gambler was dictated in less than a month to Anna Snitkina who then became Fedya's second wife, but that's another story. I rewrote a few lines in the background bit, early in the article. Strausszek August 29 2006 07:15 (CET)

Lazarus story
Edited the bit about New Testament references, the Lazarus story isn't in the epilogue, Sonya reads it to R the day before her mother dies and Raskolnikov confesses to her. It's interesting that Dostoevsky doesn't really spell out anything about the meaning of this (he has Sonya thinking it will lead to Rodya's conversion, but it doesn't get clearer than that, and it's not the conversion she thought it would be). After all the novel was written for a broad audience and wasn't meant to be an avant-garde novel, and with most writers at this time it would have been an automatic move to give some explanation of why she reads this old legend to him.

I guess many people who read the book first time might wonder why R more or less forces Sonya to read the story. Well, so did I. Strausszek September 1, 2006 06:40 (CET)

second para
The second para states that Rodya becomes ill after the murder takes place. The translation I have suggests that he is ill before the murder, this may be trivial, but i thought i'd mention it. ( Translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky) --Carolyn Earnest 06:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly it isn't too severe, with the passing out and delirium, until after the murder. Although it's likely he's referred to as not being well or something similar before the murder, with comparatively lighter symptoms like disorientation. Does this sound accurate? --TM 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article includes only some in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary
Hi, I was looking at the plot summary, and I realised that half of it is not there... It is replaced by an analysis of the text/story... Just wanted to let you people know! --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 02:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Movie versions
I think Woody Allen's "Match Point" should join the movie adaptations of Crime and Punishment as "The Machinist" did. The final part of the film is strongly inspired by Dostoyevski's book. In fact at the beginning of the film the main character can be seen reading this book (probably as a justification of why he does the killing on the way he does)
 * Unless we can source this - and the mention of Hitchcock's Rope (movie) - both links should come out. Merely being influenced by C&P isn't enough for inclusion; the list should be limited to direct and strong indirect adaptations. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Rope (movie) and The Machinist should come out as they are just influenced by the book, but last hour of Match Point can be said to be a direct adaptation of first book of Crime and Punishment. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.43.237.98 (talk &bull; contribs) 09:43, 17 January 2006.
 * "Can be said to be" isn't sufficient; it needs a source. If there's a prominent critic who has said this about Match Point, or if Allen himself said it, then that would meet the standards. Otherwise, it's original research. | Klaw ¡digame! 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly how this works, I don't have a source as I have not searched one, I haven't read or seen anyone related to the film saying that "Match Point" is a version of "Crime and punishment", but after reading the book and watching the film it's clear that the crimes in "Match point" are from the first part of "Crime and punishment".In fact, in wikipedia's page of "Match point" someone wrote that part of the film is based on this book.--62.43.237.98 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you just described is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you find a reliable third party who makes the connection between the book and movie, that would solve the problem. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the article for the movie makes the connection, and while that does not entirely excuse us of needing a source lets admit that movies are often difficult to cite because until a text version comes out you have to rely on critics to provide details. The fact remains that the movie is based on the book. Not only does the main character read Crime and Punishment, but reads a companion at the same time and has an "authentic discussion" about the book. In Allen's world, this is most certainly an indication that the themes of the book will be discussed. I suggest only likely hood of influence, not a bona fide adaptation should meet wiki's infintly flexible standards. User:thechosenone021

Influence and adaptation are very different things. Plus there's still no source so I'm removing it again until there is one. --TheMidnighters 18:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have it now. I talked to a Russian Literature Phd who had seen the movie (Expert?) and he agreed that it was based on C and P. Also, the following http://www.altfg.com/Reviews/matchpoint.htm . Permission to edit? User:thechosenone021tzzzzzzzzzzgfuj
 * Did he say that it was a direct adaptation or that the two share similar themes and/or characters? Anyway, my point is that the movie versions section is for direct adaptations. People could make arguments that many movies are directly influenced by, share themes with, and make reference to Crime and Punishment, but they're still not adaptations. --TheMidnighters 22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Direct adaptation. The point is that the book has serious plot similarities. Its a modern day c and p, except the protagonist is a former tennis pro, not student, who teaches tennis not tutors. He ends up being succesful and gets away with the murder, but the scene of the murder is the same as C and P, the burying of the loot, the use of random murder weapon, the difficulty usuing weapon, the call to the police office that seems unlikely. There is no Wiki Standard for movie adaptations. This deserves mention for being intensely derived. User:thechosenone021
 * Fair enough. --TheMidnighters 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of the spirit of the novel, Woody Allen's Crime and Misdemeanors is much closer to Dostoevski than Match Point, a deeply flawed and far inferior film, in my opinion. Neither film is an actual cinematic adaptation of the plot, but a meditation on similar themes: guilt, moral evil, the human condition. I still find it difficult to see how much favorable comment the later film has received; I think it is predictable and trite. 66.108.105.21 03:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who I should reply to, but I strongly disagree with the argument that Match Point can be considered an adaptation. For one thing, most of Crime and Punishment takes place after the murder, while in Match Point the murder occurs at the end. Then consider that Woody's message is essentially the opposite of Dostoyevsky's - that you can indeed get away with murder and feel fine with it. Now, if Woody had still called it Crime and Punishment, or made it take place in Russia, or something, you might be able to call it an adaptation, kind of like Demi Moore's The Scarlet Letter was an adaptation of the original (even though it mangled the plot and threw in some heaving bossoms, skinny dipping and an Indian rescue... if I recall correctly). But Match Point has a very different plot, takes place in a different place and era, and has a very different message. Oh, and I think it is a bit funny that someone used the argument that in Match Point a character reads Crime and Punishment as an argument that it is an adaptation. To me that seems to rule it out, since I don't recall Raskolnikov reading Crime and Punishment in the original... --Chinawhitecotton 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, ha ha, never mind. Someone already took it out. Well, let this be a warning to you not put put it back. :)--Chinawhitecotton 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Translators
The table of info lasts one translater, but there are multiple translations. Shouldn't we mention all of them? -Unknownwarrior33 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a longer list near the end of the article, McDuff is cited in the infobox since it's showcasing a specific edition. --TM 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed that. Thanks. -Unknownwarrior33 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see the point in showcasing a particular edition. This article is about Crime and Punishment, not any particular translation. The only link to the edition is the use of the cover illustration; why list "translator" - and why is the language Russian AND English? That suggests the book was written in or includes both languages. I looked on the page for "The Idiot" and there is no reference to translators. Unless there is some standard Wikipedia policy for including translation info, I suggest removing it; it almost seems like a promotion of one translation over others.Chinawhitecotton 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The section with list of translators is happily growing and growing with red links. If such information is important (which I somewhat doubt) then it should be farmed out into a leaf article, otherwise it would be better removed. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Featuring a particular edition or translation in the infobox
Unknownwarrior has largely made this point before but I think it's worth reiterating that it's a bad idea for the article to "showcase" just one edition or translation in the infobox. Already the "translator" has been removed but the following surely need to be done: So I'm going to remove that information from the infobox. 172.206.96.104 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove "Penguin Classics" as the publisher (bearing in mind the many publishers who must have published this book at some stage, Penguin are an odd choice to highlight as the publisher - perhaps the very first publisher would be a suitable choice)
 * Remove references to the "cover artists" - again, there are very many editions, with varied cover art, and the cover art mentioned is not associated with 1866 release.

Redemption from what?
Last sentence, second paragraph: "Moreover, Raskolnikov's attempts to protect his sister Dunya from unappealing suitors, and also his unexpected love for a destitute prostitute demonstrate Raskolnikov's longing for redemption." Redemption from what? Moral sins? Poverty? His mental condition? The sentence is not clear, and it's also a hasty interpretation of the novel. When Raskolnikov falls in love with Sonya, and when he feels like he's "living" when he helps other unfortunate people, I interpret it as a confirmation of his existence. He wants to see himself in other people, the "murderer" in other people. And when he does, that's the only time he acts normally. These people, like himself, have something in them that makes them special. They are all like Mikolka's nag who keeps on pulling their impossibly heavy burden. They confirm his existence, and his loneliness disappears. It's not at all redemption from sin or poverty or mental illness, but rather a confirmation of all these that Raskolnikov seeks. Moonwalkerwiz 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's likely adapted from the back cover of the Penguin edition, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "Only Sonya, a downtrodden prostitute, can offer him the chance of redemption". +Hexagon1 (t) 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the mental condition is often interpreted as a result of his inability to cope with his actions, it seems unlikely that he would seek redemption from an affect rather than a cause. Although it should be clarified as such, the redemption also clearly does not refer to poverty, as that is an issue that does not appear to overly concern Raskolnikov. The redemption he seeks is for the murder he commits, and for believing he had a right to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.75.1 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Redemption from the guilt and mental suffering that torrments him throughout the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.121.184 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First Para.
I haven't read the book but the first paragraph seems to contain spoilers, no? --A Sunshade Lust 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I mean, the introduction. --A Sunshade Lust 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad really, it certainly contains no more information than the blurb of the version I read Noosentaal (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mother
Was the mother of Rodia really clueless and hopeful? I thought she was rather underhanded and had a bite to her (viz. her (now famous) letter to Rodia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.25.36 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar, Punctuation
I'm not sure under which category my comment should appear, as there doesn't seem to be a section devoted to grammar, punctuation, and spelling. This is also my first time posting to Wikipedia, so if I'm out of line, please let me know. Having said that, I'm a virgin Dostoyevsky reader and just finished reading Crime and Punishment. I think the book is amazing, but my enjoyment and appreciation of the novel were certainly enhanced by the many brilliant comments included on this discussion page. However, I think the editors' contributions would be enhanced by proper spelling, and, in particular, punctuation. The submissions are in dire need of semi-colons for improving comprehension, and I could lend more respect to an editor's comment if he or she could spell correctly. Does Wikipedia have a process in place to ensure that comments are not only cited properly, but comply with English usage standards? Or, am I just a stickler who is missing the point of this forum? Designchik (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggesting how an article can be improved is not out of line: it's precisely what discussion pages are for. I don't think there are any grammar/spellcheck systems in place, it is just expected that if one editor makes a mistake, another will correct it. If you see writing that needs improvement, feel free to be bold and make changes. --TM 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for the link to the "Be Bold" guidelines.Designchik (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rood
"Finally, the name Rodya itself resembles the English word "rood," still used for "cross" at the time the novel was written."

Seeing as it was originally written in Russian and not English, does this really deserve mention? Macnas 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good lord, this comment has been here nearly a full year. Anyway, I've removed that part as being horrifically untenable and unciteable besides, and added various citation requests on the other "theories" given in that section. Mallocks (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Übermensch idea
This book clearly is a precursor for the Übermensch theory later developed by Friedrich Nietzsche. Raskolnikov's musings that he is a morally superior human, and therefore has the right to put laws aside, is an almost exact example of Nietzsche's theory. It is interesting why Nietzsche would postulate formulate his theory in this manner, seeing the tragic consequences for Raskolnikov? After all, he did admire Dostoevsky very much. I unfortunately lack sources for this information, and am therefore reluctant to add it to a good-article. Errabee 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation, but I would like to point out that Dostoyevki is a firm believer that ALL humans are flawed and make mistakes. This, in some way, is confirmed by christian ideology (Adam & Eve screwed up by eating the fruit... why? because they're curious - they're human...) Anyways, in his other works and in the book, you can see how prone to error Dostoyevki characters are... The murder of Lizaveta was a mistake which implies that even although Raskolnikov had developed a 'perfect theory' its execution is bound to have mistakes. But I don't know why Nietzsche came up with the 'superhuman' idea if he was a fan of Dostoyevski (who persists that humans are flawed by nature) - by Dopeman ;)

The book is more clearly a criticism of the super-man idea than a support for it. It ultimately rejects it as incorrect, Raskolnikov only finds peace in the traditionalist view of salvation.

It seems that referring to "a Nietzschean Übermensch" in the section The Cross is a misnomer seeing that the Übermensch idea was formulated after Crime and Punishment's publishing.128.120.180.118 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also in the plot summary. --Mokru (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dostoevsky's existentialist views?
I may be a little off about this, but I heard that Dostoyevsky was actually highly critical of existentialism and nihilism, and was an advocate of Russian orthodoxy.

Is this a glaring mistake in the article, or have I been reading the wrong interpretations of his work? edit: or by "Dostoevsky's existentialist views", does the author of the article allude to Dostoyevsky's critical view on existentialism? Should that be cleared up a little bit?

Despite being very Christian he wrote about issues which became prominent in existentialist thought, but yeah, it could be clearer in the article. - TheMidnighters

I don't think he said much regarding existentialism because the word was not really used until after his death (sartre brought it to the largely encompassing term it is now). He was very anti-nihilist though. I guess if existentialism is nihilism he could not really be considered an existentialist; but that statement is hard to affirm because existentialism is so broad a topic. Raskolnikov The Penguin 02:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought Viktor Frankl was largely credited for coining the word existentialism. --Mokru (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nihilistic existentialism and christian existentialism among the many variants. Each simply states which school of thought's framework is being employed while approaching the main tenets of existentialism. --TheMidnighters 04:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dostoevsky was in fact highly critical of nihilism which can be seen in his later work The Idiot. But in reference to existentialism, Dostoevsky was a firm believer. His ultimate thesis in Crime and Punishment is that suffering leads to salvation. This parallels Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism and his work in the same time era. (KDC)

How can Dostoyevsky have been a "firm believer" in existentialism if he preceded all existentialist philosophers (save himself)? (SH)

It seems that this article misses the point. Dostoevsky advocates not one Ideal or Philosophy over the other, but rather that one should use reason to moderate an extreme ideal such as nihilism or existentialism. This is demonstrated with the fact that each of the characters crumbles in a way similar to Raskolnikov (who followed, or tired to, very nihilistic principles) when each of them followed their own extreme set of principles. Lebezyatnikov was constantly antagonized with his socialistic thoughts, Marmeladov went down a spiral of self destruction with hedonism, Luzhin was constantly dour and cannot find happiness with his aristocratic greed, Sofya carried the burdens of the world with her Orthodoxy. The other characters withered similarly with their single minded obsessions. Feromors 00:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC) -Feromors


 * I'm afraid a number of posters in this section seem confused as to what exactly "existentialism" is. I therefore feel the need to clarify that Existentialism is not a specific school of thought; rather, it is more like a cluster of related ideas and variations on those ideas. To illustrate this point, many consider Kierkegaard and Sartre to be existentialists, though these philosophers would disagree with each other on many important points (particularly religion). Doestoevsky's works, therefore, can be considered "existentialist" in the same way that many of Melville's are considered "existentialist" (i.e. Moby-Dick), that is, because his work anticipates the thought of many later philosophers like Kierkegaard and Sartre, but especially with regard to his views on suffering and its necessity in human experience. This is less obvious in "Crime in Punishment," though: his main purpose in this work is to refute the Nihilists who he saw -- rightly, as it turned out -- as threatening to Russian society. (His existentialist ideas are more fully developed in "Notes from Underground" and "The Brothers Karamazov.) The fact that Dostoevsky predated the actual term is merely a "problem" of language -- we simply didn't have a name for his ideas until after WWII.


 * In any event, I would argue that any articulation of Dostoevsky's philosophical ideas with relation to this specific work should focus on Nihilism and not existentialism, since the former is in fact the focus of "Crime and Punishment." --Todeswalzer 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers
I'm in the midst of reading this book and this article has already given a lot of it away from the first few paragraphs. I think that there needs to be spoiler warning somewhere in the beginning. RedBaron5142 01:38 12 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBaron5142 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia has spoiler warnings anymore. Most of the plot/spoilers are in the plot summary section which is where you'd expect to find them, so if you don't want to read spoilers you shouldn't read plot summaries. All plot-related information in the lead section occurs very early in the text anyway. --TM 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, this is Crime and Punishment we're talking about. It's already been spoiled once you've read the title. 91.107.132.142 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Razkol totally isn't shizm
someone armed with a dictionary mistranslated razkolnikov's name. Razkolot means to split 'something' as in "to split a skull with an axe" not to split from something. Razkolniki, "the splitters", were indeed a schismatic orthodox christian sect who gave birth to Razkolinokov's common surname. But razkol does not mean 'schism' and it cannot be used in as in "to be in schism with the society". I'm correcting this.79.216.223.113 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rape
Where is the discussion that D wrote C&P as an indirect confession of his rape of young girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.190.200 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

different extant english translations; a listing
I'm just making a list as I encounter translations; Do with it what you wish (except for delete this section, of course ;)) boombaard (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sidney Monas (1968)
 * David McDuff
 * Richard Pevear & Larissa Volokhonsky
 * Jesse Coulson (1989)
 * Constance Garnett

Multiple Cheap References to Nietsche/Übermensch
The overflow of Nietzsche/Ubermensch references is tragic. The publication of Crime & Punishment predates Thus Spoke Zarathustra which is where the concept of Ubermensch entered the mainstream. Defining Dostoyevsky's work with parameters developed by his successor is intellectual sloth and diminishes the brilliance of the work. The frequency of references could be reduced if the thought of removing the whole lot is non-negotiable. Mbac 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, Mbac. I think it's fair to mention that Raskolnikoff was an early prototype of the Ubermensch, but the context should always be clear.  That the Dostoevsky came first.  And you're also right, Ubermensch can be mentioned less. --JayHenry 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you guys have actually read the book, but the conclusion actually disdains the Ubermensch theory. By seeking redemption, and finally giving up on his theory, Raskolnikov is able to re-enter humanity by serving his prison sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.75.1 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Very much agree, so I've removed the last reference to Ubermensch. I think a section discussing the relation between crime and punishment and Ubermensch would be a very good contribution to the article however it is definitely a section that would need strong supporting sources given the complexity of it. Dterei 12:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nietzsche reference still exists in the article. A character cannot be a "super-man" if the idea is not yet published. Did Dostoevsky have correspondence with Nietsche? --Mokru (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, are you implying that the Ubermensch idea just popped into Nietzsche's head from nowhere, that no one could have explored similar concepts before him and that they were not in the air? There are many books and stage works which presage some aspects of this. Wagner's Siegfried has Ubermensch traits, and Vautrin's speech to Rastignac midway through Balzac's Pere Goriot [written in the 1830s) about the need to grab it for yourself, become your own lawmaker and kick at the sheep to achieve anything in this world strikingly prefigures both Raskolnikov and Zarathustra. Of course, Vautrin is a master criminal./Strausszek (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Considerations
In some other translations of the book, the character names are spelled differently. Raskolnikov = Roskolnikov Porfiry = Porphyry "Roskolnikov" has no results on wikisearch
 * I redirected Roskolnikov to Raskolnikov's article
 * Talkstosocks

The article also gives Porfiry's full name as Pyotr Petrovich Porfiry, but in the three translations I've seen he is only Porfiry Petrovich. Indeed, several analysts attach significance to his lack of a family name (and suggest "Petrovich" implies "son of Peter the Great" as a public servant). Where did the Pyotr come from in the novel itself? (The Russian site appears to say only "Porfiry Petrovich"; perhaps someone mixed up Porfiry with the character of Luzhin?) I didn't want to change anything in case I was incorrect. Jediknil 03:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Today someone changed Sonya's Russian name to match what is written here, i.e. "Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladova". But her "real" first name is Sofya (which matches the old Russian text, I think). Which one is more appropriate, both for the section title and the first mention? Right now it says "Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladova...variously called Sonya..." which clearly doesn't work. Jediknil 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sonya is the diminutive form of Sofia, but Dostoevsky refers to her as Sonya in every mention of her except when other characters mention her in dialogue. Sofia should be used for the section title, but Sonya is probably better for every other mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.0.251 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read an english translation of the book, so I am not sure about how these names are translated in English. I was just wondering why the women's lastnames don't end in -a. For example Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikov and Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov. They're suposed to be Raskolnikova and Marmeladova, but I didn't want to change it if the english translation is really like that...? 217.116.235.64 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a Russian name-forming convention, it's inherent in the language. Just like Hebrew surnames are formed with bar-, ben- and bat- (son/daughter of X). If Miss Elena Jevgenyeva Kravchin (female middle name, "daughter of Evgeny", her father) marries Mr. Strapzhinsky, she will become Elena Jevgenyeva Strapzhinskaya - the new family name is given a feminine ending for her. /Strausszek (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

the crimes
perhaps worthwile to note Raskolnikov did not agonize over the death of the pawn broker.. but only the death of her younger sister. a lot of readings, interpretations try to white wash over this in order to come to somekind of moral absolutism that wasn't in the novel. Raskolnikov agonizes over the fact that he caused the suffering of an innocent. he never at anytime considered the pawnbroker an innocent. he thought out the death of the pawn broker beforehand... for him to agonize over that makes no sense in the novel. that's why the sister walks in


 * It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that by the end, it's pretty clear Raskolnikov's entire moral self-justification has fallen apart, and that he can no longer sustain the idea that he is a Great Man who has the right to kill other people. Certainly the idea that "for him to agonize over [the pawnbroker's murder] makes no sense in the novel" is completely unjustifiable - I read the book as it being Dostoevsky's point that Raskolnikov feels guilty over the whole business, because he does have a conscience, and because his a priori self-justification was, from the beginning, a total fraud.  You seem to be buying into the idea that Raskolnikov's self-justifications are legitimate, when it seems fairly clear (at least, from what I can remember), that they're bogus from the start, and that he's only desperately trying to convince himself that he's justified.  The sister may make the whole business more difficult, and may even be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but I don't think it's right to say that he only agonizes over the one death.  Rather, he agonizes over the whole thing, with the sister's death being particularly agonized over.  Can you provide any support from literary criticism for your position? john k 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

When he confesses to Dunya he's very reluctant to say that he regrets the killing of the pawnbroker woman. As Dunya embraces him in relief, he flares up and the dialogue goes, like, R:"Hey, what kind of a crime are you talking about? She was a friggin' louse! Killing her was worth more than even forty confessions of one's sins. She spent her days sucking the juices out of poor people...And everybody's pointing their finger at me saying 'crime, crime, crime...' Only now do I fully realize the absurdity of this, as I've decided to take on this senseless shame."

D:"Rodya, please! What are you saying, you've committed murder!"

R:"Well, don't everybody? Everywhere around us, always, blood has been tumbling like torrents or flowing like champagne, some people even get laurels for it. I might have done a lot of good [---] My mistake was mere clumsiness, I should have been more careful. The idea in itself wasn't all that bad, not at all as bad as it looks now when it's failed."

D:"That's not what it's about at all. Think of what you're saying!"

(approximately, I don't have the English translation around, I'm putting this over from the Swedish translation). I think Dostoevsky is realistic in giving an idea of how hard that point would be, Rodya sort of strips himself of any defence if he says he was a mere killer, because already when he started toying with the idea he was in a very down-and-out situation (as he marches off to the police he's thinking "I wonder if within the next ten years I'm going to get so stupid and squalid that I'll kiss the feet of everybody and tear-jerkingly scream out that I am am murderer? They want to break me down, they want to maul me!") - It's a bit like the way a business adventurer a la Nick Leeson or some cyberbiz whiz, who's speculated away torrents of money and has been fraudulent to many others, will defend himself by saying "you gotta be brave and experimental to gain some money in this world...I failed, but that was just a coincidence" and is likely to fiercely deny the suggestion that he was ultimately dealing with other people's money and going far beyond what he was trusted to do with that money.

Saying even killing the greedy pawnbroker woman was a mortal sin, that's the last and hardest step, and I don't know if we ever hear him say that right out in the book, though it's strongly implied he has to. Rodion's right in feeling that he and his family have been trampled upon by an unjust society, though that doesn't excuse the killings (Dostoevsky really is in ace form when he suggests the double aspects of love and hate that erupt in Raskolnikov when he meets, or thinks of, Sonya and Dunya).

I read Joseph Frank's The Stir of liberation (part of his big Fyodor biography) about the years leading up to C&P, and he underlines that Dostoevsky may have been a Christian, but he was never a stolid person who would take for granted what was taught, not even make an effort always to be orthodox. See his views on marriage and resurrection, discussed in the chapter "Will I ever see Masha again?" which draws on a little-known manuscript D. wrote in the days following the death of his first wife.

So I think you (the first poster in this section, who is anonymous) may have a point: when he finally does take on responsibility for both murders in front of Dunya, he does so because he sees the pain he's forcing on his beloved sister (and, he knows, to his mother and Razumichin) and he knows he can't tear that up if he won't surrender, resolve to go to the police and rely on the love of Sonya and Dunya.

On a side note, i think it's vital to the balance of the book that Rodya is not portrayed as a habitually violent person: if he were, Sonya's trust in him and love for him (even before he's confessed) would be impossible. He's sometimes snappy, ill-tempered, moody, but almost never physically violent. The murders are in some sense alien to his normal personality, and that's why they break him down so fast. Strausszek Sept 2, 2006, 23.55 [CET]

---the actual quote

“Crime? What crime? Killing a foul, noxious louse, that old moneylender, no good to anybody, who sucked the life-blood of the poor, so vile that killing her ought to bring absolution for forty sins – was that a crime?" (Raskolnikov)

this was consistant with the socio economic conditions of Russia at the time of the writing.... conditions which eventually led to the russian revolution. this view would not have been immoral at all. actually it still isn't but things were much much worse then.....this was pre industrial russia. the aristocracy were practically paving the road with the skulls of peasants.
 * It's true that old Russia was a very únjust society, absolútely . and it can't be glossed over by saying the Bolsheviks shed more blood so everyone should have supported the Tsar - but at this point in the book Rodya is barely reasoning in a coherent way anymore.. He's very much emoting and struggling to regain his footing as he realizes fully where he's gone. Whatever his final position on the murder of the pwnbroker woman - and Dostoevsky certainly condemns it -, as opposed to her sister, by the time he reaches Siberia in the epilogue he has surely decided that it's not something he could ever brag about, and that his moral convictions have to tie in with his need to live with the persons who matter to him, who are close to him. /Strausszek (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas De Quincey's Influence on Dostoevsky
Dostoevsky may have used De Quincey's essay as a guidebook for Raskolnikov:

ON THE KNOCKING AT THE GATE IN MACBETH. MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS BY THOMAS DE QUINCEY. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10708/10708-8.txt "Now it will be remembered that in the first of these murders, (that of the Marrs,) the same incident (of a knocking at the door soon after the work of extermination was complete) did actually occur, which the genius of Shakespeare has invented . . . Murder in ordinary cases, where the sympathy is wholly directed to the case of the murdered person, is an incident of coarse and vulgar horror; and for this reason, that it flings the interest exclusively upon the natural but ignoble instinct by which we cleave to life; an instinct, which, as being indispensable to the primal law of self-preservation, is the same in kind, (though different in degree,) amongst all living creatures; this instinct therefore, because it annihilates all distinctions, and degrades the greatest of men to the level of "the poor beetle that we tread on," exhibits human nature in its most abject and humiliating attitude. Such an attitude would little suit the purposes of the poet. What then must he do? He must throw the interest on the murderer. Our sympathy must be with _him_; (of course I mean a sympathy of comprehension, a sympathy by which we enter into his feelings, and are made to understand them,--not a sympathy[1] of pity or approbation.) In the murdered person all strife of thought, all flux and reflux of passion and of purpose, are crushed by one overwhelming panic; the fear of instant death smites him "with its petrific mace." But in the murderer, such a murderer as a poet will condescend to, there must be raging some great storm of passion,--jealousy, ambition, vengeance, hatred,--which will create a hell within him; and into this hell we are to look. . . The murderers, and the murder, must be insulated--cut off by an immeasurable gulf from the ordinary tide and succession of human affairs--locked up and sequestered in some deep recess; we must be made sensible that the world of ordinary life is suddenly arrested--laid asleep--tranced--racked into a dread armistice: time must be annihilated; relation to things without abolished; and all must pass self-withdrawn into a deep syncope and suspension of earthly passion. Hence it is, that when the deed is done, when the work of darkness is perfect, then the world of darkness passes away like a pageantry in the clouds: the knocking at the gate is heard; and it makes known audibly that the reaction has commenced: the human has made its reflux upon the fiendish; the pulses of life are beginning to beat again; and the re-establishment of the goings-on of the world in which we live, first makes us profoundly sensible of the awful parenthesis that had suspended them."

Compare to this scene: "Raskolnikov stood keeping tight hold of the axe. He was in a sort of delirium. He was even making ready to fight when they should come in. While they were knocking and talking together, the idea several times occurred to him to end it all at once and shout to them through the door. Now and then he was tempted to swear at them, to jeer at them, while they could not open the door! "Only make haste!" was the thought that flashed through his mind." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2554/2554-h/2554-h.htm Dick Scalper (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Raskolnikovs Reasons For Committing the Crime
The second paragraph of this article contains this phrase:

"Raskolnikov argues that with the pawnbroker's money he can perform good deeds to counterbalance the crime, while ridding the world of a worthless parasite."

I believe that Raskolnikov rather than "arguing" this himself, instead mentions that he has overheard this opinion espoused between two individuals in a tavern and considers this as a sign of things to come.

--Count of Cascadia (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Protagonist?
I believe that Rodya is an antihero, not a protagonist. Anyone care to comment?
 * The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Protagonist simply means they are the main character, it has no bearing on the actual nature of the character. --TheMidnighters 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself was under the misconception that protagonist literally meant hero, and however much this might be a comment on my literary prowess (as I do consider myself more learned than most people) I believe that this misconception is very common. Perhaps a sentence or even a section could be added considering the anti-heroic aspects of Raskolnikov's character? I personally believe that the links between C&P and Dostoevsky's earlier short story Notes from Underground (and especially between Raskolnikov and the narrator of that story) very influential and also very relevant to this page. Dalemark7 (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Gulag in the opening
"...he was serving his sentence in Katorga camps, the Tsarist forced-labor system and predecessor to the Soviet Gulag..." - do we really need this? I thought the article was about the novel, not communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alemand (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I think it's a really irrelevant reference - is it even possible to say that Katorga camps are "equivalent" to Gulags? 82.35.134.57 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Adaptation
I think the list of adaptations should include the BBC miniseries in the 1970s, with John Hurt as Raskolnikov. It followed the novel very closely.CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Hi,

Does anyone know what is meant by the, "province of R——", "province of N——" and "province of X——" etc?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.79.1 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crime and Punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726125241/http://www.top10books.org/categories/adventure/crime-and-punishment-by-fyodor-dostoevsky.html to http://www.top10books.org/categories/adventure/crime-and-punishment-by-fyodor-dostoevsky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Original research in the "Symbolism" section
The "Symbolism" section of this article contains lots of unsourced analysis and original research, including several sub-sections which are entirely original research. I am installing the appropriate tags and a banner.

(And it may be worth pointing out here in the TALK section that while the color yellow may indeed symbolize suffering and mental illness, as the unsourced subsection "Yellow" suggests, it is also a fact that the city of St. Petersburg contains a great many yellow buildings. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.  See, for instance, here: http://www.saint-petersburg.com/images/addresses/nevsky-prospekt/nevsky-prospekt-in-st-petersburg.jpg and here: https://travels.kilroy.net/media/59810/russia-st-petersburg-channel.jpg)  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nastaya as a main character
The book features Nastaya prominently, chatting a lot with the other main characters and always caring for Raskolnikov one way or the other. She does a lot in the book and is very involved in the plot. Should the content about her be moved to the Main Characters section?Firestar464 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nastasya has some importance in some scenes but cannot be considered a major character. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A semi-main character maybe? :) Firestar464 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Most characters in Dostoevsky are important in their own way, but don't necessarily fit the criteria for a 'main' character. Nastasya is a good example. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Description of Luzhin
The article describes Luzhin as "unsavory". Shouldn't it be edited to "twisted" to fit his personality better to make a better description? Firestar464 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Unsavory' in this sense means "unpleasant because morally objectionable". Its probably not the best word, but 'twisted' implies a kind of psychopathy that isn't true of Luzhin. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What is "original russian"
The text in the link is written in "новая орфография" (without ять letter for example) so how can it be "original" russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGuess (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is a little clumsy I guess – it must refer to the original language of the book, rather than any "original version" of the language. The person who added the link presumably was not aware of the orthographic changes Russian has undergone since the novel was first published, or else they just didn't think about it when they wrote the link description. I'll simplify it so it doesn't make any incorrect claims. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pre-reformatted text link
I found a link that contains the text of “crime in punishment” in pre-reform russian orthography: https://imwerden.de/pdf/dostoevsky_prestuplenie_i_nakazanie.pdf --DonGuess (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A reference to an article in russian language written by Lev Oborin and published on "Polka" website
I am asking users who know russian language to read this talk page and decide whether such reference should be added to the main english article. If you have any queastions you please contact me right here or on my talk page i know english language rather well. I am currently blocked in russian wikipedia, but i consider that the blocking is groundless. Cheers --DonGuess (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the link, please delete it if it violates any rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGuess (talk • contribs) 15:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Example of interesting information that “polka” article suggests: negative comment of Nabokov on Crime and Punishment. DonGuess (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, you deleted it as spam, please comment DonGuess (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae, the link was declined, so you can delete it if you want, but I still think it deserves to be there.--DonGuess (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Neramu Shikshaa and Jurm Aur Sazaar
These films are very obviously not adaptations of Dostoevsky’s novel. Here is a brief synopsis of Jurm Aur Sazaa from BFI:"A story of espionage. Vikram crashes in the border desert, carrying a list of secret agents. Both sides send their top agents to try and get the information, using his girlfriend as a means to discover his hideout." Here is the Wikipedia summary of Neramu Sikshaa:"Krishna is the son of a rich business couple (Kanta Rao and Pandari Bai). Bharathi is also a daughter of another rich man (Rao Gopal Rao). Krishna has grown up without knowing or facing any problems and gets a new car. While driving in competition with his friend Satyam (Satyanarayana), he accidentally kills Balaiah's brother and blinds Balaiah. Somehow this incident comes to the knowledge of Kanta Rao and he confronts Krishna and throws him out of house. Krishna then ends up as one of the servants at Rao Gopal Rao's home. He also gets to know Balaiah and his family. He realizes the intensity of his mistake and vows to make Balaiah and his family's life better. Balaiah on the other hand, vows to kill the person responsible for his brother's death and his blindness. Knowing about his fate in the hands of Balaiah, Krishna keeps helping them. Finally, Balaiah learns about Krishna and forgives him." Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Characters in order of appearance
I think that listing the characters in order of appearance to some extent helps resummarize the course of the novel. Hungrydog55 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The course of the novel doesn't need to be resummarized in this way. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review needed
The last review did not appropriately address points raised about the article. There are serious issues with sourcing and original research, the character section awkwardly includes references for some characters and omit most for others, there are some cn-tags (which indicates that there is probably more unsourced content than displayed), and a lede with many references that can be incorporated into the body. Wretchskull (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)