Crime and Punisment is a "Pseudo-realistic Russian serial novel with massive philosophical and political intent written in 1866, before the USSR, World War II, or even the Franko-Prussian war which preceded World War I". How's that for a rating! Be unsurprised to find it very, very dry and a little longer than absolutely necessary.
Half of my criticism belongs to Dr. Sidney Monas, professor emeritus from the University of Texas and the translator of my copy. He looks like a decent fellow, pretty fun loving judging from his magnificent smile, however, I don't find him to be as much of a novel writer as a scholar. He didn't add anything to this work, which was probably his goal. I am very, very grateful to him for including whole names, though. Instead of saying something unilluminating like "S. Place" or "S--- Place" he uses the entire name "Stoliarny Place". Even though I don't know where that is, it is nice to have a handle. I just wish there was a glossary of names and places. Especially because everyone's got nineteen names and they look so similar to their friends to my untrained eye. By the time I finished the book, I was familiar enough with Russian naming and nicknaming that it wasn't a problem; but it took a lot of getting used to.
I admit that I am not a fan of this type of writing, if you couldn't tell. It is my bias. I am somewhat partial to our current writing style which doesn't go into quite this level of detail. I also like projects which are difficult to pull off in a serial publication style (though Watchmen is pretty good in those regards). Projects that refer back to themselves and are woven so tightly that the author almost has to edit the beginning after finishing the end.
The best part of Crime and Punishment is that it is wonderfully philosophical. There's a lot to think about and a lot to learn. This is not "empty writing". There are some brilliant discussions on topics such as justice and the nature of crime (the main subject) and human value. What makes a person a good person, and is that different than being a 'great' person? Is a man worth the same as an idea? The nature versus nurture debate comes up a few times as well.
It's just a pity there is so much dry text between the 20 or so interesting conversations.
Russian literature has this reputation for being "realistic". But in the case of Crime and Punishment, I find this not to be the case. Aspects are realistic, usually to its detriment, but over all, it is not. Most conversations are realistic, people just talk and wander off topic just as most real conversations hardly seem to even have a topic. Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov acts as a good device to keep things focused because he's so flighty and strange, constantly showing up and leaving perhaps for the sole purpose of ending conversations in a little more timely matter. Also, a lot happens which is a little hard to remember because it's hard to care about, just like reality (I have no idea what I was thinking about this time last week). What is unrealistic is how people behave. Dmitri Prokofitch Razumikhin's neive behavior can be explained away by his character, but Sonia Semionovna Marmeladov's irrational attachment to Rodia is just bizarre to me. She's known him for about five days by the end of the story (not the end of the book) and talked with him for maybe three or four hours and he's been an ass the entire time. And I have never heard anyone narrate every move they make to a person they are talking to. Too many characters are too queerly forgiving and, as is the case with a lot of literature from the industrial revolution, everyone's excessively sickly.
Perhaps that was just a true effect of all the pollution, but I've never known anyone half so sickly as the healthiest character from a 19th century novel.
I find this book to have an interesting idea, good conversations, but to be told in a boringly formulaic manner. People are very forgiving of ancient authors for if this novel were newly published by a modern author, he would be accused of underestimating his readers and for a good reason. Sidney admits himself in a preface that, well, Dostoyevsky wrote in such a hurry because it was for serial publicaion, so there are bound to be some inconsistencies. But let us admit these, and his penchant for reusing words over and over and over, as errors. It is somewhat nice that his style gradually, and sometimes starkly, changes style for it infuses a little color into the drab work.
I suppose, in the end, that the most distracting part of this book, the thing that makes it hard to pick up and continue reading, is that the main character is such a douche bag. If that's okay with you, then the book may be worth it to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment