Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part One, Chap 1-3
It's easy to despise Marmeladov. His wife keeps the family functioning while dying of consumption, and his daughter turns to prostitution to help put food on the table. And what does Marmeladov do? He observers it all while lying down drunk with his feet raised (several references to this by Marmeladov.) He's quite comfortable isn't he? He's no longer a participant in his own life; events are not his to control. It's not like he's delusional; he knows very well he could make a huge difference but chooses to seek comfort (his feet raised) and resignation in his own disgrace. In this regard he reminds me of Mr. Dorritt in Dickens Little Dorritt. This whole lengthy passage is both horrifying and comic.
Continuing with Marmeladov:The last scene in the Marmeladov's corner of the house -- evidently you could rent corners of a house to live in -- is stunning. It's both horrible and comic -- a caricature. All of this makes Raskolnikov think the following:
"It costs money to be immaculate . . . H’m! And who’s to say Sonechka herself won’t be out of pocket by the end of the day? A risk like that, the hunt for big game . . . mining for gold . . . by tomorrow they could all be on their uppers, if not for my money . . . Ah, Sonya! What a well they’ve managed to dig! And they draw from it! Damn me, if they don’t! They’ve got used to it. Had a little cry and got used to it. There’s nothing human scum can’t get used to!’"
-- Oliver Ready translation.
I like the Ready translation of this passage so much better. It may be more modern, but it delivers the passion and power of Dostoevsky's writing that I haven't seen in other translations.
"It costs money to be immaculate." What a sentence. "Immaculate" used in both senses of the word -- to be physically and religiously/morally clean. He's speaking of Sonja the prostitute and society, in general (I think).
"Had a little cry and got used to it." Ouch!
"Scum" in place of the word "scoundrel." There's so much more power in the word "scum" than "scoundrel" (which I've seen in other translations). It reveals the depths of Raskolnikov's anger in a way the modern usage of the word "scoundrel" does not.
Marmeladov has recovery and happiness within his grasp when he is offered a position. Then with no motive other than pure perversity he takes his first week's pay and goes on a drunk. He knows exactly what he's doing, knows it’s wrong and will have dreadful effects on him and on his wife and children, and does it anyway. His wife is hardly saintly, and started her own problems by running away with a handsome Army officer, then compounded them by marrying out of desperation, but it's still easy to have compassion for her. I wonder if this foreshadows what's going to happen to Raskolnikov.
The letter from Raskolnikov's mom is so filled with clues as to her real intent in writing that it would take quite a long post to cover them all. So let me reduce to a few sentences what I think the gist of the letter is."My son! My son! Your sister, my daughter, is about to ruin her life to save us from penury by marrying and ugly, disgusting, self-absorbed toad. Please save her."
The irony -- if that's the right word -- is Petrovich will do no such thing. Raskolnikov's sister and mom are traveling to St. Petersburg so his sister can marry Petrovich. Yet Petrovich does not pay for the trip; they must borrow the money.
Wow. So much going on in the first three chapters. Raskolnikov is not even the major character in these first three.
Katerina Ivanovna. A character in both C&P and Brothers Karamozov. One runs off with a handsome army officer, and the other waits for one who insults her. Interesting.
I read Crime and Punishment about fifteen years ago. I don't know if it's life experience, becoming a more attentive reader, or a combination of both, but this time the novel feels darker. The poverty and desperation are crushing.Comparing C&P to The Brothers Karamazov, I noticed there was more emphasis on setting. If I remember correctly, one of the criticisms of TBK was that setting was almost entirely neglected. In C&P I felt Raskolnikov's discomfort as he sat in a tiny, stifling hot room on an oppressively warm St. Petersburg day. I could imagine the smells as he walked through the dirty, steaming streets. Like Xan, Dickens also came to mind while reading this opening section, but for me it was more about how Dickens described London as such a dirty place. That's the impression I was left with in this section - everything is dirty and shabby. Raskolnikov's room, the tavern, Marmeladov, Marmeladov's apartment, and everyone's clothing.
As for why the letter from his mom infuriates Raskolnikov, I think it's because so much is understated in the letter and there's much to be read between the lines. His mother tries to downplay the fact, but Raskolnikov's sister is being forced into marriage for financial reasons. It's not clear yet how much genuine feeling Raskolnikov has for his sister, but the situation certainly wounds his (abundant) pride.
Rashkalnikov's world does not appear to be a very colorful place. However, the color yellow is used 11 times in the first three chapters. Each time it seems in association with disadvantage: poverty, age, disease, or cramped and agitated living and mental states.Old yellow furniture, Rashkalnikov's cramped yellow living quarters, Alyonya is coughing and wearing an old yellow cape. Sonya's yellow prostitution license, etc.
I am puzzled by this reference to yellow:
The little room into which the young man walked, with yellow paper on the walls, geraniums and muslin curtains in the windows, was brightly lighted up at that moment by the setting sun. “So the sun will shine like this then too!” flashed as it were by chance through Raskolnikov’s mindIs he implying the sun, which is also yellow, is also disadvantaged, or because it is brightly lighting up the room that there is some hope for these disadvantages?
I also think that between the lines the letter is telling Rashkalnikov that his sister isn't getting married for love (because this can't be) but for more rational and probably material reasons. The whole history before the anouncement of the marriage makes clear though, that his sister wouldn't do this to make her own life better. The only logical conclusion is that his sister marries the man to try to improve Rashkolnikov's circumstances. I think this is what infuriates him so much: that his sister (and his mother for that matter) have to carry huge burdens to help him out.I found the similarities between Marmaldov and Raskolnikov striking though. Both are characterised by an incapability to turn their lives around although both see what they need to do to do that (Marmaladov has had quite a good job before and he knows he should be working, Raskolnikov thaught children to be able to pay for college) There are also similarities between M.'s wife and R.'s mother, who work hard to provide and still give them money, and Sonya and R.'s sister, who (at least I think) sort of sell their body to help out.
Marieke,Good point about Raskolnikov and Marmaldov. Perhaps Marmaldov is telling two stories of woe, his own which is fact, and Roskolnikov's future if he doesn't escape his funk. And yes, I see the comparison between R's sister and Sonja now. Great point, and one I didn't see until you pointed it out.
David wrote: "Is he implying the sun, which is also yellow, is also disadvantaged, or because it is brightly lighting up the room that there is some hope for these disadvantages? Wha? What do you think he is thinking? R. is 'casing the joint.'
He is thinking about the murder, and this is a dry run.
D. says somewhere that in St. Petersburg in summer, the sun never really goes down.
I think Dostoevsky is suggesting underlying problems when Rashkalnikov asks Marmeladov why he keeps going to tye to get loans and he response:Well, when one has no one, nowhere else one can go! For every man must have somewhere to go. Since there are times when one absolutely must go somewhere!This statement, along with Rashkalnikov's withdrawal from a productive life and criminal plans, suggests idle hands are the devil's workshop and possibly that men need a higher purpose. Just prior to that, Mareladov hinted at what has robbed men of their higher purpose when he informs Rashkalnikov that
Mr. Lebeziatnikov who keeps up with modern ideas explained the other day that compassion is forbidden nowadays by science itself, and that that’s what is done now in England, where there is political economy.To me this suggests that the cause for all of the individual idleness is a sense of hopelessness, confusion, and aimlessness brought about by the modern western and scientific influences stalling Russian initiative, drive, and responsibility.
Marieke wrote: "I also think that between the lines the letter is telling Rashkalnikov that his sister isn't getting married for love (because this can't be) but for more rational and probably material reasons. Th..."I want to pick up on this point and perhaps take it a little further.
I’ve read C&P a couple of times, the last time being about 2 years ago. What struck me this time more than any other is the desperate situation of the women and the callous, inconsiderate, selfish, and insensitive behavior of the men.
I found myself getting very angry. Raskolnikov is totally self-absorbed as is Mareladov. Mareladov's wife and children are desperate. He throws away his employment. His daughter is forced into prostitution in order to support the family.
Dounia agrees to marry an unpleasant, self-absorbed man with an inflated ego who wants to exercise total control over a future wife. She agrees to the marriage, makes excuses for his behavior to her mother because her focus is on providing for her brother and mother. In other words, she is engaging in a socially sanctioned form of prostitution.
It is actually very depressing. The women are totally dependent on the men for economic support, and when the men fail them, the women resort to the only means available to them to support themselves and their families—prostitution in one form or another.
Whatever direction they turn, the women are exploited and victimized. Pretty bleak.
Prejudice has popped up a couple of times. A clue to Rashkalnikov's bitterness over his mother's letter is in the letter itself. A mother knows her son:And beware, dear Rodya, when he comes to Petersburg, as he shortly will do, beware of judging him too hastily and severely, as your way is. . .Moreover, in order to understand any man one must be deliberate and careful to avoid forming prejudices and mistaken ideas, which are very difficult to correct and get over afterwards.The fact Rashkalnikov questions his own judgement of man as a scoundrel as prejudice and this warning of prejudice from his mother makes me think this is a known character flaw that will have some bearing on things to come. He will most likely assume the worst of Pytor, that he is a con artist taking advantage of his mother and sister's naivete, despite his mother's warnings not to.
I might also add that his mother, knowing her son's tendencies might not have been very smart in detailing all her own concerns and trepidation over the events and trying so hard to convince her son that all would be well despite first first impressions.
Or she is looking to her son to stop the marriage. Her pointing out to her son his quickness to judge may be both true and her way of getting him to act, a kind of reverse psychology.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Or she is looking to her son to stop the marriage. Her pointing out to her son his quickness to judge may be both true and her way of getting him to act, a kind of reverse psychology."Yes, but that assumes she is aware that there are other options available to them to get out them of their dire situation. What other options are available? They are in debt and destitute. Her son needs money.
I think the mother is fully aware of the unpleasant character of Pytor. That's why she decides not to live with her daughter after she gets married. She points out his flaws but then hurriedly tries to excuse them. She is also fully aware that her daughter is sacrificing herself for the sake of the family, especially her brother. She feels incredibly guilty about her daughter's sacrifice but cannot see a viable alternative.
Tamara wrote: "Dounia agrees to marry an unpleasant, self-absorbed man with an inflated ego who wants to exercise total control over a future wife. She agrees to the marriage, makes excuses for his behavior to her mother because her focus is on providing for her brother and mother. In other words, she is engaging in a socially sanctioned form of prostitution."I understand what you are saying about the deplorable state of things for women and their options in life. However, this is my first time reading C&P and I must be missing something but I did not take such a harsh view of Pytor and Dounia's marriage. There are quite a few good points in his favor:
He is a well-to-do man, to be depended upon, he has two posts in the government and has already made his fortune.If humility is his only issue, Pytor seems like a good deal despite some worries over first impressions and because of all the warnings of prejudices. Also, is Dounia "making excuses" or being practical. With respect to the last quote, Dounia seems just as practical as Pytor seems to be by being rightly aware they are not some Romeo and Juliette and the fact marriage is not bliss. To not trust Dounia's judgement or that she can an will rely on herself in the matter does Dounia the injustice of not trusting her with her own life's decisions. If we cannot trust Dounia with her own decisions, who should we trust to make them for her?
he is of a fairly prepossessing appearance and might still be thought attractive by women, and he is altogether a very respectable and presentable man. . .
And Pyotr Petrovitch, judging by many indications, is a thoroughly estimable man.
he is an opponent of all prejudices.
he is not a man of great education, he is clever and seems to be good-natured.
Besides he is a man of great prudence and he will see, to be sure, of himself, that his own happiness will be the more secure, the happier Dounia is with him. And as for some defects of character, for some habits and even certain differences of opinion—which indeed are inevitable even in the happiest marriages—Dounia has said that, as regards all that, she relies on herself, that there is nothing to be uneasy about,"
Additionally, the fact Rashkalnikov, with his known propensity for prejudice, takes the news bitterly may be an indication that things are better than they appear to him.
David wrote: "If humility is his only issue, Pytor seems like a good deal despite some worries over first impressions and because of all the warnings of prejudices..."Is humility his only issue?
...he declared that before making Dounia's acquaintance, he had made up his mind to marry a girl of good reputation, without dowry and, above all, one who had experienced poverty, because, as he explained, a man ought not to be indebted to his wife but that it is better for a wife to look upon her husband as her benefactor...
That's not humility. That is power over. That is a desire to rub it in the face of the woman he intends to marry that he has economic control over her and that she is and will always remain his subordinate.
The mother is well aware of the implications of what he's saying because she hurries to excuse him:
I must add that he expressed it more nicely and politely than I have done...
And even though he tried to "correct himself and smooth it over," the mother is still troubled by his words
...but all the same it did strike me as somewhat rude...
David wrote: "However, this is my first time reading C&P and I must be missing something but I did not take such a harsh view of Pytor and Dounia's marriage. There are quite a few good points in his favor:"I think this is a question of tone. Pulcheria is trying to sugarcoat a bad situation. But Raskolnikov can see through what his mother is attempting to do though. Pytor bluntly says that he wants a wife who is in his debt. I think Tamara is right. This is legalized prostitution - with the added bonus of having a maid and cook!
Thomas wrote: I'm curious to hear what readers think of the last paragraph of the second chapter: "And what if I am wrong," he cried suddenly after a moment's thought. "What if man is not really a scoundrel, man in general, I mean, the whole race of mankind--then all the rest is prejudice, simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be."
(For those who were with us for the Brothers Karamazov read: Is this thought at all similar to the philosophy of Ivan Karamazov?)"
I haven't read C&P for nearly 20 years, but based on this passage there does appear to be a similarity. Both Raskolnikov and Ivan seem to be seeking some sort of freedom from moral limitations, though R appears to be at the beginning of this process, whereas Ivan's philosophy was more developed.
In the Oliver Ready translation, the last part of this quote reads as "... then all else is mere preconception, just fears that have been foisted upon us, and there are no barriers, and that's exactly how it should be!" Very Nietzschean.
It's interesting to contrast Raskolnikov's thoughts with his deeds, such as his apparent natural inclination to help others (i.e. leaving some small change for Marmeladov's family).
I have a question: Mareladov makes a reference to his daughter receiving some sort of yellow card. It sounds to me as if the yellow card gives her the legal right to operate as a prostitute. Does anyone know if that is the case? Or does it mean something else?
Tamara wrote: "Yes, but that assumes she is aware that there are other options available to them to get out them of their dire situation. What other options are available? ...."Here's my take.
Pulcheria Raskalnikov is not destitute; she has a pension, and her daughter lives with her. Their situation would not be dire if not for the son. Certainly mom and daughter can survive financially without this marriage, except that Dunya will do anything for her brother. Dunya is hoping Petrovich will supply the money she needs to help her bother. But mom sees it differently.
Mom makes special note that she won't live with them because of Petrovich and that Petrovich didn't pay for their travel to St. Petersburg to attend her daughter's wedding to him. This is not a good sign. Certainly he knows they do not have money for such a lengthy and extravagant trip. Will they have to pay their own lodging while in Petersburg? What kind of husband will he be? The conclusion I draw from Mom's letter is Petrovic is miserly and not a good catch at all. He won't help her son and Dunya is throwing away her life by marrying him. (Where would Russian novels be without the occasional husband who is a cad?)
The letter is Pulcharia's attempt to influence her son against Dunya's betrothed before he meets him and forms his own opinion. She wants him to stop the marriage rather than she do it herself. Why? Probably because she thinks Dunya will listen to him. I think Pucharia's criticisms of Petrovich are too obvious and too many to mean anything else.
I have gotten this far in the audio version (George Guidal reading the Garnett translation), but was planning to go back over it on Kindle for highlights.Back in the day, I read the Norton Critical Edition, which was a revised version of Garnett.
I think the short novel Notes from Underground is a helpful preliminary to C and P, though not necessary. At any rate, I want to propose that D. did not necessarily condemn Marmeladov's drunkenness, but rather thought that it was innate in human nature to rebel against strong pressure to 'get with the program.'
Notice, in that regard, that amid the squalor, the pawnbroker's apartment is scrupulously clean. And R. can't help meditating on 'the price paid for all this finery' (not the pawnbroker's, but Sonia's and his sister's).
I am not coming at this by way of Brothers K, which I read so long ago I barely remember, but by way of The Idiot, which I read two years ago, and loved way more than I anticipated.
Anyway, hearing portions of the mother's letter again, I get a chill. I realize even more why R. is horrified. And I think it was masterly of D. to give us the long letter, and then the long, brooding 'take' on the letter, with some doubt as to where the truth lies.
Incidentally, the letter from the country relative reminded me of something quite similar in Pere Goriot, but I don't know if D. is borrowing directly from Balzac, or if this was just typical for a 19th C. novel.
Tamara wrote: "...he declared that before making Dounia's acquaintance, he had made up his mind to marry a girl of good reputation, without dowry and, above all, one who had experienced poverty, because, as he explained, a man ought not to be indebted to his wife but that it is better for a wife to look upon her husband as her benefactor...
That's not humility. That is power over
Well, again, this is still my first time through C&P and I may very well be wrong in the long way we have to go. I did noticed that for every desirable point the mother makes for Pytor, she seems to temper it with a less desirable one so evenly that I am confused at this point as to which are the "hints" being dropped by a nervous mother. At this point he could be either a good quy with the social/emotional IQ of a rock, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. I will have to wait for deeds and not words to judge, as we are reminded.
Consider how differently we would think of Pytor if he had said he wanted a dowry from a wife who was rich or that wives should be the husband's benefactor? The sentiments he did express, as awkwardly and apologetically as the mother reported that he expressed them, seem preferable to their opposites.
The mother also said Pytor chose better words, Just taken as facts, not wanting or demanding a dowry could be seen in a positive way. Not wanting to risk marriage to a rich girl that was possibly spoiled or had not learned the value of a ruble or how to be frugal also seems to be a reasonable request as well.
Tamara wrote: "I have a question: Mareladov makes a reference to his daughter receiving some sort of yellow card. It sounds to me as if the yellow card gives her the legal right to operate as a prostitute. Does..."
The document combined an ID card, a residence permit, a license to practice prostitution, and prostitute's medical check-up card.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yello...
"...disgust gleamed for a moment in the young man’s refined face. He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair...."Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime And Punishment (p. 3). HarperCollins Canada. Kindle Edition.
I don't know that I would have noticed this myself, but the notes with which I am following the text (no, I have not committed to reading this thing in its entirety yet) pointed out the positive physical description Dostoyevsky gave his protagonist and contrasted that choice with Dickens tendency to physically caricature the personality/traits of his characters. The question I have at this point: what, if anything, is D pointing towards for R with this description.
David wrote: "The document combined an ID card, a residence permit, a license to practice prostitution, and prostitute's medical check-up card...."Thank you, David.
“'I want to attempt a thing like that and am frightened by these trifles,' he thought,"Ibid.(p. 3)
If we didn't know a bit about the story, how would we interpret "a thing like that" at this point? (I'm going want to figure out when D finally makes the antecedent of "that" clear. Guess I'll have to read that much ...)
Jeremy wrote: "...But Raskolnikov can see through what his mother is attempting to do..."I get a sense of a mother-son-mother relationship with toxic undertones, perhaps attempting being manipulative in both directions.
Lily wrote: "I get a sense of a mother-son-mother relationship with toxic undertones..."I agree. I don't know how we should expect R. to feel about it, but I would resent the part about, "we found you a brother-in-law that will pay your university fees and give you a job. No thank you. R. seems interested in neither at the moment.
David wrote: "Lily wrote: "I get a sense of a mother-son-mother relationship with toxic undertones..."I agree. I don't know how we should expect R. to feel about it, but I would resent the part about, "we foun..."
I disagree, but I'm willing to see how this plays out. To me, it seemed like a motherly letter. R.'s reaction is just because he knows or can guess what the real situation is.
@23 Christopher wrote: "...I think the short novel Notes from Underground is a helpful preliminary to C and P, though not necessary. ..."I've seen that sentiment elsewhere, too. I thought a book of short D writings I had borrowed from the library had Poor Folk, D's early novel that received the praise of Belinsky, but it has Notes... instead. Oh, am I willing to find the time to dabble? (The current news on Russia's ways of intervening in the world is the only thing that rather prods me to develop a better understanding of the ideas that under-gird it.)
Is Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? similarly relevant to understanding C&P, Chris?
Christopher wrote: "I disagree, but I'm willing to see how this plays out. To me, it seemed like a motherly letter. R.'s reaction is just because he knows or can guess what the real situation is. .."I agree with you, Christopher. I think she is expressing a motherly concern for her son and is trying to help him get back on his feet since he is obviously unable/unwilling to help himself.
Christopher wrote: "I disagree, but I'm willing to see how this plays out. To me, it seemed like a motherly letter. R.'s reaction is just because he knows or can guess what the real situation is."It certainly may be too early to tell. But how do we process a statement like the following if it is not as an emotional play for sympathy from a manipulative mother?
I have noticed more than once in my life that husbands don’t quite get on with their mothers-in-law, and I don’t want to be the least bit in anyone’s way, and for my own sake, too, would rather be quite independent, so long as I have a crust of bread of my own, and such children as you and Dounia. If possible, I would settle somewhere near you. . .It reminds me of Steve Martin in The Jerk when he was financially ruined and leaving in shame.
And that's all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair. [and a crust of bread of my own]
David wrote: "That 'crust of bread' is a horrible cliche, and, making a big leap here, (since I don't know Dostoevsky from Garnett) I understand that what some Russians don't like about Dostoevsky is his continuous use of 'boilerplate' and 'pulp fiction.' I think the crust of bread pops up in more than one place.
I will have to get back to the Chernyshevsky question. I did read it, or at least part of it, a long time ago. It may be the kind of thing D. saw as 'everything he was against.'
I could see Pulcheria as tugging on some emotional heartstrings, but not vindictively so, since she's giving up her home, her economic security and Dunia to ensure her beloved Rudia's happiness. It seems natural to expect some basic response to this sacrifice.I'd also note that the end of her letter: " ... and do you believe in the goodness of our Creator and Reedemer?" is a setup for Dostoyevsky's redemptive narrative.
I found a lot of parallels to Dicken's reflections on poverty, something a few other commentators seemed to have picked up on. My only other reading from Dostoyevsky is The Idiot, and in that I often found the protag (Myshkin's) sentimental tone to be non-ironic.
Also, anyone see parallels between Pulcheria Raskolnikov and St. Augustine's mother?
Nell wrote: "I could see Pulcheria as tugging on some emotional heartstrings, but not vindictively so..."Her emotional appeals do not appear to be vindictive but should we worry that even motherly good intentions can turn out to be just as destructive or unhealthy?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Scum" in place of the word "scoundrel." There's so much more power in the word "scum" than "scoundrel"Xan, I have to thank you for your comment. The term scoundrel has bothered me since its frequent use in my copy of The Brother's Karamazov, also translated by Garnett. From now on I will be mentally substituting scum for scoundrel.
David wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Scum" in place of the word "scoundrel." There's so much more power in the word "scum" than "scoundrel"Xan, I have to thank you for your comment. The term scoundrel has b..."
The term Dostoevsky uses is ПОДЛЕЦ, (podlyets). Evidently the more modern English translation is "scumbag."
http://nicholaskotar.com/2017/06/06/p...
David wrote: "Her emotional appeals do not appear to be vindictive but should we worry that even motherly good intentions can turn out to be just as destructive or unhealthy?"Yes, if we're talking about her relationship to Dunia.
Raskolnikov's "heavy, bilious, angry smile" after reading the letter doesn't indicate he's incapacitated by his mother's wishes.
Unfortunately, Pulcheria has few ways of achieving her own economic security without selling herself, remarrying or otherwise disgracing her family's tenuous class status. Most of the characters introduced are dealing with harsh economic realities, and in light of this, I wouldn't call Pulcheria's attempts to continue her son's career track unhealthy.
What I would call unhealthy is affirming her daughter's decision to essentially sell herself for money, creating a situation where her daughter has little freedom to express herself outside of her husband's rules and is subject to his expectations in aspects of sex, child-rearing, housekeeping, etc.
Nell wrote: "What I would call unhealthy is affirming her daughter's decision to essentially sell herself for money..."Does Pulcheria reflect views that the well being of a son takes precedence over those of a daughter, even if she expresses verbal concern for both? Even if the son may encounter some sense of guilt in the face of such a view/value, especially since he may also be caught in some conservative cultural values relating to a sister's honor.
Dave wrote: "In the Oliver Ready translation, the last part of this quote reads as "... then all else is mere preconception, just fears that have been foisted upon us, and there are no barriers, and that's exactly how it should be!" Very Nietzschean.."I think one of the reasons why Raskolnikov is attracted to Marmeladov is that he has found someone even lower than himself, someone he can pity. By showing compassion for Marmeladov and his family, Raskolnikov is actually enjoying a kind of power over him. (Nietzsche indeed!)
Along the same lines, Raskolnikov is infuriated by his mother's accepting Luzhin's assistance, especially on Raskolnikov's behalf, because accepting that help is an admission of weakness and powerlessness.
Money plays an important role in the first three chapters, and I think it goes beyond the literal function that it plays in the story. There seems to be something going on here with the spiritual or psychological meaning of indebtedness. (And there is of course a pawn broker as well. Perhaps she will play a symbolic role?)
Lily wrote: "@23 Is Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? similarly relevant to understanding C&P, Chris?.."According to Dostoyevsky biographer Joseph Frank, What Is to Be Done is an important work for understanding all of Dostoyevsky's later novels. Apparently, as Chris touched on, Dostoyevsky spent a great deal of time and energy arguing against Chernyshevsky's thesis.
Interestingly, though unrelated to this novel, I read an article a few months ago that argues Chernyshevsky was the inspiration behind Ayn Rand, though Rand took his ideas and applied them to the far right as opposed to the left as Chernyshevsky did.
Just as Marmeladov got a reasonable opportunity to restore his life, Raskolnikov's sister is giving him a reasonable opportunity also. Will he despise it in the same way and return to whatever eats at him like alcoholism?
Tamara wrote: "It is actually very depressing. The women are totally dependent on the men for economic support, and when the men fail them, the women resort to the only means available to them to support themselves and their families—prostitution in one form or another."That's one of the saddest and also disturbing aspect throughout human history. Ultimately I see this as a failure to recognize, respect, and uphold the innate dignity of each human being, not just women. For no one exists in a vacuum, and when we allow one person to be degraded, then others will be degraded as well. It is a reciprocal ripple effect. Marmeladov's alcoholism and impotence to provide for his family in turn enrages his wife so much that she resorts to battery.
Nell wrote: "Also, anyone see parallels between Pulcheria Raskolnikov and St. Augustine's mother?"No! Now that's a great observation. The Saint Monica part of every mother who desires for her grown child to turn away from a life of wrong and possibly disastrous choices.
"Honoured sir," he began almost with solemnity, "poverty is not a vice, that's a true saying. Yet I know too that drunkenness is not a virtue, and that that's even truer. But beggary, honoured sir, beggary is a vice. In poverty you may still retain your innate nobility of soul, but in beggary--never--no one. For beggary a man is not chased out of human society with a stick, he is swept out with a broom, so as to make it as humiliating as possible; and quite right, too, for asmuch as in beggary I am ready to be the first to humiliate myself."I thought this an interesting distinction Marmeladov is making regarding poverty. There is poverty which is not self-inflicted, and then there is beggary. The latter, if I understand it correctly, a self-imposed condition out of laziness, attitude of superiority, and many other reasons. Marmeladov spent some time just observing Raskolnikov, did he sense Raskolnikov is on the fast track of going where he ended up? In beggary one deliberately debases oneself by giving up one's nobility and soul.
Kerstin wrote: "I thought this an interesting distinction Marmeladov is making regarding poverty. There is poverty which is not self-inflicted, and then there is beggary..."I don't know if there is a difference in meaning between beggary and begging. I took the words to be synonymous.
I understood Marmeladov to say that you can still retain your dignity while living in poverty. But when you resort to begging, you lose your self-respect and the respect of others. They "sweep you out with a broom."
I do think the difference between living in poverty and begging is a question of what opportunities are available to a person. In Marmeladov's case, he chooses to debase himself. He blows the opportunity to work and earn an income to support his family. He chooses to spend it on alcohol and resorts to begging. I am not justifying his actions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree with your statement in the case of Marmeladov:
In beggary one deliberately debases oneself by giving up one's nobility and soul.
But I don't think that is necessarily always the case.
Some people resort to begging because they simply have no other choice at the time. And far from debasing themselves, they may be begging to feed the hungry mouths dependent on them for survival.
Tamara wrote: "'In beggary one deliberately debases oneself by giving up one's nobility and soul.'But I don't think that is necessarily always the case.
Some people resort to begging because they simply have no other choice at the time..."
Tamara, you bring to mind for me images out of Houston and Hurricane Harvey this week. What are the boundaries and distinctions between calls for help, for being an unfortunate member of the larger society, and begging is the question I find myself mulling a bit. Besides circumstances, intent, beliefs, and value systems all feel as if they have roles.
Kerstin wrote: "I thought this an interesting distinction Marmeladov is making regarding poverty. There is poverty which is not self-inflicted, and then there is beggary."That is an interesting dissociation. He splits poverty into two parts, declares one part better then the other and identifies himself with the worst part. Why does he identify himself with the worst part?
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Crime and Punishment (other topics)What Is to Be Done? (other topics)
The name Raskolnikov is related to the Russian word raskol'nik,, a religious schismatic or spiritual rebel. We don't know too much about Raskolnikov yet, but can we read anything in the opening details that might tell us what kind of man he is?
The second and third chapters are mainly composed of stories told by two other characters -- the first by a man called Marmeladov. As Raskolnikov is a student who doesn't study (or teach), so Marmeladov is a civil servant who doesn't serve. His story is sentimental and well, pathetic. Is he a sympathetic character? Why does he interest Raskolnikov, and what does Raskolnikov make of him?
I'm curious to hear what readers think of the last paragraph of the second chapter:
"And what if I am wrong," he cried suddenly after a moment's thought. "What if man is not really a scoundrel, man in general, I mean, the whole race of mankind--then all the rest is prejudice, simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be."
(For those who were with us for the Brothers Karamazov read: Is this thought at all similar to the philosophy of Ivan Karamazov?)
The third chapter is mostly composed of a letter from Raskolnikov's mother. This is an interesting literary device -- not only do we meet Pulcheria Raskolnikov in her own voice as a narrator of sorts, but we meet Raskolnikov's sister and several other characters who will have bigger roles later on. Why does the letter infuriate Raskolnikov?