I’ve found myself drawn to the idea that Rodion’s true punishment for his crime is his loss of reason…not something that man can do to him, although he certainly fears that. Tolstoy writes, “The conviction that all his faculties, even memory, and the simplest power of reflection were failing him, began to be an insufferable torture. ‘Surely it isn’t beginning already! Surely it isn’t my punishment coming upon me? It is!’”
“Then a strange idea entered his head; that, perhaps, all his clothes were covered with blood, that, perhaps, there were a great many stains, but that he did not see them, did not notice them because his perceptions were failing, were going to pieces... his reason was clouded....”
He sees that he is losing his ability to reason, and that disability could (will?) be the thing that results in his capture since he will be unable to hide the evidence of his guilt.—the blood.
🩸🩸🩸I can’t help but be reminded of our dear Lady Macbeth’s famous cry of, “Out, damned spot!” Like Lady Macbeth, Rodion’s stain of blood is not on his clothing, but his soul. And I fear it will have the same impact as if his pants were, indeed, soaked. 🩸 🩸🩸
What punishment is truly fair for a crime? Prison? Condemnation? Loss of sanity? He probably just killed himself, after all, he went to the old woman as if sentenced to death. I think you understand Raskolnikov and what Dostoevsky wants to convey. Not that I know 100% exactly what, but your thoughts resonate strongly with me.
I'm writing an article for tomorrow, and it discusses the significant role of blood at the end. It really is an obsession, blood in the soul. It will be interesting to read your perspective on this mention of blood in the next chapter.
This chapter made me think of another scene from Macbeth: the Porter scene that immediately follows the murder of King Duncan. After the incredible tension of the murder itself, there is the ominous sound of knocking at the gate. A drunken porter drags himself over to answer, and gives us a discourse on such profound topics as how too much wine makes you lose your boner. Superficially it's comic relief, but not really because we know that while the porter is rambling there is dead man in the other room lying in a pool of blood, and Macbeth is going insane with fear that he's about to be discovered.
I like the idea of the church standing in the way, the giant eye of God staring him down. There's a lot here about being perceived, by society, by God, your own conscience.
Reading any translation into US English has its potholes on the journey. I am not of the times and culture in which a book was written, so I wonder how much I am missing that would have been unconsciously understood by the original audience. Your posts help immensely in that regard as I will never be a Russian with the attitudes of the 1800’s.
Boy, there is so much involved in this chapter. I am having trouble taking it all in, and not a lot of time to read or think about it. I am on holiday in Vietnam. You have put so much into this Dana, so I don't want you to think I am not interested, but I can't really get it together to say much.
Don't worry about it, Glenys. Enjoy your holiday 🎉. Reading Dostoevsky is not always relaxing, and sometimes you need a break. I don't want it to become a chore.
Some of my articles are longer, while others are quite short. The chapters vary. Not all details will interest you, and some might be missing. And this time it really came out long, mainly because Cams Campbell wrote a wonderful article about the translations of Louisa's monologue.
I don’t recall who said it, but “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you”! The hardest thing to do is tell yourself to just act natural; the anxiety in this chapter was overwhelming. He seems like he’s going to crack already. (I think Spotify has the McDuff translation but I am not sure.)
I also do not remember who said it, but for some reason, the story of the chess player Bob Fischer comes to mind. He was paranoid, but the FBI really followed him.
How do you like listening to the novel in this translation?
I like this edition fine, but I don't really have a frame of reference. I know that for W&P, I prefer the Maude (the book I'm reading) to Garret (an audio version I sometimes also pull up), and there are slightly different shades of meaning and emphasis.
I have a cautious attitude towards Garret. Although she translated everything possible, for that, I thank her. However, she is not liked by Brodsky and Nabokov, for example, because Tolstoy and Dostoevsky sound the same in her translations. She disregarded stylistics.
Reading all the different translations was an amazing lesson in the art of translating. I am going to reread your very helpful post of today and then reread the chapter. I have to think about this section some more. It is more nuanced than I realized.
Yes, there are many nuances, and I don't always feel them when comparing, which is why Cams Campbell's articles are so valuable to me. The novel changes slightly in each translation, and it's interesting to observe this.
I was listening to some podcasts about bible translation, and it is fascinating that there is a whole academic field of study in understanding translations, transliterations, mis-translations, edits, exclusions, cultural and grammatical context, etc. etc. To be sure, the stakes aren't as high in translating 19th century fiction, but it does matter. One of the reasons I was previously hesitant to read W&P was the idea that much of it would be lost in translation--I'm glad that bubble was burst!
"War and Peace" is generally excellent in English, sometimes even better than the original 😂. Where Tolstoy slacks off a bit and doesn't write beautifully, translators add elegance, especially after 150 years, adding a touch of modernity as well.
Excellent analysis as always, Dana. And that artwork, wow. So good!
Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate. It's been an interesting day. I'm curious what translation you'll turn to in place of Pasternak Slater's if that's indeed what you decide to do.
It was really interesting to discuss and collaborate. It added depth. Initially, I didn't particularly like that chapter compared to the others.
I don't know yet which translation to choose. Unfortunately, there is no perfect one, and it's hard to decide without reading at least a couple of chapters. I was thinking about Katz; I've read reviews that he is considered a genius. What do you think?
Katz a genius? I’ve not read that. It’s not one of my favourites. I’m enjoying the Cockrell as my primary text, but it’s horses for courses really. I read McDuff last December and had no issues with it.
I should remember to go on Reddit. I always forget about it. Ready's pretty good. I'd go with him over Katz, but again, it's horses for courses. Katz writes in US English, so that might make it preferable to a whole continent.
Aug 17·edited Aug 17Liked by Dana • Dostoevsky Bookclub
Why was he shivering with cold?: "He rushed to the window. There was light enough, and he began hurriedly looking himself all over from head to foot, all his clothes; were there no traces? But there was no doing it like that; shivering with cold, he began taking off everything and looking over again. "
My only explanation is chills, a symptom during illnesses when a person feels cold even though their temperature is elevated. He probably had it for several days if he was comfortable walking around the city in a coat during the summer heat.
I have just read back over the section about metaphorically "killing God". I think that's a bit much to read into the text at the moment, although it's good to have a hint as to where the text might go. So much depends on the spinning wheel of R's emotions. Thanks for that image and a great metaphor of his out of control feelings.
I wrote about the “God is dead / killed” to mention Nietzsche briefly. But people write entire dissertations on the connection between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche; we don't need that here 😅. The theme of God and their relationship is very important for Dostoevsky. He is a very religious writer.
I’ve found myself drawn to the idea that Rodion’s true punishment for his crime is his loss of reason…not something that man can do to him, although he certainly fears that. Tolstoy writes, “The conviction that all his faculties, even memory, and the simplest power of reflection were failing him, began to be an insufferable torture. ‘Surely it isn’t beginning already! Surely it isn’t my punishment coming upon me? It is!’”
“Then a strange idea entered his head; that, perhaps, all his clothes were covered with blood, that, perhaps, there were a great many stains, but that he did not see them, did not notice them because his perceptions were failing, were going to pieces... his reason was clouded....”
He sees that he is losing his ability to reason, and that disability could (will?) be the thing that results in his capture since he will be unable to hide the evidence of his guilt.—the blood.
🩸🩸🩸I can’t help but be reminded of our dear Lady Macbeth’s famous cry of, “Out, damned spot!” Like Lady Macbeth, Rodion’s stain of blood is not on his clothing, but his soul. And I fear it will have the same impact as if his pants were, indeed, soaked. 🩸 🩸🩸
What punishment is truly fair for a crime? Prison? Condemnation? Loss of sanity? He probably just killed himself, after all, he went to the old woman as if sentenced to death. I think you understand Raskolnikov and what Dostoevsky wants to convey. Not that I know 100% exactly what, but your thoughts resonate strongly with me.
I'm writing an article for tomorrow, and it discusses the significant role of blood at the end. It really is an obsession, blood in the soul. It will be interesting to read your perspective on this mention of blood in the next chapter.
EEEK!! I JUST closed the book after reading 2.2!!!!! I’m not sure if I can wait until tomorrow for your article!!!!!!!!!
This chapter made me think of another scene from Macbeth: the Porter scene that immediately follows the murder of King Duncan. After the incredible tension of the murder itself, there is the ominous sound of knocking at the gate. A drunken porter drags himself over to answer, and gives us a discourse on such profound topics as how too much wine makes you lose your boner. Superficially it's comic relief, but not really because we know that while the porter is rambling there is dead man in the other room lying in a pool of blood, and Macbeth is going insane with fear that he's about to be discovered.
I like the idea of the church standing in the way, the giant eye of God staring him down. There's a lot here about being perceived, by society, by God, your own conscience.
The book is indeed very religious, although it’s not about religion. God truly watches from every chapter.
You caught up with us! 🎉
I did!!
Reading any translation into US English has its potholes on the journey. I am not of the times and culture in which a book was written, so I wonder how much I am missing that would have been unconsciously understood by the original audience. Your posts help immensely in that regard as I will never be a Russian with the attitudes of the 1800’s.
Boy, there is so much involved in this chapter. I am having trouble taking it all in, and not a lot of time to read or think about it. I am on holiday in Vietnam. You have put so much into this Dana, so I don't want you to think I am not interested, but I can't really get it together to say much.
Don't worry about it, Glenys. Enjoy your holiday 🎉. Reading Dostoevsky is not always relaxing, and sometimes you need a break. I don't want it to become a chore.
Some of my articles are longer, while others are quite short. The chapters vary. Not all details will interest you, and some might be missing. And this time it really came out long, mainly because Cams Campbell wrote a wonderful article about the translations of Louisa's monologue.
I don’t recall who said it, but “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you”! The hardest thing to do is tell yourself to just act natural; the anxiety in this chapter was overwhelming. He seems like he’s going to crack already. (I think Spotify has the McDuff translation but I am not sure.)
I also do not remember who said it, but for some reason, the story of the chess player Bob Fischer comes to mind. He was paranoid, but the FBI really followed him.
How do you like listening to the novel in this translation?
I like this edition fine, but I don't really have a frame of reference. I know that for W&P, I prefer the Maude (the book I'm reading) to Garret (an audio version I sometimes also pull up), and there are slightly different shades of meaning and emphasis.
I have a cautious attitude towards Garret. Although she translated everything possible, for that, I thank her. However, she is not liked by Brodsky and Nabokov, for example, because Tolstoy and Dostoevsky sound the same in her translations. She disregarded stylistics.
I am reading the free Project Gutenberg version translated by Contance Garnett.
Reading all the different translations was an amazing lesson in the art of translating. I am going to reread your very helpful post of today and then reread the chapter. I have to think about this section some more. It is more nuanced than I realized.
Yes, there are many nuances, and I don't always feel them when comparing, which is why Cams Campbell's articles are so valuable to me. The novel changes slightly in each translation, and it's interesting to observe this.
I was listening to some podcasts about bible translation, and it is fascinating that there is a whole academic field of study in understanding translations, transliterations, mis-translations, edits, exclusions, cultural and grammatical context, etc. etc. To be sure, the stakes aren't as high in translating 19th century fiction, but it does matter. One of the reasons I was previously hesitant to read W&P was the idea that much of it would be lost in translation--I'm glad that bubble was burst!
"War and Peace" is generally excellent in English, sometimes even better than the original 😂. Where Tolstoy slacks off a bit and doesn't write beautifully, translators add elegance, especially after 150 years, adding a touch of modernity as well.
Excellent analysis as always, Dana. And that artwork, wow. So good!
Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate. It's been an interesting day. I'm curious what translation you'll turn to in place of Pasternak Slater's if that's indeed what you decide to do.
It was really interesting to discuss and collaborate. It added depth. Initially, I didn't particularly like that chapter compared to the others.
I don't know yet which translation to choose. Unfortunately, there is no perfect one, and it's hard to decide without reading at least a couple of chapters. I was thinking about Katz; I've read reviews that he is considered a genius. What do you think?
Katz a genius? I’ve not read that. It’s not one of my favourites. I’m enjoying the Cockrell as my primary text, but it’s horses for courses really. I read McDuff last December and had no issues with it.
I read this on Reddit. In the Dostoevsky community, they love Katz and Ready.
I should remember to go on Reddit. I always forget about it. Ready's pretty good. I'd go with him over Katz, but again, it's horses for courses. Katz writes in US English, so that might make it preferable to a whole continent.
Why was he shivering with cold?: "He rushed to the window. There was light enough, and he began hurriedly looking himself all over from head to foot, all his clothes; were there no traces? But there was no doing it like that; shivering with cold, he began taking off everything and looking over again. "
My only explanation is chills, a symptom during illnesses when a person feels cold even though their temperature is elevated. He probably had it for several days if he was comfortable walking around the city in a coat during the summer heat.
I have just read back over the section about metaphorically "killing God". I think that's a bit much to read into the text at the moment, although it's good to have a hint as to where the text might go. So much depends on the spinning wheel of R's emotions. Thanks for that image and a great metaphor of his out of control feelings.
I wrote about the “God is dead / killed” to mention Nietzsche briefly. But people write entire dissertations on the connection between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche; we don't need that here 😅. The theme of God and their relationship is very important for Dostoevsky. He is a very religious writer.