Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Please discuss part two.

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...."

The first part of Part Two reminded me very much of Poe's "Telltale Heart" where he's so fidgety and is constantly on the verge on giving himself away.

I feel torn, because half of this feels likely (in the sense of what a killer in this setting might be going through), but half just didn't feel like it matched. On the one hand, in some cases, he seems to show compassion for others (the drunk young woman, the drunk man who's dying, the man's family, etc), which doesn't really match the true definition of a sociopath. However, a sociopath will often mimic the compassion of others, so I guess that's not out of the question. He definitely shows no remorse for what he's done (his agitation is over getting caught, not over sadness of the deaths), so it's hard for me to believe that he really feels much for others, even his family. I know he seems like he cares about his mother and sister in the beginning, but looking back on it, he was angry at the fiance for viewing himself as better than his sister, not mad FOR his sister. A fine line, maybe, but a very distinct one.

The one thing I'm having serious trouble with is what his motive was in killing the pawnbroker in the first place? I know he owed her money, but was that it? I guess that's the stereotypical basic crime-inducing issue, but somehow it felt like there should be more to it than that.

Sorry, this makes it sound like I'm really down on the book, but I'm not, I'm really liking it! Much, much better (and readable) than Brothers Karamozov, which was heavier on the philosophy and took until the last 1/4 of the book to really get to the story.

I am confused with the names used in the book. There are 3-4 different names used for a single person depending on the context of relationship. It really is difficult to remember.
I agree with Alana, that this book is much much better than The Brothers Karamazov, but still it has that drama in it. I too wonder about the motive of the crime, as if the author got wandered out of that and started to write on the illness and madness of Raskalnikov.

That's a common issue I have with Russian novels, Pallavi. The first one I ever read was Anna Karenina and I was completely perplexed until someone in the group posted a summary of all the names and I realized that there weren't nearly as many characters as I thought......they just each had about four names!

I just have to look at it like English names: we have several nicknames that don't really seem to make sense from their origins. Bill for William or Jack for John or Dick for Richard for example. Sam for Samuel makes sense, as it's just a shortened name, but the others don't seem to be a shortened version of the original, making them a bit more confusing. Since we're not accustomed to the Russian names and nicknames, it is much more confusing to track the characters.

There is one scene in particular (I forget exactly where it takes place in the story so I won't include any spoilers) where Donya's fiance is in a conversation/argument with a group and he is referred to by at LEAST three different names over the course of the conversation, sometimes even in the same sentence by the narrator! Very confusing indeed!

And yes, I felt like the motivation for the crime kind of got lost in all the other aspects of the internal workings of the mind. It's mentioned, but it just never really "works" for me in the entire context of the story.