David’s Comments (group member since Mar 19, 2013)

David’s comments from the Read Across The Seas group.

As I am sure you have deduced from our discussions, I think the idea of the ubermensch is a big theme of this book. FD did not meet Nietzsche as far as I know, but I do know he was well-read in the popular psychology of the period. And Nietzsche's idea of the ubermensch, of a person or society overcoming what were thought of as archaic codes of morality, was not an uncommon psychological notion at the time. It seems that FD deals with a lot of moral suppositions in his books, especially relating to religion. In Brothers Karamazov he goes into the idea of evil and suffering and how those correlate to the idea of God and justice. In The Idiot he addresses how morals without passion would characterize an individual. And in this book, he really addresses that notion that Neitzsche made popular, that true freedom is found by overcoming moral constraints and forging one's own morality. Nietzsche thought that those who followed the moral codes imposed by a higher authority were to be pitied, and only those special individuals, those with greatness, could overcome those moral bonds. I love this book because FD really goes into how that notion plays out in real life, when a person strives for greatness by releasing himself from those "archaic" moral bonds and decides he is too great to be constrained by them. I could write more about the moral analogy here but it will go into the significance of Sonia, especially at the end of the story, so I will digress until everyone is done with the book.

Yes he also was in poverty because of taking on someone's debt out of a sense of obligation. You can see how the psychological ideas starting to emerge during FD's lifetime related to escapism would be so intriguing. As I said earlier, you can see those hints of the Ubermensch all throughout this book. You can almost piece together the condition of a country by the popular fiction at the time. The country was in rough economic condition, and this can be seen in the prevalence of this idea of being more than who you are. Even in the US, its interesting how as the economy has worsened in the last ten years, this same sort of escapism in popular fiction (for us movies) has become increasingly prevalent, usually in the form of comic book superheroes.

Its not FD, its just the characters. Russians at this time, and even now, had a strong sense of pride of country. So basically this difference in the names is saying that she is german and not russian as she claims, which would be an insult to her.

Definitely. Raskolnikov even says meeting him was like an omen. In a way Marmeladov is like a mirror for R, letting him see the person he could become. I have always taken it that him being nice to M is sort of his karmic hope that someone will be nice to him if he is ever reduced to that state.

One of the reasons I love this novel is that specific duality of character. As you, I have also felt just like him, where I feel sociable and the desire for human contact. And other days I just do not feel like dealing with the tedium of any sort of social contact.
I know FD went through a lot of stress and turmoil in his life, was in poverty his whole life, and at one point was seconds away from being executed by firing squad.
You will see this duality throughout the novel, and I am glad FD makes him a more believable human character to the detriment of making him less understandable and cohesive. FD was well-read in the psychological theories of his time, and you can definitely see this in the complexity of his characters. For example, you can see the precursors to Nietzsche's ubermensch in Raskolnikov, although that may need to be relegated to a different discussion :)

and yes the marmeledov meeting is very important to the story. without giving the plot away, someone attached to him is very central to the story. in addition, the discussion with him is sort of a central theme later in the story, the idea that suffering is actually sought out for redemptive purposes. that in a way we seek out suffering because we feel redeemed.

ivanova is her middle name. Russian girls take the name of their father with "ovna" attached and boys take it with "vitch" attached I believe.

I think one of the reasons is the emotional complexity of Russian novels. It takes a lot more involvement from the reader, and is often just as emotionally taxing on the reader as it is on the characters.
In addition, Russian authors tend to deal with a lot more moral ambiguity as a result of their economic caste system. This type of moral greyness is strange to many in the western world where most literature has very distinct character traits for the villain as opposed to the hero. I was reminded of this when I watched the most recent Wizard of Oz movie. And I loved the fact that the 3 beautiful witches weren't by default the good witches. Dostoevsky makes the point that Raskolnikov is a handsome man, which makes it a lot more difficult to accept the horrible things that he does. Its ironic, one of the copies I have of the book even show a picture of a freaky looking dude on the cover, because that makes it easier to accept the vicious things he does. From a philosophical standpoint, I love having to interact with the book and interpret the moral ambiguity myself. Although many readers do not like this trait, especially with someone like Dostoevsky who incorporates a lot of psychological realism into his stories. His other book The Idiot is also a very good example, where the main character is this morally perfect individual, and yet the main thrust of the plot is the detriment to everyone around him that this moral perfection has. Anyway, thats my thoughts on that :)