So we have turmoil and chaos after the crime. Let me remind you that it is still the day after the murder. Raskolnikov cannot come to his senses and is still trying to comprehend what happened.
To me there are two way to interpret this story: Raskolnikov is both guilty and innocent. Just like his name suggests, Raskolnikov inhabits opposites. He his a man who has committed a horrible crime and is undergoing a monstrous metamorphosis under the unforgiving eye of God. He is also a mentally ill man who has fallen through the cracks of society, like many before and after him. People used to ask, is a woman a human being? We now ask, are the mentally disabled human? Are the addicted? Criminals? Murderers? When does a person become a beast? When should we deny someone's humanity?
Take the whipping in the street: did Raskolnikov deserve it? He certainly was standing in the way. He was certainly not aware of doing it. He symbolically takes the place of the poor beaten horse and of Christ flagellated. But when he receives help and pity "in the name of Christ" he cannot accept it. He's haunted by the way people perceive him, convinced everybody is staring. For the second time he hides the stolen items and his guilt in a little hole of a very dark corner. And someone is always watching.
You are asking very correct and complex questions. To which there is probably no answer, just as the nature of good and evil, and humanism, is unclear. And from different points of view, the answer will differ.
Dostoevsky masterfully creates a character who is both a criminal and a victim of his own circumstances and mental state. The complexity of his guilt and innocence is what makes him so fascinating. The whipping scene is a key example of his internal and external battles; he is both a Christ-like figure and a symbol of guilt. His struggle to accept help and his paranoia about being watched highlight his deep internal conflict.
Should we ever deny someone their humanity? Perhaps Raskolnikov does not feel human, yet is disgusted by accepting himself as a beast. The someone always watching may be Raskolnikov peering at himself and he cannot escape his inner gaze.
I understand that there is a human being, like all of us, and there is a Human/Person/Mankind with a capital letter, in whom the elevated qualities of goodness, love, and justice are manifested. Dostoevsky raises the question several times: "Are you a person?" In the 19th century, the themes of the individual, personal freedom, and free will were quite new to literature.
Since chapter 1, Raskolvnikov has been contemplating killing, in this chapter he has been dwelling on Jack the Giant Killer. He has been slipping into worse thought and actions ever since. Where does the crime begin? With the first thought? (I don't think so..thoughts appear in our heads unsummoned.). With using one's free will of repeatedly contemplating those thoughts, imagining killing the “giant” in one’s life? Or the actual slaying? There is something in US law about premeditated murder. So perhaps the crime begins with the conscious invitation to keep imaging the murder. But what is the “giant” in his life? I do not know. I think he has been in an increasingly chaotic mind since we met him. Yes, he is human, but at this point a deranged human. Which begs the question, is there evil, or are there just grossly misfiring neural connections?
Unintentional murder is an accident. Lizaveta's death at the hands of Raskolnikov may be somewhat unintentional, but combined with the old woman, it is no longer so.
In theory, he is smart since he was able to be a student, which is not easy that time for poor people. Perhaps it was his lively mind that led him to this. He thought too much and drove himself to madness.
Is there his will in this - an interesting question. Does he control his neurons? There is hardly a definite answer to this.
I think R is full of self loathing for many reasons, not just the murders. His life is such a mess; unpaid rent, no work, abandoned studies, accepting support from his sister and mother, social withdrawal. In the opening chapters he was the perfect picture of a man who would not face reality and try to get himself together. So, as I see it, he has allowed his life to fall into a truly parlous state, for which, I think, he is largely responsible. On top of all this come the murders. Now his mind is so effected, how great is his actual responsibility I can't even guess at. For me, this is also the reason he throws the money away and rejects the work his friend offers. He sees himself beyond hope and undeserving of help. Once in this state, he can do no other but feel hatred for all around him. His self-loathing is transferred to the society around him.
Yeah, Raskolnikov's mind is a total mess. His self-loathing is complex and extends far beyond the act of murder. The murders only deepen his mental turmoil, blurring the lines of his responsibility. His refusal to accept help and disposal of money emphasize his belief that he is beyond redemption. Dostoevsky beautifully captures this, making Raskolnikov a truly intricate and tragic character. That's why, as a reader, I can empathize with him and experience different emotions, not just those towards a murderer.
Raskolnikov can completely cut himself off from the world, but he cannot cut himself off from himself, as he is not at this point contemplating suicide. He cannot runaway from, nor face himself. That is hell.
Was the “beating” of his landlady a dream (asleep) or a hallucination? Clearly he is unraveling in a downward spiral, and which came first—the crime or the madness— seems like a chicken and egg scenario. At the very least he should have taken the job to get the debt taken care of and the police off his tail for that episode at least. But he’s not asking my advice is he?
It is believed that this is his second painful dream after the horse. But now I think these are auditory hallucinations. He didn't see anything; usually, a dream involves "seeing," and just hearing is completely strange.
His behavior is generally irrational. His attitude towards money is simply ridiculous: he needs it badly, but he throws it around. He didn't even count the stolen money. He hopes he won't be thrown out on the street and doesn't intend to pay rent. And he's not an alcoholic either. But Raskolnikov doesn't take anyone's advice at all. It's amazing that many kind people are around him, willing to help. It's a rarity.
Im not a board certified neurologist, but having a dream while you are asleep seems very different than being fully awake and perceiving things that are not real as if they are. I have to go back and listen again but I thought it was the latter.
In Constance Garnett’s translation he wakes up from oblivion when hearing a scream and then seems to be awake for the rest. So it sounds like a hallucination in my online book.
This is an interesting question; I haven't considered such a division before. It's always been accepted that a dream is just a dream. However, since he has a fever and likely a high temperature, these could be hallucinations.
If he couldn’t distinguish between a dream and reality and only had auditory hallucinations, then it’s probably more serious. It might be a reference to schizophrenia. Some researchers attribute this diagnosis to Raskolnikov.
To me there are two way to interpret this story: Raskolnikov is both guilty and innocent. Just like his name suggests, Raskolnikov inhabits opposites. He his a man who has committed a horrible crime and is undergoing a monstrous metamorphosis under the unforgiving eye of God. He is also a mentally ill man who has fallen through the cracks of society, like many before and after him. People used to ask, is a woman a human being? We now ask, are the mentally disabled human? Are the addicted? Criminals? Murderers? When does a person become a beast? When should we deny someone's humanity?
Take the whipping in the street: did Raskolnikov deserve it? He certainly was standing in the way. He was certainly not aware of doing it. He symbolically takes the place of the poor beaten horse and of Christ flagellated. But when he receives help and pity "in the name of Christ" he cannot accept it. He's haunted by the way people perceive him, convinced everybody is staring. For the second time he hides the stolen items and his guilt in a little hole of a very dark corner. And someone is always watching.
You are asking very correct and complex questions. To which there is probably no answer, just as the nature of good and evil, and humanism, is unclear. And from different points of view, the answer will differ.
Dostoevsky masterfully creates a character who is both a criminal and a victim of his own circumstances and mental state. The complexity of his guilt and innocence is what makes him so fascinating. The whipping scene is a key example of his internal and external battles; he is both a Christ-like figure and a symbol of guilt. His struggle to accept help and his paranoia about being watched highlight his deep internal conflict.
Should we ever deny someone their humanity? Perhaps Raskolnikov does not feel human, yet is disgusted by accepting himself as a beast. The someone always watching may be Raskolnikov peering at himself and he cannot escape his inner gaze.
I understand that there is a human being, like all of us, and there is a Human/Person/Mankind with a capital letter, in whom the elevated qualities of goodness, love, and justice are manifested. Dostoevsky raises the question several times: "Are you a person?" In the 19th century, the themes of the individual, personal freedom, and free will were quite new to literature.
Wow. Thanks for that knowledge that his themes were new to literature. We take them granted and do not realize how revolutionary it might have seemed.
Since chapter 1, Raskolvnikov has been contemplating killing, in this chapter he has been dwelling on Jack the Giant Killer. He has been slipping into worse thought and actions ever since. Where does the crime begin? With the first thought? (I don't think so..thoughts appear in our heads unsummoned.). With using one's free will of repeatedly contemplating those thoughts, imagining killing the “giant” in one’s life? Or the actual slaying? There is something in US law about premeditated murder. So perhaps the crime begins with the conscious invitation to keep imaging the murder. But what is the “giant” in his life? I do not know. I think he has been in an increasingly chaotic mind since we met him. Yes, he is human, but at this point a deranged human. Which begs the question, is there evil, or are there just grossly misfiring neural connections?
Unintentional murder is an accident. Lizaveta's death at the hands of Raskolnikov may be somewhat unintentional, but combined with the old woman, it is no longer so.
In theory, he is smart since he was able to be a student, which is not easy that time for poor people. Perhaps it was his lively mind that led him to this. He thought too much and drove himself to madness.
Is there his will in this - an interesting question. Does he control his neurons? There is hardly a definite answer to this.
I think R is full of self loathing for many reasons, not just the murders. His life is such a mess; unpaid rent, no work, abandoned studies, accepting support from his sister and mother, social withdrawal. In the opening chapters he was the perfect picture of a man who would not face reality and try to get himself together. So, as I see it, he has allowed his life to fall into a truly parlous state, for which, I think, he is largely responsible. On top of all this come the murders. Now his mind is so effected, how great is his actual responsibility I can't even guess at. For me, this is also the reason he throws the money away and rejects the work his friend offers. He sees himself beyond hope and undeserving of help. Once in this state, he can do no other but feel hatred for all around him. His self-loathing is transferred to the society around him.
Yeah, Raskolnikov's mind is a total mess. His self-loathing is complex and extends far beyond the act of murder. The murders only deepen his mental turmoil, blurring the lines of his responsibility. His refusal to accept help and disposal of money emphasize his belief that he is beyond redemption. Dostoevsky beautifully captures this, making Raskolnikov a truly intricate and tragic character. That's why, as a reader, I can empathize with him and experience different emotions, not just those towards a murderer.
Raskolnikov can completely cut himself off from the world, but he cannot cut himself off from himself, as he is not at this point contemplating suicide. He cannot runaway from, nor face himself. That is hell.
Was the “beating” of his landlady a dream (asleep) or a hallucination? Clearly he is unraveling in a downward spiral, and which came first—the crime or the madness— seems like a chicken and egg scenario. At the very least he should have taken the job to get the debt taken care of and the police off his tail for that episode at least. But he’s not asking my advice is he?
It is believed that this is his second painful dream after the horse. But now I think these are auditory hallucinations. He didn't see anything; usually, a dream involves "seeing," and just hearing is completely strange.
His behavior is generally irrational. His attitude towards money is simply ridiculous: he needs it badly, but he throws it around. He didn't even count the stolen money. He hopes he won't be thrown out on the street and doesn't intend to pay rent. And he's not an alcoholic either. But Raskolnikov doesn't take anyone's advice at all. It's amazing that many kind people are around him, willing to help. It's a rarity.
Totally missed the toilet!
TMI Paula 😂
Chris, neurologically, what is the difference between a nightmare and a hallucination? I don't understand what this dream was implying.
Im not a board certified neurologist, but having a dream while you are asleep seems very different than being fully awake and perceiving things that are not real as if they are. I have to go back and listen again but I thought it was the latter.
In Constance Garnett’s translation he wakes up from oblivion when hearing a scream and then seems to be awake for the rest. So it sounds like a hallucination in my online book.
This is an interesting question; I haven't considered such a division before. It's always been accepted that a dream is just a dream. However, since he has a fever and likely a high temperature, these could be hallucinations.
If he couldn’t distinguish between a dream and reality and only had auditory hallucinations, then it’s probably more serious. It might be a reference to schizophrenia. Some researchers attribute this diagnosis to Raskolnikov.