This is the final episode of our discussion of Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment (Oliver Ready's translation for Penguin Classics), in which we discuss the epilogue and have a more general discussion about the book.
For this first book club series, I'm joined by Antonia. We did our Masters degree in Brain and Mind Sciences together at UCL. Since then, Antonia has gotten a PhD in psychology and now works in scientific publishing.
Podcast links
Website: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcast
Ben's links
Website: www.bjks.page/
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets
-
[This is an automated transcript with many errors]
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: [00:00:00] So this is now the seventh, I believe, and final part of our discussion of Dusti Epstein's Crime and Punishment, uh, where we're gonna discuss the epilogue and I guess by doing so, the entire book and kind of what we made of it. Yeah, so usually I summarize more or less briefly the each chapter at the beginning, but I'm not gonna do that now because in terms of plot, there's really not that much that happened.
Basically, us Nikko is in prison in Siberia and yeah, that's, that's pretty much all that happens. You know, there's a bit more obviously on the family and the people who know him and that kind of stuff, but I think people who've just read the epilogue will remember roughly what happens. Yeah. I dunno. Do you have any.
Initial major point you wanna talk about or should we just, [00:01:00] I don't know. I have like that some smallish points almost in a way.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: I'm wondering, I'm almost disagreeing with you that nothing is, is happening in the,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: you can't disagree with me. That's not what this is for.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Um, because it is on some level nothing happens, but there's not a lot of action.
But I do still think there's a bit of a twist in a sense that for the first part of the, he still not no guilt, not nothing like no sign of bad conscious and et cetera. And then all of a sudden he realizes that he's in love with Sonya and that she's in love with him and that changes everything. So I think, pardon?
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Does it change everything?
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Well, I think for that, it is for me, the first time that is any sort of intense emotion, [00:02:00]
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: positive, intense emotion.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. It's
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: had lots of negative, intense emotions so far. Um, but I mean, it, it seemed to me like it ended like, almost, almost in a happy ending. But the happy ending was just, well, just a few years then I'll get out of here.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: No, but he is kind of like turning,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: he's got the gospels
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. Well to it. So for me, the way I understood it is by through loving her, he, um. Starts to some way to, to be a human being and has a, a bad conscious and, and wants to kind of like, you know, follow religion and deal word with what he's done.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I don't know.
I mean, I get, I, I get like the, the, the change in him that, you know, this, this woman he wants to spend time with, that he thinks he actually loves [00:03:00] her, which is, you know, that's nice. Um, if you wanna spend your life with someone and if she's moved to February for you, it's good that you finally realize that.
So I got that. But the, yeah, I mean like the, you know, the last paragraph is, but here a new story begins. The story of a man's gradual renewal and gradual rebirth feels gradual crossing from one board to another of his acquaintance with a new as yet unknown reality that could be a subject for another tale.
Our present one has ended, so he's hinting at it, but. Mean part, part of the question is like, how long is this gonna last? Yeah. I, I mean, I dunno,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: but I think that way it's ending. It seems like he's definitely changed because this, the last paragraph is, is sorry, of men's gradual renewal and gradual rebirth of his gradual crossing from one wall to another.
So I, I think, so for me, this is pretty much like even the [00:04:00] last two pages, like everything that's building up, like first committing the crime and then not.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: In a way, yes. Right. But like, so one thing that slightly makes me question this, it's almost, I mean, in a way I think it's almost too positive the ending given the entire book.
But, so that makes me slightly question exactly what's going on here. But one thing is here that's so, uh, so we're talking about the last page again. You know, he's, he's got the gospels on underneath his pillow and that it says like, he asked her for the gospels before he fell ill. And then also says he hasn't actually looked at the book.
Like if he asked for the book, he like, it's underneath his pillow, which probably just means it's with him. Right? You probably didn't have a large storage area in prison. But my point is just that he, he's basically just lying in bed and having like maybe a small epiphany. But it doesn't seem like there's much behind it to me.[00:05:00]
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Don't you think that sometimes things change on an implicit level or something we don't consciously think about? Um, the way, sure. So this is how I perceived him asking for the book and then not looking at it because he hasn't made a conscious decision. Oh, I'm now gonna believe in God. I see. But he had some sort of like, uh, just something within him made him ask for the book.
And then now he has the realization that this is the path he wants to go.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Maybe, I guess my point is, I guess the, the why I'm slightly questioning exactly how strong this is supposed to be is that, you know, when you're lying in bed, a lot of things can seem very important to you, and then the next morning you've forgotten all about it.
So, of course he did ask her for the book so that, you know, suggests that it's a bit more than just, you know, that flash of inspiration, you know, on Sunday evening when you think like, I'm gonna productive next week. I wonder whether it's more, [00:06:00] or that kind of thing. I guess it's, for him, it's almost, that's a, that's a major step, but,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: and I think, um, kind of see it differently in to the way using it, because I agree, yes, in reality and in our day-to-day life, it rarely ever happens that all of a sudden you have this epiphany and then life changes and you know, for the rest of your life, like exactly what you want to do, et cetera.
Um, but indeed, sometimes, sometimes some things appear very important. A situation and the next situation, they've lost their importance and things change constantly. And we might mean something on one day and then not mean it anymore on the end of the day. However, in the context of a book, it's, it's fiction.
And I think he doki, I assume, very much wanted to end this book showing a character that has completely changed. [00:07:00] And it's almost a bit like the way I see a bit of, um, a lesson to be taught that only through true love, through loving somebody can really feel guilt. And as soon as you, as long as you don't love, then you don't feel guilty or don't confront yourself with them.
Your
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. But don't you think it's too strong after the entire work? I mean, I guess he has been like in, in Siberia for. Half a year or year or something. Uh, it just seems a bit cheesy to me. I don't know, maybe I'm, I'm too cynical or something, but it, it seems a bit over the top. Then again, I guess everything is a bit over the top in a lot of rust literature I've read.
But I don't know, it's just too much of a reversal within like five pages.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But then, I don't know, what does it do to somebody who's in, in prison camp in Siberia? Maybe it, where did truly changes as a person, the way you think about your [00:08:00] actions?
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I guess? I don't know. I mean, here it would be interesting to know what exactly was the case with do himself.
I mean, I don't, you know, as I think I've said before, like I don't really like taking a, an author's biography into a book. I think it's
Antonia Eisenkoeck: mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, if the book can't done by itself, then it's not really a good book. But in this case where we maybe have. Differences of interpretation. Now we don't, it's not that we obviously need to find common answer here, but I mean, it says, I mean, I think Epstein was in a working prison camp in Siberia.
I think in the notes it says that he was the same class actually as Oscar Nikko.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I think it says in the notes, I can't remember. So I wonder whether maybe he did himself go through that process, Paul there, but I don't know why he was in prison. Whether it was, yeah, I mean, I'm pretty sure he didn't murder anyone, but, uh, yeah, that maybe, maybe if we are to look up what, what he did in [00:09:00] prison, then maybe that would answer it a bit, but Yeah.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But what would it, would it, because I do understand, it's not like, it doesn't appear to me like it's necessarily taken out of real life and it is a bit exaggerated and maybe a bit cheesy, but I'm wondering because you did want to have some sort of conclusion, I assume, and shows some like lesson or learning.
Some kind. So I wonder how else he, he could have approached it. I mean, I guess he could have, like, he could have started the whole with, because at some point there needs to be the turning point. Um, but he could have added another, another chapter.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, so
Antonia Eisenkoeck: explain in more detail.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: What I find tricky about the epilogue is that it seems to me like you have this guy who's just a complete mess for 600 pages and then this epilogue.
So this is one thing that I wrote down that really [00:10:00] annoyed me is that. You know, they talk about his trial and why he was given a fairly lenient trial for double homicide of only eight years in working camp. And one of the, some of the mitigating factors were that apparently, it turns out he was actually a saint before uh, all this stuff went down.
Um, but if you give me a second, I'll find the page. So this is page 641. And following quite unexpectedly, other circumstances also emerged that greatly favored the defendant. The former student Haskin managed to exum some information, enabling him to prove that the criminal was knik off. Or the criminal konik.
During his time at University spent, all he had on helping a poor Consumptive fellow student and supported him over was singlehandedly for half a year. When his friend died, Konik Koff took care of his old invalid father, who his friend had supported and fed by his own labor ever since. Early teens eventually placed the Oldman Hospital, and when he died, two Avens burial.
Meanwhile, the widow [00:11:00] son, ENA Nikkos, former landlady and the mother of Face set fiance, testified that when they were still living at the previous address at the Five Corners, Nikko had pulled two small children out of a burning apartment at night, and was himself burnt in the process. Fact was thorough, an investigation and yeah, blah, blah, blah.
So what I find, by the way, first, can we just highlight the fact that it's important that he pulled two burning children out of a building? At night, can we just high the fact that the at night is added there, like if it was during the daytime, no one would care just yet. Like it was dark that that's how, how, you know, how good this guy is anyway.
Um, but it, what I don't like is that you have this guy who basically behaves terribly, let's just say with seemingly no moral conscience or moral compass for pretty much all of the book, apart from maybe his, I guess it's a fairly major subplot, the whole idea with mom, lot of, [00:12:00] and then with Sonya and giving her the money, that kinda stuff.
But apart from that, he's just a horrible person throughout the entire book. It says even, I mean, even in the epilogue it says that even their prison inmates hate him. Just no one likes him. He just seems to be a terrible person. And then suddenly the epilogue is like, oh yeah, by the way, he's this saintly figure though, who does all this helping for other people.
And then suddenly he has this transformation. It's, I just don't buy it. I dunno, maybe I just don't like the way it's written rather than, maybe you're right that that's what Dossi tried to do and I just don't like the way Dos Epstein's doing it, but it just seems a bit fake to me.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, fake. Or maybe he truly is almost, it was like the whole book is an episode of some split personality manic phase.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That's kind of what the epilogue is saying, right?
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
There's
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: this whole discussion about his temp temporary insanity, um, and that maybe that's what was going on and maybe this [00:13:00] whole book is kind of to show that. You know, everyone has bad episodes, murders to women, and then goes back to being a saint again.
But
I don't know, like you, if you wanna show someone, I mean, I guess what does it says, like he doesn't wanna show the transformation, right? It's just hinting at it, basically. That's what he's trying to do. He says this whole changing of someone is a different book. They're not gonna do that to you. That's the last paragraph, right?
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But, uh, it seems a bit over the top. I dunno, show be like, like just show him seeing, like, being an average person at first. Like, you don't have to go from like double homicide being horrible to everyone, to a saint. Just throw him like being normal.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But he's not a saint. He just, he, he,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: okay, maybe not a saint, but
Antonia Eisenkoeck: you know what I mean.
He, he feels guilty and that makes him an average person, or he confesses and he,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: he was bullied by his girlfriend to confess. [00:14:00]
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Really mad.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: She
Antonia Eisenkoeck: was just
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: harassing him.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But I think he is an, uh, a normal person and obviously, you know, sometimes when we do something we regret, we want to be good for the rest of our lives.
So, and it is like this split moment after regretting something once when you regret something that you maybe are on, take some sort of extreme stance towards ethics or morality and you already truly believe that never, ever anything like this is gonna happen to you again. So maybe there is a bit of this bit of like a, a super ethical and highly moral approach he wants to take.
But, but I think what it is normal to feel like this, it is normal after having done something so horrible that you would regret it and would want. To [00:15:00] change your life for the better and never do anything like this again.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. The problem I have is that even in the epilogue, there's still this discussion that he feels no guilt about the entire thing.
That his only shame, wait, I wrote this down. The one quote is on 651, that was the only crime he acknowledged that he hadn't coped and had turned himself in. That's, that's literally pages.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But then, then it changes. No, I, I completely agree with you. For the beginning of the epilepsy, he doesn't, doesn't feel guilty at all.
But then it really changes in the last two pages or so.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. But that, I guess my point is just that that's too rapid of a change, or let's put it this way, it's too, for it to be a lasting change. I mean, yeah, I, I get that. Maybe you don't wanna end the book as bleakly as everything else has been in this book, but.
I think like if you most, I think at least in my experience, epiphany is [00:16:00] ready actually to anything. It's, it's a long, gradual, slow process. Maybe this is just the first one.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Sure. But, but then we, we, I think this is pretty much the, the argument you made at the beginning, and I do agree with you. This is not a, a real life example.
It's rarely ever happens like this. You have an epiphany and then it's like life changed forever. But I still also don't think that Doki aim was to tell a story taken up from life, as in like, I don't think that this was main point of view.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Of course. I mean, of course the point is not to just, you know, replicate reality, but it's supposed to have some sort of reasonable relationship to it.
And I feel like that is the aim, right? I mean, I dunno. Yeah. I mean, I agree. Like maybe this is just of the first. The first realization that maybe he did something wrong, which so far he hadn't really had, you know, even when he handed himself in, it [00:17:00] was more just because he left and then Sonya was standing there and he went, ah, shit.
You know? But it seemed to me more like almost not, not being forced towards it, but uh, how should I say, strongly encouraged. And this is maybe just the first step in his evolution to being not a terrible person. I just felt it, like, I just felt a bit strong to me. Maybe that's just all the what I'm saying,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: but it is a lot long way ahead of him.
Right. And I think this is like just for,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, I mean,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: like the, the, the, the seven years, the seven remaining years are a bit symbolic in that sense that it's not only about him having to be in prison and then only after seven years he can get married, but it's more like he has. Seven years now to process everything he's done and work through everything, work on himself and, [00:18:00] and pay the price in some way.
So I feel like this is just not part of the book.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I guess I was just arguing against the idea whether you said it or not, that suddenly everything's good again now and, well, I guess maybe all you said was that like a lot of, a lot happened in that he had this epiphany. I guess that's what you said and he did have that.
Maybe I just, I dunno, it's the first step for him. Um, I don't know. I dunno whether anyone, I'm sure someone must have written a sequel to this Crime and Punishment two. Uh, what would the subtitle be? Uh,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: well it's more punishment than it is. Hopefully not another crime. Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Crime. Crime and Punishment two.
This time there's no crime. Yeah, I know. I dunno whether Dostoevsky actually wrote, you know, not literally the second part of this book, A continuation. I dunno whether he literally, but like figuratively wrote a kind of redemptive [00:19:00] story after that. Dunno. Anyway, I mean, it, it is nice to see that he's had some sort of positive thought about someone.
That's good.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, but yeah. Is that gonna carry you through seven years of being in prison? Everyone hates you. We'll see, I dunno, even Sonya, I mean, she, I feel like even her supposed love for him seems a bit weird, but number one, they don't know each other. Number two is she only, she's just following her around.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But, but, uh, do you remember like, one point you raised, I think in our last discussion was that she could be or symbolize his moral compass and if you think about her more as an abstract. Rather than a his lover or might the other person or, yeah, rather than like a, a person with a maybe. Obviously the deral compass you whenever, wherever you go it kind of like follows you, is your um, [00:20:00] um, conscious.
It's like can't really es escape it. And if you decide to work with it, you actually far best off. And if you realize how important it's for you or it is part of you really.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I'm just, sorry, I'm just trying to figure out then. If that is, if she's to use understood more metaphorically, then literally why do all the other prisoners love her?
Is that just a, you know, there's this like passage where all the other prisoners just think she's awesome. Is that because it, I mean, this really sounds like a, a, a, a book in favor of prison reform. It's almost sounds like an advertisement for prisons then that, you know, as soon as you go into prison, people start loving the inner moral compass.
Um, even if it's someone else's, I don't know. This doesn't make sense, but, um,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah, I mean, she's prob she's, she has something godly, you know, so she is, maybe she can also be seen [00:21:00] in like a more, a religious con, not a religious context, but she has something about, about her, which is godly. She's like the, such a pure soul that doesn't really exist in real life.
She is only good and selfless and. Yeah. And understanding and only wants, wants the best of every everybody. And which is, makes, makes it almost like, just like Mother Teresa kind of figure
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: in a way. Yes. But like, the one problem I have with describing her in this way is that she's also just like, she has no skill or anything.
Like if you are this kind of saintly person, it seems like you should have some sort of, like, she's just there. Like,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: but why? But isn't this like, isn't there like, um, a part in the Bible where there's a prostitute and [00:22:00] then, and they're kind of like the outcast and then Jesus eats. With her, isn't it Maria Magdalena?
I, I might be completely wrong here.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I don't know. I haven't,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: so if, if I'm wrong, we have to look it up and if so, you have to take it out. But I think I,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I dunno, I only went to Catholic school for nine years. I dunno what happens in the Bible.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Um, okay, so if I'm not wrong, there's this pattern in the Bible word Jesus kind of like shows that only because you are, you know, lowest of the lowest in terms of our society, it can still be a pure soul.
And he decides not to eat with the riches. But
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, I mean, isn't. Your inner courage or whatever's supposed to be something more, or you are inner moral compass or whatever she's supposed to signify, isn't it supposed to be something a bit more than just simply being there after you kill people? I dunno, to me she's just like, she's just a complete victim.
And [00:23:00] to me, even her following him around doesn't seem like a choice or anything. She's just, he basically says, I wanna spend my life with you after he's just in that chapter way, he's just really rude to her the entire time. I mean, she, she almost has like a minor case of Stockholm syndrome where someone just is really abusive to her and so she just follows him around.
You know? It's like, to me that's not exactly a,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah. But again, I think like, um, the way we are reading this is so different because I completely agree on like, if you just look at the facts and like, this is like the. Was depiction of like a female character. You know, she's like obviously very, has, has no power.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: The only value she has is through her sex.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Pardon?
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: The only value she has is through her sex, either
Antonia Eisenkoeck: by Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Giving money to her siblings or by being with ov.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, pretty much. But is it from that perspective, obviously, like this is not, she is, um, a weak character and, and not Yeah, pretty much everything.
You [00:24:00] don't want to the female gender to be associated to, but again, I don't really take her, literally, I see it more as a mess of her. At least since you mentioned it. I see here like this,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: damnit I built up my own argument here, but I I know what you mean. It's just somehow, I feel like if I'd been, if I'd been a Russian novelist in the 19th century with a hindsight of not being a novelist in the 19th century, but living in the 21st century, I feel like I would've written her some sort of stronger qualities.
Like something that doesn't just seem like she's following. I don't know. Maybe the, the following him is, that's the whole point. If she's, you know,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: I think, I think that's the whole point because the, yeah, she's always there. This is, this is a, a skill. Right. No matter what happens, he even confesses to having killed her good [00:25:00] friend and she's always, then she's not leaving him where other people would've left him.
Um, yeah. Other people would've left him way. Earlier. So she's her strong qu quality is, is being there and sticking.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I dunno, maybe that's enough with a moral compass, you just have to have one. If it's always there, you pay attention to it then. Yeah. I mean, I think one problem I also have is that I don't really like talking about books when pe, when people are metaphors for stuff.
I like, like having books that are where people do stuff. That seems, I mean, everything that the people do in this book seems reasonable. Right? It's not necessarily particularly likely in some cases, but, mm-hmm. Um, yeah, I'm, I think in general I'm not, I'm just not a fan of people standing for concepts or something.
Like let people make interesting choices that reveal who they are and that kind of stuff, rather than, we have to figure out now whether [00:26:00] Sonya Yeah. What she is, you know? Um, yeah. I, no, I don't really have anything to add to that anymore. I dunno.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. Okay. No, that's, that it, shall we move on to discussing the per book in general?
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. So I think one thing that we predicted correctly is that was me and Dunya. It's gonna consist ended up together.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So well done us for predicting that, which was totally not obvious. Um,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: the mother died, which it didn't predict.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. And I didn't, also didn't expect that she was gonna be quite as much in kind of semi denial, I dunno exactly what was, how to call it.
But I,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: I think denial describes you quite accurately,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I guess with denial. You know it, but pretend you don't. But,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: but never but she, yeah, but I think self, like she landed self denial. [00:27:00] Because it was, it became, became apparent before she died and she was kind of like half hallucinating and, and talking. It became apparent how much she actually had, um, guessed or I don't know,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: or maybe someone had told her or something.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, to be fair, I didn't find that part too interesting.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I dunno whether you have anything to add there, but to me or Yeah. I feel like we should maybe mention it for a second, but I don't really have anything to
Antonia Eisenkoeck: No
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: add there. Okay. Um, shall we, I have a few things, but is there anything that you want to talk about in particular and about big topics about the book or
Antonia Eisenkoeck: No, you fire ahead.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Here we go. Um, maybe as a kind of rounding, slightly random starting point, shall we talk about Oscar Nikkos Dream before you had the epiphany? Because at first it sounded like he was describing COVID [00:28:00] pandemic. Um, what he said in a sickness he'd imagined the entire world condemned to some terrible unheard of pestilent advancing on Europe from deepest Asia.
Pretty good there. Everyone was to die. Apart from the very few had been chosen, uh, new Chick near had appeared microscopic beings that were entering human bodies. The reason I'm mentioning this is because then that leads to basically a kind of form of what gon has been thinking of the entire time, namely some people being superior to others, inherently some chosen people, which I think if you've ever, you know, opened a history book, you can see where that leads to in the extreme.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And Ru Nikko definitely has quite a lot of beliefs, at least until the last few pages. Maybe they changed then, but until then he has like a lot of beliefs around that. There are some people who has appeared and others, and that he's one of them. So, yeah, it's kind of interesting like hearing about these things like when it's written like in the middle of the 19th century and then you see kind of what happens afterwards when [00:29:00] people just really, yeah.
Embrace that kind of thing. I mean, I guess it's not really new, right? Like it's just a form of racism.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: It just reappears throughout history. Right. And I think also the current, it's at the moment is very, um, yeah, current topic with Black Lives Matter, et cetera. So it takes different shapes and form, but it's
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: more explicit here and that kind of stuff.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, that's true.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Like very, like you have to be very racist now to say that there are some people who are just in general superior to others and that kind of thing. Like that's a pretty strong stance now. It seemed to me like then it wasn't necessarily as much of a statement.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, but I mean, it's not so long ago that if you look at South Africa and apartheid was still a thing, it's, I think you can also come back or it has come back.
And I think my, my point here that maybe right now in our [00:30:00] society, we're not allowed to say certain things because they're not politically correct. But
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I tell on this podcast, you can say whatever you believe.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: No, but I think there is, you know, like there are big groups of people who think of themselves as superior.
I'm not pretending I'm an expert on this neither. I mean, like, I
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: see like three videos on red. That's basically everything.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But it is, you know, like group thinking I view it is like ingroup out group and, and we are genuinely, I think, um, just more drawn to our own group and think of it in more positive light than the group.
And if, if, if, if this is where you stop or this where it stops then and you don't reflect any further, then maybe it can lead you to genuinely believing that your group is better than [00:31:00] another group.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, one thing that just occurred to me, and maybe I should read this passage a bit more carefully again.
The interesting thing is actually, in a way, I mean, it is racism in a sense that it says, like in the whole world, there were only few survivors. These were the pure and the chosen those destined to begin a new race of people and new life, right? So that's like very explicitly it's about a race of people and that kinda stuff, but, uh, it doesn't seem like it's actually linked to anything in particular.
You know, it doesn't say like, you know, um, this, this disease washed out or killed like everyone in Africa and everyone in Asia and kept only the supreme Russians, whatever, you know? Mm-hmm. It is actually, it does, like when you actually, I think it does actually suggest that the Supreme race could be actually made up of anyone.
Mm-hmm. Um, and right now I'm wondering whether that's, I can't remember exactly where the stream leads, but it leads pretty quickly to the end of the book. So I'm wondering whether [00:32:00] that's the people who've received the word of God is, is that the chosen ones? Just anyone who believes in the Bible. I'm entirely sure.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: I don't know, but because I, it still don't, I wouldn't think so, because for me it's like the opposite, right? It's like his delusion thinking that there are some superior chosen ones who can do anything they wish to achieve their goals. But then what the Bible says is exactly the opposite, which is no, you are all the same, you are all little sheep, and if you matter somebody, you, that's, that's, that's a sin.
And you can't just do whatever you want to do. So for me, it's,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, unless you like go to hell. Right? Unless you're like, not a Christian, I'm not clear
Antonia Eisenkoeck: on all the details, but, but, but, but the idea of the chosen ones would be that they don't have to go to hell. Right. If there's like the superior group of people, they can do whatever they want.
They don't have to go to hell, I
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: guess. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But then the [00:33:00] Bible says, no, no, no. That's not how it works.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: You have to choose the Bible. Then you're, yeah, yeah. No. Okay. Maybe that's, it just occurred to me that that happens, you know? That's one of the last things that happens before he has this dramatic reversal.
Um, wait, actually, lemme just, yeah. I mean, after that it pretty much immediately goes into Sonya sees him a lot, and so I just, I, I find it really hard not to read things. Literally, there's this thing where it says once towards evening when he'd almost completely recovered, I, Scott got fell asleep waking up.
He happened to go to the window and suddenly caught sort of Sonya in the distance by the hospital gates. She was standing there as though she was waiting for something. I'm just imagining, I'm just standing there all day, just like as at hospital gate, just staring into the distance for like, days on end.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But I think she almost like she believes in him. She knows maybe she and know it's not literal, but
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I just find it funnier to imagine it's literal.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, but [00:34:00] it's because he probably doesn't even know himself where he's going and he already wanted to kill himself even. But she sees the work in his life and she knows that he's gonna, at some point, she, um, he's gonna turn around and he's gonna see it more clearly.
So in some ways she already knows what he doesn't know yet. No,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I dunno. It's really hard. I mean, like, this is, maybe this is maybe the larger discussion we can have. Well, I guess we already had a bit, but we can return to it. But is the idea of what kind of personal clinic off is? To put it very bluntly. So basically for most of the book, he's a horrible person. I think that's pretty,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Uncontroversial. But he also is, he does seem like he's in some sort of frenzy for most of the time.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And you know, like what I've. I find it [00:35:00] really hard because like part of me just thinks, okay, here's a guy who thinks for whatever reason he's better than everyone else.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, and thinks he can do whatever he wants.
And his only goal in life is to, you know, knock it. I not only goal in life, but like, you know, that's just basically what he does and he acts accordingly and, um, it's just full of himself for no reason. But then again, as much as I don't like the way this is written, there are these parts where he's nice to people.
You also have to wa wonder why Rakin was so adamant to help Konik off, because like in the past that we read, there's no reason why Zakin would really help him, right? Like he's just, m Nikko goes up to Zaki, not because they're good friends, but because maybe Zakin can give him a job and some money.
That's the only reason Nikko goes there, right? Then he behaves really weirdly and leaves again after five minutes. And then suddenly as akin. Just helps him for, you know, weeks or [00:36:00] whatever. Um, and then, you know, when he is. It just gets completely invested in, and it does make me wonder whether maybe a Nikko actually used to be a decent person, you know, before.
Mm-hmm. Um, whatever change happened, then there's a story with his fiance dying, whether that was maybe a bit of a turning point for him and you find it difficult to deal with that, and that maybe before that he was actually a decent person. I don't know.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Could be. Especially because it would kind of like close the circle because Assumingly, he very loved, loved her very much, his fiance, and then she died and things went downhill and the only way out of him, out of this frenzy.
But a moment he realized he, he is able to step out of it is when he falls in love again. Which would kind of nicely close the circle and maybe suggest that you can only, only through loving can be a.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Well, there's three things, right? Love God, and [00:37:00] hard prison labor. Those are the three things that make you a better person.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah, pretty much.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I should try. Prison labor sounds easier than the other two.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Um,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, but it is weird because, I mean, actually when I, so I wrote, I, I read the epilogue and then kind of thought about the book and I hadn't really paid too much attention to the last two, three pages it seems, because I kind of forgot about most of that.
Mm-hmm. And then I kind of wrote down like what I thought the book was about and then I wrote down, uh, to me it's a book about a guy struggling to realize that maybe he's not all that special. And that's kind of before I really thought about this reversal and maybe thinking too much about whether he was maybe a good person before or not.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Um, I think it's almost, I assume that he actually did it on purpose, that throughout the book he had very little cues hinting to konik of having been a better person. Like couple of things that are being mentioned. But in general, you get the impression he's just like, uh, a [00:38:00] completely idiot, bluntly. But then in the end when we, like, maybe, maybe we would've read the book very differently if we would've known that he used to be a quotation mark.
Good person. And I almost think that it's on, on purpose, that you only realize in the end that maybe, you know, he's not only purely bad, but has lost the path.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, I think that's a possibility. And I mean, there's a few things, right? So the first thing is this is, well, this is a weird combination of very plot driven and then people just talking for hours on end.
But the. The first part I think, is very much fairly plot driven in the sense that it's just about the, the day pre or the day or two days or whatever during which she commits the murder. And so you'd also don't wanna like slow down the plot, right? By continually saying like, oh, these are all these good things he did.
So in part it's a kind of structural thing I almost think to kind of mm-hmm. Yeah. Like, [00:39:00] you know, you don't wanna have a book where like the first 40 pages is just explaining the situation, what happened to everyone, you know, it's just boring. But I agree. I think it is also like intentional to, to, I don't know, maybe shine light on why people do terrible things.
And that to some extent, oh, here we go, metaphorical again, that to some, uh, sense, maybe konik of himself forgot about how good of a person he is, um, but in literal kind of way, right? That he didn't actually. He was so stuck in the situation. He wasn't actually thinking about all the other things he was, he had been doing before.
And that may be only, oh God, this is really coming full circle. And that only in prison, uh, when he got the time to think about it, that he actually realized, oh, yeah, I kind of did do those good things. Or in the court process, I guess that happened. Hmm. Um, yeah, I mean, I guess like, as I said, like there are some positive things he does in the book, um, that when he, you know, tries to help this ma [00:40:00] guy
Antonia Eisenkoeck: mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Who he has no, I mean, sure he saw the, the poverty they were in and the, all that kind of stuff. And I mean that's, you know, he, he seemed to have some sort of sympathy for them. Right.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Plus, yeah, sometimes he almost surprisingly, did very good deeds and, and which he couldn't really be explained in the context of his actions as, for example, the maad and giving, giving the window.
Giving all the money to the widow, et cetera, trying to help them like this came out of the blue. However, would we have known that he used to be a somewhat caring and good person wouldn't have been so surprising.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Then it would've just been one of a few things. I mean, maybe he's just, how should we say, emotionally, but extreme, he tends to go from one extreme to the other, and that in the book is presented basically as if it's, he's only at one extreme all the time.
Even though this [00:41:00] was just a phase, um, he did still kill two people. He, let's not downplay this. Yeah. Um, I find it difficult to think about like what exactly we are to make of his argument. Uh, this essay he wrote or this. Piece he wrote about some people should be allowed to do it, whether that's, you know, for example, does that, it seems to have fallen, I guess, more into his more sane phase, right?
Because it seems like he actually wrote a human argument, which he, I don't think could have done in, you know, the time that the book was written and that kind of mental state. So he seems to have been fairly stable, yet the way we've just been discussing it seems almost like that whole thing of following through with it is part of his insanity.
Um,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah. Um, I, I think it's still a valid moral [00:42:00] question. Whether under some circumstances, some people should be allowed to do things that in a different context would be completely unethical.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: We do kind of have that in some parts of society. I mean, I had one, one innovative in my podcast with, I mean, we barely talked about it in that podcast, but it was someone who discussed morality in the context of war.
And, you know, you can kill people if two countries out war. You're not gonna go to prison for that, right? Like if you, uh, you have different rules there. So, you know, we do have, I mean, this is not for certain people per se, it's more in a different context. People are to do things. But we do have these kind of things where.
It's not that the same ideals always apply necessarily. Um,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah, yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Equally in all context.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Completely agree. And I think also another example would be revolutionaries who pre a country from a dictator, for example. I think this is an [00:43:00] example we discussed the very beginning of this book discussion series, that in some circumstances you might have a higher goal, and maybe let's use the example of the revolutionary who might like in the process, maybe people get killed.
But maybe the end goal is so beneficial to so many people and save so many lives that it's almost, it, it seems that they should be allowed to do something like this. However, if you only look at each action out of context, for example, a murder, yeah, then, then it's obviously something that you shouldn't be allowed to.
So I think it's, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is a valid moral question and I don't think there's a straightforward answer because simply ruling it out that nobody should ever, in whatever situation, ever be allowed to do something that's [00:44:00] normally seen as unethical. Um, and I think it's too easy.
It is a bit more of a layered.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Question. Yeah, I mean, I think we, what we can say though is that in Nikkos case, it was not justified. I mean, there's this question of do the means justify the ends? And you know, that's the weird thing. In Nikkos case, he didn't really have any ends per se. You know, he never took the money, he never looked into what it was.
So in his case, that's kind of what I was saying for most of this, not today, but like in previous episodes for most of the discussion, he didn't really do it to justify it. I think he kinda just wanted to kill the woman because he was angry at her, whatever. So, you know, even though the general discussion and the general philosophical point or moral point he's, he wrote about, and that the book addresses in some parts might be, I can't remember how my sentence started, even though that might be a valid point.[00:45:00]
I think it's also very obvious that US only of. Killed someone. Not for the kick of it. He obviously didn't enjoy doing it, but, uh, or yeah, he, he didn't really, it never seemed like there was really a properly clear goal and end goal. Mm-hmm. I mean, you could of course maybe say that he did have this goal, you know, he did want to have the money so his sister didn't have to bring it to him.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But it's not, and that, no, that just briefly and that, um, once he killed the person, he kind of felt guilty about taking the money, that kind of thing.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Uh, maybe, you know, maybe that's also something, but I mean, yeah, as we've discussed also like just because your sister's marrying someone doesn't mean you have to kill or ladies to make money.
And if you wanna make money, that's probably not the most lucrative way to do it, either even, I dunno, anything about ninth century Russia, pretty sure there are more richer people or whatever. Yeah. So maybe a more, yeah, a good more point, but not. Uh, in, in [00:46:00] this instance.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: But then I think, isn't that kind of like part of the question?
Because if you, if you would assume that it is under some circumstances for some people or right to do things that normally are not considered to be ethical, how do you know? Because you might be such as Nik of really believe that you're justified to do something and you truly believe it. But how, how do you know?
Because you might just having be having a manic phase or you might be completely misjudging the situation or, so I think this is just like the, the question leading on if you say yes, okay. Some people under some circumstances can do such things. Who is the judge who says, okay, now you are allowed to do you, you're allowed to kill somebody
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: other than God
Antonia Eisenkoeck: and thank God.
Yeah. Um,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. And I think that's why. I mean, there's different things, [00:47:00] right? So there's a, I think there's a difference here between action or outcomes that are reversible on those that are not. So if I steal some money from, so, you know, I could just try to steal money from the lady. Let's say, maybe it would've been difficult if this incident, but let's say you could have stolen money in general.
That's the kind of thing where it can lead to suffering. But you can also return the money. You know, you can kind of, for example, if he, his conscience suddenly started kicking in, he could have just, um, you know, deposited the money in an overnight or whatever, but he hit the old lady three times with an ax on the head.
So that's something that you can't really reverse. So I think like, for, I dunno guess,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: but what are you saying? Are you saying for actions that are reversible, you should feel entitled to because there's not really the answer No.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: What I mean is the, the, the certainty. That you should have, should be almost infinitely higher for irreversible actions than for reversible [00:48:00] actions.
If you think, if what you need to do to get to something that you think is good for society or whatever, if that can be changed very easily, then the stakes aren't quite as high as if, uh, it can't be changed. Okay. So what I mean is just like in those two situations, it kind of, it slightly changes the level or the amount of certainty you probably need, or you should, you probably feel yourself.
Um, you should,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah. But then I think the problem with being on a manic face is that you probably, it seemed, or to him it seemed like the only option because he didn't consider, he didn't go through several options really. He didn't have a plan B of any sort of think it through. It very much seemed like, okay, this is your only option.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, this is, I think, uh, you mentioned entitlement earlier. I think this is. I think he, he felt entitled to be allowed to do the action because it's not so much, I think that maybe [00:49:00]he thought he could do this, uh, in this circumstance, but rather that the person he was should be allowed to do this kind of thing.
I think there's a slight, do you see the slight difference? I mean, like, there's a, yeah. There's a difference between thinking this is the only way I can do it and I can, and therefore I have to do it. And thinking I'm the kind of person who should be allowed to get away with. And it seems to me that maybe he was more the latter than the former, because yet as we said, like there's so many ways, uh, I mean, to be fair, like if you're desperate, it can see that there's no way out.
Sure. Um, and he was definitely desperate. But there's so many ways that this could have been resolved without killing anyone.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, but I don't know, I don't know who has to, who has, who can decide over who's allowed to do what. I mean, I guess ultimately we have a law for that, right? That's, we have, uh, kind of two ways of doing that, right?
The one is the legal system and the other is the kind of interpersonal moral system where even if something's legal people might, uh, ostracize you [00:50:00] for doing something.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, and then at the final instance, of course we've got God again.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah, but I don't think it's like, it is also not a question that can be easily answered because it is context specifics, but person specific.
And probably also, you know, there is no, let's say there's some evil dictator, you might feel entitled to kill that person, but that dictator could also be a caring father. And you also killed a caring father. So, you know, like whatever level you look at, there are probably different answers. So, whereas most people might agree that, uh, justified, secured evil dictator, maybe not most people, but a lot of people would agree or would, um, would think that's, that's justified.
A lot of people would disagree that it's justified secure, a caring father. Um, [00:51:00] I think, yeah. So did,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: and I guess like what, in this book, it's a slightly clearer case, right? Where when the old, the, the lady that was being killed, no one liked her, right? She, at least in Oscar Knik off's perception and in the vague gossip he heard, well, he wasn't a pub once.
It's, it's not like she is a loving mother, right? As far as we
Antonia Eisenkoeck: can tell. Yeah. However, and here comes the next metaphor with, he can't kill only her, but he kills her good counterpart to sister. Oh no, there we go. Basically, the kids that he can, can't only kill the evil side of a person, but
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: you always cook it's yang.
The good is always not in, no, not in the bad. That's maybe slightly different, but yeah. Then again, the good here again, symbolized by someone who's just. Completely moron, bold accounts. I mean, that's how she's described, right? Like as someone who's just incapable of anything, who has like what I mean like, like Sonya, almost a person who's just bit [00:52:00] passive.
Yeah, yeah. Passive. Yeah. That's exactly's the word. Just very passive and doesn't really Yeah, passive is better than moron. 'cause Well, I think both of them, well at least aren't displayed as intelligent, but, uh, the main problem I think is just they're, they're just being pushed around all day anyway. I think so, I think we should probably say that this podcast, uh, does not endorse killing old ladies for monetary gains, um, in case this discussion.
No killing
Antonia Eisenkoeck: anybody, I think. But
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, even if ladies are young or not, ladies, don't take an ax accent club someone to death. Um, unless. There's a really good reason for it.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: No, I wouldn't, I wouldn't suggest that.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. But yeah. Anyway,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: shall we move on to discussing, to book discussion?
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So you mean like not about the book, but about the podcast and that kind of stuff?
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Okay. So let's [00:53:00] make a few more general points. So the first thing is, I started off, I think the entire discussion by talking about the shape of my book, uh, because to remind people my book is antagon, it stands flatly, but yeah, it has kind of two top sides. Um, and then I kind of, yeah, whatever, you know, what a Penta Pentagon looks like.
Uh, so I contacted someone related to publishing the book, and apparently I'm not the only person who has this, apparently, I'm one of the few people though, who has a copy that looks cool. Apparently most of them just, you know, I got a ruined copy. Um, so unfortunately I don't, I mean, I, I feel like I have a, I probably have a unique.
It's not unique though if it's mass produced, but I always wondered like whether I have a unique cover or not. And it seems that there actually quite a few, something just went wrong in the printing and lots of books like this.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: It's not good.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was special. Like Konik off, turns out I'm not.
Um, or neither is this book. That's the first part. The second thing is I had a brief look [00:54:00] and there are many other podcasts actually discussing Crime and Punishment. Wow. Um, and obviously not as good as ours, which I can say because I haven't listened to any of the others. But some people, I mean, I'm not surprised that they are like, you know, 20 minute discussions of the book.
There are some that actually go through a chapter by chapter.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Oh, wow.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. There are some, which is like 20, 30 minutes per chapter. I think we,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, let's, let's be honest. They overdid it.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: We've underperformed.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, no. I, I think we found the sweet spot. I think some people, you know, only do 20 minutes.
Some people do like, I don't know, 12 hours or whatever. I think we're gonna be somewhere pretty much in the middle. In
Antonia Eisenkoeck: the middle,
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: which is we wanna be. Uh, but yeah, but if you, uh, I mean if you're still listening, then, uh, get a life. Why are you listening to us for six hours? Do something with your life. Um, but you can all, if you're in interested in this, there are many more podcasts apparently out there that [00:55:00]discuss this book at length.
So it seems like, uh, yeah, if once this is finished, there's much more to explore.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. Find and compare.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. And the last thing I kind of have is, so this is the. First book discussion series we've done, as a matter of fact, the first, I mean, as part of this podcast, but for me also in my life, I've never sat down for an hour a week with someone and talked about a book for like eight weeks or whatever, seven weeks.
I dunno. What did you, was this some, was this worth your time, Antonio, or,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: um, it definitely was. It's um, obviously a bit of work, like, not work, but like commitment time, bit of effort. Yeah. But, um, I got a lot out of it and I think I realized how when you normally reading a book and you're just reading it for yourself, you miss a lot of things.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: You don't think about all the points. [00:56:00] In great detail. You take a lot for given or you think that you understand certain points and then, and discussing it, you really did have very different views and opinions. Um, so yeah, I think I probably have a much better under understanding. And do you have the book now after having discussed it rather than, I
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: don't think there's a single book I know as well as this one.
I mean, I've never spent this much time on a book. I mean there are longer books I've read, so maybe it's roughly equal, but you know, in terms of time spent per page. Yeah. Yeah, I mean like, I agree it's, for me it's been like, um, I mean to I guess like I guess we both expected it to be worth it, otherwise we wouldn't have started.
Um, but I was slightly, before we started, I thought like maybe it's, there's nothing to talk about or like, I dunno, like maybe this is just really boring or we. Um, repeat the plot and then just say, okay, that's, that's, [00:57:00]you know.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But I guess this was also a book worth discussing. I think that not all books would be suited for that kind of discussion because um, they might not lend themselves.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's obviously a reason why this and, uh, I'm assuming you're gonna do more books. Future books are going to be mainly classics. 'cause you have a bit more of a guarantee that you're not going to spend six hours going, this is book is pointless and there's nothing to it. Mm-hmm. Um, I mean, I think we were, I I don't think we could have chosen a better book to be honest.
You know, I, I dread, as I said, the first part in German, uh, a year ago or so, but I didn't really think of too much about like, which book to read. Like a kind of book this more, pick this more less random. No, actually the reason I picked this is because I heard that there's a new, fairly new translation and that's supposed to be really good.
Yeah. That's why I chose this one. And I think we agree that it is a good translation.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But yeah, I think we couldn't have chosen like, you know, [00:58:00] every, there were six parts. Each of them was equally long and around a hundred pages, so you could do it in a week. I didn't know that before we started. Um,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah.
Never is good.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That was coincidence. It's a fairly plot driven book, which helps.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: You know, if it's very esoteric, metaphorical a lot harder to talk about it than if you're talking about Yeah. That's someone murdering someone's and getting caught by the police. Like it's a pretty Yeah. I think we accidentally stumbled on a really good book to, to start this kind of discussion with.
I mean, of course format is gonna depend on the book and that kinda stuff. But let's say we were gonna read another book that's like this, roughly. Is there anything we, I don't know, anything you, you think in hindsight that, in terms of formats of discussion or something?
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Um, probably no. We should try to keep the summaries at the beginning.
Brief to the point. But I think we got, uh, you got better and actually never, I only did the very first one. I was about to, which was very bad.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Uh, criticism received, [00:59:00]
Antonia Eisenkoeck: no, I didn't want mine. I, I think I did one at the very beginning and it was bad. And then we decided that you can't even remember we did
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: the first one.
You, well, to be fair, actually, we decided we were gonna take turns.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. And then, and then
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: somehow we never did.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Maybe that's an improvement that you need to make sure that the person you're talking to is actually putting their weight.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I think like, I think it's also, I think I have a tendency to skip over the basics.
I mean, I do this also in my regular interviews. Something I've noticed recently is that, you know, I always wanted to kind of start assuming that everyone understood the ba, understood the basics, so you don't have to repeat that again. Right. So you can have like a higher level, more intelligent discussion.
Yeah. But I realized that when doing that, it's often pretty useful. Just to repeat the basics. In this case, for example, the plot, just say like, this happened, this happened, this happened.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I found it. Because you can't really surprisingly useful. Well, I didn't even seem just for us, right? Like I,
Antonia Eisenkoeck: yeah, yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Often I read it on Monday or Tuesday and then like it's a week later and I [01:00:00] can't remember exactly what happened in each chapter.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah. But then, and you immediately, as soon as you've listened to the summary, you've got something to go on.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Exactly. Exactly. Yeah.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Mm-hmm. Well, no, I think you're gonna do amazingly you avoid this was the practice round and now, now onto the GI stuff.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean the practice round is gonna be public though, Antonio, I dunno what I told you. This is gonna be published.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Yeah.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, uh, and maybe one day. It seems like you might join for another book discussion.
Antonia Eisenkoeck: Oh, most certainly.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: We'll see.
Okay, well then, uh, you know, I think we still, I don't think anyone's gonna listen to now if someone is still listening. It's patently absurd. It's been like seven hours or something. Uh, but thank you for listening. Enjoy it. Thank
Antonia Eisenkoeck: you.
Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And, uh, good luck, um, organizing your life better from now [01:01:00] on.