The chapters are getting heavier and more intense as Rodion gets closer to committing the crime. And the dream about the horse's death is simply impossible to read without tears.
This is, indeed, a very difficult chapter. Raskolnikov has a moral compass but it seems to spin crazily out of control more often than not and he seems to have no control over these chaotic leaps his thinking takes.
I think Raskalnikov is in such a debilitated condition that he falls into a state of fatalism and looses any sense of his own will. He is in debt and hiding from his landlady; he has abandoned his studies; he has no job; he wanders the streets muttering to himself; he is shamed by his rags; angry with his mother, yet he has taken her money; he avoids his only friend; the list goes on and on. He seems to be buffeted by fate on every front.
Then he makes several fateful decisions. In 1:2 he decides that humans in general are not villainous, that life, even when it is horrible, is just "how it is meant to be." This is mirrored in 1:4 when he first wants to help the girl, then decides that it is just life that a "certain percentage" will fall into prostitution. Then he has the brutal dream where the horse is beaten, but in this dream he is just a child; he is powerless. His father, representing the adult world, only forces him away. "It's none of our business."
Momentarily he comes to his senses and graphically realises and articulates the full bloody scene his actions would engender. He recoils and feels himself free of his obsession. But fate intervenes when he simply walks the wrong way, and overhears the time that Alonya Inanovna will be alone. The circumstances of this seem to him "like some preordained announcement of his fate." I think, given the state of his life and his recent experiences, that by this time his will is so eroded that he is quickly overwhelmed and feels compelled towards his crime.
Yes, in such a synopsis, you can really feel how Raskolnikov is gathering more and more reasons to explode and commit a crime. By the way, you accurately noted his father in the dream. I didn't write about this in the article, but his father's indifference says a lot. He doesn't want to help at all. The father's timid character is one of the reasons why Raskolnikov wanted to become this "extraordinary person," to gain power. But let's see what comes of it…
This one is intense indeed! It's fascinating to consider the parallels between this scene and real-life events, both from Dostoevsky's life and beyond. The author's own traumatic experience of his father's murder by serfs when he was 17 likely informed this harrowing depiction. Interestingly, this scene also eerily presages Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown upon witnessing a beaten horse. As it goes, in 1889 Nietzsche stepped out of his door one morning onto the streets of Turin and went mad. As he walked toward the square, Nietzsche saw a cabman whipping his horse, he stopped him, throwing his arms around the horse’s neck, sobbing and crying out “I understand you!” Raskolnikov / Nietzsche: weird coincidence?
In think the dream sequence can be interpreted on multiple levels. From the top of my head:
1. A memory from Raskolnikov's past
2. An inverted memory from Dostoevsky's past (with horse and father exchanging roles)
3. A foreboding of Raskolnikov's impending crime
4. A symbol of the novel's victims: Sonya, Dunya, the drunk girl
Raskolnikov's immediate connection between the horse's death and his planned murder of the old woman upon waking is particularly chilling. It's perplexing that despite this vivid warning from his subconscious, Raskolnikov remains committed to his crime. This highlights the complex interplay between free will and fate... The chapter also introduces Lizaveta, whose absence at a specific time catalyses Raskolnikov's crime. This seemingly chance occurrence further blurs the line between fate and choice in Raskolnikov's decision-making, as though the whole thing was preordained. As Hugo writes in the poem you referenced above:
"Oh ! quelle est donc la loi formidable qui livre
L’être à l’être, et la bête effarée à l’homme ivre !"
I agree: drunk coachmen beating their horses must have been a sad but relatively common sight at the time. BTW, I recommend Béla Tarr’s last film “The Turin Horse”, which is a masterpiece of art house cinema!
About the multilayered aspect: Dosto’s novels are always quite fascinating to me in this regard, because events and characters’ behaviours are often weird or ambivalent (open to interpretation) and also because there is always an extreme tension between characters views (especially in Brothers K), and also between each chapter (the plot never goes in a straight line). Also interesting that you mention Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony. I am not very familiar with his writings (I do know he is a major figure in Russian linguistics and literary theory), but I’m very curious to know more about it. Is that a critic you know? Did he comment on Crime & Punishment specifically?
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll watch the film.
Nowadays, studying Dostoevsky inevitably involves Bakhtin's work, which is considered foundational. Bakhtin's book "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics" offers insights on "Crime and Punishment," though he juggles multiple D’s works simultaneously (how fitting for polyphony, right? 😅). I'm thinking of writing an article on polyphony in C&P. A polyphonic novel has three main features:
1. Rich dialogue with numerous conversations and debates, but few monologues.
2. Synchronicity: multiple actions, ideas, and scenes unfold simultaneously and are inseparable.
3. Incompleteness: the novel ends without resolving all questions or exhausting all plot lines.
The connection between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky is remarkably strong. Nietzsche not only read most of Dostoevsky's works but also analyzed them in his journals, openly expressing his admiration for the Russian author. While I'm not well-versed in Nietzsche's philosophical works, his reverence for Dostoevsky is undeniable. What's truly astonishing, however, is that Nietzsche himself witnessed a scene similar to the infamous horse beating incident in reality. This raises questions: was it a profound coincidence, or were such brutal acts unfortunately common in that era?
I can't help but wonder if Victor Hugo also observed such disturbing scenes in his life. Given the social conditions of 19th-century Europe, it's quite plausible.
I appreciate how you've dissected the layers of meaning and symbolism in the dream about the horse. Paradoxically, the more I delve into the novel, the more intricate it becomes. I suspect there are at least five more layers yet to be uncovered. This multi-layered quality is precisely why the novel is often described as polyphonic—it's a tapestry of interweaving voices and meanings. However, it raises an intriguing question: how many of these layers did Dostoevsky intentionally craft, and how many have been added by the passage of time and changing cultural contexts?
I read the part about the horse once and I skipped it in my other translations, once in a lifetime is enough. I'm thinking there might be some symbolism between the little female horse tasked with pulling a weight that goes beyond her strength and girls like Sonya and Dunya having the weight of their families on their shoulders. Raskolnikov goes from the innocent child crying at the cruelty of it to the one spilling blood.
This dream about the horse is the most challenging episode for me. No other cruel scenes resonate as much.
Yes, of course, such symbolism is possible. Dostoevsky’s novel is polyphonic, with each episode intentionally or accidentally creating many interpretations. This makes studying him so interesting; each time, you can find new ways of reading.
I think more about Dunya. He had this dream after the letter and hasn't really seen Sonya yet, but her story also deeply moved him. Blood is very symbolic overall. It's not just about the bad or about murder.
The dream sequence was so brutal, it should have been a separate chapter. There was important information at the start and end that was lost on me my first listen because I was so preoccupied with what the hell just happened? I had to go back and experience it a second time.
My mind often wanders or ponders, so when I’m reading I put my finger down and pause, but with the audio if your mind wanders a few seconds you can get lost quickly. I had to rewind an awful lot 😕
The horse dream reminded me of a book I read as a child—Black Beauty. It was about a horse which was repeatedly sold to increasingly abusive owners. It was extremely upsetting. To some individuals, Is there something addictive about violence? Humanity has never found a way to eliminate it at all.
I think I know the movie based on this book. But it is all hard to watch and read. 😭 Although many people in reality torment animals and don't care. Judging by Raskolnikov's dream, his attitude towards the horse, his compassion, I would have thought he was a good and kind person, incapable of hurting anyone. But …
Oh, my goodness! This chapter... That description of the horse’s death is not one I will soon forget.
I found Roskolnikov's view of fate fascinating. He feels that he is destined to commit this crime, which is why he so quickly reverts back to his obsession after so briefly being free of its weight.
""But why...had such an important, such a decisive and at the same time such an absolutely chance meeting happened in the Hay Market (where he had moreover no reason to go) at the very hour, the very minute of his life when he was just in the very mood and in the very circumstances in which that meeting was able to exert the gravest and most decisive influence on his whole destiny? As though it had been lying in wait for him on purpose.``
"He was only a few steps from his lodging. He went in like a man condemned to death. He thought of nothing and was incapable of thinking; but he felt suddenly in his whole being that he had no more freedom of though, no will, and that everything was suddenly and irrevocably decided."
If fate conspires against a man to commit such a heinous crime, can he be held guilty? Roskolnikov's obsession has overridden his moral compass entirely.
Yes. For me, that creepy scene with the horse is the most emotional in the book, the most horrible. And if I imagined having such a dream - it would take me a long time to recover. But Raskolnikov forgot about it after a couple of hours. Amazing duality.
I also find his games with fate tempting: he is really doomed and feels that way. And it's interesting that he decided that this is an inevitable fate. But everything happens only in his head, these are his thoughts. No one forces him, and he doesn't particularly resist his "voices" in it, but grabs at chances.
This is, indeed, a very difficult chapter. Raskolnikov has a moral compass but it seems to spin crazily out of control more often than not and he seems to have no control over these chaotic leaps his thinking takes.
I think Raskalnikov is in such a debilitated condition that he falls into a state of fatalism and looses any sense of his own will. He is in debt and hiding from his landlady; he has abandoned his studies; he has no job; he wanders the streets muttering to himself; he is shamed by his rags; angry with his mother, yet he has taken her money; he avoids his only friend; the list goes on and on. He seems to be buffeted by fate on every front.
Then he makes several fateful decisions. In 1:2 he decides that humans in general are not villainous, that life, even when it is horrible, is just "how it is meant to be." This is mirrored in 1:4 when he first wants to help the girl, then decides that it is just life that a "certain percentage" will fall into prostitution. Then he has the brutal dream where the horse is beaten, but in this dream he is just a child; he is powerless. His father, representing the adult world, only forces him away. "It's none of our business."
Momentarily he comes to his senses and graphically realises and articulates the full bloody scene his actions would engender. He recoils and feels himself free of his obsession. But fate intervenes when he simply walks the wrong way, and overhears the time that Alonya Inanovna will be alone. The circumstances of this seem to him "like some preordained announcement of his fate." I think, given the state of his life and his recent experiences, that by this time his will is so eroded that he is quickly overwhelmed and feels compelled towards his crime.
Yes, in such a synopsis, you can really feel how Raskolnikov is gathering more and more reasons to explode and commit a crime. By the way, you accurately noted his father in the dream. I didn't write about this in the article, but his father's indifference says a lot. He doesn't want to help at all. The father's timid character is one of the reasons why Raskolnikov wanted to become this "extraordinary person," to gain power. But let's see what comes of it…
This one is intense indeed! It's fascinating to consider the parallels between this scene and real-life events, both from Dostoevsky's life and beyond. The author's own traumatic experience of his father's murder by serfs when he was 17 likely informed this harrowing depiction. Interestingly, this scene also eerily presages Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown upon witnessing a beaten horse. As it goes, in 1889 Nietzsche stepped out of his door one morning onto the streets of Turin and went mad. As he walked toward the square, Nietzsche saw a cabman whipping his horse, he stopped him, throwing his arms around the horse’s neck, sobbing and crying out “I understand you!” Raskolnikov / Nietzsche: weird coincidence?
In think the dream sequence can be interpreted on multiple levels. From the top of my head:
1. A memory from Raskolnikov's past
2. An inverted memory from Dostoevsky's past (with horse and father exchanging roles)
3. A foreboding of Raskolnikov's impending crime
4. A symbol of the novel's victims: Sonya, Dunya, the drunk girl
Raskolnikov's immediate connection between the horse's death and his planned murder of the old woman upon waking is particularly chilling. It's perplexing that despite this vivid warning from his subconscious, Raskolnikov remains committed to his crime. This highlights the complex interplay between free will and fate... The chapter also introduces Lizaveta, whose absence at a specific time catalyses Raskolnikov's crime. This seemingly chance occurrence further blurs the line between fate and choice in Raskolnikov's decision-making, as though the whole thing was preordained. As Hugo writes in the poem you referenced above:
"Oh ! quelle est donc la loi formidable qui livre
L’être à l’être, et la bête effarée à l’homme ivre !"
I agree: drunk coachmen beating their horses must have been a sad but relatively common sight at the time. BTW, I recommend Béla Tarr’s last film “The Turin Horse”, which is a masterpiece of art house cinema!
About the multilayered aspect: Dosto’s novels are always quite fascinating to me in this regard, because events and characters’ behaviours are often weird or ambivalent (open to interpretation) and also because there is always an extreme tension between characters views (especially in Brothers K), and also between each chapter (the plot never goes in a straight line). Also interesting that you mention Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony. I am not very familiar with his writings (I do know he is a major figure in Russian linguistics and literary theory), but I’m very curious to know more about it. Is that a critic you know? Did he comment on Crime & Punishment specifically?
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll watch the film.
Nowadays, studying Dostoevsky inevitably involves Bakhtin's work, which is considered foundational. Bakhtin's book "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics" offers insights on "Crime and Punishment," though he juggles multiple D’s works simultaneously (how fitting for polyphony, right? 😅). I'm thinking of writing an article on polyphony in C&P. A polyphonic novel has three main features:
1. Rich dialogue with numerous conversations and debates, but few monologues.
2. Synchronicity: multiple actions, ideas, and scenes unfold simultaneously and are inseparable.
3. Incompleteness: the novel ends without resolving all questions or exhausting all plot lines.
Fascinating. Definitely need to read that book. Particularly, on the issue of incompleteness, I think this could also apply to Kafka!
The connection between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky is remarkably strong. Nietzsche not only read most of Dostoevsky's works but also analyzed them in his journals, openly expressing his admiration for the Russian author. While I'm not well-versed in Nietzsche's philosophical works, his reverence for Dostoevsky is undeniable. What's truly astonishing, however, is that Nietzsche himself witnessed a scene similar to the infamous horse beating incident in reality. This raises questions: was it a profound coincidence, or were such brutal acts unfortunately common in that era?
I can't help but wonder if Victor Hugo also observed such disturbing scenes in his life. Given the social conditions of 19th-century Europe, it's quite plausible.
I appreciate how you've dissected the layers of meaning and symbolism in the dream about the horse. Paradoxically, the more I delve into the novel, the more intricate it becomes. I suspect there are at least five more layers yet to be uncovered. This multi-layered quality is precisely why the novel is often described as polyphonic—it's a tapestry of interweaving voices and meanings. However, it raises an intriguing question: how many of these layers did Dostoevsky intentionally craft, and how many have been added by the passage of time and changing cultural contexts?
I read the part about the horse once and I skipped it in my other translations, once in a lifetime is enough. I'm thinking there might be some symbolism between the little female horse tasked with pulling a weight that goes beyond her strength and girls like Sonya and Dunya having the weight of their families on their shoulders. Raskolnikov goes from the innocent child crying at the cruelty of it to the one spilling blood.
This dream about the horse is the most challenging episode for me. No other cruel scenes resonate as much.
Yes, of course, such symbolism is possible. Dostoevsky’s novel is polyphonic, with each episode intentionally or accidentally creating many interpretations. This makes studying him so interesting; each time, you can find new ways of reading.
I think more about Dunya. He had this dream after the letter and hasn't really seen Sonya yet, but her story also deeply moved him. Blood is very symbolic overall. It's not just about the bad or about murder.
The dream sequence was so brutal, it should have been a separate chapter. There was important information at the start and end that was lost on me my first listen because I was so preoccupied with what the hell just happened? I had to go back and experience it a second time.
Yes, after this scene, there was definitely something important. Before it - not so much.
😅, listening to this in audio format would imprint it in my head for a long time. Dostoevsky does not spare the reader at all.
But I remember when we were forced to read this in school and write essays like, "the significance of the horse's murder for Raskolnikov."
My mind often wanders or ponders, so when I’m reading I put my finger down and pause, but with the audio if your mind wanders a few seconds you can get lost quickly. I had to rewind an awful lot 😕
The horse dream reminded me of a book I read as a child—Black Beauty. It was about a horse which was repeatedly sold to increasingly abusive owners. It was extremely upsetting. To some individuals, Is there something addictive about violence? Humanity has never found a way to eliminate it at all.
I think I know the movie based on this book. But it is all hard to watch and read. 😭 Although many people in reality torment animals and don't care. Judging by Raskolnikov's dream, his attitude towards the horse, his compassion, I would have thought he was a good and kind person, incapable of hurting anyone. But …
Oh, my goodness! This chapter... That description of the horse’s death is not one I will soon forget.
I found Roskolnikov's view of fate fascinating. He feels that he is destined to commit this crime, which is why he so quickly reverts back to his obsession after so briefly being free of its weight.
""But why...had such an important, such a decisive and at the same time such an absolutely chance meeting happened in the Hay Market (where he had moreover no reason to go) at the very hour, the very minute of his life when he was just in the very mood and in the very circumstances in which that meeting was able to exert the gravest and most decisive influence on his whole destiny? As though it had been lying in wait for him on purpose.``
"He was only a few steps from his lodging. He went in like a man condemned to death. He thought of nothing and was incapable of thinking; but he felt suddenly in his whole being that he had no more freedom of though, no will, and that everything was suddenly and irrevocably decided."
If fate conspires against a man to commit such a heinous crime, can he be held guilty? Roskolnikov's obsession has overridden his moral compass entirely.
I am ill.
Yes. For me, that creepy scene with the horse is the most emotional in the book, the most horrible. And if I imagined having such a dream - it would take me a long time to recover. But Raskolnikov forgot about it after a couple of hours. Amazing duality.
I also find his games with fate tempting: he is really doomed and feels that way. And it's interesting that he decided that this is an inevitable fate. But everything happens only in his head, these are his thoughts. No one forces him, and he doesn't particularly resist his "voices" in it, but grabs at chances.