Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Skulls of Sedlec in Tabletop Games
Feb 27, 2020
When it comes to board gaming, bigger does not always necessarily mean better. And that is something that Button Shy Games has really embraced. With all of their wallet games comprising of only 18 cards, they always manage to pack a lot of game into one small space. I think they’ve got the right idea – engaging gameplay, multitude of themes and mechanics, and easy storage and transport! So how does their newest game hold up to their other successful wallet games? Keep reading to find out!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? There’s only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Here’s how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2×3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules – Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what you’re up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponents’ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if it’s not, you’re still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game – instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. It’s fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. I’m glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If you’re looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Let us travel back to the 16th Century AD. You are a monk working in the Sedlec Ossuary, a chapel in the Czech Republic. The coincidental timing of the Black Plague and the Hussite Wars has led to some serious overcrowding in the Sedlec graveyard. Working under a half-blind monk, you and your fellow underlings have been tasked with exhuming graves and artfully arranging the skulls in the crypt. Who can create the most unique and tasteful display of skulls? There’s only one way to find out.
Disclaimer: We were provided a prototype review copy of this game for the purposes of this preview. The final components may vary once the Kickstarter campaign has concluded, so the published game may look differently than the one presented in these pictures. -L
Skulls of Sedlec is a game of card drafting and hand management in which players are trying to amass the most points by the end of the game. Here’s how it works. To set up, shuffle all 18 cards. Create a 2×3 grid of 6 facedown piles consisting of 3 cards each. Pick any pile and flip one card face-up from the top. You are now ready to begin! The game is played over a series of turns in which players will draft and play cards into their personal Stack, an arrangement of cards in a pyramid shape. Each card has 2 skulls on it, and each skull earns a certain number of points based on its placement in your Stack. For example, Criminal skulls are vying for redemption in the afterlife, so they score 2 points if they are adjacent to any Priest skulls. At the end of the game, the player with the highest scoring Stack is the winner!
During the game, on your turn, you will take one of these three possible actions: Dig, Collect, or Stack. When you choose to Dig, you choose 2 facedown piles in the graveyard and flip their top cards face-up. Once you have done that, choose one of the two cards you flipped to take into your hand. If you choose to Collect, you simply choose any face-up card from the graveyard and take it into your hand. There is a hand limit of 2 cards per player, though, so if you already have 2 cards in your hand you may not take the Collect action. If you choose to Stack, you select one card from your hand and add it to your Stack, following the placement rules – Stacks are built from the bottom up. Your first card will be placed into the bottom row of your Stack. Depending on how many players are in the game, your Stack will require a different number of cards in each row. A card may only be played into a higher row if it is directly centered over two cards on the row beneath it. Logical enough! The game ends when each player has completed their Stack. Points are then added, and the highest score wins.
As I mentioned earlier, the size of the game does not always dictate the quality of the game, and Skulls of Sedlec is the perfect example of that. For only consisting of 18 cards, it takes a good deal of strategy to claim victory. There are 5 different types of skulls, and they earn points in different ways depending on their placement. You really have to be thinking in advance as to how you want to play the cards in your hand, and what other skulls you need to pick up to maximize your score. You can also see the Stacks of your opponents, so you know what you’re up against. You need an adaptive strategy for success based on the current cards available in the graveyard, as well as potentially anticipating your opponents’ moves. Be careful, though, because once a card has been played to your Stack, it cannot be moved.
Components. Again, this is just a preview copy of the game, but the card quality is already great. It might be something upgraded during the Kickstarter campaign, but if it’s not, you’re still getting a high quality game. Of course, the trademark wallet is on par with the rest of the wallet series, and it protects the cards well. The artwork of Skulls of Sedlec might not be awe-inspiring, but it is still colorful, thematic, and well-done. I appreciate the simplicity of the cards because it makes it easier to see the card types throughout the game and final scoring. You can clearly tell which skulls are which, so the game does not grind to a halt while trying to figure out what the scoring requirements are for a particular skull. And each skull type has a corresponding symbol, which can help our color-blind friends play the game – instead of relying solely on color, the symbols help differentiate the cards. So big kudos there!
As someone who does a fair amount of solo playing, I would like to mention the solo expansion of Skulls of Sedlec, Monstrance. Again, this is a preview of the solo expansion, so final rules and components may vary from those described here. When playing Skulls of Sedlec as a solo game, you will be creating a Stack like in a multiplayer game, as well as a Feature. The Feature you build will have a shape different to that of your normal Stack, and is determined by the Feature card you select at game setup. You will also select a second Feature card, which will be flipped over to reveal a new condition or effect for the game (for example, Romantics in the Stack do not score). Create a graveyard of 4 facedown piles of cards, evenly spread throughout the piles. You are then ready to play.
Gameplay is similar to that of a multiplayer game, but the solo player does not have a hand of cards. Instead, every card that you select will be immediately played into your Stack or your Feature. Placement rules are the same for the Stack, and cards in your Feature must be supported from below or adjacently. When both your Stack and Feature are complete, the game is over and you tally up your score. The solo expansion offers scoring milestones to compare with your score. See if you can best yourself and become a Legendary Artisan instead of remaining a Humble Monk.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of beat-your-own-score solo expansions. That being said, the gameplay of the Monstrance solo expansion still requires decent strategy and thought to maximize your final score. The addition of Features to solo play add another level of strategy because placement is just as important there as it is in your general Stack. Another neat twist is the addition of effects/conditions in solo play. They affect your strategy and make for a unique game every play.
Overall, I would say that Skulls of Sedlec is one of my favorite ButtonShy Games that I have played. It’s fast to play, simple to teach and learn, yet strategic enough that it keeps you engaged the entire time. Another thing I love about it is that it is only a 2-3 player game. We all know that getting together for game nights can be tricky, so I can see myself bringing Skulls of Sedlec to many game nights in which maybe only a few of us could attend. I’m glad I got the opportunity to preview this game, and I will be following the progress of the campaign for sure. If you’re looking for a small filler that still keeps your brain working, definitely consider backing the Skulls of Sedlec campaign!
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crime and Punishment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
**spoilers**
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. read by Anthony Heald.
Genre: Fiction, classic
Rating: 5
Sin, Sentence, and Salvation
The allegory of Crime and Punishment
Crime and Punishment, one of the more famous works of Fyodor Dostoevsky, is considered “the first great novel of his mature period,” (Frank, 1995) and is one of his more famous books, rivaled only by The Brothers Karamazov. What makes Crime and Punishment such a classic? Perhaps because it is a picture of the only classic, and greatest story of all time. Crime and Punishment is an allegory of Salvation.
Self-justified
The main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, was a poor student at a university, and was overcome with hate toward an old pawnbroker, and decided to rid the world of her for the greater good of everyone. He believed that she was a “louse,” and since everyone would be happier without her, his actions would be justified. He believed that he had broken the letter of the law only, but that it didn’t have any authority over him anyway because it was written by people just as low as himself. He didn’t believe in God, and in prison he was convinced that he didn’t deserve his treatment, and that it was something he simply needed to get over with. He had no higher authority, so he said “my conscience is at rest.” This is a picture of man before he is touched by the merciful salvation of Christ.
A Troubled Man
Although Raskolnikov justified his actions in killing the old woman, he still felt an overwhelming sense of guilt and fear over what he did. He worked very hard at keeping it a secret, and at first he thought he could live with the guilt that sat in back of his mind, but he was wrong. Raskolnikov had horrible dreams, was always sick, and one of the other characters noticed that he was constantly “set off by little things” for no apparent reason (though the reader knew that it was only because it reminded him of his crime). This represents a man who knows in his heart that he is a sinner, but who will not turn and repent from his sin.
Unending Love
Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov was the daughter of a drunkard who “took the yellow card” and prostituted herself to support her family. Throughout the book, Sonya began to love Raskolnikov. Eventually, Raskolnikov told Sonya his secret. Sonya was horrified, but still loved him and forgave him after her initial shock wore off. As Raskolnikov was fighting inside with his conscience and his sins, he repeatedly snapped at her, refused her comfort, yelled at her, and so on. He was a bitter, angry, hateful man—and yet Sonya forgave him for everything he did to her, and everything he had done in his past. What redeeming quality Sonya saw in the wretch and why she forgave him, one cannot begin to comprehend; aside from the simple truth that Sonya was a loving, gentile, merciful girl. She saw that Raskolnikov needed someone to love him and she reached out to him, even when he repeatedly pushed her away. Sonya’s love for him is a picture of Christ’s unending and perfect love to His sinful people.
A Silent Witness
When Raskolnikov finally broke down and confessed his crime, Sonya moved to Siberia with him. Raskolnikov expected this, and knew that telling her not to come would be fruitless. She visited him often in prison and wrote to his family for him. But although Raskolnikov expected her to preach to him and push the Gospel in his face, she did not. Sonya followed the scripture’s instruction to Christian wives with non-Christian husbands in 1 Peter 3:1—“ Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” The verse tells women to be good examples of Christ to their non-Christian husbands rather than to preach to them and try to convert them, and that is exactly what Sonya did, even though she was not married to him. She did not try to convert him with words; rather she won him with her love. She did not push the Testament into Raskolnikov’s hands, he asked for it. When she did bring it, she did not pester him to read it. She had faith, and showed Raskolnikov the love of Christ through her actions. In the end, it paid off. Although Dostoevsky does not specifically say that Raskolnikov was converted, he does imply that he eventually became a Christian when he mused “Can not her own convictions now be mine?”
The truth will set you free
When Raskolnikov finally realized that he loved Sonya, he accepted that he was a criminal, and a murderer. When he finally accepted that he was a sinner, he repented and had a new life in him. He said he felt like “he had risen again” and that Sonya “lived only in his life.” By life, Dostoevsky refers to his mentality. Before, he had been a living dead man in prison. He was hated by his inmates, was almost killed by them in an outbreak, was unaffected by anything that happened to him or his family, and eventually became ill from it all. But after his resurrection, he repented from his sins, learned to move on with his life, and started to change. He began to converse with his inmates, and they no longer hated him. Sonya was alive in his “life” because of her love for him. When he was changed, she was so happy that she became sick with joy, to the point that she was ill in bed. Dostoevsky paints a picture of a redeemed man at the end of his novel—redeemed both by the law, and by God. This picture symbolizes the miracle of salvation through Christ.
An amazing Allegory
Dostoevsky was a wonderful writer because of his use of dialogue to tell the story, his descriptive scenes, his powerfully developed characters, and their inner dialogue. He often times told you that something was happening by only telling you what the character who was speaking at the time said in response to what was going on. For example, if Sonya was standing up, Dostoevsky would write “… ‘hey, what do you stand for?’ for Sonya had stood.”
He also painted such good descriptions of his characters, that by the middle of the book he didn’t have to say that Raskolnikov was musing in the corner of the room, glaring at anyone who was brave enough to look at him, while he stewed in grief under his old ratted cap, because you knew from how well he was described earlier and how well his character was developed from the dialogue, that he was doing exactly that.
His characters are so real, they almost frighten you because you see the things they do and feel and experience reflected in your own life. They are not perfect—in fact they are all incredibly flawed, but they are a joy to read.
His ending is superb, because he closes the story without actually telling you everything. He never says that Raskolnikov was converted, he never says when he got out of prison, and he never says that Sonya and he were married, but you know that it happened. The last scene of the story is so superb, it makes you want to read it again, just to experience the joy all over again.
But what really made Crime and Punishment the classic that it was is the picture of the best story in the world, the classic story of the world, showing through. The story of the Gospel, of Jesus Christ’s unending love and sin and salvation is clearly portrayed, and makes a joyous read.
Works cited:
Quotes are from Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1886
Frank, Joseph (1995). Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865–1871. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01587-2. (source found and taken from Wikipedia.com)
1 Peter 3:1 New International Version of The Holy Bible
Audio review: I had a hard time reading the book, simply because it was so huge that it was intimidating. I bought (ouch) the audio book of Crime and Punishment, recorded by Anthony Heald who did a fantastic job reading. His voices for the characters perfectly matched them, he felt for them, and he acted them. None of them were cheesy (yeah you all know how lame some male readers are at acting female voices). He read fast enough that the story didn't drag at all, but not so fast that you'd feel like you'd miss something if you didn't listen hard. I will definitely re-listen to the audio book.
Content: some gruesome descriptions of blood from the murder
Recommendation: Ages 14+
