Read Runners discussion

Our tastes are quirky and eclectic, the books we read are off beat. This suits us well yet often makes us yell! Join us as we take this wonderful journey into different parts of the world through books, both classic as well as contemporary.

No promises made about the number we shall read;
as this is but an attempt to make some yield;
to the world of buddy reads and discussions on books;
with the hope that we both shall be as enriched as crooks;
who on a wild afternoon decided to plunder;
all that is found in the world of books asunder!

Okay I guess I have spoken enough in lame verse - Please don't laugh! :P

Do read along with us, if the choice of books pleases you. Just a little request though to use spoiler tags so as not to spoil the reads for others, who might happen to peep in.


Here's to another new beginning with the hope that it might actually kick off! :D :D

Books completed

Current Reads

Upcoming Reads

- Starting TBD

- Starting TBD

Great sri :-) I'll wait for the classics list to be updated... you guys will post the books in advance?????

We will try Ini. As of now am just trying to get Mish comfy with the idea of a BR :P :P

So no spooking her with lists :P :P

Congratulations mumma :D Two buddies is a trend of mods I guess :P :P

All the best Misha :) Hope you survive with Reading Express :P

Srividya wrote: "We will try Ini. As of now am just trying to get Mish comfy with the idea of a BR :P :P

So no spooking her with lists :P :P"

okay sri... just poke me when u are getting started with classics.. :-)

Thanks Harry :) And no trend this..just an attempt to keep my promises :)

Ini - We will definitely let you know. We are starting with The Name of the Rose in December, in case you want to join in for that :)

Wow! Congratulations you two! :D

Sri, are you copying me? :P
If yes, I'm very obliged. ^_^

Thanks Jins :)

And nah not copying anyone... this was long due, ever since our successful BR with Smitha in NBTR. Once Smitha is available and okay with it, her name shall be added here as well. :)

the beginning of another great BR. :)
Congratulations, both of you. :)

Happy Reading. ^_^

Thanks Vins :)

Aah two buddies in one thread! Nice! Have fun you guys! :D

Congratulations buddy:):)

Will keep an eye on books, and if something catches my attention I'll do my best to join you guys here.:):)

Thanks Manu :)

Of course!! There are some books where I will drag you here to read!! :D :D

Mumma, aren't you a hungry wolf with so many buddies to gobble up? :D :D

Congrats both of you! :P :P

Congo Ladies :D

Another one of these? Congrats ladies :-D

Btw, where is Misha❓ :P

hey Sri, I'm now here :-P :-P

Thanks Polo, Ishi, DeeJ and Abhay :)

Hey Mish.. welcome aboard. As discussed - no pressure, as semi permanent as it gets :D :D :P :P

Shall we start with Crime and Punishment discussions first?

name of the rose sri?? was it an unending one for mish?? i ll try to join.:-) anything for classics..:-D

thanks guys, all of u are welcome to join our reads :)

Iniya wrote: "name of the rose sri?? was it an unending one for mish?? i ll try to join.:-) anything for classics..:-D"

baby, its the same one. thought of giving it another shot, probably the last one. if not this time, i'm never reading it :/ i see its in ur TBR, u can join us. Sri will be taking philosophy and theology classes :P:P

Srividya wrote: "Shall we start with Crime and Punishment discussions first?"

yes, Fyodor Dostoevsky first. initially reading the blurb i thought i'm heading in for a murder mystery with a classic touch. but once u start reading part 2, the book is philosophy, psychology it just stays in ur mind even long after u have read it. it portrays an expression of Raskolnikov's severe inner turmoil, its a journey through his psychological dread. i simply love classics & mysteries (the two being polar opposite genres), and this book was just the ideal one.

it was Raskolnikov & Porfiry Petrovich i liked the most. i really liked their psychological discussions. the other characters stood out as well, the mother & daughter, Razumihin, Svidrigailov, Sonya :):)

tell me, what did u like about it??

Hey Mish.. will definitely post my thoughts a little later. Just came online but am not sure if I will get the free time to post right now. Will post after lunch when Shrija is sleeping :)

Crime and Punishment -general overview

(view spoiler)[Dostoyevsky is a genius. There is no doubt about that and this book truly brings that out in such a wonderful manner. The pace and the flow of the book was truly brilliant. There never was a moment where you could sit still or relax while reading. It constantly kept you on the edge of your seat wondering what would happen next. There were times when I thought I knew and yet was surprised by the way it was handled.

True about classics and mysteries being two opposites and yet here they fit so beautifully. Makes me wonder why more authors of those times did not think of it.

Just imagine.. the book was published in a magazine in installments. I would have died of agony before the next one came out. It was that good!! Am glad I didn't read it at that time else would have killed the editor for sure like a crack addict for not getting the dose in time! Lol

Another wonderful part about this book was its characters - Each and every character, whether small or big had some role to play and each had a twist and turn about them. It was amazing to read into the insights of people who lived in those times, mentions about how the city was and how people lived, the squalor that they were living in, the truly pathetic conditions and yet despite all that the love they had for one another. Love that existed in Raskolnkov's family or even Sonya's for that matter. The friendship and love that existed between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin.. what wonderful insights you got into relationships and politics and societal standards of those times (hide spoiler)]

Part 1

(view spoiler)[I loved the way Raskolnikov plots or plans his murder. Till the very end of this part, you are left wondering whether he will do it or not. It is like you become Raskolnikov in this part and are lost to his world of internal chatter and ramblings. They show the beginnings of his insanity and Dostoyevsky has truly showcased his internal turmoil and pathetic social conditions beautifully in his part. At the end when he does commit the murder - I was left with a sigh of satisfaction at having seen the deed done and yet with a thrill that more is to follow this.

I hated that he had to murder Lizaveta, the sister, although I realised that it was an obvious one, given that she entered at the wrong time. What made it worse was that he never thought about her... not once throughout the book did he feel any remorse for his committing her murder. I can understand that old lady and his hatred for her etc but somehow felt sad that he never felt remorse for murdering Lizaveta. (hide spoiler)]

What do you think Mish?

Will post my thoughts on the other parts a little later. :)

Srividya wrote: "Part 1

I loved the way Raskolnikov plots or plans his murder. Till the very end of this part, you are left wondering whether he will do it or not. It is like you become Raskolnikov in this part an..."

(view spoiler)[ i hated the way this book started, u know it. It was extremely slow & nothing much was happening. I hated it until the crime happened. But yeah i agree that he was just setting a premise for the story. From the last chapter in this part, Dostoevsky had me in his spell. I was just relishing it. And yes, not once there was remorse. That was something i really liked about Raskolnikov. The way he goes on justify it in the latter parts was quite interesting.

Lizaveta, well nothing could be done about it (hide spoiler)]

Part 2

I'm not exactly sure about the parts

(view spoiler)[ okay it's from here that Raskolnikov is totally disoriented. He's in a delusion. He's often shown to be lost in dreams, even though he's awake. What do u think of this?? I mean, don't u think dreams play a very important role in actually truly portraying his mental state. (hide spoiler)]

Do u agree on that?? Or how exactly do u think dreams function in the novel??

Part 2

Good point Mish. (view spoiler)[I think dreams do showcase a very important part of the subconscious mind and our thoughts. In this case, I think it was his own guilt that he was revealing in those dreams. He has committed a heinous crime. he had his reasons for committing it, as we come to know later..but here it is more like him trying to come to terms with the fact that he actually went ahead with the deed and murdered the lady.

He is so overcome by guilt and yet does not feel an ounce of remorse here. Therefore his dreams, delusions and generally thoughts are about what he must do to ensure that no one finds out. The beauty of this part is, at least according to me, that Raskolnikov wants to be found. he wants to get over the trauma of the arrest at one level and at another he wants to see how far he can carry his charade.

I believe his mental state of this exact period is clearly explained later but here he is confused and lost. He doesn't even want to associate himself with that murder and yet every action of his actually gives him away. Some times I felt, especially after his discussion with the detective that he had planned the event much before he actually talked about planning it. For instance that paper of his was basically written with regard to this.

Also his current state of mind belies a certain inferiority complex or rather a state of mind where he wants to be great but knows that he can't achieve it. So he dreams of things that constantly remind him of pain and apathy. That dream of that horse being beaten was totally cruel and somehow I think he was either trying to redeem himself of his guilt or was looking at the beaten horse as his punishment in the future. whatever the case, I believe that dreams were the reflection of his thoughts, his guilt, his need to feel remorse and yet his inability to feel that and finally an overall aversion towards people who behaved kindly towards him.

His guilt makes him feel that he should not be receiving any kindness and yet Razumikhin is all kindness towards him and therefore I think he resents it more. After all throughout this time he has to wonder what will Razumikhin think if he found out the truth! (hide spoiler)]

Part 1

(view spoiler)[Yeah I know you didn't like this part but for me it read like a thriller. I got through this very easily, maybe because I could easily relate to his level or extent of indecisiveness. When you look back, you will see that this is the period where he begins his path towards the insanity that catches hold of him later. He has decided on a treacherous path and yet he cannot come to terms with it and yet on the other hand he knows that he has to do it. What confusion and what a wonderfully represented state of mind. I liked it for the way it was written. Lol (hide spoiler)]

Srividya wrote: "Part 2

The beauty of this part is, at least according to me, that Raskolnikov wants to be found. he wants to get over the trauma of the arrest at one level and at another he wants to see how far he can carry his charade"

(view spoiler)[ Yeah, this was an interesting part. I think as humans this is common amongst us, & Dostoevsky has captured the common man's mind in a very simple yet realistic manner. We ate able to relate to it easily.

And yes, about how Raskolnikov tried to justify his act, i was referring to his papers. Not that i don't agree it was a crime, but Raskolnikov for me was a character of such pure innocence. I mean at every part u would feel so sympathetic towards him, even when he tries to justify his crime, i thought yes, he's right. Nothing wrong in what he did.

Why do u think he never used his loot from that lady? Is it because he was guilty, or because he was scared of being caught?? (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[I think it was partly guilt and partly because he never intended to use it. I believe that the act of murder was not one that was done with the intent to rob but simply to prove himself to be among the greats like Napoleon. He wrote that paper and somehow believed that if he crossed that threshold, he would be above all law and its repercussions. However, when he actually committed the crime, he realised that it was not true. He did not have that disposition, which according to him was present in all the leaders of the world who have waged wars. Also he did not have the courage to face his crime. He was a sad person and I guess that is why you felt sorry for him throughout. You felt empathy for him while you felt scorn and hatred for Svidrigailov, whom we meet later. It is a really beautiful piece where you as a reader feel empathy towards a murderer and actually condone his crimes. In fact, that was my final feeling as I finished the book. In reality, we would never have felt such feelings for a person like Raskolnikov and yet here because of his expressed feelings of pure innocence as you rightly put it, you felt bad for him!

On the question of the loot, I doubt he was ever going to use it and therefore the question of getting caught does not really arise (hide spoiler)]

good morn :):)

Srividya wrote: "It is a really beautiful piece where you as a reader feel empathy towards a murderer and actually condone his crimes. In fact, that was my final feeling as I finished the book. In reality, we would never have felt such feelings for a person like Raskolnikov and yet here because of his expressed feelings of pure innocence as you rightly put it, you felt bad for him"

well said :):)

Sri, as i said i really don't remember what came in what parts. i'll just put forth some events that still plague my mind.

(view spoiler)[ What do u think attracts Raskolnikov to Sonya? what made him confess everything to her, ultimately making her the agent of his, as the blurb right puts, redemption ? (hide spoiler)]

Good morning Mish :)

Great question. One I had asked in the other group as well.

(view spoiler)[I had three different notions about this part. I believe that Raskolnikov felt a certain oneness with Sonya. Something like a feeling where he put the two of them on the same pedestal - they were both victims of their existence and society and had gone off to the farthest end, which is why he felt that of all the people in his life Sonya would understand his choice and stand by him.

I also believe that in his own way it was like talking about it to a saint, a third party, someone who had no connection with him and yet a moral connection (hope I am making myself clear) like a priest an therefore he could confess easily.

Also somewhere along the line I think Dostoyevsky wanted to lay the roots for a future relationship between them. It is obvious that he had some feelings for Sonya, even if they were not overt, right from the beginning. It wasn't love and I don't think it was love till the very end but a certain kind of kinship and closeness that made him want to confess everything to Sonya.

I also had my doubts about this part and some of what I have written is based on the doubts while some is based on some of the explanations given by people in the other group, which I found pretty plausible, given the whole situation.

Sonya had no one in her life to whom she could turn to and it was the same case with Raskolnikov. I guess they just came together like two boats at sea, sailing towards a same future destination.

I just loved this scene for its emotional quotient and its simplicity. I loved Sonya's character. She isn't someone who is simply weak or even an ordinary woman. It takes great courage to learn of something like this and to stand by the person, a somebody whom she doesn't know and truly doesn't have any obligation towards! (hide spoiler)]

Srividya wrote: "Good morning Mish :)

Great question. One I had asked in the other group as well.

I had three different notions about this part. I believe that Raskolnikov felt a certain oneness with Sonya. Some..."

(view spoiler)[ Hmmmm... Even i was thinking of the relationship angle. And whatever it is they had between them, it was portrayed very beautifully, well etched along with the story. Well, from a layman's POV, people just get attracted to certain people, there's no possible explanation for it. I just saw it that way. And i think the other reasons u said, can also possibly be due to this attraction. U feel an attraction, u feel the oneness, and then u feel like pouring your heart out to that person. Hmmmm... (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[I felt that it was too soon for any relationship to develop. I think it developed only after he poured his heart out to her. Initially there was no interaction or even any importance given to this relationship. But yeah I agree with you, the whole thing was beautifully written. (hide spoiler)]

Okay, This might sound silly... But (view spoiler)[ why didn't Raskolnikov read the story of Lazarus himself?? Why did he ask Sonya to read it out to him?? (hide spoiler)]

(view spoiler)[I think somewhere Raskolnikov had lost complete faith in God and his powers. he was for all practical purposes an atheist. Sonya on the other hand was a believer. I think he wanted her to read it because he wanted her to see the futility in that whole story. he was trying to make her look at the story like he did - as a story and not a miracle. Instead she stood steadfast in her belief and slowly converted him into partially believing. of course that conversion comes later but at this point he was taunting her with her beliefs.

On the other hand, I feel he wanted her to read it because he was trying to accept the fact that even sinners, no matter how big a sin they have committed, can come back and live a normal life full of happiness once they have accepted their sin and done penance or acceptance. Her reading it out is like an innocent reading it, despite her circumstances. I guess maybe deep down he wanted to believe and felt that hearing her say it would make him believe it. (hide spoiler)]

Srividya wrote: "I think somewhere Raskolnikov had lost complete faith in God and his powers. he was for all practical purposes an atheist. Sonya on the other hand was a believer. I think he wanted her to read it b..."

(view spoiler)[ Didn't get u there on the second one. U mean Lazarus Was a sinner?? I've little knowledge about him, except that he was resurrected by the Christ himself. (hide spoiler)]

I had the same problem as I had not studied the Bible. This is what one of the members had to say about it. (view spoiler)[So, the part of the reading in the Gospel of Lazarus....yes, it is forgiveness, a shedding of sorts and ultimately a renewal, Christ giving the command for him to come forth and then He told those present to unwrap Lazarus. The shedding of rotting grave clothes to me represents taking off the old, the sin and coming forth fresh, new and full of life, and yes, forgiveness. (hide spoiler)]

Srividya wrote: "I had the same problem as I had not studied the Bible. This is what one of the members had to say about it. [spoilers removed]"

hmm... plausible. now coming to Svidrigailov. (view spoiler)[ he's accused of several crimes, be it the murder of his wife, or there was a similar incident with another girl (don't remember exactly). even the servants do not hold high opinions about him. and towards the end of his character, even he seems to be on his path to redemption. he helps Sonya when she's in dire need of it, he goes all delusional & lost, finally kills himself. do you think Svidrigailov is shown to represent one aspect of Raskolnikov's character? and do you agree on the redemption part that i suggested & that's why he commits suicide?? if not, Why do you think Svidrigailov commits suicide? (hide spoiler)]

Svidrigailov (view spoiler)[He is one character that I hated throughout, even when he did all those good things for Sonya and her family. I guess you could say that he represents the worst part of Raskolnikov's character. I doubt Svidrigailov did anything to redeem himself or even get better. It is strange how people behave when insanity takes over their guilt and I believe that till the end he did not feel remorse but simply wanted to make himself look better in the eyes of someone.

I think his guilt drove him to suicide. It was as if he couldn't live with it anymore. Had Dunya accepted his proposal, am not so sure if he would have killed himself but perhaps would have gone onto creating more troubles for others.

Also I feel somewhere that Svidrigailov knew that he would not amount to anything. His life was aiming towards debtors prison or some other kind of prison. He was never one to work hard and make money but always found the easy route out. Even with his wife, he chose her not because he loved her or even respected her (although maybe he did respect her later) but because she was a path out of this place. I think at the end he felt that somehow his game was up and he had no other choice left to swindle or cheat but had to choose between prison or death and his cowardly nature made him choose death.

I believe in that. Redemption requires acceptance of fault or crime and neither Svidrigailov nor Raskolnikov (at least not till the very end) actually felt any remorse for their acts. With Raskolnikov at least you can say that he gave himself up, for whatever reasons it might be and he did feel guilt. Svidrigailov on the other hand, felt no such compunction to do any such thing, instead when he realised that his game was over, he chose to commit suicide. (hide spoiler)]

Okay Sri, i think that sums up things from my end. do u have anything more to add??

I think am done as well but just one last thing (view spoiler)[What do you think about the punishment that Raskolnikov gets at the end? Do you think it is justified or do you think that it is so reduced that he actually got away easy? (hide spoiler)]

Yayyy to our first discussion btw.. truly enjoyed it :)

PS - Not sure about you though! :P :P

Srividya wrote: "I think am done as well but just one last thing [spoilers removed]"

(view spoiler)[ as i already said, Dostoevsky painted a picture of pure innocence through Raskolnikov. he might never have been remorseful about his act, but down the line, through the book, he's shown to be completely delusional & lost in dreams. there's something that constantly disturbs him, something that keeps him wary, something that hits his conscience. i think towards the end when he's confessed to Sonya, he does feel guilt. at this juncture, at least for me, Raskolnikov came across as a beatific character. and for his crime, his punishment is justified. The circumstances he's around drove him to the crime, he's gulty & confesses. if Dostoevsky would have ended his character, that would have very disheartening. but the years of penal servitude he's sentenced to is justified. what with Sonya following him to Siberia, i think it is then that his redemption and moral regeneration begins... (hide spoiler)]

Srividya wrote: "Yayyy to our first discussion btw.. truly enjoyed it :)

PS - Not sure about you though! :P :P"

i feel sated :P :P

I completely agree with you on that last spoiler Mish. It does speak of hope and optimism :)