Fyodor Dostoevsky Playlist: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rbx6d6xp2L2ufZ8.html Crime and Punishment Playlist: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nLGepMZqxNW8nKs.html Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thecodexcantina

I loved those sections of Raskolnikov's anger. Every time he would reach out for help or doubt the morality of his decisions, he would never accept it and go back into his brooding nihilism and utilitarianism to save himself and justifiy his actions to others. He does this even after he believes to have decided to turn himself in when talking with Dounia. "'It’s late, it’s time to go! I am going at once to give myself up. But I don’t know why I am going to give myself up.’ Big tears fell down her cheeks. ‘You are crying, sister, but can you hold out your hand to me?’ ‘You doubted it?’ She threw her arms round him. ‘Aren’t you half expiating your crime by facing the suffering?’ she cried, holding him close and kissing him." Then, Raskolnikov reacts like this: "‘Crime? What crime?’ he cried in sudden fury. ‘That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!… Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that NOT a crime? I am not thinking of it and I am not thinking of expiating it, and why are you all rubbing it in on all sides? ‘A crime! a crime!’ Only now I see clearly the imbecility of my cowardice, now that I have decided to face this superfluous disgrace. It’s simply because I am contemptible and have nothing in me that I have decided to, perhaps too for my advantage, as that… Porfiry… suggested!’ ‘Brother, brother, what are you saying? Why, you have shed blood?’ cried Dounia in despair. ‘Which all men shed,’ he put in almost frantically, ‘which flows and has always flowed in streams, which is spilt like champagne, and for which men are crowned in the Capitol and are called afterwards benefactors of mankind. Look into it more carefully and understand it! I too wanted to do good to men and would have done hundreds, thousands of good deeds to make up for that one piece of stupidity, not stupidity even, simply clumsiness, for the idea was by no means so stupid as it seems now that it has failed…. (Everything seems stupid when it fails.) By that stupidity I only wanted to put myself into an independent position, to take the first step, to obtain means, and then everything would have been smoothed over by benefits immeasurable in comparison…. But I… I couldn’t carry out even the first step, because I am contemptible, that’s what’s the matter! And yet I won’t look at it as you do. If I had succeeded I should have been crowned with glory, but now I’m trapped.’"

About yellow color: Words "Yellow House" mean Mental Hospital in the times of Russian Empire, so in classic russian literature yellow color very often is a marker of insanity and madness. And palette of your channel is suspiciously yellow too.

one of the points which talked to me the most is self destruction. I never see people talk about it but i almost cried when rodion confessed to sonja and her first reaction was “what did you do to yourself?” and when rodion said to her “your biggest sin is you destroyed yourself for nothing”

Thanks so much for the analysis. It got me thinking. I especially appreciated your bringing out the number two. I feel like this book was showing the results of two worldviews, the Christian versus the materialistic utilitarian, as you mentioned. Rodya was schizo because he was warring between the two. In the book, I think it was his mother who mentioned that Rodya and Dounia were the same person. I think they both lived out the different worldviews-- Dounia Christian and he, the other. I asked myself, who were the extra ordinary people. They weren't Svidrigailov, or the other guy who was betrothed to Dounia. From the materialistic world view, Rodya should have felt like they were extraordinary because they could commit their crimes and move on with no remorse, but it is obvious that they were despicable. The real extraordinary ones were Sonya and Dounia. Dounia had every right from the utilitarian world view to shoot Svidrigailov, because he was a "louse". But she couldn't because any human life is valuable to the Christian. I believe the book was emphasizing the decay of Russian society and was meant as a warning. In this way, the epilogue is absolutely essential because Rodya finally finds resolution and realizes that only in Christianity is there life. I loved reading this book because I see our own society decaying and the warning is loud and clear. Even abortion is utilitarian and leads to a devaluing of human life. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.

Love this video, love you guys and love your insight. Just finished this book and having this video expand and consolidate some of the things I too picked up on was lovely!

Those blurry shots of Una aren't editing mistakes, they are actually drunken Krypto pov.

I just finished and thoroughly enjoyed C&P. Also, I very much appreciate your discussion and analysis - it definitely helped me unlock some of the deeper meanings within the novel. I just subscribed to your channel and will revisit often. Thanks again!

I will probably pick a lot this up when I reread it one day. I didn't see most of this as we were reading but it does make a ton of sense.

Great review. I read Crime and Punishment and you've given me a few things to think about.

Great discussion. I am currently rereading the book now. Read several years ago. I love the book. Have to admit that I didn’t pick up on all the color symbolism initially.

I thought the whole point of the book was to show how a more or less normal person can use rationality to talk himself into something and then he becomes sick because of the guilt. He isn't mentally ill initially that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of his whole guiltsickness.

Loved your discussion as always/ While reading the novel it was so easy for me to get attached to Raskolnikov; at the end when he finally confessed his crime I felt somehow defeated (by myself; by the world; by the ideologies; by the greed to be someone extraordinary) it just felt at that moment that I have lived and felt and thought with Raskolnikov all along// For me too the parts there he just faints was amusing; but the best part that made me really laugh was his first interaction with Porfiry *wink* I read your article *wink wink*

🪓 Just finished reading this classic. Thanks for making these videos.

Just finished reading Crime and Punishment and am so torn about how I feel about it. Still processing. I find Dostoevsky's world view so different than my own that it creates a dissonance and makes it more challenging to read. I've been on a mission layering Dostoevsky and Tolstoy lately because I'd never read any of the Russian literature. I read The Brothers Karamazov, Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment, and just started War and Peace. Then I'm taking a vacation from it. I've read them back to back and they're so different but I find Tolstoy easier to read and not as gloomy. Thanks for your videos and being careful about spoilers. I went on a Hemingway bender over the summer and read a review that completely ruined a book that I was 300 pages into.

🪓🔪 I enjoyed learning about Color Theory and loved Krypto’s wife’s diagnosis of Raskolnikov!

After completing the Cockrell translation earlier this week, I must admit that I was surprised by how enthralled I became with the material. It was much more approachable than I ever anticipated. Maybe I missed it in the “health” portion of your video, but why was Rodya constantly running a fever? Is that a symptom of his mental illness? I also found it interesting how often the characters were “wringing “ their hands as well as losing the color in their faces. Thanks for the insights. Looking forward to reading this selection again soon.

I've read C&P 3 times now over a span of 22 years. My TBR is too long to allow it but dang you made me want to go pick it up and start a re-read right now. I never noticed the pairs thing before, now I want to re-read and look out for it. Gosh I just love C&P, it was my gateway drug for classics read as an adult on my own. I would love if you would do more Russian lit... Solzhenitsyn or Turgenev (A Sportsmen's Notebook, sometimes translated as Hunter's Sketches, is a great short story collection)... You guys always make me put my thinking cap on. :)

Great video! I also believe that Raskolnikov killed Lizaveta and Alyona as a representation of the hate of his mother and the innocence and selflessness of his sister because his family sacrifices themselves for him and he feels guilty for it and kills to release his feelings of helplessness.

This is such a great video👍👍

This was my first Dostoevsky novel and I thoroughly enjoyed it! I watched the "Before you read" video before I started reading, kept the actual tab open on my computer until I was finished, rewatched that video and finished with this one. I will say there were a few times that I was reading and thinking 'man this is really requiring more focus/brain power than I was expecting (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). I was enthralled by how masterfully Dostoevsky leads the reader along then BAM takes a sharp turn and all of a sudden, in a few lines of text, the action has heated up and I found myself not being able to read fast enough to see what was about to happen (e.g., when Raskolnikov was committing the murders, or when Dunya tries to escape from Svidrigaylov's apartment to find the door is locked then pulls out the revolver). The depth of analysis within this novel is immense, so it's really no wonder discussions about the characters, plot, subplot, themes, motifs, etc., can go on for a long time. Svidrigaylov felt slimy and menacing, Luzhin felt pretentious and condescending; I couldn't stand either of them. Marmeladov was essentially a depressed masochist, Katerina Ivanovna was a superficial and brutal woman who desperately clung to any shred of "nobility" she had left and made sure anyone and everyone knew it...both pathetic in their own right. Sonya, Dunya, and Razumikhin were all extremely likable and felt like Raskolnikov's sole frame of rationality and stability throughout the course of the novel even though he is so cold to each of them many times. It may sound strange, but in Part VI Porfiry kind of had the feeling of a father figure, basically saying "I'll give you a chance to confess so your punishment won't be as severe." He thinks highly of Raskolnikov and sees his potential to be a good person and chooses to show him some mercy to get him to confess voluntarily to help lighten his punishment as opposed to arresting him right then and there. To me he is kind of like a gateway for Raskolnikov to lead him into the beginning of his redemption. Great videos and fantastic novel! My analytical rating: 10/10 My personal enjoyment rating: 9.8/10 Need recommendations for my next Dostoevsky read...I've heard "Notes from Underground" is a great place to go from here but definitely open to taking another route!

Great video! I just finished the book, and discovered your channel - great timing :) Could I ask you, would you be doing videos on "The Idiot" ? Really liked your other video on "what to know before you read" as well! Would make the excitement and anticipation of starting a new book even better!!! :) Thanks! X

Wow, that was great. I was completely blind to the use of colour in this novel, so that was fascinating. It was also great to get a diagnosis of Raskolnikov from Crypto's wife. I know that was the less serious bit, but those definitions of psychological issues wouldn't have been asking in Dostoevsky's day, so that means he either knew somebody to base the character on, he got very lucky or he should have been a psychologist.

Just finished Crime and Punishment last week and it was sooooo good!! 😊😊

Great discussion!

I was forced to read Crime and Punishment in 12th grade Language Arts, and it quickly became my favorite book of all time. Great analysis guys!

🪓 This one had a lot of explore and discuss. Have to say, the enthusiasm you both have makes this book an attractive reading choice. Maybe. I would never have picked up on the usage of color for theming or the things occuring in pairs. I'd just be like, this dude about to kill somebody!

I also loved the evolution in the epilogue!

If you really want to know about the depth of depravities of human nature -- and explore the proverbial "it could be you" scenario, i suggest you watch DOMINION the documentary on youtube.

🪓🔪 a very good talk and a very good book :)

Great work fellows! Re diagnosis of Raskolnikov, i vote for Borderline. Dissociation/mild schizoid is one borderline characteristic. But some of his filters are operative. He knows what he did was wrong. But the compulsion was irresistable. As I recall Svidrigailov's descent was parallel to Raskolnivikov's acceptance of his penitence. The choice of suicide is hence narcissist, while penitence is the morally noble choice

This was just a fascinating discussion, I always enjoy these deep dives into books. You never mention the translator (will haven’t yet) but I assume based on the cover you read the new Michael R. Katz translation. I know I can work it out but I like to remind people to name translators. This is the translation I hope to read next time I read this book. Also I love the awkward look Krypto had when Una suggested that you might know someone who has murderer...I’m suspicious now 😂

I listened to the audio book performed by George Guidall. Amazing and unforgettable.

Wow, this discussion was great, I loved every minute of it, I dont know if you read Brother Karamazov or not, but I hope that we can see another discussion like this soon By the way theres a Russian adaptation tv series of crime and punishment, its an excellent one

Thank you soo muchhh🤍🤍🤍

The fate of pulcheria and katerina broke my heart

best exposition of insanity defense is Robert Musil's Man Without Qualities in relation to the sex murderer in that novel--Musbruger--e.g. in relation to the act, if the mentally troubled person has the Will or the Thought, is there really a justifiable insanity defense?

I agree with your entire analysis, specifically when you discussed how we view ourselves and our deeds. I wanted him to flee to America and begin again rather than put himself on the cross for his deeds. I would not have committed the crime he did especially not for money which I found foolish, however, if I killed someone in a different scenario like in the heat of the moment and could get away with it I would not turn myself in. Basically you would first justify your actions for killing the person and convince yourself that you enjoyed it and then eventually when remorse does creep in you would work to convince yourself that you're human and that one deed doesn't define your entire destiny. You would learn not to chastise yourself everyday for what was a lapse in judgement. Sometimes in the quiet moments of the night you would even open your mind and convince yourself that a demon was working within you, and you would seek to find peace in nihilism, at our essence we are higher animals, yet still beasts, therefore you cannot hate yourself for acting as such. In finality you find religion and spirituality to cleanse your soul and assure yourself that you are worthy of forgiveness. I am aware of the masks I wear professionally and socially. I am also aware of the very intimate mask I wear within myself. The mask that not even your spouse can see behind, like your hidden desires or preferred genre of porn. I wonder what that says about me? 🤔

My rating for this novel is very similar to Una's. For overall enjoyment I have to give it an 8, maybe a 7.5. It was about a hundred pages too long and there were some character arcs that could have been cut. I'm not a big Dickens fan, and it felt like I was reading a Dickens' novel. I also thought the epilogue fell flat, but the meaning of the novel would have been lost if Dostoevsky had removed it. After having time to further reflect after reading Crime and Punishment and the overall impact that it made on society at the time (and still holds weight today), I have to give it a 10 for it's impact upon the literary and philosophical world. This novel was a reaction and rejection of existentialist/nihilistic thought, and when looking at it from that lens, it's a masterpiece. Btw, I noticed Dostoevsky's use of dual natures/duality throughout the story, but I never noticed all of the pairs and twos throughout.

The novel's epilogue is essential but at the same time, I felt it was the least thought-out portion of the book. I believe this is because a person is always lazy about his beliefs and Dostoevsky was no exception to it. Throughout Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky carefully crafts/analyses/picks apart utilitarianism and how it can never solve the questions of the Human soul. Yet when it came to the solution it was stated as a matter of fact that religion/spiritual ideology is the salvation for the human soul without a convincing argument. I wish the epilogue could have been more like a part of the book (60 or 70-odd pages) where the revelation is more flushed out and the argument being more convincing

11! TOP 5 BOOKS EVER! Krypto you're my hero!

What your favorite translation or who is your favorite translator of Dostoevsky? And your favorite publisher?

10 out of 10

Okay you guys are way too smart for the rest of us. lol. Great analysis as usual. I am ready for my next read now with a little more info in my back pocket.

Crime & Punishment is just The Tell-Tale Heart by Poe with an extra 632 pages 😆

Could you do a review of his other books? I recommend, House of the Dead, Poor Folk and The Idiot.

Lathe of Heaven by Le Guin is a good book for utilitarianism discussion. It's a bit heavy handed but I enjoyed it.

I really enjoyed this book

10/10 no cappppp

that murderer statistic always freaks me out XD

It was Dostoyevsky intention that Rosklnikoff goes to Siberia still convinced that his theory was correct….a man wills and a man takes Roskolnikoff….or proto Anton Chigur from no country for the old man

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

What novel would be a 10 on the same scale that you gave C&P an 8?

Also it is interesting how throughout the book, Raskolnikov often forgets that he also murdered Alena’s sister Elisabeth. Maybe that’s why he is visibly so disturbed but at the same confident he did no wrong “murdering the old useless pawnbroker”. According to Rodia’s theory, it’s okay to kill someone for the great or good but that definitely doesn’t apply to Elisabeth. So maybe Rodia forcefully lies to himself which you can see when he seems to ignore Sonia when she talks about Elisabeth giving her her cross and maybe that is why he feels also connected to Sonia and helps her family because he feels like he needs to compensate for the Sister’s death? Sorry maybe this analysis sucks haha I’m definitely not a expert and the names might not correspond, I read the French translation.

if memory serves, yellow for Nabokov is positive

I don’t think the guy in the white shirt read the book and it’s cracking me up

19:40 I love how you begin to realize Raskolnikov is an unreliable narrator and losing his grasp on reality. Still leaves me ambiguous about the meaning of the ending

I made my best friend read this hah

🪓

🔪

⛏️

🔪😁

i never understood this notion of raskolnikov being a hero. he was a arrogant egoist liberal college socialist who thought he had the world figured out, as most young people do. I felt sorry for him in some manner but for the most part i was waiting the entire book for him to either get caught or pay the price for his crime. So he gave some money to some people here and there but that doesnt undo the murder of 2 innocent women and the terrible treatment of his friends and family. It wasnt until the epilogue that I finally got my closure and it seems rasholnikov got his. Knowing Dostoeyevski's life it seemed to me this character was very much based on himself and him coming to terms with what it means to grow wisdom from sacrifice and hardship and the folly of youthful arrogance

If he was still alive I would love to know Dostoevsky's perspective on where he would think Raskolnikov would fit according to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) It is obvious to anyone familiar with the DSM-5 that Raskolnikov shows all the traits of a malignant narcissist even before committing any murders. Thus, the fact that he killed those two women in cold blood should not be a shock. On the contrary, the shock should come in finding out that anyone who is malignantly narcissistic would feel any guilt after committing murder in the first place. This is were Fyodor Dostoevsky goes wrong. People give Fyodor to much credit and assume that he was simply conducting a physiological exercise because they have respect for his body of work. However, unlike other people, the only thing I have ever put on a pedestal is cold hard truth. Like Fyodor, many people capable of feeling empathy have this misconception that those who commit atrocities would feel guilt, remorse, and regret after doing so. Empathy is key. Empathy is more important than people realize. Empathy is one of the mankind's greatest super powers. It is one of the reasons why we can live in a civilized society without outright barbarism. Unfortunately too many people take empathy for granted and they assume that this trait is a given for everyone. It seems that it is almost impossible for many normal people to understand that the presences of empathy makes it nearly impossible to commit murder, while the absence of empathy makes killing someone a cake walk. This is why it is almost impossible for people like Fyodor to fathom that another human being could kill two women without feeling psychological turmoil. Fyodor knows that he would feel remorse and guilt after doing something so reprehensible. And those feeling are why people like Fyodor would never do something like that unless they have bottled up anger issues which caused them to do it in a UN-premeditated fit of rage. What Fyodor did not count on is that not everyone feels like he does, not everyone feels empathy. This is why in the real world the people who lack empathy are the ones most likely to murder others due to imagined slights or feelings of entitlement. The same lack of empathy that allowed them to murder someone is the same lack of empathy that prevents them from feeling bad about it. This is why Kalashnikov (A malignant narcissist/Sociopath) is a lot like an impossible figure. At first glance impossible figures seem like they could exist in real life, however, when you examine them closer you realize that they are actually optical illusions that could never exist in reality.

We Do Not Sow - I understand where you are coming from, especially if you believe in the concepts of universal right and wrong which, in the western world, are based on Judaeo-Christian values. But what happens if you take God out of the equation? If God does not exist, the concepts of right and wrong are just as relative as time itself and right and wrong world be relative to each person. Any atheists who cannot accept this cold hard fact is allowing his or her emotions to get the better of them. Without universal laws of right and wrong, for sociopathic/psychopathic people, right would be whatever benefits them no matter who may or may not get hurt. They would not feel empathy, thus, they would not feel guilt or regret. You are right, consequences for breaking laws prevent crime. In particular, these consequences prevent many people without the ability to feel empathy and guilt from committing crimes like murder by providing them consequences for there violent actions. However, most people who can feel high levels of empathy do not need a law to deter them from killing another human being. Law or no law, I could never kill another human being unless it was for self defense because I am not malignantly narcissistic and I am capable of feeling empathy for fellow human beings. Laws or no laws, people on the antisocial spectrum do not feel trepidation before killing their victims, they do not feel empathy as they are killing their victims, and they do not feel guilt or remorse after having killed their victims.