The single most interesting aspect of this book is Rasky's uber-mensch-esque rationale to crime. This is not a random act of prole rebellion (as i hoped it would be) but instead a manifestation of a very specific ideology, an assertion of self in society in whatever way necessary, the belief of self above law. And that's the interesting part of the book - obsessive, misguided ideology. If he hadn't killed, he would have suffered and he suffered after he did. Its a book about a troubled mind and obsessive thoughts and I liked how it was portrayed. Its also a well told story with all those rich characters and so much drama.

But otherwise I didn't care for the book so much. I was especially peeved by the women in the book. I tried looking up about this and only found people praising the portrayal of women, some even calling it feminist. Let me offer my view - The main women (Dunya and sonya) are one-dimensional - angelic, perfect, oh-so-loving for no reason. It made me mad that Sonya followed that moody Rasky all the way to Siberia. Also, Rasky doesn't repent anything until he accepts Sonya's love. What kind of redemption is that? Blergggh. Maybe Sonya was a symbol of God (he confesses to her; she carries a cross and she calls it carrying her burden, etc.) and that makes more sense to me because Sonya is not a human. She's not written like a human. She's an extra ordinary depiction of an idealized woman who'll endure the dismal men in her life without a single complaint. This is not feminist woman, this is an ideal woman from a perspective of a man.

/end rant