• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Fyodor Dostoevsky

SFG75,
I am in section 2 and have read chapter 1-3.

In chapter 2, Raskolikov starts to question why he did the crime. I find that interesting. He remembers that he had not even looked into the purse before wanting to through it out.
My question has been "why did he do it, what motivated him??". Last night I happened to see the film with Ben Kingsley, once again. (Its on hallmark, in case you have an interest). Anyway it was strange to see the film, as I could tell that they have made out his motivation all wrong, compared to the book. I think they have done it, as it would be more understandable.
I am curious, what brought him to think about killing the pawnbroker, besides him hearing people talk bad about her. Its like he thinks she is the bad guy, and all the poor people are depended of her and he hates that dependence. Like he and all the other poor people has no choice than to go to her , and she takes advances of that. But she did not make them dependent of her, they did!
Should we go into the psychologist´s office, then he is really killing her, because of what is happening inside of him. He really wants to kill his dependency of her, which was created by his poverty and bad choices. But she gets to be the concrete picture of it. Dicking even deeper, we could ask, if he has some kind of problem with women/mother. Symbolic, women has the power to give and take life. And that can be scary. I dont know, but perhaps he is sick and tired of being in the pockets of his mother. I am just rambling here, please do let me know what you think.

Chapter 2, he walks past a place he used to go when he was at university. He says " The beautifull site always filled him with an unexplainable cold; to him this ....picture was filled with the spirit of blindness and (dunno the word in english when you cant talk). He talks about he cannot get in touch with all his old thoughts and worries. He feels he has cut off his connection with his past.
What is happening here? Does he all of sudden feels that he NOW see more clearly than he used to? and what is it he sees and understands now??

He denies to take the job his friend gives him. Its like he does not do what he did before in order to get food on the table.

(Hope you can find the things I am referring to and I am sorry that my translation is not so good. I am out of a dictionay at the moment.)

Flower
 
My question has been "why did he do it, what motivated him??". Last night I happened to see the film with Ben Kingsley, once again. (Its on hallmark, in case you have an interest). Anyway it was strange to see the film, as I could tell that they have made out his motivation all wrong, compared to the book. I think they have done it, as it would be more understandable.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the discussion that has been going on in a thread on the Dostoyevsky forum that Sitaram and I are a part of. Do check it out, an interesting guy who goes by the moniker of The Prosecutor maintains that Raskolnikov has an anxiety disorder, but is clearly not insane. I however, argue that Raskolnikov's symptoms and especially his hallucinations, are characteristic of delusion. I only have the DSM-III(the old manual) to make such an armchair diagnosis, but it's interesting to speculate over such matters IMHO.

I am curious, what brought him to think about killing the pawnbroker, besides him hearing people talk bad about her.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting part of the book. The cold reasoning is quite intriguing. In killing her, you are sacrificing one life and using the money to bring potentially many out of abject poverty and suffering. If you let her live, she dies anyways and the money goes to the coffers of the church, and not necessarily to those who need it the most. For all we know, it will probably go to buy madeira for the higher-ups. There is nothing that hints at this convincing him or at least influencing him, but it's interesting no matter what. What has me really guessing about motives is the killing of the lady friend of the pawnbroker who just happened upon the scene by merely appearing in the next room.

Its like he thinks she is the bad guy, and all the poor people are depended of her and he hates that dependence. Like he and all the other poor people has no choice than to go to her , and she takes advances of that. But she did not make them dependent of her, they did!
Click to expand...

The book is fascinating in that Dostoyevsky himself was deeply in debt and was in the same situation as Raskolnikov was roughly. You can definitely tell that there is some class animosity going on, though not overly so in a crude marxian sense, as it appears that the drunk is content to be a drunk and Raskolnikov...is content with living in his squalor and looking down on everyone. It's interesting that you mention dependence. The theme of independence is something that is central importance. Not to give anything away, but later on,
a Mr. Luzhin, a man of modest means, desires to marry Raskolnikov's sister and Raskolnikov gives her a savaging lecture about making decisions based on one's own free will, not necessarily out of the desire to help other people, even one's own family.

if he has some kind of problem with women/mother. Symbolic, women has the power to give and take life. And that can be scary. I dont know, but perhaps he is sick and tired of being in the pockets of his mother. I am just rambling here, please do let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

Interesting take psychologically. It is very plausible, though in looking at writings regarding his other works, it has to do with male animosity and the Oedipus complex. He does get along well with his mother and sister, but he keeps them at a great distance. As stated above in the spoiler part, he comes to the aid of his sister and refuses to take a job, which would've been a part of the deal designed to appease him. Nihilism is one consistent philosophy that others in the other forum have talked about quite extensively in this work, it looks as Raskolnikov is an equal opportunity hater of everyone.:D

He talks about he cannot get in touch with all his old thoughts and worries. He feels he has cut off his connection with his past.
What is happening here? Does he all of sudden feels that he NOW see more clearly than he used to? and what is it he sees and understands now??
Click to expand...

Not finding certain places and events enjoyable anymore, definitely a symptom of depression and neurosis if there ever was one. At the same time, it could be that he is just falling into his nihilist impulses or simply becoming disenchanted with everything around him.
 
SFG75 said:
That is an interesting part of the book. The cold reasoning is quite intriguing. In killing her, you are sacrificing one life and using the money to bring potentially many out of abject poverty and suffering. If you let her live, she dies anyways and the money goes to the coffers of the church, and not necessarily to those who need it the most. For all we know, it will probably go to buy madeira for the higher-ups. There is nothing that hints at this convincing him or at least influencing him, but it's interesting no matter what. What has me really guessing about motives is the killing of the lady friend of the pawnbroker who just happened upon the scene by merely appearing in the next room.
Click to expand...

The thing here is that he does NOT use the stolen money, he hides them!
So I am thinking that there is some other reason behind his actions, he is just trying to reason killing her with this "giving the money to the poor" thing.

I have had a little break from reading and have just finished another book. So now I am back reading Dostojevsky. How far are you, SFG?
 
Flowerdk4 said:
The thing here is that he does NOT use the stolen money, he hides them!
So I am thinking that there is some other reason behind his actions, he is just trying to reason killing her with this "giving the money to the poor" thing.

I have had a little break from reading and have just finished another book. So now I am back reading Dostojevsky. How far are you, SFG?
Click to expand...

I'm to the beginning of section six. At the end of five, Sonia asks him about his intention behind killing the landlady. I won't spoil it for you, so I'll wait to elaborate on that. Go ahead and post musings so far where you're at and I'll go back and re-read and add my thoughts.:cool:
 
SFG,
I have just finsihed section no. 2. And boy was it great! I was so thrilled and excited last night reading in bed. Dosto simple writes so brilliantly!

The last couple of chapters is really about what we talked about the id and the super-ego. The whole scene from where Raskolnikov gets out of bed and walks around in town, is an excelent picture of how those, the id and the super-ego, is controlling him. I was truely amased! It was like sitting and watching a film, so intense!
You feel his body trembling with exhaustion of the burden and you listen to his voice/thoughts of how to surrive and find solutions. Chapter 4, his friend Razu is thinking about insanity and says: "......as if insane people cannot sound sane/make sense?" (Just thought I would point this out due to your discussion to whether or not he is insane). I see the episodes with the woman trying to commit suicide and Marmeladov getting run over, as episodes of what could happen, well Raskolnikov thinks of them that way. The small child coming to talk to him and cuddle him, I see as his inner child saying it needs him. Its like he is looking and reacting to the world arround him as answers to his own situation. He is no way capable of making a choice as the ego is vanished, so he sort of live by fault, I think its called. Whatever happens in the world, he follows, reacts to, he is not at all pro-active. All this makes him think that there is a life after the murder, the world does not have to stop due to the murder.

The woman comitting suicide to me, is a picture of being passive and letting the fear, the madness take over and maybe some sort of nihilsmen? Perhaps the woman has a very small super-ego?

Flower
 
I noticed something last night while reading. Raskolnikov never seems to eat! I know this has nothing to do with a literature analysis but still! I can only remember him eating when he was brought soup while being ill. I dunno if that done on purpose by Dostojevsky or he simply hasnt been thinking about it. I mean it doesnt really help Raskolnikov´s state of mind not to eat.
Have you noticed this, SFG?
 
I haven't forgotten you flower-it's been a heck of a week, will post later tonight with more time that a proper response deserves.
 
Flowerdk4 said:
I noticed something last night while reading. Raskolnikov never seems to eat! I know this has nothing to do with a literature analysis but still! I can only remember him eating when he was brought soup while being ill. I dunno if that done on purpose by Dostojevsky or he simply hasnt been thinking about it. I mean it doesnt really help Raskolnikov´s state of mind not to eat.
Have you noticed this, SFG?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, I'll have to put on my white robe and pretend to be a doctor for this one.:p In all seriousness, a lack of appetite is one of the features of *hysteria* according to the older definitions. It is interesting that he lies about his bedroom while others come and visit. And what does he do? He sneers at them, shocks them with his poor state of health, and has no desire to leave the little hovel that he lives in. He does seem to get better towards the end of the book as he ventures outside to the market and even dines with the cagey Svidrigaylov. Perhaps it's a stretch, but it's easy to view him as the perfect nihilist. He swears off his family and thinks of no one's regard but his own. The only saving action of him in my judgment, is his reaction to the death of the drunk who was run over by the horses. That was a very tragic and sad scene.

Have you reached the part yet where Sonia's mother passes away? That part is also written in the full powerfulness of *realism* of any good Russian story. She dresses the kids up in their best clothes and forces them to sing in French to people who pass by, hoping that some rich potential benefactor will walk by, see who they really are, and save them from their destitution.

Where are you in the book as of late?
 
Well Doctor SFG75,
He may have a lack of appetite but not eating doesnt help his state of mind at all! I know from myself if I have had little or bad food for just a day or two then my mind doesnt work proper. So I would say, no eating, only makes his symptoms worse.
Another thing. He is really controlled by his super-ego in that sense he does not have much contact with his body and its needs and his feelings. Maybe Dosto wants to portray this by showing him with no appetite and with a trembling body at times.

Apart from this I have just finished section 4.
There is one thing I have wondered about. When our friend, Raskalnikov, goes to see Sonja, then he attacks her and is really awfull towards her. Why is that? Where does the anger come from?
I see it like this: His own situation and all the feelings he carries inside, he doesnt know what to do and is afraid what is going to happen to him, if it is going to drive him crazy. He then tries to compare himself to Sonja and wants to know her secret of what is keeping her looking so innocent.
Them reading the bible together, made me wonder if Dosto only sees a way out/healing through religion?????
What do you think??
 
I have finished the book!

Came across something which I find interesting.
In section 6, chapter 4, Svidrigajlov says something like this: " Everybody has to take care of themselves, and the one who can lie to themself has the most joyful life"
I have been wondering, why does Svidrigajlov commits suicide and our hero doesnt? Does it all stand by the fact that Raskalnikov is loved and is capable of loving???
Svidrigajlov finds out that Dunja does not love him. Raskalnikov finds out that Sonja do love him. In the epilog Raskalnikov does not let love in to begin with but at the end he breakes down and opens his heart.
So does this mean, that Dosto think that only by being true to yourself, take upon your sins and let love in, then you are capable of salvation/healing???

Flower
 
Flowerdk4 said:
I have finished the book!

Came across something which I find interesting.
In section 6, chapter 4, Svidrigajlov says something like this: " Everybody has to take care of themselves, and the one who can lie to themself has the most joyful life"
I have been wondering, why does Svidrigajlov commits suicide and our hero doesnt? Does it all stand by the fact that Raskalnikov is loved and is capable of loving???
Svidrigajlov finds out that Dunja does not love him. Raskalnikov finds out that Sonja do love him. In the epilog Raskalnikov does not let love in to begin with but at the end he breakes down and opens his heart.
So does this mean, that Dosto think that only by being true to yourself, take upon your sins and let love in, then you are capable of salvation/healing???
Flower
Click to expand...

Short answer-yes. Long answer-that is to be accomplished through christian repentance and striving to live the good life. I can't remember where, but there is a part near the end where he picks up the new testament and heads off to Siberia a somewhat changed man. Dostoyevsky has been referred to as the angriest christian a man ever knew, in looking at Raskolnikov's actions, I come away with the notion that nihilism isn't the answer to Dostoyevsky. Rather, it is through faith. He took on radical socialism in The Possessed, likewise, I believe that he tackled nihilism and overall pessimism in Crime & Punishment. Raskolnikov's lack of interest in his own health, his family, and friends, are evidence of this nihilism sickness that he had IMHO. It isn't until towards the very end that he finds himself renewed.
 
Last night I was wondering about the book. And I did a character id on all the male and female ones. It was interesting to see what different personalities, Dostojevsky shows us. Another thing about the female ones, is that, at that time women could not get an education but still Raskalnikov is quite modern in terms of marriage.

I also came to realize that Sonja is actually living Raskalnikov´s theories in some way. She is doing a lot of good for her family without worrying about the law etc. She does cross the line of normal morality by being a prostitute. The one who is taking all the bad things is herself and not some one else as in Raskolnikov´s theories. So she is actually living his theory in some way and has come to conclude that she needs God to save her soul in all this. Hope you understand what I mean here?

Please let me know what themes etc you came to think of reading the book.
 
Flowerdk4 said:
Last night I was wondering about the book. And I did a character id on all the male and female ones. It was interesting to see what different personalities, Dostojevsky shows us. Another thing about the female ones, is that, at that time women could not get an education but still Raskalnikov is quite modern in terms of marriage.

I also came to realize that Sonja is actually living Raskalnikov´s theories in some way. She is doing a lot of good for her family without worrying about the law etc. She does cross the line of normal morality by being a prostitute. The one who is taking all the bad things is herself and not some one else as in Raskolnikov´s theories. So she is actually living his theory in some way and has come to conclude that she needs God to save her soul in all this. Hope you understand what I mean here?

Please let me know what themes etc you came to think of reading the book.
Click to expand...

The scene where Sonja decides to become a prostitute is one where your heart just goes out to the characters. You have the children and the mother in absolute squalor and they come to see Sonja's "strengths" as being something that is marketable. If a person had read only that section, you might assume that it was a critique of capitalism, but I believe that it's a critique about life being lived with bare-knuckled reasoning. She comes home later that evening and the mother washes her feet-yet more religious symbolism there as the daughter returns with money.

Yes, I do understand what you mean. To me, it's amazing how Raskolnikov is such a negation of the self. Once again, I believe he symbolizes nihilism and everything it portends in the eyes of Dostoyevsky. At least Sonja has some practicality in her *relativist* view of life. That being, you act as you want as long as it benefits the family. Raskolnikov's view seems to be more along the lines of what benefits him, and not even that as he isn't concerned about his material well-being or that of the family.
 
Wow... what a repository of FD info here. Looking forward to reading all of this (I admit to reading up to the first page of posts only :eek:)

Anyway, I wanted to comment this bit: I'm listening to the audiobook of The Brothers Karamazov, and the one things that struck me are the names. I thought I lost my mind when the youngest son was referred to as Alyosha in the early chapters, but I remembered early in the book that Fyodor Pavlovich's youngest son by his second wife is Alexei.

It wasn't until I checked in Sparknotes.com that they are one and the same.

Same with Demitri/Misha. And others I suspect. Listening to Russion names is so different from reading them, and not well versed with these intricacies, I admit to having a little problem with the cast of characters as they are read to me.

I listen when I commute, and with about 30 odd hours to go, I suspect that it'll be a while before I finish it. :) My impressions so far? If it were a book, I'd be re-reading chapters by now, as there is so much I want to ponder on. But I think I'll finish listening to it at first go, then maybe get the book to reflect.

ds
 
excellent comments dire, F.D. does have a somewhat annoying tendency to use different variations of character's names in the book that can make it a tad bit confusing. It's good to read it slow, re-read it certain sections, and then reflect or write abot what particular scenes. I was this methodical with this work, I wish I that the same way with his other works.:( Do check out the Dostoyevsky forum as well, a lot of good information there.
 
SFG75 said:
excellent comments dire, F.D. does have a somewhat annoying tendency to use different variations of character's names in the book that can make it a tad bit confusing. It's good to read it slow, re-read it certain sections, and then reflect or write abot what particular scenes. I was this methodical with this work, I wish I that the same way with his other works.:( Do check out the Dostoyevsky forum as well, a lot of good information there.
Click to expand...


SFG and Direstraits,
To use different names for the same person is a Russian thing, its not something Dostojevsky makes up.
They have a name and then other people can call them different "petnames" depending on their relationship with the person. For example Aleksander can be called Sascha among friends. I think Mikhail can be called Mischa among friends. This goes on and varies.
I thought this was known to readers of russian literature as its a very common use in Russian. In one of the Dosto books I have read, this was explained by the author in case you didnt know.
I have known this for many years and when I got pregnant I wanted my child to be called either Aleksander or Sascha. In Denmark Sascha is femine. But in Russia I believe its only used for boys.
 
Moved this here from the Apocalypto thread since it spun into a Dostoevsky discussion starting here.

Smila said:
I love Dosoyevsky. I am torn and personally share Dershowitz's confusion over his work. How could someone with so much talent and obvious empathy harbor such ignorance. I LIKE to believe that he was simply echoing his time - his culture in his words. That is, he was showing us his world not telling us that is what he necessarily believed. Am I foolish?? Nice chat, by the way.
Click to expand...

It's a tricky question... I'm afraid I don't really buy that. Sure, one should never mistake characters' actions and opinions for the writer's (that should be obvious, but every so often it needs to be pointed out). Just because the main character of "American Psycho" is a serial killer doesn't mean Bret Easton Ellis is one. Just because the main character of "Lolita" is a paedophile doesn't mean Vladimir Nabokov is one. Just because a character in "The Brothers Karamazov" is an anti-semite doesn't necessarily mean Dostoevsky is one. I mean, the girl in the example Dershowitz cites is not exactly 100% sane when she says those things.

Then again... I'm thinking about the Jewish character, whatshisface, in The Possessed (since this is the Dostoevsky I've read most recently). It's hardly a very flattering portrait, full of the classic Jewish caricature traits (he even lends people money against outrageous interest, if I remember correctly?) I can't quite back this up with facts right now, since I badly need to reread most of the Great Novels, but I can't really recall one single instance in Dostoevsky's work where Jews were treated as worthy of anything but contempt.

Of course, you could argue that the same would apply to a LOT of people in Dostoevsky's work. He's not exactly sunshine, lovey dovey Up With People all the time. And The Possessed, of course, is a particularly vicious satire. But still; anti-semitism was pretty accepted in Russia (and in most of the Western world) in the 19th century, and I think it would be naive to assume that Dostoevsky was merely "playing along". He disliked a lot of people, Jews included.

As for the argument that he seems so full of empathy (though hardly sympathy) towards everyone else... I don't think there's a saint in the world who doesn't look down on someone. Hey, George Washington kept slaves.
 
It was very cool to realize how many people read Dostoevskiy and likes his books. Dostoevskiy was my favourite Russian writer but then I began to read books by foreign authors. I think I'll start to read Notes from the Undeground tomorrow because I haven't read it.
Now my favourite books by Dostoevskiy is The Idiot. And russian film which was realesed in 2003 is absolutely great.
Also I like his short stories. Does anybody read them? My favourite story is (i don't how it is correct in english) The Boy at the Jesus' Christmas Party
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top