Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part 6, Chap 5 to Epilogue & Book as a whole
date
newest »
newest »
I think the closest we come to understanding R motives for the murder comes from Svidrigailov in his discussion with Dounia. He seems to give the clearest analysis although it is still not entirely satisfactory.I think Svidrigailov emerges as the most interesting character. On the one hand, he is accused of murdering his wife, borders on being a pedophile, and lures Dounia to his room with the intention of raping her.
On the other hand, he lets Dounia leave when he realizes she could never love him. He gives money to his fiancée and to Sonya with instructions for the latter to take care of herself and Raskolnikov. He is generous with his money, assures that the orphans, Dounia, Sonya, and Raskolnikov will be well provided for. And then he kills himself.
For me, Svidrigailov emerges as the most interesting and complex character of the lot. He is despicable, but he has a generous side. He is also intelligent. His role at the end of the novel, assuring the welfare of others and bringing closure to loose ends is reminiscent of the deus ex machina in Greek plays.
I just finished chapter 7 -- sorry, fallen behind a bit -- Svid's last hours, and I thought it was a most powerful chapter. Talk about confused minds, Svid is a louse, but not all the time a louse. He helps Sonya and cautions her to be more pragmatic with her charity, and he leaves his money to his young wife to be. Then in his dream he picks up the wet, crying child and gently puts her to bed. Is this regret before the end, or is it more examples of a mind split between two competing world views? And notice how Svid regrets his charitable act after the fact, just like R does time and time again. I thought that without ever saying it, D. is showing us that no matter how bad Svid can be, his good deeds are deeds Luzin could never perform -- saving a child. He would have left her there.
Tamara wrote: "For me, Svidrigailov emerges as the most interesting and complex character of the lot. He is despicable, but he has a generous side. He is also intelligent...."Yes, he is wise and despairing and very alone.
Cphe wrote: "In a sense it was S who was looking for redemption as well. ..."Yes.
Cphe wrote: "As a reader I grieved more for S than R....for what might have been. (if that makes sense)"I feel the same way. I think S was pinning his hopes on Dounia. He says at one point she might have been able to turn him into a better person.
And the promises I made her just now, too—Damnation! But—who knows?—perhaps she would have made a new man of me somehow….”
I think what we see of Raskolnikov is only the tip of the iceberg, and the genius of the novel is what lies beneath the surface, the subconscious. I'm almost sure that Raskolnikov wants to be punished before he even commits his crimes. Dostoevsky starts the Brothers Karamazov with a detailed personal history of each of the brothers, so we know where they come from psychologically. By contrast, we learn almost nothing of Raskolnikov's personal background. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what happened to him as a child?
Cphe wrote: "We know that the scene with the mare had great impact upon him...."It would also be interesting to see how R's ideas about social justice evolved during his years at university. Dunya, I think, hints at R always needing to be needed -- to make a difference. We see that in the incident Cphe mentions above. Yes, we are plopped into the middle of a story (a mind in turmoil), aren't we?
I wish D. had written a book with Svid as the protagonist. Now that would be a mind bender and a feast for discussion.
Yes, and we learn a little bit about R's heroics while at university. His friends would know of his exploits. Nice of D. to save that till the end. I feel cheated.
Cphe wrote: "Another point, I was amazed at how many of R's friends gathered around him during his time of need - how they stayed with him right through. "
Nice observation. Especially interesting since R makes a big show of leaving them, on a number of occasions saying "this may be the last time" he sees them. They make excuses for his behavior (illness, usually) and stick by him anyway. It's as if they think he's just going through a phase.
First off, thanks to Thomas for leading the discussion so expertly.Agree with previous posts that it would have been interesting to find out more about Raskolnikov's childhood and university years, though one of the novel's strengths is how it leaves the reader ample space to interpret how this young man became a killer. In chapter 7 of part 6, R's mother says to him, "ever since your father died everything makes me cry" – so again we're given a glimpse of something largely out of sight, in this case the emotional impact of that loss on R himself.
For me, part of what makes C&P great is that it somehow makes me feel empathy for odious characters like R and Svidrigailov. Reading it with this group also helped me appreciate the book's social commentary, the way city life isolates vulnerable individuals, and how alcoholism and economic inequality blights the lives of poor women and children. The desperate scene involving Katerina Ivanovna and her children, where they're forced to dance and sing to beg for money, is one that will always stay with me.
The scenes involving R and Porfiry are also very memorable for me. Not just for the interplay of detective cat & mouse, but also for the way their conversation contains some of the book's big ideas, giving us a sense of the intellectual climate among the radical youth of Russia at the time. Dostoevsky seems keen to show how these ideas can become corrosive outside the framework of faith and community.
C&P is far from perfect though – for me, the book's big flaw is how the figure of Lizaveta is largely forgotten, allowing R off the hook. How and why he inspires such loyalty and devotion in those around him remains a mystery to me; for example, like Ruth in the Bible, Sonya says she will follow R to the ends of the earth. That said, I personally prefer C&P to The Brothers Karamazov, which despite all its strengths I found too bloated and didactic at times, complete with an epilogue that was even more sentimental than this one.
Dave wrote: "First off, thanks to Thomas for leading the discussion so expertly.Agree with previous posts that it would have been interesting to find out more about Raskolnikov's childhood and university year..."
Dave, a great post and summation. Thank you.
Like Dave, I felt the scene with Katerina Ivanovna dressing her children up in ridiculous outfits and forcing them to dance and sing to beg for money was very moving. I also think the final scene between Raskolnikov and his mother was very powerful. Pulcheria Alexandrovna's plea is the plea of a mother who senses there is something desperately wrong with her son but who can't bring herself to let him go or to accept it. She is sick with worry, even apologizes for her behavior, and is ready to say and do anything to keep him by her side. But at the same time she recognizes he is lost to her for good. It was heart-felt and compelling.
I have been avoiding this thread to avoid spoilers, but I am close to the end myself.In the end, I relied mainly on the George Guidal narration, and very little on the e-book.
I'm just at the point where R is ready to turn himself in, but bristles at admitting he has committed a crime. This seems like his last gasp.
(I don't think it means he's psychopathic).
OK, I'm going to plead stupidity here.I do not remember Zametov and the "explosive lieutenant."
I may have missed a portion of the book. These characters are from Raskolnikov's first visit to the police station?
Did anybody else have trouble recalling these two characters after 300 pp.?
R met both of them at the first visit to the police station. He met Zametov again at a drinking establishment and had a dream about the explosive lieutenant beating his landlady.
Raskolnikov basically confesses to Zamyotov in but in such a brazenly sarcastic way that Zamyotov doesn't believe him. R says something like, "And what if I said I did it?' but Zamyotov doesn't take this possibility seriously.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "..I thought that without ever saying it, D. is showing us that no matter how bad Svid can be, his good deeds are deeds Luzin could never perform -- saving a child. He would have left her there..."The last hours of Svidrigailov, from his meeting with Raskolnikov to his suicide, is intriguing, for lack of a better word.
Dunya accused him of poisoning his wife, to which he replied, "Even if that were true, it would have been for your sake... you would have been the cause”. That sounds to me not so much a confession of guilt as a twisted form of flattery.
Are the rumours of his rapes and murders true? I still don't know.
In one of his last dreams, he saved a little girl, before she changed into a harlot in his eyes. What is the significance of that? Does he have a reverse Midas touch?
As for Luzhin, I think he would 'save a child' if the act can help promote his social and financial status. IOW, he is a hypocrite. When he gave Sonya ten rubles, I thought that was his goal, but it turned out, he wanted to promote himself by destroying her.
Nemo wrote: Dunya accused him of poisoning his wife, to which he replied, "Even if that were true, it would have been for your sake... you would have been the cause”. That sounds to me not so much a confession of guilt as a twisted form of flattery. I read it more as trying to lay a guilt trip on her i.e. If I did kill her, Dunya, I did it for you. Therefore, you are to blame and you owe me.
Are the rumours of his rapes and murders true? I still don't know.
I don't think we ever find out the truth about him. That's what makes him so intriguing in my opinion.
In one of his last dreams, he saved a little girl, before she changed into a harlot in his eyes. What is the significance of that? Does he have a reverse Midas touch?
I read that as he is saving Sonya from a life of prostitution by giving her adequate funds for herself and Raskolnikov. He has figured out she is going with R wherever he goes.
Yes, I wondered too about the puzzling fact that R did not feel remorse for his crime. That he equated his goal of his personally getting ahead in the world with those of Napoleon is a bit curious, etc. But the dream he had as he laid in the hospital through the end of Lent andHoly week may have started to clue him in a bit as to the viability of the "exceptional man" if employed too individually as well as by too many. As in that dream, everyone seemed to find his/her self exceptional or rather that each person (in/affected) perceived their "moral convictions and beliefs", etc. unshakable and from that, chaos resulted. Such as is the case with R and his belief of which he could not shake. D writes, "it pained R that this senseless delirium echoed so sadly and tormentingly in his memory...". It was after that dream that when he did not find Sonya waiting outside, he worried especially when he found out that she was sick...seems something of a turning point. Poor Sonya to have put up with his treating her so poorly before this.I also felt for the mother and her grief....sensing a horror awaiting her son but not being able to wrap her mind about such and thus grasping on to what she could that honored him (such as his being published, etc.) and crafting her own fantasy that in time he will become a man of true substance and "return".
But as to R, pride was such an essential part of himself...such as it made him angry that it was others who condemned himself, rather than his own self being the sole condemner....and again, part of the "exceptional man" theory which he seemed to hold onto in his lack of remorse (albeit that wavered greatly at times and he struggled with that), but the dream again revealed the repercussions and effect of such pride if too individual and also widely held.
Tamara wrote: "Nemo wrote:"...In one of his last dreams, he saved a little girl, before she changed into a harlot in his eyes. What is the significance of that? Does he have a reverse Midas touch?I read that as he is saving Sonya from a life of prostitution by giving her adequate funds for herself and Raskolnikov. He has figured out she is going with R wherever he goes. ..."
What happened to the little girl in Svidrigailov's dream is different from Sonya, though. The little girl changed into a harlot after Svidrigailov 'saved' her, whereas Sonya was never a harlot in her heart, though she was forced into prostitution.
Sue wrote: "Yes, I wondered too about the puzzling fact that R did not feel remorse for his crime. That he equated his goal of his personally getting ahead in the world with those of Napoleon is a bit curious,..."I think Raskolnikov does have a point there. The killing of the 'extraordinary man' is no different from his, the only difference is that he 'failed', as he saw it, to live with it, proving that he was not extraordinary. But there is always the possibility that he might eventually succeed, and become 'extraordinary'.
Sue wrote: "As in that dream, everyone seemed to find his/her self exceptional or rather that each person (in/affected) perceived their "moral convictions and beliefs", etc. unshakable and from that, chaos resulted. Such as is the case with R and his belief of which he could not shake. D writes, "it pained R that this senseless delirium echoed so sadly and tormentingly in his memory..."."I find R's final dream to be strangely abstract and out of place. R calls it a "senseless piece of delirium" but it isn't senseless at all -- it seems to be the point of the novel. It's Dostoevsky's final condemnation of the intelligentsia.
Yes, I too am very glad to have had a chance to read this novel with this group as well. Ditto what Cphe said! Thank you as well for all your insightful contributions!
Sue wrote: "Ditto what Cphe said! Thank you as well for all your insightful contributions!"Ditto thrice! This was one of those rare experiences where reading a book more closely made it less appealing to me, but I think it still has its moments of brilliance. Thanks to all for your sharing your thoughts!
Cphe wrote: "Question to those who have read the novel more than once. With this second reading did you rate it higher or lower than the previous read?"Cphe, I read it so long ago that it almost doesn't count, but I think I liked it better this time.
Post-Idiot, I see that the highly dramatic scenes like the guy trying to frame Dounya are what Dostoevsky does.
I thought the prose had a tendency to ramble, but this was probably in the name of realism.
Notice how hot it is at the beginning of the book, and how cold at the end (I mean when Svid goes to the cheap hotel)? There must have been a couple of months skipped over.
Cphe wrote: "Question to those who have read the novel more than once. With this second reading did you rate it higher or lower than the previous read?"I have read it about half a dozen times over the years. This time around I found myself getting increasingly frustrated with Raskolnikov and incensed at the treatment of women. I also thought Dostoevsky rambled a bit in some parts.
So, in answer to your question, I didn't enjoy it as much as I had done in previous years. But I think I had a much better grasp of it as a result of the discussions, perspectives, and insights. And Thomas' guidance throughout was icing on the cake.
My thanks to all for their contributions.
Cphe wrote: "Question to those who have read the novel more than once. With this second reading did you rate it higher or lower than the previous read?"Great question. I liked it less.
The first time (about 6 years ago) I think I was very much enamored with the dark psychologic intensity of it all. This time, especially with the help of this group, I'm seeing much more clearly the cracks and fissures in the edifice and how D. is unable to make it a coherent and natural narrative.
Cphe wrote: "Question to those who have read the novel more than once. With this second reading did you rate it higher or lower than the previous read?"Knocked it down a notch.
The psychological, philosophical, and religious ideas are good, and D. can certainly show what goes on in a troubled mind -- the chaos the second guessing, the twisted logic -- but Luzin exits the story when he exits the after-funeral get together without explanation, and Razumikhin, a major, influential character disappears after the Dunya-Luzin showdown only to make a small, inconsequential appearance or two for the last half of the book.
The caretaking of the invalid man who dies and the children rescued from the fire added to the landlady's daughter's death make R's anguish and twisted philosophy all the more understandable. But D. doesn't tell us of the first two until the epilogue. Really?
In some ways the book is like an advanced draft. There is little of the polish and refinement of a finished product.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "In some ways the book is like an advanced draft. There is little of the polish and refinement of a finished product. "Absolutely. Structurally the book just holds together very poorly.
Shelley wrote: "Cphe wrote: "Question to those who have read the novel more than once. With this second reading did you rate it higher or lower than the previous read?"Great question. I liked it less.
The first..."
I felt the same way, Shelley. I'm wondering perhaps that was also to do with my youth when reading. A dark attraction to the ceaseless introspection was somewhat more understandable to me- perhaps not leading to murder... but there were often times when I asked myself almost as I was making bad decisions...am I really going to do that??
A late addition: I was reading about phenomenology and realized that Dostoesvky is addressed by many in this regard: Patocka for one, and by others. For instance, see here for an essay re Hegel and C & P: https://static1.squarespace.com/stati...
Hello everyone, I’ve been lurking on the fringes as usual trying to keep up the pace. I noticed that during the discussion of the color yellow and its association with disease, Shelley brought up in interesting point (Part 1, post 123):The pervasiveness of yellowness, in addition to creating a rather unpleasant visual image of R.'s surroundings, may also hint at the fact that the whole society is diseased, and in a way probably akin to alcoholism, a disease of moral decay and poverty (or at least that would have been the 19th-century view). The idea that society can become diseased, like an organism, seems to be echoed in other 19th century Russian literature--Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych and Chekhov's Ward Number Six are two just off the top of my head. Of course this raises the questions: What is a healthy person? What is a healthy society? I think of Tolstoy's "natural man" but D.'s answers are more elusive.
Re: the passage you pointed out, my translation (P&V) is, "So the sun will be shining the same way then!" The emphasis on "then" (the translator's italics) I think refers to his future act (view spoiler): the fact that the sun will shine even then hints at a cosmologic indifference to human affairs--the whole universe is implicated in the disease of human society.
So I’ve been thinking about this “disease of human society” thing for awhile. It really seems to me that human society, if anything, is Raskolnikov’s way out of delirium. It is when he chooses deliberate isolation that he is most subject to fevered frenzies. His advice to Sonya in Section 4 (p. 329 P&V translation) seems to suggest a connection between isolation and a degenerating state of mind.
... and if you remain alone, you’ll lose your mind, like me. You’re nearly crazy already; so we must go together, on the same path! Let’s go!
In this case, the human connection will theoretically aid in sanity. By section 6, as R is heading toward his confession (p. 525 P&V):
It was unpleasant, very unpleasant, for him to encounter people, yet he was going precisely where he could see the most people. He would have given anything in the world to be left alone, yet he felt himself that he could not have remained alone for a minute.
By then Raskolnikov is exhibiting relatively sound mind. So, is mankind the disease, or the cure?
As for Thomas’ realization: It is strange though that Raskolnikov is never truly sorry for his crimes. Is redemption possible without repentance? I don’t know what to do with that! The lack of repentance has bothered me the whole time. While he’s admitting to his actions, he does not consider the murders “evildoing.” How strange. I’m not sure Raskolnikov deserves Sonya, Dunya, Raz, or forgiveness.
Ashley wrote: "As for Thomas’ realization: It is strange though that Raskolnikov is never truly sorry for his crimes. Is redemption possible without repentance? I don’t know what to do with that! The lack of re..."
I think it is instructive to read, or at least glance at D.'s earlier book, Notes from the Underground for a clue as to why R. is so defiant, even to the end.
I would venture to say that even if he did repent, he would refuse to admit feeling guilt, or saying what he did was wrong, out of sheer spite.
Marmeladov, remember, was full of regret, and voluble in his profession of guilt, which did not keep him from going on benders, out of 'spite.'
If this attitude strikes some readers as inconsistent, think of it as one more blow at Chernishevsky (sp?)- a kind of diehard determination to be free, and not to go along with what's best for all.
Ashley wrote: "By then Raskolnikov is exhibiting relatively sound mind. So, is mankind the disease, or the cure? "Great question, and one that goes to the heart of Raskolnikov's character, and to the heart of the book for that matter. I think the answer to your question is "both." R lives up to his schismatic name to the end.
The root of R's suffering is his isolation, but it is only by remaining isolated, living outside the norms of society, that he can enjoy the freedom that allows him to be "extraordinary".
He is continually drawn back to society, instinctually it seems. He is drawn almost involuntarily to confess, but to really confess means loss of freedom. He is drawn to his friends and family, and especially Sonia, but he never seems ready to let go of his grandiose self-identity. In order to be "extraordinary" he must sacrifice love. By confessing to Sonia and then turning himself in, he seems to be on his way toward reversing this and rejoining the human community, but his refusal to repent is a sign that he is still unwilling to resign himself.
Whew, I finally finished!!! All the commentary was very enlightening. I think I wrote early on that I thought R was mentally ill, but I guess I realize now that D was painting a portrait of one whose feeling of superiority perhaps led to this murder & the idea he could get away with it as another example of being isolated from society. But instead of being proud of his accomplishment he is psychologically tortured by the guilt. His physical illness could definitely be a manifestation of that guilt. I was surprised that D used a realization of love as R's redemption without having R really express remorse over his actions.
Although I could not keep up (seems to be my usual), I would have never finished if I did not have the group discussion to help me through!
Chris wrote: "Whew, I finally finished!!! ..."Well done! :)
This is now one of my all-time favourite books! Extraordinary!
Hilary wrote: "This is now one of my all-time favourite books! Extraordinary!"I was encouraged to read this because the story unravels Nietzsche's Superman theory but before Nietzsche wrote about it. Crime and Punishment was written in 1866 and Nietzsche wrote about his superman idea in 1883. I believe one question we should be asking ourselves from this story is: Does history make the man or does the man make history ?
But I think we do get something like a reason for why he confesses and accepts punishment for his crimes, even if he does not truly repent. In the Epilogue, part 2, Dostoevsky writes:
Oh, how happy he would have been if he could have condemned himself! He could have endured everything then, even shame and disgrace. But he judged himself severely, and his hardened conscience did not find any especially terrible guilt in his past, except perhaps a simple blunder that could have happened to anyone. He was ashamed precisely because he, Raskolnikov, had perished so blindly, hopelessly, vainly, and stupidly, by some sort of decree of blind fate, and had to reconcile himself and submit to the "meaninglessness" of such a decree if he wanted to find at least some peace for himself.
Raskolnikov's confession seems to be fated rather than willed; he is drawn to it almost as mechanically as he is drawn to the murder. But his love for Sonya has something to do with it. His desire to regain some sense of humanity and rejoin the human race has something to do with it. He chooses to suffer and endure, rather than take the exit chosen by Svidrigailov. It is strange though that Raskolnikov is never truly sorry for his crimes. Is redemption possible without repentance? (Perhaps Dostoevsky planned to address this in the next part of the story.)
Time to hear your final impressions of the book! I'm interested in hearing what makes C&P a "great book" ... if in fact it is.