I cannot emphasise enough just how wonderful this book is. Dostoevsky introduces a set of characters which we all in a way know, and through their completely believable and realistic interactions, expresses powerful, mystical messages. In essence, the story is about a young, intelligent former student, Raskolnikov (similar to Raskol, schism), who by cold, unemotional thought arrives at a sort of nihilism, and even goes so far as to thinking that an "extraordinary person" is justified in taking away a useless, harmful life for the greater good, and then, partially out of an effort to prove that he is such as person, commits a murder which he feels fits this program. At the same time, there is seething conflict inside him; the compassionate, loving side of his personality is revolting against these horrible thoughts. As Razumihin remarks, Raskolnikov is two people living in the same body. In a sense, Raskolnikov's original idea is correct; there is no harm done in removing pure, harmful evil, but one of Dostoevsky's principal messages in this novel is that there is no such thing as a purely harmful individual; Dostoevsky accomplishes this goal by presenting the character of an old pawn broker and her half-sister, Lizaveta. Through Raskolnikov's eyes, all good characteristics are placed in Lizaveta, and all that is evil is placed in the pawn broker; hence Raskolnikov feels justified in killing the pawn broker, but really it should come as no surprise that he ends up killing Lizaveta as well, that is, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE PURE EVIL, one inevitably takes some good away with it too. THIS is Raskolnikov's crime, the taking away of good in the form of Lizaveta. (Incidentally, Lizaveta Ivanovna's name is meant to bring up reminisces of the character of the same name in Pushkin's Queen of Spades; Dostoevsky was a great admirer of Pushkin.) After this crime, Raskolnikov loses sanity (it seems to me that Dostoevsky is trying to say that insanity cannot be held off by reason alone; one need loving belief as well), and eventually, although he does not know it at the time, confesses out of love for the Christ-like character of Sonia (short for Sofia, which is wisdom in Greek), and eventually, in one of the most beautiful and touching endings of ANY novels, his soul is redeemed by faith and love; even though he is sentenced to seven years in a Siberian prison camp, he and Sonia look on it as if it were seven days, and eagerly anticipate their freedom together. Although much of the novel is set in depressing circumstances, for me there is no other novel (even perhaps the great and still more philosophical Brothers Karamazov) which is as much sheer fun to read. As if this were not enough, this edition is absolutely first rate; the notes are very helpful and Dostoevsky's letters regarding this work together with the critical appraisals of Crime and Punishment (I LOVE Tolstoy's essay; it rings so true) particularly illuminating. I feel it is the duty of any educated person to read this book intelligently; I guarantee you, you will get new meaning out of this compact masterpiece every time you do so.

This is an excellent novel that delves into themes of crime, guilt, madness, and cosmic. It is not a hopeless tale, though. For Dostoevsky seems to say that our salvation lies in love and faith.

Crime and Punishment is arguably the greatest novel ever written. Using the novel form Dostoevsky has entered into a debate about the nature of good and evil and the national character of his Russian homeland. In order to fully appreciate Crime and Punishment it may be necessary to understand Cherneshevsky's What is to Be Done. Crime and Punishment is a response to this novel and the rejection of traditional Russian Orthodox values it espouses. Through Raskolnikov FD is arguing that salvation can only come through submitting to the proper authorities in the form of the Russian state as well as the traditional wisdom of the Russian Orthodox Church as manifested in the book by Sofia (Greek for wisdom). She at last is the guiding light in Raskolnikov's life. Once he recognizes and accepts wisdom he is forever bound to her. This novel is brilliant on so many levels. It is quite good on the surface as the struggle of a criminal attempting to evade justice but of course it goes much deeper than that. FD is doing nothing less than atoning for his own sins against the Russian monarchy which led to his imprisonment in a Siberian camp. I highly recommend this book. You will be hard pressed to find a deeper more meaningful piece of literature in any language.

Gogol was Russia's poetic observer of the true soul and character of the Russian peoples. A deep pessimist and a black humourist, but above all a realist tormented by love for his country, an all to acute understanding of his people, and hatred of the state. I vote 5 for this book because to read it is know and understand our Mother Russia and the people who still live the life that Gogol the poet described. Misunderstood perhaps due to its age it is treated as a "classic" and an "academic" work of literature. I urge you to read Gogol and understand our Russian soul. His last work was to be the nemesis of Dead Souls, but never written, because our Gogol was a realist who was tortured by the fact.

Pevear and Volokhonsky have done it again. Another fine translation of a Russian classic. The art of the Russian novel begins with "Dead Souls," although Gogol himself likened this great work to a poema. Upon its first release, "Dead Souls" immediately won a place in the Russian heart. Chichikov and the various characters that he came in contact with in this strange journey became Russian archetypes. Unfortunately, Gogol could never bring Chichikov's adventures to a close, but this novel does not suffer for it.

What makes the P&V translation stand out are the numerous reference notes, so that one can understand the many allusions that Gogol makes. P&V have masterfully rendered Gogol's protean metaphors and delightful similes, so that one can sense the poetic nature in which this novel has been written.

The "demonic" plot is most intriguing but what really carries this story are the many wonderful characters that Gogol has artfully rendered, each trying to figure out why Chichikov is so interested in buying their "dead souls," deceased serfs that are still on the census and therefore subject to taxes.

Dead Souls is Gogol's first and only full length novel, ironically written in Rome rather than the Russian countryside it was set in. Tragically he destroyed most of the second volume shortly before his death leaving only bits and pieces of chapters leaving only volume I whole.

A story of a swindler and a social satire on life in early 19th century Russia, Dead Souls is also a comment on class and hypocricsy. Small town Russian officials and landowners strive to keep up appearances, valuing them more importantly than susbtance. Even Chichikov knows this, in fact as the main character (anti-hero) he thrives on this.

Gogol's story is comic on its surface but reading it you get a glimpse of life just twenty years before Alexander II freeded the serfs from their landowners. Dead Souls is both comedy and satire.

One note the Peaver-Volokhonsky translation while newer is a bit "choppy" and the translators make the most awkward word selections from Russian to English. It makes reading this version a bit off-putting at times (The Guerney translation was the favorite of many Russian expat's). Dead Souls is worth the read.

This anthology is an excellent reader's companion to any modern Russian work--be it Nabokov's Pnin or Tolstoy's War and Peace. Not only does it provide excellent autobiographical coverage on all the major Russian authors of the period, but it has characteristic passages from works too big to be included that allow the dilettante and the serious reader alike to investigate Russian literature in as much depth as suits each. The book is comparable to the Norton's Anthology of English Literature, but on a smaller scale and less heavily footnoted. Authors covered include of course Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Gorky, but also Griboyedov, Lermontov, Gogol, Aksakov, Tyutchev, Karolina Pavlova, Goncharov, Turgenev, Herzen, Prutkov, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Solovyov and some Russian Folk Proverbs. A rare treat it provides is the chance to read some of Dostoyevsky's political non-fiction, Tolstoy's literary criticism, and eleven Pushkin poems. Plot summaries and brief literary analyses are included with the biographical information. Very readable and complete, though some translations are written in akwardly formal language (a flaw ubiquitous in Russian translations that does not detract from the diversity of selections or the beauty of included prose)

I disagree with stonechat's correction of the review by the New Orleans reader. I am holding this title in my hand and the contents listed by stonechat are incorrect ... maybe stonechat listed the contents of the Portable Twentieth Century Russian Reader? I dunno.. just trying to be helpful :)

The other review (by the reader from New Orleans) appears to refer to the 19th-century volume, not to this the 20th-century volume. Here's the contents list for THIS volume, copied-and-pasted from elsewhere...

"Alyosha the Pot", Leo Tolstoy
"The Bishop", Anton Chekhov
"Recollections of Leo Tolstoy", Maxim Gorky
"Light Breathing", Ivan Bunin
"Time", Nadezhda Teffi
"A Girl Was Singing" "The Stranger", Alexander Blok
from "Petersburg", Andrei Bely
"The Cave", Evgeni Zamyatin
"Nikolai", Velimir Khlebnikov
"Three Things in this World He Loved" "We're No Good at Saying Good-bye" "Dante" "When a Man Dies", "Courage", Anna Akhmatova
"The Potudan River", Andrei Platonov
"Varykino" "Hamlet" "March", Boris Pasternak
"Theodosia" "The Admiralty" "The Thread of Gold Cordial Flowed" "Leningrad" "O Lord, Help Me to Live
Through this Night" "The Last Supper", Osip Mandelstam
from "The Master and Margarita", Mikhail Bulgakov
"My First Goose" "How It was Done in Odessa" My First Fee", Isaac Babel
"Bees and People" from "Before Sunrise", Mikhail Zoshchenko
"Envy", Yuri Olesha
"The Return of Chorb" "The Visit to the Museum", Vladimir Nabokov
"A May Night" "Last Letter", Nadezhda Mandelstam
"Anecdotes About Pushkin's Life" "The Connection", Daniil Kharms
"Prosthetic Appliances" "A Child's Drawings" "Lend-Lease", Varlam Shalamov
"Matryona's Home", Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"Pkhentz", Andrei Sinyavsky
"Adam and Eve", Yuri Kazakov
from "Faithful Ruslan", Georgi Vladimov
"A Circle of Friends", Vladimir Voinovich
from "A School for Fools", Sasha Sokolov

The key to understanding this book, I think, lies in starting with the subtitle: "Russia's Literature of the Absurd." Kharms and Vvedensky are pen names of Russian/Soviet writers who are known in their home country for their children's books. This is because their more serious and creative writings did not agree with the Stalinist conception of proper art. Hence it was almost impossible for them to publish what they wanted. The editor George Gibian compiled in this volume the stories of Kharms and Vvedensky that have been preserved by their friends or simply lovers of literature. Some of my favorites in this volume are "Cashier" and "Power." I also enjoyed Kharms' poem about melancholy, which is printed in English in the Introduction and in its original Russian at the end of the book.

All stories are short, many less than a page long. They can finally take their proper place among important works of Russian literature. I cannot say that I was captivated or dazzled by this book, but it has interesting moments that will be appreciated by anyone interested in Russian literature or the literature of the absurd.

I don't know how effective Kharms was at making a points about Stalinist Russia, about art in the postmodern world or even about great literature. While you can certainly detect those elements in his short-short stories and his plays, they're more fun to read simply because they're so CRAZY FUN! Perhaps I'm taking some of the more serious portions having to do with death, rape, etc. too lightly, but at the very least you will be always surprised and captivated by these works. Try them out. Besides, when a story's only two paragraphs long (as many of them are) what do you have to lose?

I advise against reading this book in public, as your hysterical laughter could lead to suspicious glances at best, being carted off in a straightjacket at worst.

I have read "War & Peace" twice. I was thirteen the first time I read it, sixteen the second time. I don't say this to brag; rather, I want to encourage more people to read this astounding book. I think people are afraid of it because of its size. But if I can read it, you can! Russia comes alive through Tolstoy's pen in the most amazing way. He paints the vast landscapes, the passionate Russian people, the historical events of the times (the early 1800s) like a master painter. "War & Peace" is, in effect, art, a massive collage of images, textures, and colors. It is soap operatic in that it has several threads woven together within the narrative. Occasionally, it is difficult to keep them apart, but does get better if you just stick with it. I understand that there are some parts many people find boring, such as Tolstoy's philosophizing and his lengthy descriptions. Yet those, to me, make this novel even more vivid, the characters and Tolstoy himself more alive. Tolstoy has a gift with characters; you feel transported back to the nineteenth century drawing rooms of wealthy Russia, with the silken swish of ladies' skirts and the haze of cigar smoke. "War & Peace" is not for everyone. Yet those who make their way through it will be rewarded many times over.

To have only 1,000 words to describe why I like this book is not nearly enough. I have read this book 6 times and I confess I find something new everytime. I expect I will the next six, or eight or ten times. The story of War and Peace involves a large cast of characters. The ones to keep an eye on are the Volkonskys (based on Tolstoy's own family), the Rostovs, and Pierre Bezukov. There are also the nasty Kuragins whose presence generally means trouble of one sort or another for one of the other characters.
Tolstoy originally wanted to do a book on the Decemberists, a group of aristocratic Russian rebels who really came of age during the war with Napoleon. However, his novelist's sense told him that it would be a more interesting story if he looked at how the generation of 1812 came to be what they later became.
This book works on different levels. First there is the plot of book which contains some of the most fully realized characters in all of literature.

It is also about Tolstoy's theory of history which is meant to be an answer to Carlyle's "Great Man of History." In Tolstoy's mind, great men of history, with their many concerns are the slave of history. In this book he manages to turn Carlyle on his head.

Finally, this is the great national epic of Russian literature. Considering the competition this is a fairly bold assertion. What Tolstoy is writing about here is how Russia, at least the Frenchified upper class became Russian.

This translation is much superior to the Constance Garnett translation which contains a number of questionable judgements. Ms Garnett single handedly translated most of Russian literature, but some of her translations are questionable. The Maud translation is superior in many ways.

Don't just read this book, reread it.

War and Peace had stared at me from my bookshelf for over a year before I had the courage to begin. A present from a friend, War and Peace seemed more like a challenge than a gift: a challenge that could develop into a war of attrition between my completism and my boredom.

Nevertheless, one chilly December day, I took the plunge into nineteenth century Russian life, into the lives of a circle of aristocrats, and into the Napoleonic wars. I was immediately struck by Tolstoy's flowing prose, his humour both gentle and ascerbic, and his skill in creating and developing characters of real depth. War and Peace was a suprisingly easy read. Each short chapter containing interesting incident. It is also a book of great variety. It vividly depicts the sufferings of war, the opulence of the Russian aristocracy, and the joys and woes of family life. It touches phychological, social, political, historical, and religious themes all intertwined in a charming story.

However, its outstanding feature is its characterisation. One cannot help but feel intimately connected to the Rostov family, the well-meaning but flawed Pierre, the self-sacrificing Princess Mary, and the tragically disillusioned Prince Andrew. As I became increasingly involved in the book I looked forward with real anticipation to reading my nightly chapter. I did not want the story to end.

The only disappointing feature was Tolstoy's insistence on including chapters devoted to elaborating his historical philosophy. To my mind, his philosophy simply marred the gently unfolding story, was repetitive and boring, and seemed irrelevant. Fortunately the strength of the rest of the novel outweighs this Achilles Heel.

I initially approached this book with a great deal of trepidation. I had never read Dostoyevsky, and was concerned that I would get bogged down in some lengthy, mind-numbingly boring, nineteenth-century treatise on the bestial nature of man or something. I am happy to report this is not the case. Instead, and to my delight, it is a smoothly flowing and fascinating story of a young man who succumbs to the most base desire, and the impact this has both psychologically and otherwise on himself and those around him.

To be sure, the book seems wordy in places, but I suspect this has to do with the translation. And what translator in his right mind would be bold enough to edit the great Dostoyevsky? But this is a very minor problem.

What we get with Dostoyevsky is dramatic tension, detailed and believable human characters, and brilliant insight into human nature. Early in the novel our hero meets and has a lengthy conversation with Marmeladov, a drunkard. This conversation is never uninteresting and ultimately becomes pathetic and heartbreaking, but I kept wondering why so much time was spent on it. As I got deeper into the book, I understood why this conversation was so important, and realized that I was in the hands of a master storyteller. This is also indicative of the way in which the story reveals itself. Nothing is hurried. These people speak the way we actually speak to one another in real life, and more importantly, Dostoyevsky is able to flesh out his characters into whole, three-dimensional human beings.

And what a diverse group of characters! Each is fleshed out, each is marvelously complex. Razujmikhin, the talkative, gregarious, good-hearted, insecure and destitute student; Sonia, the tragic child-prostitute, with a sense of rightness in the world; Petrovich, the self-important, self-made man, completely out of touch with his own humanity; Dunia, the honorable, wronged sister: we feel like we know these people because we've met people like them. They fit within our understanding of the way human beings are.

Dostoyevsky also displays great insight into human nature. Svidrigailov, for example, talks of his wife as liking to be offended. "We all like to be offended," he says, "but she in particular loved to be offended." It suddenly struck me how true this is. It gives us a chance to act indignantly, to lash out at our enemies, to gain favor with our allies. I don't believe I've ever seen this thought expressed in literature before. In fact, it never occurred to me in real life! Petrovich, Dunia's suitor, not only expects to be loved, but because of his money, and her destitution, he expects to be adored! To be worshipped! He intentionally sought out a woman from whome he expected to get this, and is comletely flummoxed when she rejects him. His is an unusual character, but completely realized.

There is so much more to talk about: the character of Raskolnikov, which is meticulously and carefully revealed; the sense of isolation which descends on him after committing his crime; the cat and mouse game played on him by the police detective. I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the historical and social context in which this takes place. Suffice to say this is a very rich book.

Do not expect it to be a rip-roaring page turner. Sit down, relax, take your time, and savor it. It will be a very rewarding experience. And thank you SL, for recommending it.

Like many writers of his era, Dostoyevsky uses a lot of prose and little dialogue, which makes reading the book a bit of a plodding chore.

However, the story is anything but boring: Raskilnov, a poor student, comes up with the philosophy that killing an old female pawnbroker will actually be good for the world because she cheats people and is otherwise useless. It's premeditated --- he even counts exactly how many steps it takes from his place to her door.

The book also recounts the following few days when Raskilnov's mother and sister come to visit and he has to play his 'family role' i.e. "I'm a good son and brother when I'm not killing old women." In addition, he is involved with a family consisting of a dying mother, a father, 3 young sons and an 18-year-old daughter who must go into prostitution to support them.

So what happens to all of these characters in pre-Revolutionary Russia? What will be Raskilnov's punishment? Does he actually think he was right to kill? The answers unfold as you read this gem from the world of Russian literature -- so renown you feel like you really achieved something when you read it!

You plan a crime. It is solely of your design. The method. The place. The victim. Everything is your calculation. It is your conscious mind that has plotted the deed. It is your voluntary actions which carry it out. Every aspect of the crime belongs to you. It is very much a part of who you are. Your identity. Your past. Your future.

Do you not deserve credit for its brilliance? For its success? But also for its failure? For its punishment? And the suffering that follows?

These are the existential questions facing the protagonist Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's classic work. Set against 18th Century St. Petersburg -- a time when poverty and blind religious faith created a recipe for scandalous social acceptance of depraved living conditions and suffering of many. All of this accentuates Raskolnikov's own condition. A brilliant law student, he himself is very poor. Living in shabby quarters, he rarely eats. In this setting, Raskolnikov comes to a final decision (or delusion?) -- to prove his worth and superiority through a crime of Napoleonic proportions.

This is not your typical crime novel thriller. Not in the least. The suspense comes not through the cliched question of "Whodunnit?", but through Dostoyevsky's own brilliant grasp of human psychology. Once the deed is done (early on) the story shifts to the events following the bloody crime. Slowly, Raskolnikov's motives, desires and philosophical views become clear. We see him challenge the cynical and hollow Looshin for the benefit of his sister. We see him confront the police and magistrates directly with his alleged guilt. But all the while, the depravity of Raskolnikov's living condition and unpredictable emotions and actions render all of these "conscious" intentions suspect. Like Gregor Samsa in Kafka's Metamorphosis, our privileged access to Raskolnikov's thoughts perhaps betray a diseased mind. A confused consciousness. A man no longer the agent of his actions.

These circumstances both consciously and subconsciously drive Raskolnikov to question his own actions and state of mind. In a sense, he grasps for straws as his past actions becomes blurred. And this becomes his struggle -- the existential anxiety of losing control over the ability to shape his destiny. Dostoyevsky answers with a powerful gest, equalled only by Nietzsche's Dionysian Spirit: To trade freedom and dignity for ultimate responsibility and suffering. And only through this affirmation of the Will, shall Raskolnikov achieve salvation.

Tolstoy's Anna Karenina is undoubtedly one of the greatest works of literature ever written. It is by no means a "light book" or an "easy read." As the reader diligently reads through this voluminous, 800 plus page, novel they live and experience the struggles of the characters. The novel centers on the two contrasting yet interwoven plots of the honest, loving and faithful relationship of Princess Kitty and Constanine Levin contrasted against the socially and morally condemned adulterous love affair of Anna Karenina and Count Vronsky. The novel's epigraph "Vengeance is mine, I shall repay; saith the Lord" alludes to the novel's theme of divine retribution, where the choices and actions made by the characters are either rewarded or punished by God. Anna Karenina is not a victim of fate or destiny but of her own selfishness and dishonesty to herself and others which leads to her eventual demise. Kitty and Levin are rewarded with happiness and a successful marriage because of their honesty and unselfish love. Anna Karenina delves not only into the human conscience but also into the conscience of Russian society; it is also full of symbolism for example Vronsky's tragic horse race, which symbolizes his part in Anna's destruction. As I read through all of the reviews I noticed that an important issue was neglected even from the review written by the publisher and that is that Levin is a partial autobiography by Tolstoy. Levin's strong inner conflicts, agnosticism and search for meaning in life was a reflection of Tolsoy's own beliefs. I wrote a term paper on Anna Karenina and through all the reading, research and time I put in paid off immensely and not just in terms of the grade. Although I at times resented Anna for her selfishness I could empathize with her struggle for independence which she never achieves. I cried when she killed herself yet hated her for this final act of selfness. This novel is a complex weaving of characters, emotions, and struggles but in the end the reader is rewarded by Tolstoy's pure genius.

I was on a binge where I was reading only 1,000+ page books, and so I decided to hit "War and Peace". However, as fate would have it, I heard a quote from the writer Ayn Rand who called "Anna Karenina" the "most evil book in serious literature". Well, as soon as I heard something like that I knew I had to find out for myself!

I read this book, and I have no idea what book Rand was skimming through when she arrived at her comment but it surely wasn't this one. This book is not "evil" in any way, shape, or form! I found it to be a tightly focused exploration of the rigidity of socially accepted relationships versus the desire of the individual to be personally fulfilled. In presenting this conflict, Tolstoy was not using Anna to illustrate the evils of adultery or non-conformity. I do think he targeted the tragic contrast in how male and female adulterers are treated. He also, through Kitty and Levin, explores the constraints faced by women as they seek true love.

Tolstoy is a consumate creator of three-dimensional characters. In addition, the scope of this novel is unbelievably large, exploring all types of relationships from old married couples to swinging singles. With a story this intricate there are probably dozens of interpretations as to what it all means, and I enjoyed reading other reviews here and learning what other people thought. It added to my own understanding. Only great literature can still generate that kind of reaction over a century past the original publish date.

Despite the obvious merit of this book, I almost wish I could go to 4.75 stars rather than 5. It may seem picky, but I feel that the way Tolstoy stapled his own socio-economic views onto this novel - especially and most glaringly at the end - was just awful. Those views seem out of place in this story, and should have been developed in some other book. Towards the very end, I felt these passages became especially pointless and even immature. He made the same type of error at the the end of "War and Peace," as well.

In any case, other than that one slip there's nothing but brilliant writing here. "Anna Karenina" is easily one of the greatest masterpieces of world literature.

In my sophomore year of college, I was assigned ANNA KARENINA to be read in one week. ONE WEEK! Somehow I did it and it changed my life. I came back to the Tolstoy novel in the summer between my sophomore and junior years and then again in grad school. I just finished reading it for the fourth time.

Everything you've heard and read about ANNA KARENINA is true. It is one of the finest, subtlest, most exciting, most romantic, truest, most daring, charming, witty and altogether moving experiences anyone can have. And you don't have to slog through pages and chapters to find the truth and beauty. It's right there from the first, famous sentence: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

This new translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky is wonderful and deserves your attention even if you already have a favorite version of the book. Pevear and Volokhonsky are considered "the premiere translators of Russian literature into English of our day." Working, as I do, in the Theatre, I hope they take on some of Turgenev's plays.

Anyone who believes in the power of Art, especially Literature, must buy and read this book. I promise it can change your life. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

E' un libro fantastico, ma non conosco l'ingles