Was Dostoevsky promoting or vilifying the morals of Raskolnikov?
promoting
>>7722651
He was a Christian though wasn't he?
>>7722662
Just goes to show
He seemed against them when I read it but that was in high school to be fair
>mfw he was trying to vilify them but Nietzchean Machiavillians take him as an example of someone they look up to
>>7722762
No they don't.
>>7722769
I've seen him be used in a positive example on /his/ before
>>7722662
Ya that's why Raskolnikov's morals get the better of him and he falls on his knees in the city circle
Derailing the thread, but can we all agree that for all his morals, theology and philosophizing Dostoevsky was a terrible novelist?
Dostoevsky slyly implies that the greatest "extraordinary man" (ubermensch) of all was Christ, and he didn't hurt anyone.
>>7723991
No. His style isn't for everyone, it is realist, which means the narration is supposed to sound like a real person talking to you, not a great writer. Some people might not enjoy that, but Dostoevsky did it intentionally, and he is not monotone at all, he conveys different voices EXTREMELY well, but that doesn't come off as good in English.
I thought it was more of a "normal people can't deal with the psychological impact of killing someone" thing
>>7724012
like the time he broke down when people were beating a horse. Other people are capable of it like them and Napolean but Raskol was too empathetic even if it was unconscious or unwilling to admit.
>>7724009
Bleh. This is why I hate The Double.
>>7722649
The main character is said to be a failure multiple times. He exemplifies the youth being led astray by modern and godless ideologies.
Also, the last dream he has, where men kill each other in search of a superior race, is a terrifying and keen forecast of the totalitarian massmurders.
>>7723991
Dostoevsky's prose is awesome. I read him in russian though.
>>7722649
That's for you to decide, friend.
both. he was accepting the inherent truth in raskolnikovs thinking but recognizing it was evil all the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Punishment#Themes
some good info about your question here ^^
>>7725207
to sum it up, he was vilifying it. I think it's pretty black and white
>>7722649
Have you considered reading the book?
He was clearly rejecting the great man of history morality Rasknolikov tried to convince himself of.
But as an anon said...
>>7722762
Lots of people are willing to interpret the book as...just because Raskolnikov wasn't a "Napoleon" doesn't mean others can't or shouldn't be. These are the same people who condemn the epilogue, which is understandable with how Dostoyevsky truly revealing just what a Christ shill he is there and then.
>>7724004
>spark into being the catalyst for all wars to follow in the next 2,000 years
>didn't hurt anyone
kek
>>7722762
That's exactly why C&P is so relevant. Rodya espouses the same amoral thoughts that have taken hold with today's generation. And taking these anti-ethics to their conclusion...he fails utterly, and his only recourse is something not intellectual...or modern...salvation isn't something to be built, but something to be accepted.
Vilifying it, of course.
Also, russia's first postmodern novel.
The murderer and a prostitute talking about God.
Brilliant!
>>7723991
have you ever read Notes from the Underground, anon?
Hey guys which translation is considdered the best for C&P and perhaps Dostoyevsky in general?
I don't know a lot about this stuff but the thing that confuses me is how on goodreads its McDuff that gets the real credit while on amazon it seems to be constance garnett and then on here I feel like it's P&V.
Anyone who can clarify and perhaps point out reasons and actually knows his shit would be deeply appreciated.
He is definitely not approving of Raskolnikov's actions, but in a way similar to Holden in Catcher in the Rye. Salinger doesn't hate Holden, more just shows that he's a dumb kid and will hopefully grow out of a phase of stupidity.
>>7722649
how did the nigga get like 8 years of labor for a double homicide?
>>7725806
top fucking kek
>>7722649
I saw it as more of a commentary on free will rather than ethics
>>7725806
Porfrey or w/e the inspector was vouched for him, Raskolnikov was patently remorseful and turned himself in, he made a big Christy show and got some leniency for it.
>>7725270
The epilogue should be condemned. It really undermines the tone of the book. I only permit it to exist in my headcanon because of that brilliant line about being a gentlemen, and how gentlemen shouldn't go around murdering old ladies with axes.
