Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Discuss part 1 of C&P here (containing multiple chapters, ca. 88 pages).
For general thoughts on starting the read, and a look at our optional reading schedule, see this thread:
/topic/show/...

I'm traveling for a few days right now and limited in organizational capacity, so feel free to open threads etc.

Just finished Part I. The sole benefit of insomnia is I can get some reading done!

A couple of things I'm kicking around in my mind:

1) Is Dostoevsky making a feminist statement in this book? I see connections among Sonia; Rasklnikov's sister, Dounia; the drunk girl; the pawnshop lady's stepsister, Lizaveta; and the mare in his dream. But while in some places Rasklnikov and other male characters are sympathetic to these females; in others, his interior questioning is rather malicious (as in Chapter IV).

2) What do you make of the coincidences in the book? He overhears in a conversation the exact thoughts he had been thinking the day before—or is thinking in the moment; and he finds an object just when he needs it (Chapter VI). He has thoughts that are not his and strength that is not his (Chapter VII). Are these events the work of fate or just coincidences? Why is Dostoevsky having his character interpret the events as fate? My theory for now is that Dostoevsky is showing the inner psychology of the character, who needs to not have responsibility for his actions. The Russian novels are so psychological!

I'm enjoying this novel much more than Brothers Karamazov, which I could not finish. It's wonderful to be reading it with you all: shaping my questions for public viewing helps me understand the book. Thank you!

As to point 2, Mary, I'm definitely no Dostoevsky expert, but I believe he had a strong Christian faith that is evident in much of his writings. Obviously, Raskolnikov is not showing evidence of a strong faith in God by any means, but is it possible God is leaving hints of his presence and sovereignty for Raskolnikov that the latter can't see as anything other than fate, at least at the time? (Not having read this book before, I can't fast forward to how it all comes together).

As I read this first part, I was so impressed at how in depth Dostoevsky gets into the mind of Raskolnikov as the latter considers and plans his crime. It takes me back to my less wholesome days when I would think about doing something I shouldn't do, vacillate over whether I really should do it, finally commit the dirty deed, and then become paranoid over whether I left evidence behind.

This year being the 150th anniversary of its first publishing, the psychology (and, to some extent, sociology) in this book could be brought into a 21st century story and be a page turner, it seems to be so well thought out. It's as though Dostoevsky was either deeply in touch with his darker self, or he had talked extensively with a criminal about the thought process they went through.

Oh wow, what an end to part one to finish our first week.
When the protagonist rushed at the younger sister with his axe, I thought why, why destroy the small trace of positivity in his immoral action? Of course, as Dostoyewsky writes himself, a criminal's mind isn't functioning properly in his crime and hyperexcited state of mind.
All of this psychology was so realistically described, you wonder how Dostoyewsky got to know about it without commiting similar crimes himself.

I typed the above without reading previous comments, so, Jeff, we had similar ideas, There are parts about Raskolnikov we find in ourselves, how when we finally decide to do something our own actions surprise us, or how we can get distracted by trivial thoughts while we are doing something very important.

Mary, to point 1:
What kind of feminist statement do you mean? That he's treating his female characters as equals to the male? Possibly, and there are surely articles about Dostoewsky and feminism out there. I'm always reminded of G.R.R.Martin's (creator of the Game of Thrones books) writing of women. When people ask him, why are your women so strong in a feminist way, and how do you write women so well? He answers that he is simply treating his female characters as people, complex personalities, the same as his male characters in that way.

Mary, point 2:
Raskolnikov himself remarks how strangely accidental it is to hear his planned idea of a crime from other people, and muses on whether it's fate or not. Dostoyevsky is putting this as a question, not a firm position, i think. Of course the funny thing is that Dostoyevsky as an author can write any coincidince into his story, no matter how unlikely.

Just finished Part 1 last night! Here are my takeaways.
First, the book is starts in introducing each character's problems. Raskolnikov with his debts, social anxiety and pride. Then we meet Marmeladov who has a severe drinking problem. I was aghast when Marmeladov shared his "sufferings" to Raskolnikov. How could he drink away his salary when his family is starving! And then he kept saying that he drinks to find sorrow! His family's situation is already sorrowful and he dare add more problems. *sighs*

@Mary
I think I see the feminist points that you mean. Despite the lacks of the men's character in the first part, the women showed strength. Sonia was ready to help her drunkard of a father when he asked for help. She did not hesitate to share what she has. Though I think this was generous but stupidity at the same time. Katerina is also a strong character - for her to marry a man she does not love in order for her children to survive. I loved how she was described when Raskolnikov sees her for the first time.
"Her eyes had a feverish gleam, but their gaze was sharp and still, and her consumptive, distressed face made a painful impression in the last, trembling light of the dying candle."
Dounia, her sister, was also ready to marry Luzhin in order to help her beloved brother.

The dream of the mare which was murdered was very disturbing but I think this will have relevance in the succeeding parts of the book. Could be a foreshadowing. Or not.

@Mary, for the conincidences, I think this is the author's way of showing us Raskolnikov subconscious. He overhears a murder plot for Alyona, but deep inside him he has already decided this.

Excited for part 2! :)

Simon wrote: "Jeff, we had similar ideas, There are parts about Raskolnikov we find in ourselves...."

Simon, how true. For the relatively few writers like Dostoevsky who are able to delve into the human psyche so deeply, they help us see (if we'll allow ourselves to) a part of ourselves we might not want to admit we have.

Juliana Marie wrote: "Just finished Part 1 last night! Here are my takeaways.
First, the book is starts in introducing each character's problems. Raskolnikov with his debts, social anxiety and pride. Then we meet Marmel..."

This drinking habit, and for similar reasons, with similar results was also vividly described by Zola in "L'Assommoir". As they were both written in the same era, I wonder if they (the authors) were trying to raise awareness of the social issues of the day. I won't add to this further yet, in fear of including a spoiler. As for the women being strong, weren't they all, having to deal with this attitude on a daily basis?

In my school we've worked on realist literature until several months ago, so I'd love to participate in this discussion.

Mary wrote: "1) Is Dostoevsky making a feminist statement in this book?"

Absolutely not. ;) Dosto was a very religious Christian and I doubt he would agree with actual 20th century feminist ideas. He simply wrote great characters, both male and female.

Jeff wrote: "It's as though Dostoevsky was either deeply in touch with his darker self, or he had talked extensively with a criminal about the thought process they went through. "

That second thought, about talking with a criminal, is very plausible because he actually spent four years in a Siberian camp doing hard labor with other criminals. (He was imprisoned because he was a member of a revolutionary, anti-government organization.)

Brendan wrote: "This drinking habit, and for similar reasons, with similar results was also vividly described by Zola in "L'Assommoir". As they were both written in the same era, I wonder if they (the authors) were trying to raise awareness of the social issues of the day. "

They certainly were. It was typical for realist literature in general to point out social issues. Balzac talked about the immorality of the high society (he coined the phrase "behind every great fortune there is a great crime"), Turgenev attacked the backward and rotten feudal system in Russia, and so on and so on...

What I love about Raskolnikov's murder is how the reader perceives it. Typically in a crime novel, we'd want the horrible murderer to be brought to justice immediately. But here, the murderer is very relatable. We were diving into his thoughts just pages ago and we have a deeper connection with him. And we sincerely want him to get away with the crime because of that.

The reader, in fact, commits the crime together with Rodya... And the reader will be punished together with Rodya... And the reader will learn together with Rodya.

Sorry for this rambling. :/ I've read the book before so now I'm putting some of these things in perspective and getting lost in my thoughts.

Good points actually, Agumn! I hadn't thought about Dostoyevsky's time in the labor camp for some reason. Very reasonable for him to have gotten to know many criminal personalities there.

I agree with you Agumn that Raskolnikov's murder is very relatable. Also, the conversation he overheard between two officers about the plot to murder Alyona, the way it was it was being rationalized by the officer was relatable.

"Kill her and take her money, so as to devote yourself afterwards to the service of all humanity and the common cause. What do you reckon? Won’t thousands of good deeds iron out one tiny little crime? For one life � thousands of lives saved from decay and ruin. One death and a hundred lives in return � it’s basic arithmetic!" (I am reading the Oliver Ready translation since I could not get the Pevear and Volokhonsky's translations. )

We do this sometimes. No, not the murder part. But the way we want to justify our plans. We are sometimes more concerned with the result of our actions for "the greater good" but not the process in doing this.

Agumn wrote, "he actually spent four years in a Siberian camp doing hard labor with other criminals." Thank you for that bit of information. It certainly helps me understand better.

I was actually surprised how vividly the murder was described! I guess my expectation with classic novels is that so much is normally just hinted at, glossed over. But here, Dost. wants us in the mind of his character (protagonist?) and the complexity of his thoughts are what draw us in.

Despite, this, I do NOT find myself wanting him to get away with it. It's a gruesome crime, even moreso for the senseless (well, I supposed necessary to his escape) killing of the sister, who hasn't done anything to anyone, ever.

I found his arguing with himself that he never intended to go through with it even up to the last moment frankly laughable. The chapter is full of references to how he had set this thing aside, hidden that thing, put this aside to be ready.... all long in advance. He was never NOT going to do it. He was just trying to convince himself of his own purity of heart and trying to fool himself of his own character.

The dream with the horse was incredibly disturbing, moreso than the murder, oddly enough. Perhaps it's because we feel the horse did nothing to deserve its fate? And also because we know such atrocities really happen.... I kept finding myself thinking "There has got to be a special place in hell for souls who treat animals like that...."

Alana: Interesting. I'm put in mind that Raskolnikov is playing God, both in deciding who should live and who should die and in acting as His (or his own, if he's taking the part of God) scourge to carry out his judgment. But it seems to be the greatest temptation, to place yourself in judgment and be the executioner. Perhaps Dostoyevsky was pointing out that once we do that, it inevitably leads to crimes against total innocents.

Jan wrote: "But it seems to be the greatest temptation, to place yourself in judgment and be the executioner. Perhaps Dostoyevsky was pointing out that once we do that, it inevitably leads to crimes against total innocents. "

Good point: and this is true not just of something as obvious as murder, but any time we pass unfounded judgment on another and make ourselves the ones to make sure they "get theirs." We must be very careful before passing any kind of judgment, especially when we're also deciding what their retribution should be....