tammierosex's review against another edition
dark
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
efabri123's review against another edition
2.0
It's not that it's a bad story, but it's basically a drawn out version of Edgar Allan Poe's Tell Tale Heart, in my opinion. As I continue to read more "classic" works of literature, I wonder how long they will be considered "classics" or if that will always be their name. As the world becomes increasingly fast-paced, I am curious to see where long drawn out works like this will hold their respect. Overall, not a story for me. Could have been half as long with less boring conversations...
urz_tom's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
colaloopa's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
anoynumus's review against another edition
5.0
Crime and Punishment is a novel written by Fyodor Dostoevsky in 1866. It’s about a young man named Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov who commits the murder of an old woman named Alyona Ivanovna. And this is my review.
I read the book in a month and had quite a few special moments when I genuinely felt challenged and I felt like I understood a rather complex concept. About the central theme of the book, I think I differ from the general crowd on that.
Other than that, this book had a lot of separate worlds inside it. Let’s go about it one by one, discussing each along the way.
The characters in this book were a breath of fresh air for me.
Each annoyed me in a way, but also inspired me in another way.
Starting with Sonya, I really liked her. A really shy and timid girl of about eighteen, was the one who became the solace for
Rodya. When Rodya first talked to her, he was confounded and couldn’t understand her. She was a prostitute, who would
regularly sell her body for some money. It was obvious that she didn’t do it out of lust, but because she was a destitute and
was practically the sole bread earner of her family. She led a life filled with guilt where she was constantly being reminded
of her vice by herself.
A little thick in the head but nonetheless a sweet person.
Sonya was a really sincere girl who really backed her words up. She told Rodya that she would go with him wherever he
would go, and she substantiated this heavy claim by going to Siberia with him. Ultimately, when the vain man in Rodya’s
body was defeated, he considered Sonya’s way of life as the sole way of redeeming himself from his errors.
Moving on to my favourite character, Razumikhin was a fellow ex-student who had an exceptionally pure character.
Heart made of gold and a will made of steel, Razumikhin stood with Rodya at every step of his journey. What were his
true intentions behind all the self-less work he did still baffles me. I literally let out a cry of joy when I came to know that he
married Dunya. He deserved all the happiness in the world for
the man he was. He would always defend Rodya with passion even when all he
got in return was abuse.
He truly valued humanity and had nothing but positivity in his heart. He was critically against the idea of a Rational utopia,
just like the underground man.
There are many more interesting characters in the book.
The narcissist Luzhin, his weird roommate, goddess like Dunya and others.
But Katerina Ivanovna stands out from the rest. She was an abusive woman who would abuse everyone in her family,
especially her husband. What was the cause of her ruin?
Its interesting to think about that. Perhaps the guilt of marrying Marmaledov, because she had the option of marrying a rich fellow back when she was a maiden.
I think what ruined her was nostalgia. She lived in the past; she would still call herself the daughter of an aristocrat and
put herself above everyone else because she had a ‘noble origin’. She had the audacity to question the lineage of her
landlady as apparently her landlady was not ‘noble enough’.
Katerina Ivanovna was a destitute who had nothing in her life, except her loving nature. Its not like she didn’t love her poor
family; in fact, they were the reason she was going insane- she realized that they suffered and she was helpless. She had
every reason to go insane, but it was her past who got her – truly interesting to think about.
Another one who was different from others was Svidrigailov.
Truly a confusing man, Svidrigailov became more important as the story progressed. He was a sly pervert and was extremely mysterious. His words were smooth which made the impression that he was beating around the bush anytime he opened his mouth.
“There is nothing in the world more difficult than plain speaking, and nothing easier than flattery.”
-Svidraigolov, Crime and Punishment
He was a paedophile who was just in it for the sake of it. He wanted some sort of validation and pure love for he was too
cynical himself to feel pure love for anyone except himself.
He was an expert at manipulating women. He sought extra pleasure by manipulating a young woman’s mind.
Rodya despised him for that.
Still, I can’t say with conviction that I understand this man
completely. He helped Katerina Ivanovna’s orphans- why?
Everything he does, it seems like there’s an ulterior motive behind it. But there usually isn’t. He is usually more truthful
than he comes off as. Its just that he is too bored in life, at least that’s what I think.
An instance that stands out for me in this book was when Luzhin tried to frame Sonya. Luzhin had a noble origin, a
sweet speech and was respected in the society.
On the other hand, his roommate, Andrei Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov, was considered by many an idiot. An idiot
who had the most stupid ideas and was part of a new intellectual circle that was despised by the outsiders. How
people of today view Gen-Z culture is exactly how others viewed this imbecile.
But Dostoevsky made a beautiful comparison here. When
Luzhin wronged Sonya and called her a thief in front of everyone, Andrei defended her. He had no particular reason to
do so, but due to the fact that he was sincere in his ideas (however idiotic they might be) made him a truthful guy in
general. Being sincere to yourself was the difference between them. Luzhin’s ideas were perhaps way better than Andrei’s
but did Luzhin really believe in them if he bent the rules of his sophisticated morals to frame an already downtrodden
prostitute?
We observe that the final goal was to disrespect Raskolnikov
but the plan backfired miserably.
I think Dostoevsky alluded to the following point here:
In this age of upcoming and futuristic ideas, its not a sin to have weird ideas about the system. But it’s a sin to be selfish and bend the rules for your own good.
I realize that the character sketches of these characters are incomplete. But my aim of writing this review is to put my
memories with Crime and Punishment in a short text.
What stood out for me in this text?
So, let’s finally address the elephant in the room: Why did Raskolnikov kill the old lady?
Perhaps the most misunderstood part of the entire book, lets address this slowly.
Let’s start with the article Raskolnikov wrote:
The entire population is divided into two types of men:
ordinary and extra ordinary men. Not demeaning any of these, as both of these are necessary and integral part of our society.
Extraordinary men are the ones who propel the world forward.
They do crimes, and rightfully so. They are the ones who change the world; they change laws and make new ones. So, they do crimes, but those deeds are considered crimes in an old world. When they are successful, those ‘crime’ are no
longer crimes, rather viewed as ‘brave doings.’
These extraordinary men are usually persecuted during their time on earth, but they are put on a pedestal after they die.
Their shortcomings are forgiven and they are vindicated by the future generations.
A few examples are Napoleon and Prophet
Muhammad(SAW).
The rest of the people on earth are ‘ordinary’. And there’s nothing wrong with being one. They are the ones who adhere
to the laws and do everything according to the moral consensus. They are put on a pedestal during their lives, but
forgotten as soon as they are dead. They sustain the world; whereas the extraordinary make progress in the world.
According to Raskolnikov, whether anyone would agree with this article or not was a matter of insignificance; he was convinced of this argument completely.
The extraordinary men of the world don’t doubt themselves; they know it for a fact that they are meant to change the
world. Whenever they have to commit a crime for the greater good, they don’t think twice. They are fully convinced that
they have the right to commit a crime; they are extraordinary after all.
Raskolnikov had put great thought into this theory and was convinced of it. But the main question now was: was
Raskolnikov extraordinary or ordinary?
In that age of new and upcoming ideas when intellectual theories fought with each other to the bitter end, Raskolnikov
was no different. In his mind, he had surely put hours trying to find faults in his theory and finding faults with the existing
ones for example the religious one.
Raskolnikov wanted to be extraordinary. He was an extremely intelligent fellow who didn’t care what others thought of him.
His intelligence surely put him above the common man.
But how could he be sure he was truly a man like Napoleon?
In order to prove himself that he was a Napoleon, he wanted
to commit a crime and have no remorse afterwards. Surely someone as great as Napoleon wouldn’t think twice before
killing a loathsome old woman to get some money?
But he did. He fought with himself for hours on this. He had to fight with himself because there were two people involved
in this: Raskolnikov and the person Raskolnikov wanted to be.
Raskolnikov was the person who flinched at violence. He once had a dream where a horse (not even a human) was
brutally flogged by some drunk men. It invoked feelings of sympathy in Raskolnikov and he felt extremely sorry for it. It was a foreshadow of the fact that he was about to kill an innocent lady brutally, and it immediately made him jettison
the whole plan. He was really scared and disgusted by the dream. I believe this was the real Raskolnikov.
A Napoleon wouldn’t have had the same reaction, even in a dream. He would have analysed the situation first because this
wasn’t a situation of panic for him. He was safe, so everything else comes second.
This was not the case with Raskolnikov; it invoked human empathy in him for a horse and tried everything in his power to save the horse.
As it is said that your most inner self is vulnerable and in control of your mind during a dream; I think that was the case
here.
As these two versions of Raskolnikov clashed day in and day out, Raskolnikov felt mentally drained all the time. He couldn’t catch a break from it and as a result went roaming around the town semi aware of his existence.
At last, the real Raskolnikov lost. Now, it was upon the version he wanted to be to act up. To become that person finally, Raskolnikov had to commit a nasty crime without having remorse or thinking twice before doing it. So, that’s what he did.
“The most amusing and monumental part of the murder on
the day of the murder was that he wasn’t thinking about it.”
-Crime and Punishment
That’s why right after he killed her, money was the last of his concerns. At first, I was puzzled and couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that he didn’t even touch the money he apparently killed the woman for.
Now here’s where I differ from most of the readers:
Most people think that the reason he killed her was a utilitarian one and there would be a net benefit to society if the money could be somehow transferred from this louse to a promising, young and intelligent student. They say that he trivialised the murder to the extent it sounded like an obligation and he committed the murder with full control of his senses.
But that wasn’t it.
He surely thought of changing the world, but that was more of a long-term plan. Killing her without regret was supposed to
be a confirmation that he was capable of changing the world.
So, on the day of the murder, yes, a person died, but it wasn’t the old woman: it was Raskolnikov himself.
“Did I really kill the old woman? No, it was myself I killed, not the old woman. I bumped myself off, in one go, forever!
As for the old woman, it was the devil who killed her!”
-Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment
The regret that settled in later had nothing to do with the old woman. It was with the fact that he knew that he wasn’t a Napoleon. He was lying to himself when he made the decision of murdering her. He was lying to himself all the way through.
It was the agony of knowing that he wasn’t a napoleon and that now he had to live the life of someone who is not Raskolnikov (he was sentenced to live a lie) that made his life so miserable.
Raskolnikov realized that this was not an easy concept and surely everyone wouldn’t get it. So, he made it sound like he did for the money. He lied to Sonya when she couldn’t understand the reason why Raskolnikov killed the old lady.
But its evident to us (the reader) that he lied. He put his head down in disappointment as he lied to her. He was hoping she would understand it, but she couldn’t. That’s why he says that
they were not even compatible in the first place.
A few days after the murder, when the dust started to settle, Raskolnikov lived in consternation. He was never fully
conscious in the early days and always quite irritable.
We also observe that the moral person in Rodya starts to wither away when he starts appealing to the empathy in those
policemen. Any man who is true to his human in him will loathe at such hypocritic behaviour. He didn’t have any such feelings, rather despised talking for more than a few seconds at a stretch. He had many such instances where he just wanted to spit it all out because he wanted to get rid of the burden.
From this point, it all went south.
As the novel progresses, I noticed something interesting.
Rodya started to mention God more and more. Was Sonya successful in changing him?
I don’t think so.
Why did Rodya become so miserable towards the end and
why did he surrender himself to the police in the end?
I think when he killed his inner self, Raskolnikov got rid of those emotions that made him feel bad over the death of an
old woman.
He truly was incompetent as a murderer and would have been arrested in due time. There was no running away. Right till the
very end, he never felt like a criminal. He never had remorse about killing her.
Then what was left in his life then? Surely, he wasn’t a Napoleon and would be in jail in some time. Why didn’t he
kill himself?
I think it was out of cowardice. He couldn’t bring himself to do it; he had been at the edge several times though. Purely due to the fact that his mind couldn’t fight anymore against this Porfiry guy, he surrendered himself and therefore
killed his pride once and for all.
In the epilogue, we come to know that Raskolnikov does change. But at this point, the narrative ends and rightfully so.
Overall, I really liked the book. I learnt a lot about human psychology and many interesting arguments were put forward
by the author in the novel.
My only complaint with this book would be that the condition that Raskolnikov seemed to be in was almost always
somewhat exaggerated. He always felt ‘semi-conscious’, ‘delirious’ and ‘out of his mind’. I don’t know, it rubbed me
the wrong way. The significance of his head hurting really felt like every day, but I guess that was his life, truly.
Who am I to complain, I had a wonderful time reading through his agony!
I read the book in a month and had quite a few special moments when I genuinely felt challenged and I felt like I understood a rather complex concept. About the central theme of the book, I think I differ from the general crowd on that.
Other than that, this book had a lot of separate worlds inside it. Let’s go about it one by one, discussing each along the way.
The characters in this book were a breath of fresh air for me.
Each annoyed me in a way, but also inspired me in another way.
Starting with Sonya, I really liked her. A really shy and timid girl of about eighteen, was the one who became the solace for
Rodya. When Rodya first talked to her, he was confounded and couldn’t understand her. She was a prostitute, who would
regularly sell her body for some money. It was obvious that she didn’t do it out of lust, but because she was a destitute and
was practically the sole bread earner of her family. She led a life filled with guilt where she was constantly being reminded
of her vice by herself.
A little thick in the head but nonetheless a sweet person.
Sonya was a really sincere girl who really backed her words up. She told Rodya that she would go with him wherever he
would go, and she substantiated this heavy claim by going to Siberia with him. Ultimately, when the vain man in Rodya’s
body was defeated, he considered Sonya’s way of life as the sole way of redeeming himself from his errors.
Moving on to my favourite character, Razumikhin was a fellow ex-student who had an exceptionally pure character.
Heart made of gold and a will made of steel, Razumikhin stood with Rodya at every step of his journey. What were his
true intentions behind all the self-less work he did still baffles me. I literally let out a cry of joy when I came to know that he
married Dunya. He deserved all the happiness in the world for
the man he was. He would always defend Rodya with passion even when all he
got in return was abuse.
He truly valued humanity and had nothing but positivity in his heart. He was critically against the idea of a Rational utopia,
just like the underground man.
There are many more interesting characters in the book.
The narcissist Luzhin, his weird roommate, goddess like Dunya and others.
But Katerina Ivanovna stands out from the rest. She was an abusive woman who would abuse everyone in her family,
especially her husband. What was the cause of her ruin?
Its interesting to think about that. Perhaps the guilt of marrying Marmaledov, because she had the option of marrying a rich fellow back when she was a maiden.
I think what ruined her was nostalgia. She lived in the past; she would still call herself the daughter of an aristocrat and
put herself above everyone else because she had a ‘noble origin’. She had the audacity to question the lineage of her
landlady as apparently her landlady was not ‘noble enough’.
Katerina Ivanovna was a destitute who had nothing in her life, except her loving nature. Its not like she didn’t love her poor
family; in fact, they were the reason she was going insane- she realized that they suffered and she was helpless. She had
every reason to go insane, but it was her past who got her – truly interesting to think about.
Another one who was different from others was Svidrigailov.
Truly a confusing man, Svidrigailov became more important as the story progressed. He was a sly pervert and was extremely mysterious. His words were smooth which made the impression that he was beating around the bush anytime he opened his mouth.
“There is nothing in the world more difficult than plain speaking, and nothing easier than flattery.”
-Svidraigolov, Crime and Punishment
He was a paedophile who was just in it for the sake of it. He wanted some sort of validation and pure love for he was too
cynical himself to feel pure love for anyone except himself.
He was an expert at manipulating women. He sought extra pleasure by manipulating a young woman’s mind.
Rodya despised him for that.
Still, I can’t say with conviction that I understand this man
completely. He helped Katerina Ivanovna’s orphans- why?
Everything he does, it seems like there’s an ulterior motive behind it. But there usually isn’t. He is usually more truthful
than he comes off as. Its just that he is too bored in life, at least that’s what I think.
An instance that stands out for me in this book was when Luzhin tried to frame Sonya. Luzhin had a noble origin, a
sweet speech and was respected in the society.
On the other hand, his roommate, Andrei Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov, was considered by many an idiot. An idiot
who had the most stupid ideas and was part of a new intellectual circle that was despised by the outsiders. How
people of today view Gen-Z culture is exactly how others viewed this imbecile.
But Dostoevsky made a beautiful comparison here. When
Luzhin wronged Sonya and called her a thief in front of everyone, Andrei defended her. He had no particular reason to
do so, but due to the fact that he was sincere in his ideas (however idiotic they might be) made him a truthful guy in
general. Being sincere to yourself was the difference between them. Luzhin’s ideas were perhaps way better than Andrei’s
but did Luzhin really believe in them if he bent the rules of his sophisticated morals to frame an already downtrodden
prostitute?
We observe that the final goal was to disrespect Raskolnikov
but the plan backfired miserably.
I think Dostoevsky alluded to the following point here:
In this age of upcoming and futuristic ideas, its not a sin to have weird ideas about the system. But it’s a sin to be selfish and bend the rules for your own good.
I realize that the character sketches of these characters are incomplete. But my aim of writing this review is to put my
memories with Crime and Punishment in a short text.
What stood out for me in this text?
So, let’s finally address the elephant in the room: Why did Raskolnikov kill the old lady?
Perhaps the most misunderstood part of the entire book, lets address this slowly.
Let’s start with the article Raskolnikov wrote:
The entire population is divided into two types of men:
ordinary and extra ordinary men. Not demeaning any of these, as both of these are necessary and integral part of our society.
Extraordinary men are the ones who propel the world forward.
They do crimes, and rightfully so. They are the ones who change the world; they change laws and make new ones. So, they do crimes, but those deeds are considered crimes in an old world. When they are successful, those ‘crime’ are no
longer crimes, rather viewed as ‘brave doings.’
These extraordinary men are usually persecuted during their time on earth, but they are put on a pedestal after they die.
Their shortcomings are forgiven and they are vindicated by the future generations.
A few examples are Napoleon and Prophet
Muhammad(SAW).
The rest of the people on earth are ‘ordinary’. And there’s nothing wrong with being one. They are the ones who adhere
to the laws and do everything according to the moral consensus. They are put on a pedestal during their lives, but
forgotten as soon as they are dead. They sustain the world; whereas the extraordinary make progress in the world.
According to Raskolnikov, whether anyone would agree with this article or not was a matter of insignificance; he was convinced of this argument completely.
The extraordinary men of the world don’t doubt themselves; they know it for a fact that they are meant to change the
world. Whenever they have to commit a crime for the greater good, they don’t think twice. They are fully convinced that
they have the right to commit a crime; they are extraordinary after all.
Raskolnikov had put great thought into this theory and was convinced of it. But the main question now was: was
Raskolnikov extraordinary or ordinary?
In that age of new and upcoming ideas when intellectual theories fought with each other to the bitter end, Raskolnikov
was no different. In his mind, he had surely put hours trying to find faults in his theory and finding faults with the existing
ones for example the religious one.
Raskolnikov wanted to be extraordinary. He was an extremely intelligent fellow who didn’t care what others thought of him.
His intelligence surely put him above the common man.
But how could he be sure he was truly a man like Napoleon?
In order to prove himself that he was a Napoleon, he wanted
to commit a crime and have no remorse afterwards. Surely someone as great as Napoleon wouldn’t think twice before
killing a loathsome old woman to get some money?
But he did. He fought with himself for hours on this. He had to fight with himself because there were two people involved
in this: Raskolnikov and the person Raskolnikov wanted to be.
Raskolnikov was the person who flinched at violence. He once had a dream where a horse (not even a human) was
brutally flogged by some drunk men. It invoked feelings of sympathy in Raskolnikov and he felt extremely sorry for it. It was a foreshadow of the fact that he was about to kill an innocent lady brutally, and it immediately made him jettison
the whole plan. He was really scared and disgusted by the dream. I believe this was the real Raskolnikov.
A Napoleon wouldn’t have had the same reaction, even in a dream. He would have analysed the situation first because this
wasn’t a situation of panic for him. He was safe, so everything else comes second.
This was not the case with Raskolnikov; it invoked human empathy in him for a horse and tried everything in his power to save the horse.
As it is said that your most inner self is vulnerable and in control of your mind during a dream; I think that was the case
here.
As these two versions of Raskolnikov clashed day in and day out, Raskolnikov felt mentally drained all the time. He couldn’t catch a break from it and as a result went roaming around the town semi aware of his existence.
At last, the real Raskolnikov lost. Now, it was upon the version he wanted to be to act up. To become that person finally, Raskolnikov had to commit a nasty crime without having remorse or thinking twice before doing it. So, that’s what he did.
“The most amusing and monumental part of the murder on
the day of the murder was that he wasn’t thinking about it.”
-Crime and Punishment
That’s why right after he killed her, money was the last of his concerns. At first, I was puzzled and couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that he didn’t even touch the money he apparently killed the woman for.
Now here’s where I differ from most of the readers:
Most people think that the reason he killed her was a utilitarian one and there would be a net benefit to society if the money could be somehow transferred from this louse to a promising, young and intelligent student. They say that he trivialised the murder to the extent it sounded like an obligation and he committed the murder with full control of his senses.
But that wasn’t it.
He surely thought of changing the world, but that was more of a long-term plan. Killing her without regret was supposed to
be a confirmation that he was capable of changing the world.
So, on the day of the murder, yes, a person died, but it wasn’t the old woman: it was Raskolnikov himself.
“Did I really kill the old woman? No, it was myself I killed, not the old woman. I bumped myself off, in one go, forever!
As for the old woman, it was the devil who killed her!”
-Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment
The regret that settled in later had nothing to do with the old woman. It was with the fact that he knew that he wasn’t a Napoleon. He was lying to himself when he made the decision of murdering her. He was lying to himself all the way through.
It was the agony of knowing that he wasn’t a napoleon and that now he had to live the life of someone who is not Raskolnikov (he was sentenced to live a lie) that made his life so miserable.
Raskolnikov realized that this was not an easy concept and surely everyone wouldn’t get it. So, he made it sound like he did for the money. He lied to Sonya when she couldn’t understand the reason why Raskolnikov killed the old lady.
But its evident to us (the reader) that he lied. He put his head down in disappointment as he lied to her. He was hoping she would understand it, but she couldn’t. That’s why he says that
they were not even compatible in the first place.
A few days after the murder, when the dust started to settle, Raskolnikov lived in consternation. He was never fully
conscious in the early days and always quite irritable.
We also observe that the moral person in Rodya starts to wither away when he starts appealing to the empathy in those
policemen. Any man who is true to his human in him will loathe at such hypocritic behaviour. He didn’t have any such feelings, rather despised talking for more than a few seconds at a stretch. He had many such instances where he just wanted to spit it all out because he wanted to get rid of the burden.
From this point, it all went south.
As the novel progresses, I noticed something interesting.
Rodya started to mention God more and more. Was Sonya successful in changing him?
I don’t think so.
Why did Rodya become so miserable towards the end and
why did he surrender himself to the police in the end?
I think when he killed his inner self, Raskolnikov got rid of those emotions that made him feel bad over the death of an
old woman.
He truly was incompetent as a murderer and would have been arrested in due time. There was no running away. Right till the
very end, he never felt like a criminal. He never had remorse about killing her.
Then what was left in his life then? Surely, he wasn’t a Napoleon and would be in jail in some time. Why didn’t he
kill himself?
I think it was out of cowardice. He couldn’t bring himself to do it; he had been at the edge several times though. Purely due to the fact that his mind couldn’t fight anymore against this Porfiry guy, he surrendered himself and therefore
killed his pride once and for all.
In the epilogue, we come to know that Raskolnikov does change. But at this point, the narrative ends and rightfully so.
Overall, I really liked the book. I learnt a lot about human psychology and many interesting arguments were put forward
by the author in the novel.
My only complaint with this book would be that the condition that Raskolnikov seemed to be in was almost always
somewhat exaggerated. He always felt ‘semi-conscious’, ‘delirious’ and ‘out of his mind’. I don’t know, it rubbed me
the wrong way. The significance of his head hurting really felt like every day, but I guess that was his life, truly.
Who am I to complain, I had a wonderful time reading through his agony!
beccaeve26's review against another edition
dark
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
faheed_15's review against another edition
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
sannemeier's review against another edition
Too much a mood reader to read this right now