Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part 3, Chap 1-3
date
newest »
newest »
Thomas wrote: "”Nonsense! I like it when people lie! Lying is man’s only privilege over all other organisms. If you lie -- you get to the truth! Lying is what makes me a man. Not one truth has ever been reached without first lying fourteen times or so...”My translation makes more sense substituting nonsense and error for lie.
“Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. That’s man’s one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen.Although "lie" might be more appropriate for the story. Has Raskolnikov lied, or made an error?
David wrote: "My translation makes more sense substituting nonsense and error for lie.“Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. That’s man’s one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err!"
That does make a lot more sense. But there is a big difference between a lie and a mistake. And there's a degree of difference between a mistake and nonsense... Maybe Bigollo can help us with the translation?
Razumikhin in his quasi-drunken way is arguing for originality or individuality. It is better for one to speak nonsense in an original way than to follow the crowd. I think Raskolnikov might agree with that, but I should probably wait a bit for Dostoevsky to reveal Raskolnikov's "philosophy" in more detail.
When Razumikhin awakens the next day, he is self-critical. He feels shame, humility, and regret at the liberties he took when talking to R's mother and sister about them and Luzin. Such self-criticisms are necessary requisites for a healthy mind. They help us live within the expected bounds of social behavior. Is R. capable of this? I think not.A lot is said about not knowing what R. was like prior to these events. Much is also made about how alike Dunya and R. are. We get to see her strength of character. Is Dunya D's way of showing us what R. was like before his descent?
I thought these three chapters were full of interesting insights.Dunya speaking to R after he has accused her of prostituting herself.
"if I really had decided to do something shameful – then wouldn’t it be heartless of you to speak to me like this? Why demand of me a degree of heroism you may not even possess yourself? That’s tyranny, coercion! The only person I run the risk of ruining is myself . . . I haven’t killed anyone!"
Without realizing it, Dunya has struck at R's very being. How, after what he has done, can he criticize anyone? That is what he does: criticizes everyone. He is a tyrant, a coward, and heartless, and unlike his sister, who only risks ruining herself, he has ruined the pawnbroker and her sister. He calls his sister a prostitute, this man who is a murderer.
This is the second time the girl R agreed to marry is mentioned. "Yes, yes . . . I remember that . . . I remember it very well. She was . . . ugly enough. Heaven knows why I became so fond of her – because she was always ill, I suppose . . . If she’d been lame as well, or a hunchback, I suppose I’d have loved her even more . . ."
Again I wonder how the death of this girl affected his psychological trauma. Perhaps R wanted to sacrifice himself for the meek and needy, to make a statement that kindness and compassion can make a difference, and then she dies robbing him of his noble sacrifice. Kindness and compassion don't matter is the conclusion.
If so then perhaps this also partially explains why he calls his sister a prostitute. The sacrifice will come to no avail.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "...Without realizing it, Dunya has struck at R's very being. How, after what he has done, can he criticize anyone?..."What significance, if any, is there that D. writes C&P after he has participated in revolutionary activities, been incarcerated for them, and escaped punishment by death at the very last moment nonetheless?
Some say that authors draw on memory, on personal experience, to frame what they write, even if they write about things that seem far removed from that personal history. Is that happening here in C&P? Can we detect whether or not such is happening and, if so, how does it influence our response to the story, if at all? (At times I feel as if D is transposing his group's activities and attitudes into the figure of R, and then working out what follows.)
Lily wrote: "What significance, if any, is there that D. writes ..."I think it affected the rest of his life, and we see it everywhere in his writing. He is sentenced to death. From that moment on his fate is determined. He is no longer in control of his life. He walks to his own execution because he has no choice. He stands waiting for the end because he has no choice. Then a reprieve, an act of compassion from another, and this act of compassion saves his life.
Compassion matters; it can makes a difference. But the world is orderly, determined, and at times cruel; our lives are not always within our control. Compassion can make it otherwise, but we must have the will to compassion. I see this in C&P and BK, not so much in The Idiot.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "This is the second time the girl R agreed to marry is mentioned.“She was such a sickly girl,” he went on, growing dreamy and looking down again. “Quite an invalid. She was fond of giving alms to the poor, and was always dreaming of a nunnery, and once she burst into tears when she began talking to me about it.. . .t was a sort of spring delirium.” “No, it was not only spring delirium,” said Dounia, with warm feeling.Why does Dounia reject R's explanation for why he fell in love with the Landlady's daughter, and why does she do so with warm feeling?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Again I wonder how the death of this girl affected his psychological trauma. Perhaps R wanted to sacrifice himself for the meek and needy, to make a statement that kindness and compassion can make a difference, and then she dies robbing him of his noble sacrifice. Kindness and compassion don't matter is the conclusion.."There is a part of Raskolnikov that is meek and needy, and I think this is what he identifies with in the women he is attracted to. The landlady's daughter, the drunk girl he wants to save, his pity for Sonya, even Katerina Ivanovna... they are all needy and weak, (though I don't think Katerina could be called meek.)
I don't think Raskolnikov is being kind and compassionate here... though I could be wrong. To me it looks like the same sort of thing he accuses Luzhin of: taking advantage of a woman in need so he can exercise power over her. His dislike of Luzhin is hypocritical in this light. Though maybe there is a psychological reading as well -- it could be that Raskolnikov dislikes this tendency in himself as well. That could explain why he often regrets his moments of compassion and kindness.
Does R suffer from White Knight Syndrome?White knights are men and women who enter into romantic relationships with damaged and vulnerable partners, hoping that love will transform their partner's behavior or life. Though most white knights feel that they are selfless and sacrificing, their rescuing behavior is often misguided. Problems arise when white knights care for their partners at the expense of their own needs, encounter destructive behavior, or try to control their partners.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
David wrote: "Does R suffer from White Knight Syndrome?White knights are men and women who enter into romantic relationships with damaged and vulnerable partners, hoping that love will transform their partner's ..."Actually, I think his problem is the exact opposite. As Thomas pointed out, the women R is attracted to are weak and needy and in desperate need of a knight in shining armor to rescue them. He wants to be perceived as their knight. However, he does not help them because he wants to "transform" their behavior. I think he helps them because it makes him feel superior. He says this about the young girl he was planning to marry:
She was an ugly little thing. I really don’t know what drew me to her then—I think it was because she was always ill. If she had been lame or hunchback, I believe I should have liked her better still,” he smiled dreamily.
I think that pretty much sums him up.
Thomas said: "To me it looks like the same sort of thing he accuses Luzhin of: taking advantage of a woman in need so he can exercise power over her."
Like Luzhin, R does not want to empower women; he wants power over them.
Cphe said: Are you saying that R is attracted to "weaker" women, to feel stronger as a male?
Yes, I think so. He feels superior to all the men he encounters, and he is attracted to weak women because that reinforces his feeling of superiority. It's as if he perceives himself to be above the rest of humanity--as if the rules don't apply to him.
Tamara wrote: "If she had been lame or hunchback, I believe I should have liked her better still,” he smiled dreamily.I think that pretty much sums him up..."
But as I inquired in message 9 above, why does Dounia seem to reject, at least in part, R's explanation of his attraction to the landlady's daughter, and with a warm feeling? Does the warm feeling mean Dounia approves of this sort of matchmaking, or does the warm feeling mean she recognizes it as the same form of domination she has become victim to and is angered by it? Or is something else going on?
We come into this story meeting a man (R) with a troubled mind, perhaps in the throes of madness, and pondering an evil act. He isolates himself. He criticizes everyone. He is dour, prone to extended periods of sleep. He hears what he wants to hear, believes the worst of his fellow man. What we don't know is what he was like before he became this way. But Razumikhin allows us a peek. He tells us he was conflicted, as if there were two people inside him, but he also tells us he was capable of great kindness. And in his more lucid moments we see examples of this kindness and compassion, something we will never see from the likes of Luzin, a man in complete control of his faculties.
We see a child who feels compassion for a horse that is being whipped on the eyes and slowly beaten to death. I see no compassion from any other witness to the beating, and there are many witnesses.
We see a troubled man leave his last kopecks on the windowsill after witnessing the humiliation of a man and the plight of wife and children.
He tries to help a drunk and incapacitated girl in her early teens. He calls a police officer to help her. What about that scene indicates he's attracted to her because she is weak as opposed to in need, like the horse?
The landlady's daughter is crippled and ugly. She is weak in illness. But is she weak in character? We don't know. Does R prey on her or feel compassion for her?
I don't see superiority in these acts of kindness. In fact, these are the only times I don't see the presence of his superior attitude.
David wrote: "But as I inquired in message 9 above, why does Dounia seem to reject, at least in part, R's explanation of his attraction to the landlady's daughter, and with a warm feeling? Does the warm feeling mean Dounia approves of this sort of matchmaking,..""Warm feeling" has positive connotations. But I don't know if that is an accurate translation. If you substitute the words "hot" or "heated", you get a different association--one almost of anger. Perhaps someone who knows Russian (are you there, Bigollo?) can clarify this.
Throughout the conversation between R, his mother, and Dounia, I got the impression that Dounia is not as enamored of him as his mother. I sense she sees through him, that she doesn't trust what he says and eyes him with suspicion. I'm not suggesting she suspects him of murder. But I do think she is well aware he is not the little darling his mother thinks him to be. She is also more willing to confront him.
R dismisses his attraction to the landlady's daughter by saying:
“Yes, it was a sort of spring delirium.”
“No, it was not only spring delirium,” said Dounia, with warm feeling.
I read that as she is on to him and knows about his antics maybe because he has exhibited the same tendencies in the past. So, in answer to your question, I think Dounia recognizes his attraction to weak and needy women as nothing more than a camouflage for his desire to dominate others and assert himself.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "What we don't know is what he was like before he became this way. But Razumikhin allows us a peek. .."His mother also allows us a peek. She tells Razumikhin:
...but you can’t imagine, Dmitri Prokofitch, how moody and, so to say, capricious he is. I never could depend on what he would do when he was only fifteen. And I am sure that he might do something now that nobody else would think of doing…
And later she says:
“Do you suppose——” Pulcheria Alexandrovna continued warmly. “Do you suppose that my tears, my entreaties, my illness, my possible death from grief, our poverty would have made him pause? No, he would calmly have disregarded all obstacles. And yet it isn’t that he doesn’t love us!”
I think this suggests that R has always been self-absorbed and inconsiderate.
Here's the Ready translation:The spring must have gone to my head . . ."
"No, it wasn't that," Dunechka said with feeling."
I'm not sure what "feeling" means, but R's aroused something in her. I can't tell what exactly, yet.
Dunya is strong, as strong as any character we have met. I can't help believing she's inviting her brother and Razumikhin to the meeting with Luzin for a showdown. Maybe we'll learn more about her feelings towards her brother then?
R seems to be attracted to compassionate people and desires to act compassionately. For example the landlady's daughter showed compassion by giving alms to the poor despite her own condition and he wanted to help and marry her. R also seems repulsed by contemptuous people. For example, the old pawnbroker preyed contemptuously on the impoverished. . .He seems conflicted to the point of psychosomatic illness by an inability to cope compassionately with contemptuous people. Therefore he copes with them contemptuously, including murdering them. Of course this transforms him into what he wants to avoid.
Then there are the times he curses his compassion so maybe he is just trying to become some compassionless great man; immune to disappointment and pain.
I think it's important to keep in mind that R is broke and relies on his mother and sister for money. So, on the one hand, it may be generous of him to give away his money to others. On the other hand, it's not really his money. His mother and sister have scrimped and saved to send him money. Their clothing, as Razumikhin observes, shows just how poor they are. So my question is this: how can it be compassionate of him to give money to others--regardless of how needy they are--when his own mother and sister are in such dire straits? Where's his compassion for them? Isn't his primary obligation to his family? How does he think they will survive?
He has dropped out of university, rejected Razumikhin's offer to earn an income, has no prospects for employment, and seems to think it's beneath him. Meanwhile, he is giving money that isn't his to strangers while his mother and sister aren't able to make ends meet.
Where's his compassion when it comes to his own family?
Tamara wrote: "I think this suggests that R has always been self-absorbed and inconsiderate..."I agree. He is certainly that. Another example would be his leaving 25 rubles -- money his mother can't afford to give to him but gives to him anyway -- with Katerina Ivanovov. Kind and thoughtless at the same time. And R admits as much when he tells his mother that giving away money that isn't yours isn't noble.
But he still shows signs of compassion. Opposites reside within R, each vying for control, neither a complete person. The arrogant one is extreme and uncaring. The compassionate one knows no bounds. The two must work together, each moderating the other's excesses. He's probably shown signs of mental health issues from an early age.
Tamara wrote: "how can it be compassionate of him to give money to others--regardless of how needy they are--when his own mother and sister are in such dire straits?..."He's also a murderer. He's also ill, impulse driven, out of control. And it is very, very difficult to like him. Not defending R so much as analyzing him and trying to figure out what D is up too. I guess I just don't see D spending this much time on R if he were just a scoundrel and unredeemable, so I'm looking for clues.
R treats his mother and sister badly, but so does Luzin, and he intends to marry Dunya, and I don't see Luzin ever being kind let alone compassionate. Lot of jerks here: R, Luzin, Marmeladov, the police Lieutenant.
What did you all think of R's reaction to Luzin's letter? I thought it odd. Rather than explode, R critiques his writing. I guess the point was Luzin is ignoring the socially acceptable way of going about such a thing and is intentionally insulting his wife to be.
R neither wanted nor asked for money from his mother and sister; I believe he explicitly stated he did not want it. Maybe his giving the money away will make them think twice before giving him any more? However, I can't see his mother or Dounia objecting to harshly to his use of it.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "We see a child who feels compassion for a horse that is being whipped on the eyes and slowly beaten to death. I see no compassion from any other witness to the beating, and there are many witnesses. We see a troubled man leave his last kopecks on the windowsill after witnessing the humiliation of a man and the plight of wife and children.
He tries to help a drunk and incapacitated girl in her early teens. He calls a police officer to help her. What about that scene indicates he's attracted to her because she is weak as opposed to in need, like the horse?"
I think Dostoevsky wants us to feel a little torn about Raskolnikov, so I don't think you're wrong. But why do you suppose Raskolnikov dismisses the dream, and regrets leaving his money on the windowsill, and finally says about the drunk girl, "Suppose they swallow each other alive, what does it matter to me?" I could be persuaded that there is some kindness in him if he weren't so wishy-washy about it.
Tamara wrote: "Throughout the conversation between R, his mother, and Dounia, I got the impression that Dounia is not as enamored of him as his mother. I sense she sees through him, that she doesn't trust what he says and eyes him with suspicion. I"I thought just the opposite, that Dunia might be a romantic, and a little bit naive. She loves her brother, and she wants to think the best of him.
Thomas wrote: "I think Dostoevsky wants us to feel a little torn about Raskolnikov, so I don't think you're wrong. But why do you suppose Raskolnikov dismisses the dream, and regrets leaving his money on the windowsill, and finally says about the drunk girl, "Suppose they swallow each other alive, what does it matter to me?" I could be persuaded that there is some kindness in him if he weren't so wishy-washy about it...."R. is deeply troubled. His thoughts and actions are irrational, so I don't think we can draw the same conclusions from his actions that we could draw from the actions of a rational person. We have to look elsewhere.
He is torn between two conflicting, opposing selves: the rational self devoid of compassion and morality -- the self that expresses itself in arrogant, uncaring superiority -- and the compassionate self that knows no bounds. He can be as self-destructive in his compassionate moments as he can be in his dour and moody ones. The rational self is dominant, in control most of the time. But the compassionate self is triggered in the presence of others in pain, suffering, or vulnerability. He toggles back and forth between two selves.
But R's compassion lasts only as long as he is in close proximity to those who suffer. It is triggered when he sees the penury and suffering of the Marmeladov family and an inebriated, young girl on the street. But as soon as he leaves the Marmeladov home, as soon as the policeman walks away with the girl, the dominant self returns. It's only then he tells himself they can swallow themselves for all he cares and tells the policeman to never mind.
I find it interesting that so many of the posts this week appear to be judging R. as if he were a real character. This really begs the question: how much should we focus on such endeavors when reading?I've seen it done well, for instance in A C Bradley's Shakespearean Tragedy which really enhanced my enjoyment of Shakespeare. But it also has the danger of causing us to miss the point entirely. Just imagine judging Lolita based on how much you condone of the monstrous actions of Humbert Humbert.
It's therefore interesting to see people here judge him and defend him in turn. It really does point to a very psychologically complex character.
A new angle on R. with this week's reading: He really struggles to find the language for his thoughts which, I would argue, makes him rather incapable of processing his thoughts rationally:[He] doesn't like voicing his feelings, and would rather do something cruel than speak his heart out in words.
...It suddenly became perfectly plain and clear to him that he had just uttered a terrible lie, that not only would he never have the chance to talk all he wanted, but that it was no longer possible for him to talk at all...
Perhaps this is why R. is so interested in the tone and language of Luzhin's lettert--he marvels at the fact that the language so clearly belies the thoughts, beliefs and morals of the writer (who is really quite a disgusting specimen, but that's neither here nor there). Meanwhile, R. cannot make himself understood by even those who are the closest to him.
Also I can't help but defend R. from the allegation that he's no better than Luzhin when he engaged himself to Miss Zarnitsyn. Miss Zarnitsyn and Dunya are not equivalent in the marriage market. We hear from Razumikhin, our most reliable source within the book, that she is homely, sickly, and poor, although probably with other merits (probably along the lines of character and intelligence which probably isn't worth all that much in the marriage market). Dunya, as soon as she appears in St. Petersburg, is already showing herself to be quite a head-turner. Her poverty doesn't even seem to diminish her ambience all that much. A man as shrewd as Luzhin must know that she is out of his league, and he only has a chance because she's 1) poor and 2) doesn't quite realize her potential in the provinces. Luzhin's proposal to her is not an act of pure compassion, as R.'s proposal to Miss Zarnitsyn may have been--it is sheer opportunism, trying to snatch up a valuable good at below market price.I'm pretty sure that Luzhin is gonna have his pathetic a&& handed back to him by the Raskolnikov siblings at the 8pm meeting, and am going to enjoy every line of it.
Tamara wrote: ""Warm feeling" has positive connotations. But I don't know if that is an accurate translation. If you substitute the words "hot" or "heated", you get a different association--one almost of anger. Perhaps someone who knows Russian (are you there, Bigollo?) can clarify this."“No, it was not only spring delirium,” said Dounia, with warm feeling.
For 'warm feeling', there is one word in the Russian text, the word literally means ANIMATION; although, it is more often used metaphorically than its English counterpart.
But 'with animation' does not sound good. Maybe it could be translated 'animatedly', 'with spirit', or even 'spiritedly'?
And yes, the original word does have a positive connotation.
Thomas wrote: "David wrote: "My translation makes more sense substituting nonsense and error for lie.“Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. That’s man’s one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err!"
That does make a lot more sense. But there is a big difference between a lie and a mistake. And there's a degree of difference between a mistake and nonsense... Maybe Bigollo can help us with the translation?
If we look up the word LIE in an English-Russian dictionary, first we’ll see this Russian word – let’s call it - L, which is indeed very close in meaning to the English LIE. This is not the word Razumikhin uses. He uses a more colloquial synonym of L, let’s call it – V, which has much broader range of use. [Among many other interesting things about V, we teach our children not to use it, because it’s very impolite (they still do, ignoring L, the alternative we teach them)]. Sometimes V can be understood as ERR, but mostly when talking about measurement instruments. A watch or a thermometer can V, for instance.
I like the version of translation with the word ‘lie’ better nonetheless. Words like ‘mistake’ or ‘error’ suggest something unintentional. But by reading further that passage we can see that Razumikhin implies intentionality. Taking into account even broader context of the book, I think R-khin expresses indignity on those young Russians who keep repeating and lauding what has come (most likely) from the West, and which is to his opinion nonsense. If we can’t produce truth at first shot, it’s more natural and manly for him to create our own nonsense, copycatting being extreme vulgarity.
In the translation by Oliver Ready there is a line in that passage, “Keep fibbing, and you’ll end up with the truth!”
“Fibbing” – it catches it. In many contexts V could be translated as fib.
I'm late to the party again. Thank you for all of your insightful comments. Ideas were rattling around in my mind and then someone in the thread would express what I was thinking, only much more succinctly than I ever could. I'm afraid I haven't read my way through the whole thread but I just wish to refer to one or two comments.Xan, I like the idea of Raskolnikov's dismissing sacrifice as a lost cause. He sees his compassion for his invalid girlfriend as pointless because she died anyhow ( such effrontery!) and therefore he believes his sister's intended marriage to be a wasted sacrifice.
Thomas, Tamara and others have talked of the reasons for Raskolnikov's being drawn to the disadvantaged. The picture of the horse came to mind strongly as perhaps an ignition point for feelings of compassion. When reading the incidents as they happened my instinct was to believe that the trigger for his actions was compassion. This is partly true, but also there is his need to have his ego massaged which is born out of insecurity. His actions don't line up though. I suppose that this comes of being human. I was shocked when he threw the gift of kopecks in the river. There was any number of beneficial actions available to him: merely giving the money to the next person he saw might have made the difference between starvation and a good warm meal!
Of course the double murder is a little undermining to all his acts of compassion up to that point and, indeed, after! In keeping with his need to ally himself with the marginalised he might have been better served simply to maim his victims. (What a gruesome thought!). Certainly there would have been no hiding of the evidence then. Exhibits A and B would have been there for all to see! That might have been a little bit more difficult than hiding a purse ...
Thank you, Bigollo, for sharing your expertise in Russian. It is very helpful.
Bigollo wrote: "But 'with animation' does not sound good. Maybe it could be translated 'animatedly', 'with spirit', or even 'spiritedly'? And yes, the original word does have a positive connotation..."Thank you, Bigollo.
David wrote: "R neither wanted nor asked for money from his mother and sister; I believe he explicitly stated he did not want it. Maybe his giving the money away will make them think twice before giving him any ..."But if he didn't want the money, why didn't he return it to them? He didn't have to accept it, especially knowing, as he must do, how much of a sacrifice they make in giving it to him.
I think we need to be very leery of believing R. He seems to say/think one thing and then do another. He has a distorted self-image.
Shelley wrote: "I find it interesting that so many of the posts this week appear to be judging R. as if he were a real character. This really begs the question: how much should we focus on such endeavors when read..."This brings up a really good question about reading fiction in general. Does Dostoevsky really expect the reader to be serenely objective about an ax murderer? I expect not, at least not entirely, but at the same time he humanizes Raskolnikov and makes him somewhat more likable.
I think we have no choice but to judge Raskolnikov, but at the same time we can identify with him (in some respects), and maybe even have compassion for him. I'm not sure the book would work otherwise. The Nabokov comparison is a good one: Nabokov called Humbert "a vain and cruel wretch who appears 'touching.' " I wonder if it isn't necessary for an anti-hero to at least appear redeemable in some respects.
Bigollo wrote: I like the version of translation with the word ‘lie’ better nonetheless. Words like ‘mistake’ or ‘error’ suggest something unintentional. But by reading further that passage we can see that Razumikhin implies intentionality. "Thanks, Bigollo. This is very helpful. I don't really want to buy another translation of this book, but I might have to get a copy of Ready anyway.
The intentionality of Raz's statement is important -- the road to truth is not discovered via drunken "nonsense." It involves intentional lies, deliberate sins. This seems to imply that one cannot discover the truth through instruction -- one must lie and sin and err of one's own volition, rather than do what others say. I wonder if there's anything to this, or if this is just an expression of Razumkhin's boozy exuberance...
Thomas wrote: "This brings up a really good question about reading fiction in general. Does Dostoevsky really expect the reader to be serenely objective about an ax murderer? I expect not..."Nor the horse whipping. I suspect D wants us to be passionate about his characters because they themselves are passionate. I wonder if D broke several pens writing this, just snapped the nibs off?
Thank you, Bigollo! I appreciate all your help with the Russian language! Most helpful, indeed! I note that Dmitri Prokofych describes R as rather doing something cruel than speaking his heart out in words (as above discussed), and "as if there really were two opposite characters in him, changing places with each other"....further description of him always being in a hurry, "never hearing people out to the end", "never interested in what interest everyone else at a given moment" makes me think R perhaps has attention disorder hyperactivity disorder or some such. Also, Dmitri's description that R "sets a terribly high value on himself..." suggests narcissistic tendencies. But then later it is revealed R's sister , Avdotya, "too , had the habit of not hearing people out to the end."..perhaps she like her brother , has a bit of ADHD characteristics. What does this mean overall as to R's motivations: impulsivity for instance, seems apt.
I also thought it interesting that R's mother commenting to R, "What an awful apartment you have, Rodya; like a coffin."....and R's reply that he had pondered whether his apartment made him more melancholic. But then he adds: "But if you knew what a strange thought you just said, mama". Does he feel like he is dead already? Dead as to his old self?
Tamara wrote: "But if he didn't want the money, why didn't he return it to them? He didn't have to accept it, especially knowing, as he must do, how much of a sacrifice they make in giving it to him."I was trying to make a case for Raskolnikov's compassionate side; I never said he was responsible. :)
Responsibility was a theme in Brothers Karamozov and I think it plays a part here too. M seemed to bask in the guilt of his lack of responsibility due to alcohol. Raskolnikov seems to waiver between being responsible, irresponsible or overly-responsible (taking it upon himself to kill certain people he feels are harmful to society, independent of drink. Razumihin seems to drink responsibly, or at least his apologies for statements he makes when he is drunk sound sincere.
”Nonsense! I like it when people lie! Lying is man’s only privilege over all other organisms. If you lie -- you get to the truth! Lying is what makes me a man. Not one truth has ever been reached without first lying fourteen times or so...”
Razumikhin is a bit ashamed of his behavior the next day and punches the kitchen stove. He continues to discuss Raskolnikov with Zossimov, who believes Raskolnikov is a “monomaniac” obsessed with the killing. Pulcheria and Dunia want to know what Razumikhin thinks of Raskolnikov. No one seems to know Raskolnikov, even his own family. Razumikhin says he is arrogant, proud, and insecure, but also magnanimous and kind. He says he “would rather do something cruel than speak his heart out in words.” He says it’s as if there were “two opposite characters in him, changing places with each other.” No wonder he’s hard to know.
Zossimov declares Raskolnikov to be well when his visitors arrive. He does appear better, but his words and actions soon belie his appearance, and he realizes that he is frightening his family.
Pulcheria and Dunia inform Raskolnikov that Marfa Petrovna has died. The manner of her death is suspicious, and Dunia almost seems to defend Svidrigailov. She also insists that her marriage to Luzhin is based on her own choice (and not ersatz prostitution, as Raskolnikov suggests.) When Dunia says, “If I ruin anyone, it will only be myself... I haven’t gone and put a knife into anyone yet!” Raskolnikov faints. Is it the thought of violence that shocks Raskolnikov, or something else?