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.
Yes, the obsession with a single idea is what connects them. It's interesting, could Hamlet have had a path similar to Raskolnikov's towards realization and rethinking his actions if he hadn't died so quickly? And in general, they could have had great discussions together.
Yes, it would be very interesting. For some reason, it seems to me that it would be completely different from Raskolnikov's mother's. It is unlikely that she would call Hamlet her whole world and hope.
Hamlet is consumed by revenge (of course, there is a myriad of subtleties, but we'll focus on that), and it leads to his inevitable ruination.
If we look at Raskolnikov planning violence against the old woman, as an act against the embodiment of the corrupt and oppressive world he lives in, that makes some sense. Hamlet of the underworld, poor and hungry, rather than a prince.
By the comparison here I don't suggest the author might've seen them as that much alike, but rather shower an interesting take on comparable inner torment in drastically different circumstances.
Hamlet, as you rightly point out, ends up dead, his loved ones dead, and even his country is basically ruined. I mean the guy is GOOD.
And that's an interesting contrast with the very end of C&P (no spoilers, but keep that in mind).
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.
The girl in the scene is simply drunk, there are no clear signs that she has already been raped. But the man who was there next to Raskolnikov obviously intended to take advantage of the girl in that way. And Rodion just wanted to save her from the fate of Sonia Marmeladova. But did he succeed? He may have had good intentions, but in reality, he did nothing. It is unknown what happened to her afterward.
It is difficult to think of Raskolnikov as a villain because that is exactly what the novel is about. It's not about some murderer being caught by the police. It's about an ordinary person who has a lot of good qualities, and that is what makes it interesting. Why did such a person commit a crime? Does it mean that anyone is capable of such a thing?
I assumed the girl was abused and then let go because her dress was all torn up and she was wearing it the wrong w ay, "as though she was dressed by male hands". Also Raskolnikov saying "she has been... for the first time", and saying she'd end up flogged by her mother, a prostitute and dead in a ditch in a few years. All that only for getting drunk?
Yes, but this is what Raskolnikov says, it is how he sees the situation. And as we know, the words of the characters are only their point of view. I’m not saying that the worst could not have happened to her, but this is Rodion's assumption. Therefore, I still hold the position that he could be wrong and she could have avoided the rape. That she managed to escape or something else.
So much is happening in the turmoil if R's mind in this chapter. He compares Dounia, unfavourably, with Sonya. Sonya and family are staving, Dounia just wants a better life for him and her mother. He berates himself for living on their borrowed money, while they wait for his future success and for him to take care of them, but when? "In another ten years? [By then] mother will be blind ...and what may have become of your sister in ten years?" He thinks of Marmeledov's question, "do you understand what it means when you have absolutely nowhere to turn?" Then his previous dark, but then dream-like thoughts reoccur, but in a "new menacing and quite unfamiliar shape." I think these thoughts now have a reality they previously lacked. Then, finally, there is his strange about face with the girl he first tried to help. He calls the policeman back. "What is it to do with you?" He feels sorry for the girl and her almost certain fate, but then he rationalises it by remembering that society allows a *percentage* to fall, for the sake of chastity in others. I think the really telling words here are these: "That's as it should be, they tell us." They are the self same words he used in chapter two, when he debated with himself if man, in general, was a villain (scoundrel in my translation) or not, because the Marmeledovs accepted Sonya's prostitution. "What if man is not a scoundrel [there are] simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers *all is as it should be*" I read this as absolving humanity from responsibility, as a negation of free will. It seems to me that this idea, coupled with all his other thoughts, opens the way to rationalise the crime he is contemplating. Life just happens as it does, there's no real right or wrong. "All is as it should be."
Undoubtedly, this is the essence of Raskolnikov's theory, which will only become more detailed and supported by arguments. The division of society into different groups. But which exactly, where is this line? And we will soon find out. How Rodion sees it and how he wants to test it.
And Dunya and Sonia are incomparable. Although Raskolnikov exalts Sonia in this chapter, never having seen her yet. And for some reason, he perceives her sacrifice in a certain way, while Dunya's sacrifice only makes him angry. He doesn't pity his mother either, having already taken all the money from them. And that was only 120 rubles a year (approximately $2500-3000 in today's prices). He shows duality in everything. And the scene with the girl on the bench is strange, don't you think? He seems to want to protect and help her, but in general, he doesn't care.
I love all the context, so much I would miss reading it on my own. Not unlike understanding Joyce’s Dublin seems to be a key to Ulysses (which I will need to have another go at eventually).
Ulysses, of course, is incomparably more complex in form. Dostoevsky, on the whole, can be read without footnotes. But it's a pity that writers themselves did not leave comments on their texts, there are probably even more details that can only be guessed at.
I’ve been wondering about Raskolnikov’s motivations. Poverty is there, clearly, but he seems driven by something much darker than survival. I like your take and what has pushed him over the edge.
There are plenty of criminals who act out of a messed-up sense of self righteousness, it remains to be seen the nature of the crime he is contemplating. His desire to help the girl, at first I thought “hey maybe he’s not such a bad guy” but does he turn out to be a sick loose cannon vigilante type? Is he some kind of split personality? 🤷🏼♂️
Jul 22·edited Jul 22Liked by Dana • Dostoevsky Bookclub
Oh, no, totally, there's more to it than that. But I'm just taking pieces and trying to look at them:)
Another one would be, when it comes to it, Raskolnikov basically musing about who is he, and whether can he do what he's planning. Am I just a lowly trembling thing, or can I take matters into my own hands, am I not the instrument of my own destiny?
And that reflects the very monologue Dana is quoting from Hamlet. Do I just take it all laying down, do I give up, or can I take up arms and do something?
Still lagging by a long stretch, but eventually, I might catch up, who knows...
The way I see this scene, Raskolnikov's anguished monologue about Dunya's marriage and his encounter with the drunken girl reveal a pattern: young women trapped by brutal societal forces. This leitmotif, echoing Sonya's situation, seems to showcase Raskolnikov's acute awareness of female exploitation. Nonetheless, his outrage at these injustices stands in stark contrast to the crime he's contemplating, which creates a fascinating paradox. How can he be both a protector and a potential murderer?
The Hamlet comparison is apt, given the extensive use of inner monologue. However, I think their attitudes towards women diverge sharply. While Hamlet seethes with resentment towards Ophelia, Raskolnikov casts himself as a reluctant saviour. This 'white knight' complex adds layers to his character – is it genuine concern or a way to assuage his guilt over his darker intentions?
This juxtaposition between Raskolnikov's empathy for vulnerable women and his own violent plans creates a palpable tension that propels the narrative. It raises the question: how will this internal conflict be resolved? Will his compassion triumph, or is he fated to become the very thing he abhors?
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.
Yes, the obsession with a single idea is what connects them. It's interesting, could Hamlet have had a path similar to Raskolnikov's towards realization and rethinking his actions if he hadn't died so quickly? And in general, they could have had great discussions together.
I’d love to have read a letter from Gertrude to Hamlet as well.
Yes, it would be very interesting. For some reason, it seems to me that it would be completely different from Raskolnikov's mother's. It is unlikely that she would call Hamlet her whole world and hope.
I like the comparison between the two.
Hamlet is consumed by revenge (of course, there is a myriad of subtleties, but we'll focus on that), and it leads to his inevitable ruination.
If we look at Raskolnikov planning violence against the old woman, as an act against the embodiment of the corrupt and oppressive world he lives in, that makes some sense. Hamlet of the underworld, poor and hungry, rather than a prince.
By the comparison here I don't suggest the author might've seen them as that much alike, but rather shower an interesting take on comparable inner torment in drastically different circumstances.
Hamlet, as you rightly point out, ends up dead, his loved ones dead, and even his country is basically ruined. I mean the guy is GOOD.
And that's an interesting contrast with the very end of C&P (no spoilers, but keep that in mind).
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.
The girl in the scene is simply drunk, there are no clear signs that she has already been raped. But the man who was there next to Raskolnikov obviously intended to take advantage of the girl in that way. And Rodion just wanted to save her from the fate of Sonia Marmeladova. But did he succeed? He may have had good intentions, but in reality, he did nothing. It is unknown what happened to her afterward.
It is difficult to think of Raskolnikov as a villain because that is exactly what the novel is about. It's not about some murderer being caught by the police. It's about an ordinary person who has a lot of good qualities, and that is what makes it interesting. Why did such a person commit a crime? Does it mean that anyone is capable of such a thing?
I assumed the girl was abused and then let go because her dress was all torn up and she was wearing it the wrong w ay, "as though she was dressed by male hands". Also Raskolnikov saying "she has been... for the first time", and saying she'd end up flogged by her mother, a prostitute and dead in a ditch in a few years. All that only for getting drunk?
Yes, but this is what Raskolnikov says, it is how he sees the situation. And as we know, the words of the characters are only their point of view. I’m not saying that the worst could not have happened to her, but this is Rodion's assumption. Therefore, I still hold the position that he could be wrong and she could have avoided the rape. That she managed to escape or something else.
Of course I haven't read the book until the end and my opinions are not fully formed. I'll keep that in mind
So much is happening in the turmoil if R's mind in this chapter. He compares Dounia, unfavourably, with Sonya. Sonya and family are staving, Dounia just wants a better life for him and her mother. He berates himself for living on their borrowed money, while they wait for his future success and for him to take care of them, but when? "In another ten years? [By then] mother will be blind ...and what may have become of your sister in ten years?" He thinks of Marmeledov's question, "do you understand what it means when you have absolutely nowhere to turn?" Then his previous dark, but then dream-like thoughts reoccur, but in a "new menacing and quite unfamiliar shape." I think these thoughts now have a reality they previously lacked. Then, finally, there is his strange about face with the girl he first tried to help. He calls the policeman back. "What is it to do with you?" He feels sorry for the girl and her almost certain fate, but then he rationalises it by remembering that society allows a *percentage* to fall, for the sake of chastity in others. I think the really telling words here are these: "That's as it should be, they tell us." They are the self same words he used in chapter two, when he debated with himself if man, in general, was a villain (scoundrel in my translation) or not, because the Marmeledovs accepted Sonya's prostitution. "What if man is not a scoundrel [there are] simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers *all is as it should be*" I read this as absolving humanity from responsibility, as a negation of free will. It seems to me that this idea, coupled with all his other thoughts, opens the way to rationalise the crime he is contemplating. Life just happens as it does, there's no real right or wrong. "All is as it should be."
Undoubtedly, this is the essence of Raskolnikov's theory, which will only become more detailed and supported by arguments. The division of society into different groups. But which exactly, where is this line? And we will soon find out. How Rodion sees it and how he wants to test it.
And Dunya and Sonia are incomparable. Although Raskolnikov exalts Sonia in this chapter, never having seen her yet. And for some reason, he perceives her sacrifice in a certain way, while Dunya's sacrifice only makes him angry. He doesn't pity his mother either, having already taken all the money from them. And that was only 120 rubles a year (approximately $2500-3000 in today's prices). He shows duality in everything. And the scene with the girl on the bench is strange, don't you think? He seems to want to protect and help her, but in general, he doesn't care.
I love all the context, so much I would miss reading it on my own. Not unlike understanding Joyce’s Dublin seems to be a key to Ulysses (which I will need to have another go at eventually).
Ulysses, of course, is incomparably more complex in form. Dostoevsky, on the whole, can be read without footnotes. But it's a pity that writers themselves did not leave comments on their texts, there are probably even more details that can only be guessed at.
I’ve been wondering about Raskolnikov’s motivations. Poverty is there, clearly, but he seems driven by something much darker than survival. I like your take and what has pushed him over the edge.
There are plenty of criminals who act out of a messed-up sense of self righteousness, it remains to be seen the nature of the crime he is contemplating. His desire to help the girl, at first I thought “hey maybe he’s not such a bad guy” but does he turn out to be a sick loose cannon vigilante type? Is he some kind of split personality? 🤷🏼♂️
You’re absolutely correct! I wonder what percentage of crimes are committed with those types of motives.
I was certainly thrown for a loop in those last few pages as well. R is a fascinating character!
Oh, no, totally, there's more to it than that. But I'm just taking pieces and trying to look at them:)
Another one would be, when it comes to it, Raskolnikov basically musing about who is he, and whether can he do what he's planning. Am I just a lowly trembling thing, or can I take matters into my own hands, am I not the instrument of my own destiny?
And that reflects the very monologue Dana is quoting from Hamlet. Do I just take it all laying down, do I give up, or can I take up arms and do something?
@sa12318972
Action/Inaction…Reminds me of W&P ❤️
Still lagging by a long stretch, but eventually, I might catch up, who knows...
The way I see this scene, Raskolnikov's anguished monologue about Dunya's marriage and his encounter with the drunken girl reveal a pattern: young women trapped by brutal societal forces. This leitmotif, echoing Sonya's situation, seems to showcase Raskolnikov's acute awareness of female exploitation. Nonetheless, his outrage at these injustices stands in stark contrast to the crime he's contemplating, which creates a fascinating paradox. How can he be both a protector and a potential murderer?
The Hamlet comparison is apt, given the extensive use of inner monologue. However, I think their attitudes towards women diverge sharply. While Hamlet seethes with resentment towards Ophelia, Raskolnikov casts himself as a reluctant saviour. This 'white knight' complex adds layers to his character – is it genuine concern or a way to assuage his guilt over his darker intentions?
This juxtaposition between Raskolnikov's empathy for vulnerable women and his own violent plans creates a palpable tension that propels the narrative. It raises the question: how will this internal conflict be resolved? Will his compassion triumph, or is he fated to become the very thing he abhors?