Raskolnikov is trying to understand the consequences of the murders he commited. And as we can see, in this chapter he is walking almost the path as on the day of the his crime.
As we're discussing Part 2, Chapter 6, I was reminded of a scene in Part 1, Chapter 6, where students are talking about crimes and murderm in a pub. They create theories on how things should be done. What do you think about this parallel? Perhaps the protagonist wants to return to that world, to that time before the murder, and behave as the students did?
I believe there is indeed a parallel. Throughout this chapter, Raskolnikov revisits "memorable" places associated with the crime, yet everything feels different. The conversation about murder has also shifted. Previously, he listened to a theoretical discussion, but now he's the one speaking, having actually committed murder. Has he gained any insight from that earlier theory, which has now become his reality? I don't detect any meaningful reflections in him related to that overheard theory. At present, he seems even more confused than before the murder. Back then, he had a clear goal: planning the crime. Now, he's utterly lost, constantly changing his mind. Interestingly, both chapters are numbered 6, albeit in different parts. I think you've uncovered a deliberate parallel drawn by Dostoevsky.
Yes, I agree that the parallel might have been intentional by Dostoevsky. What's also interesting to me is that in the earlier conversation, Raskolnikov was passive, merely listening. But in the current conversation, he is the only active participant, and he doesn't see his listener as an equal conversation partner. He considers him subordinate because the listener doesn't have as much education as he does. In the earlier conversation, the participants were equals.
Thank you for this discussion and for your work, Dana. It's helping me connect more deeply with the novel. I just had a thought: as Raskolnikov's world flips from theory to reality, we also begin to look at everything from the opposite side. The contrast between life and death, like the contrasts in a painting, where the combination of dark and light creates the whole picture. It’s as if the writer is illuminating one side of everything in the novel, and then the other. And as the characters' motives shift, so too do the light and dark, changing according to what they see clearly at any given moment.
Thank you for sharing. Your observation about Raskolnikov's world "flipping from theory to reality" is astute. It captures the essence of his psychological journey and Dostoevsky's skill in portraying the interplay between abstract ideas and lived experience. The shifting dynamics in conversations and the alternating "light and dark" in characters' perceptions add depth to the narrative, offering multiple perspectives. This technique effectively conveys the novel's moral and psychological complexity. Your analysis shows deep engagement with the text and appreciation for Dostoevsky's craftsmanship. It's gratifying to see how this discussion enhances your connection with the novel.
I'm struggling a bit here. I've only ever read another Dostoevsky book before this, Notes from the Underground, I disliked it so much I wanted to throw it across my room. This chapter reminds me of Notes the most so far. Raskolnikov's mood swings seem narratively cheap and morally exhausting at this point, as do the various portraits of human misery and debauchery. I see that Dostoevsky was reacting to the rational egoism of his time, but his conclusions are soooo frustrating.
I understand your frustration with Dostoevsky's writing style, especially when compared to "Notes from Underground." Dostoevsky's approach, though challenging, aims to explore the depths of human psychology and tackle complex moral issues. The elements you find "cheap" and "exhausting" are often intentional, designed to unsettle readers and stimulate thought. His response to rational egoism is indeed a central theme, and while his conclusions may seem frustrating, they're part of the broader philosophical discourse of his era.
Much of 19th-century literature, perhaps even the majority, isn't meant to be entertaining in the conventional sense. Reading these works demands effort. However, I hope this effort ultimately enriches you with new thoughts and ideas. I confess, I too sometimes sink into despondency, feeling I lack the strength to revisit these literary struggles.
Constance Garnett’s translation has some rederings I do not understand. Zametov is described as wearing “ doubtful linen.” I have never heard doubtful used to describe clothing. What word to other translations use and what is the original Russian? Also, Razmunihin tells Raskolnikov that he has lymph in his veins instead of blood. What does this refer to?
Raskolnikov is still very splintered in this chapter. He goes to the crowd with an “ inclination to enter into conversation with people” and yet tells Razmunihin to leave him alone. He seems to realize the only way his life will change is if he is recognized as the murderer and yet he cannot quite bring himself to confess. It must be terrible to live inside his mind. Does he even know what change he wants? Does he ( or we readers ) ever know why he felt the need to murder?
Dostoevsky noted that Zametov wore unwashed linen — clothes worn next to the skin that weren't fresh. This detail likely struck Garnett as "doubtful" for a police official. 😅.
In the second case, Garnett decided to simply change everything. In the original, literally: "You're made of spermaceti ointment, and instead of blood you have whey!" Pasternak Slater's version: "You're all made of whale oil, with whey instead of blood!"
This is a reference to an artificial human, that's how they "made" homunculi. In other words, Raskolnikov is an unnatural person. I think in modern language, Razumikhin would say that Rodion is like a robot, like an android.
I like your analysis of Raskolnikov's mental state. The internal struggle between wanting to be recognized as the murderer and being unable to confess demonstrates his complex relationship with guilt and punishment. It's likely that Raskolnikov himself doesn't know what change he wants. His actions seem driven by conflicting impulses rather than a clear goal.
I wonder if spontaneous combustion with some sort of an issue in Russia in those days.
From Crime and Punishment:
“Oh, damn… these are the items of intelligence. An accident on a staircase, spontaneous combustion of a shopkeeper from alcohol,”
From Dead Souls by Gogol:
the blacksmith SET HIMSELF on fire — he got set on fire in his bowels through overdrinking. Yes, all of a sudden there burst from him a blue flame, and he smouldered and smouldered until he had turned as black as a piece of charcoal!
Raskolnikov’s seems like a manic depressive, after basically confessing to Zametov, “He went out, trembling all over from a sort of wild hysterical sensation, in which there was an element of insufferable rapture. Yet he was gloomy and terribly tired.”
I'm not sure how spontaneous they were, but fires were a problem. Dostoevsky simply wrote about fires, not spontaneous combustions (this is a translator's addition here) . When Rodion flips through newspapers from those days, there are several fires in the news. And considering that there were many wooden houses, also a lot of hay - everything burned easily. There was a lot of alcohol, and people smoked. And heating was from coal and candles.
People would fall asleep drunk and burn - I think this happened a lot.
Yes, Rodion put on a whole performance for Zametov. He was so talkative, either trying to joke or bluff. And he was laughing like a madman too. He spent all his mental energy.
It’s interesting how the same text can hit people in different ways. This might have been my favorite chapter yet. I’m all in for an unstable protagonist. I love that I have no idea what Rodion might do next since he is irrational. His reckless conversation with Zametov had me on the edge of my seat. And that section back at the scene of the crime with Rodion walking around the occupied apartment! I may have actually warned the two workers OUT LOUD that they were about to be murdered and needed to get out. 🤣 (My husband was sitting across the room when it happened. 🤭)
Indeed, everyone experiences the chapter differently—it's fascinating! Your engagement with the story is truly delightful. It showcases Dostoevsky's masterful ability to create suspense and draw readers into his narrative.
Your visceral reaction to the scene at the crime scene exemplifies how immersive the storytelling can be. It's intriguing to consider: could Rodion actually kill these workers to bring blood back to the old woman's apartment? I can almost imagine him saying, "There was a lot of blood here before; now I'll show you..." 😅
As we're discussing Part 2, Chapter 6, I was reminded of a scene in Part 1, Chapter 6, where students are talking about crimes and murderm in a pub. They create theories on how things should be done. What do you think about this parallel? Perhaps the protagonist wants to return to that world, to that time before the murder, and behave as the students did?
I believe there is indeed a parallel. Throughout this chapter, Raskolnikov revisits "memorable" places associated with the crime, yet everything feels different. The conversation about murder has also shifted. Previously, he listened to a theoretical discussion, but now he's the one speaking, having actually committed murder. Has he gained any insight from that earlier theory, which has now become his reality? I don't detect any meaningful reflections in him related to that overheard theory. At present, he seems even more confused than before the murder. Back then, he had a clear goal: planning the crime. Now, he's utterly lost, constantly changing his mind. Interestingly, both chapters are numbered 6, albeit in different parts. I think you've uncovered a deliberate parallel drawn by Dostoevsky.
Yes, I agree that the parallel might have been intentional by Dostoevsky. What's also interesting to me is that in the earlier conversation, Raskolnikov was passive, merely listening. But in the current conversation, he is the only active participant, and he doesn't see his listener as an equal conversation partner. He considers him subordinate because the listener doesn't have as much education as he does. In the earlier conversation, the participants were equals.
Thank you for this discussion and for your work, Dana. It's helping me connect more deeply with the novel. I just had a thought: as Raskolnikov's world flips from theory to reality, we also begin to look at everything from the opposite side. The contrast between life and death, like the contrasts in a painting, where the combination of dark and light creates the whole picture. It’s as if the writer is illuminating one side of everything in the novel, and then the other. And as the characters' motives shift, so too do the light and dark, changing according to what they see clearly at any given moment.
Thank you for sharing. Your observation about Raskolnikov's world "flipping from theory to reality" is astute. It captures the essence of his psychological journey and Dostoevsky's skill in portraying the interplay between abstract ideas and lived experience. The shifting dynamics in conversations and the alternating "light and dark" in characters' perceptions add depth to the narrative, offering multiple perspectives. This technique effectively conveys the novel's moral and psychological complexity. Your analysis shows deep engagement with the text and appreciation for Dostoevsky's craftsmanship. It's gratifying to see how this discussion enhances your connection with the novel.
I'm struggling a bit here. I've only ever read another Dostoevsky book before this, Notes from the Underground, I disliked it so much I wanted to throw it across my room. This chapter reminds me of Notes the most so far. Raskolnikov's mood swings seem narratively cheap and morally exhausting at this point, as do the various portraits of human misery and debauchery. I see that Dostoevsky was reacting to the rational egoism of his time, but his conclusions are soooo frustrating.
I understand your frustration with Dostoevsky's writing style, especially when compared to "Notes from Underground." Dostoevsky's approach, though challenging, aims to explore the depths of human psychology and tackle complex moral issues. The elements you find "cheap" and "exhausting" are often intentional, designed to unsettle readers and stimulate thought. His response to rational egoism is indeed a central theme, and while his conclusions may seem frustrating, they're part of the broader philosophical discourse of his era.
Much of 19th-century literature, perhaps even the majority, isn't meant to be entertaining in the conventional sense. Reading these works demands effort. However, I hope this effort ultimately enriches you with new thoughts and ideas. I confess, I too sometimes sink into despondency, feeling I lack the strength to revisit these literary struggles.
Constance Garnett’s translation has some rederings I do not understand. Zametov is described as wearing “ doubtful linen.” I have never heard doubtful used to describe clothing. What word to other translations use and what is the original Russian? Also, Razmunihin tells Raskolnikov that he has lymph in his veins instead of blood. What does this refer to?
Raskolnikov is still very splintered in this chapter. He goes to the crowd with an “ inclination to enter into conversation with people” and yet tells Razmunihin to leave him alone. He seems to realize the only way his life will change is if he is recognized as the murderer and yet he cannot quite bring himself to confess. It must be terrible to live inside his mind. Does he even know what change he wants? Does he ( or we readers ) ever know why he felt the need to murder?
Dostoevsky noted that Zametov wore unwashed linen — clothes worn next to the skin that weren't fresh. This detail likely struck Garnett as "doubtful" for a police official. 😅.
In the second case, Garnett decided to simply change everything. In the original, literally: "You're made of spermaceti ointment, and instead of blood you have whey!" Pasternak Slater's version: "You're all made of whale oil, with whey instead of blood!"
This is a reference to an artificial human, that's how they "made" homunculi. In other words, Raskolnikov is an unnatural person. I think in modern language, Razumikhin would say that Rodion is like a robot, like an android.
I like your analysis of Raskolnikov's mental state. The internal struggle between wanting to be recognized as the murderer and being unable to confess demonstrates his complex relationship with guilt and punishment. It's likely that Raskolnikov himself doesn't know what change he wants. His actions seem driven by conflicting impulses rather than a clear goal.
I wonder if spontaneous combustion with some sort of an issue in Russia in those days.
From Crime and Punishment:
“Oh, damn… these are the items of intelligence. An accident on a staircase, spontaneous combustion of a shopkeeper from alcohol,”
From Dead Souls by Gogol:
the blacksmith SET HIMSELF on fire — he got set on fire in his bowels through overdrinking. Yes, all of a sudden there burst from him a blue flame, and he smouldered and smouldered until he had turned as black as a piece of charcoal!
Raskolnikov’s seems like a manic depressive, after basically confessing to Zametov, “He went out, trembling all over from a sort of wild hysterical sensation, in which there was an element of insufferable rapture. Yet he was gloomy and terribly tired.”
I'm not sure how spontaneous they were, but fires were a problem. Dostoevsky simply wrote about fires, not spontaneous combustions (this is a translator's addition here) . When Rodion flips through newspapers from those days, there are several fires in the news. And considering that there were many wooden houses, also a lot of hay - everything burned easily. There was a lot of alcohol, and people smoked. And heating was from coal and candles.
People would fall asleep drunk and burn - I think this happened a lot.
Yes, Rodion put on a whole performance for Zametov. He was so talkative, either trying to joke or bluff. And he was laughing like a madman too. He spent all his mental energy.
It’s interesting how the same text can hit people in different ways. This might have been my favorite chapter yet. I’m all in for an unstable protagonist. I love that I have no idea what Rodion might do next since he is irrational. His reckless conversation with Zametov had me on the edge of my seat. And that section back at the scene of the crime with Rodion walking around the occupied apartment! I may have actually warned the two workers OUT LOUD that they were about to be murdered and needed to get out. 🤣 (My husband was sitting across the room when it happened. 🤭)
Indeed, everyone experiences the chapter differently—it's fascinating! Your engagement with the story is truly delightful. It showcases Dostoevsky's masterful ability to create suspense and draw readers into his narrative.
Your visceral reaction to the scene at the crime scene exemplifies how immersive the storytelling can be. It's intriguing to consider: could Rodion actually kill these workers to bring blood back to the old woman's apartment? I can almost imagine him saying, "There was a lot of blood here before; now I'll show you..." 😅