Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Heather Weaver's avatar

Oh! I love the comparison to Hamlet! If ever there was a literary monomaniac, it is he. Obsessed by the apparent murder of his father, Hamlet is drawn deeper and deeper into darkness that eventually results in becoming a murderer himself and eventually takes his and the lives of all he loves (with a few extra to boot). This doesn’t bode well for our good friend Roskolnikov.

Expand full comment
Ellie's avatar

I still cannot think of Raskolnikov as a villain. Same for Marmeladov. To me, they're both individuals that don't have anywhere else to turn to. "Every man must have somewhere to go," and neither of them has that. Raskolnikov is in such a deep state of depression he can't even feed himself; and society has no safety net set up for him, or for people like him, for prostitutes, alcoholics, starving children. They call them statistics so they don't have to think about the moral implications. This is not to say that him (I'm assuming) murdering someone is justifiable, rather to me Dostoevsky is saying that A) even the lowest of criminal should be treated with Christian charity and b) society as a whole should think long and hard at why poor people end up committing crimes.

Take the girl we meet in this chapter. This is a teen who has just been raped, pure and simple. Raskolnikov's reaction should be the most obvious one, getting angry and trying to help. Instead we get a rich guy wanting to take advantage of her and fearing no consequences, and a policeman kind of shaking his head and going, "tsk, tsk, what a pity," trotting around not knowing what to do. What he should be doing is raining fire and brimstone! Raskolnikov is deeply, deeply aware that this girl is doomed and there is nothing he can do to fix things, he can't even fix himself! He's turning into a nihilist because he's so powerless.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts