I guess I have a lot to say, as did Dostoyevsky. Most books have an overarching plot, with tangential side plots, but Crime and Punishment does the opposite. Several loose ends are threaded together to illustrate the crime (and punishment) as subtly as possible. And isn't that the point? You're reading about a conversation about something absolutely irrelevant, but all you're thinking about is whether Rodio's crime is about to be caught. Dostoyevsky forces you to experience what Rodio experiences: a constant restlessness that wants to ignore everything unrelated to the murder, but you can't skip ahead. Brilliant. One of the most interesting ideas was that of "great men can get away with crimes because they have a higher purpose." It questions all philosophies encompassing "history is written by the victors" to "it's only wrong if you get caught." The way Rodio lays out his argument, it's difficult to argue with. He is right that a lot of "great people" have committed crimes and gotten away with it. What Rodio gets wrong is that these crimes (and the willingness or bravery) needed for those crimes aren't what makes these people great. He's right that Napoleon was responsible for deaths, but that wasn't Napoleon's legacy. The second flaw in Rodio's reasoning is mentioned by Raskolnikov himself. He says that extraordinary men have a purpose that they are willing to kill- for Rodio did not have any such purpose. His "extraordinary man" argument seems to work, but using it as justification for his murder feels wrong. Another thing that caught my attention was how Rodio views suffering. He discusses a dream about a horse that was brutally killed, and this really bothered Rodio- but he had just murdered 2 people and that was fine? I think the difference was that the horse's death was long and drawn out, but the pawnbroker and her sister were killed abruptly, and their "suffering" was "minimized". Also, Rodio didn't mean to harm Lizaveta, but he did harbor hate for the pawnbroker, which might be why he attacked Lizaveta with the sharp side of the axe (short and quick), whereas he used the blunt side for the pawnbroker. It's also interesting that Raskolnikov said, "your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing", but didn't use any of the money that he supposedly committed the murders for. Ironic. Another super interesting quote: "Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her!" Not only does this show how intensely the paranoia eats away at Rodio, but it also represents denial (I wasn't paying attention, but surely other stages of grief were represented elsewhere). He was also worried that people would judge him as being a coward and a fool for not using the money he stole, which highlights how obsessed Rodio (and all of society) is with how he is perceived. And also, what is "atonement?" The idea that Rodio is atoning for his sins comes with an assumption of guilt, but is it atonement if Rodio isn't really guilty? Rodio went crazy after the murder, but he went mad with paranoia of being caught, not with guilt of murder. This stream of consciousness has gone on long enough, but anything you want touched on is included in this novel: alcoholism, depression, paranoia, superiority complexes, poverty, romance, criminal justice, etc. Truly, this book sheds light on the psychology of individuals and societies. The only drawback? It's so flipping long.