In this chapter, we will meet Rodion's family, learn from Razumikhin what makes a person human, and Fyodor Mikhailovich tells us a secret - how to maintain beauty and not age.
I don’t like lying, but Dostoevsky might be on to something through Razumikhin stating that lying is what makes us human. Everyone lies to some extent. There are white lies, regular lies, and villainous lies. But not only humans lie—animals, too. Male birds pretend to be injured to lure cats away from the nest, etc. Perhaps lying is what defines a certain level of consciousness.
This book seems to have nothing that makes it a pleasure to read but yet I read. It is like totally chaotic painting with no place to rest the eye and no focal point and yet I stand in front of it mesmerized. The first time I read this book I hated it and only finished so I could say I had read it. With your insights, I find the book amazing. I joined this read along just because I wanted to find out why such an annoying book was a classic. I am finding out!
Dunya is the only character that does not make me wince. Even the mother seems to border on hysterical.
Your description of the book as a "chaotic painting" that mesmerizes despite lacking traditional pleasurable elements is a powerful metaphor. It's fascinating how your perspective has shifted from initial dislike to appreciation, particularly with the insights gained from the read-along.
Regarding lying, the ability to deceive, in both humans and animals, indeed suggests a level of cognitive complexity. This is an intriguing angle of observation. People often wear masks; perhaps this is what Razumikhin meant—that everyone plays roles. Deception doesn't necessarily have to involve verbal lies.
I was wondering, is camouflage lying? Like an octopus being all like “don’t mind me, I’m just a rock.” Or playing dead? Even my dog looks like she’s up to something 😂
This is indeed an interesting perspective. Is lying only a verbal form? Or do facial expressions and gestures count too? But I've often heard that a person's posture and gestures can't lie and reveal their true self. Or lie detectors - they don't check the words themselves, but physiological processes.
Dogs don't lie — they merely conceal their intentions.
1) I'm not sure what it is I like about the novel. The psychological underpinnings are still perplexing at this stage. The plot is interesting but not riveting. The characters are generally unlikable except for Dunya and I feel sorry for her mother. The symbolism would totally go over my head if not for your summaries. And yet, somehow, the sum is far greater than the parts, and I find it compelling?!
2) Ultimatums always go well. Right?
3) I was counting on Razumikhin to be a voice of reason for Rodion, but he's turing out to be...an odd fellow himself...
4) 43-year olds then seem so much older than they do today!
It's a peculiar characteristic of the novel. When I start pondering individual parts, I too find many things I dislike and that irritate me. Yet the more I analyze the novel now, writing articles, the more I yearn to immerse myself in it again and again. Every comment here in the group or outside provides new interpretations. Even after 150 years and numerous translations, there's still so much to explore that hasn't been written about. Indeed, you're right—the sum is greater than all the parts individually.
In the short term, probably yes, but in the long term, I don't think so. If given such an ultimatum, I would most likely choose Rodion, but I probably wouldn't forgive him for forcing me to make that choice. However, the ultimatum here is quite lenient; Dunya herself isn't particularly attached to Luzhin.
Oh, this Razumikhin really irritates me. We discussed him a bit in the comments with @Ellie, noting how annoying he is. But imagine the kind of social circle in the novel where Razumikhin is the most reasonable one! So far, he has generally acted for the good. But when drunk, he's quite the romantic hero.
Actually, I'm still surprised by how age was described in novels, even writing about 20-year-olds sometimes that they are no longer young. Сonsidering that it wasn't really the case that everyone died early. There were quite a few elderly people who were 70–80. But nowadays, there's also various chatter on social media about life ending at 30—this "crisis of 30." It's a frightening number. I don't see much of this for 40, 50, 60. Perhaps in the future, it will also seem from the outside that in our time, everyone over 30 was considered old.
Really interesting to learn about "pochvennichestvo", it reminds me of similar nationalist movements that were popping all over in the 19th century (most eventually developing into ultranationalism by the 20th.) Would you say Razumikhin is an ideal poster child for the movement? I'm thinking now that Dostoevsky fully realizes Razumikhin comes off as overbearing, or rather, he thinks this kind of personality is ideal. The hand squeezing and the women screaming in pain happens not once, but several times, it makes me flinch but it's like we're supposed to find Razumikhin endearing in his drunken state, as if being stripped of any filter makes him a true man, passionate and honest and all that. It's funny he's called "reason" since he seems to operate mostly on instincts.
I don't know if I'm making any sense, ahahaha. It's like, Luzhin is a rational egoist while Razumikhin is an emotional one. Which is not to say he's selfish, more like self-centered, he's a good guy but goes through life like a bulldozer, he imposes himself on others but since he's a red-blooded young man his reactions are supposedly natural and justifiable.
And yet he was repeatedly hurting those hands. He's been nosing about crime investigations. He's about to dump the landlady without a care in the world (I'm a bit mad about that). And he's absolutely making a mess with Rodion, who in my opinion needs to be (humanely) locked away ASAP where he can't hurt any more people or himself. Razumikhin would benefit from some reasoning indeed, instead of REACTING, just stop for a moment and try to understand how his actions are affecting others. Alas, he's a big gorgeous idiot lost in his own gorgeous reality, a "tempestuous, open-hearted, straightforward, honest, strong as a fairy tale hero, and tipsy" man. It's a slippery slope.
In this novel, Razumikhin — really the ideal posterboy of pochvennichestvo. However, I'm uncertain about the movement's broader impact. While well-known, it never gained significant traction. Instead, more influential ideologies—primarily communism—paved the way for the 1917 revolution.
The detail about Razumikhin's hands is undoubtedly intentional, though its purpose eludes me. Could it suggest that he, too, struggles to control his impulses? That he's only a step away from Rodion's state? Among the novel's men, he's certainly the most level-headed so far. I appreciate the description of him as an "emotional egoist"—he practically assaults others with his emotions and care. In modern terms, he's a textbook extrovert, oblivious to the existence of introverts. While not entirely rational, Razumikhin does possess many sound ideas.
lie - my translation (hungarian) gives clearly lie
I am happy to read about the psychology parts.
three fishes that hold up the world - my book says: the origin of the world
fish pie - it is nice, my book doesn't mention fish food, because it is not common here, (not very rare, but not common) it mentions "nutritious snacks"
pancakes - the word mentioned here is more like donuts
At the next time if it is possible I would be happy to read about all the food mentioned in the book. The tea with what kind of sugar (and milk?) and what they eat with the tea? The evening tea means dinner? The different pies and pirogs, maybe with pictures. What food was common and what is still common today? Thank you!
It's very interesting how such details were translated. In Dostoevsky's original, it's not actually "fish pies" but the specific word "kulebyaka"/ couliciac (and they're not only filled with fish) - this dish is known in Hungarian cuisine. What are such closed pies called?
As I recall, there wasn't much food present, and Rodion barely ate anything. I plan to write about tea in more detail tomorrow, as there are some aspects to discuss.
Later, I'll compile information about the food mentioned in the text and write about it. It's fascinating to explore the novel from this new perspective—I've never examined it through the lens of food before.
This novel! I dislike everyone, but I can’t get enough!!!
You mentioned monomaniac. I’m reading McDuff, and this is the second time the word is missing the text. Is that true of the version you’re reading, or is this the first die you? For you, the word is first used at the beginning of Part 1, Chapter 3: “He was in the condition that overtakes some monomaniacs entirely concentrated upon one thing.” Are there alternative translations?
Indeed — this novel: every character is a whole set of vices!
In the 3.1, you're correct—the word itself appears for the second time. I expressed this incorrectly in the article. However, it's the first time Raskolnikov is directly given this diagnosis—Zosimov explicitly states it as a character. This isn't merely an external observation by the omniscient author. In this novel (as in most novels), the author knows more than the characters. For instance, we know about Raskolnikov's crime with certainty, while his “friends” don't.
The phrase from 1.3 translates literally as follows: "He resolutely withdrew from everyone, like a turtle into its shell, and even the face of the servant girl, who was obliged to wait on him and sometimes peeked into his room, aroused bile and convulsions in him. **This happens with some monomaniacs who are too focused on something**."
Here, it's not definitively stated that Rodion is a monomaniac; it's merely hinted at. Just as Rodion isn't literally a turtle, but the comparison is used figuratively.
Ahhhh!! I see!! Just the planting of the seed. I’m fascinated by the idea of monomania. I was not familiar with the term before, and now it’s a treasure hunt to find each mention in the text. I’m going to have to do some additional research on it.
Sometimes it is called "wellington", which is the british name for that I think. And usually it called "tésztában sült ..valami..." ....something..... baked in dough. Something can be meat, mushroom. My Mom bakes it only for easter with ham, and it is "kalács" = scone type of dough.
The smaller ones are more common, it called "húsos batyu" or "húsos táska" which is about meat bag, meat bundle. Here is video with one of my favorite chef, he is so casual and homemade but professional also:
The most popular to make at home is small roll with "virsli" which is a very mild sausage, it cooks really fast and not spicy. It is a must at New Years eve, or anytime for guests. Can be filled with only "virlsi" or virsli and cheese, bacon. It can be made from frozen dough, it is fast to do, or some can make it with homemade yeast dough.
Baked goods are generally very similar everywhere, I suppose they're roughly the same, only the details differ. Kalács looks just like the kulebyaka that Dostoevsky mentioned in the quote. And húsos táska are very similar to Polish pierogi. I haven't encountered such virsli, usually I see a whole sausage into a bun and it didn't have a specific name, it was just called: sausage in dough.
Thank you for this excursion into Hungarian baked goods. I only knew kürtőskalács, but here in Poland, where I am, they call it Trdelník.
Hello Dana, I got behind, as explained to Paula, but I am working on catching up. "Work" is sort of the right word for me, grappling with the "chaotic painting" that Paula described. It's good, though rather challenging.
Hello, Glenys! Indeed, this book isn't always a pleasure—it's often work. But don't worry; you can read at your own pace. I'll always be here to answer questions and respond to comments on any chapter. Just be aware that you might encounter spoilers if we move ahead. However, I know several people are reading slower than the schedule and will continue to leave fresh comments. Feel free to write in the community chat if you want to discuss a topic outside of a specific chapter—everyone can see and engage with your messages there.
I am behind in the reading due to holidays, and then being unwell. I just started catching up tonight and have read to the end of Book 2, Chapter 5. I could not have put my feeling about the book better than you have. "This book seems......before it mesmerised." Yay, you said it so well, thanks.
This is my second reading of Crime and Punishment. My first reading was in 1973 when I was 16 years old. It was the first classic Russian novel I ever read. (I had heard that it was about a murderer who spends most of the book feeling guilty about the murder, which is sort of like saying that Moby Dick is about a bunch of guys on a boat chasing a whale.) I was fascinated by the book, so much so that I quickly devoured nearly all of Dostoyevsky's major works in the next year. I did not, and 50 years later I still do not, know just what it was that I found so fascinating, but I think a big part of it was that D. portrays so frankly how irrational human actions were, and the crazy chaotic thoughts that run through your head (especially at age 16!).Especially the conflict between what one intends to say and do and what one actually does, as in the quote that goes something like "I see the better course and approve of it, but I do the worse."
Thanks for sharing your "Crime and Punishment" experience, Robert. It's intriguing how the book resonated with you at 16 and still does 50 years later. Your insight into Dostoevsky's portrayal of irrational actions and chaotic thoughts is particularly relevant, especially for a teenage reader.
The conflict between intentions and actions you mention is a key theme in Dostoevsky's work. Your paraphrased quote aptly captures this internal struggle, reflecting the psychological depth Dostoevsky brings to characters like Raskolnikov. Your comparison of "Crime and Punishment" to "Moby Dick" highlights how these classics go beyond their basic plots, exploring complex psychological, philosophical, and moral themes. It's noteworthy that this novel led you to explore more of Dostoevsky's works.
I don’t like lying, but Dostoevsky might be on to something through Razumikhin stating that lying is what makes us human. Everyone lies to some extent. There are white lies, regular lies, and villainous lies. But not only humans lie—animals, too. Male birds pretend to be injured to lure cats away from the nest, etc. Perhaps lying is what defines a certain level of consciousness.
This book seems to have nothing that makes it a pleasure to read but yet I read. It is like totally chaotic painting with no place to rest the eye and no focal point and yet I stand in front of it mesmerized. The first time I read this book I hated it and only finished so I could say I had read it. With your insights, I find the book amazing. I joined this read along just because I wanted to find out why such an annoying book was a classic. I am finding out!
Dunya is the only character that does not make me wince. Even the mother seems to border on hysterical.
Your description of the book as a "chaotic painting" that mesmerizes despite lacking traditional pleasurable elements is a powerful metaphor. It's fascinating how your perspective has shifted from initial dislike to appreciation, particularly with the insights gained from the read-along.
Regarding lying, the ability to deceive, in both humans and animals, indeed suggests a level of cognitive complexity. This is an intriguing angle of observation. People often wear masks; perhaps this is what Razumikhin meant—that everyone plays roles. Deception doesn't necessarily have to involve verbal lies.
And yes, Dunya is absolutely the best!
Oooh! Fascinating thought that lying is indicative of a certain level of consciousness. Wow. 🤯 I need to let that rumble around for a bit.
I have posted a reply to you, Paula, but It's late and I am sleepy, so I didn't press 'Reply' and now it's at the end of the thread.
I was wondering, is camouflage lying? Like an octopus being all like “don’t mind me, I’m just a rock.” Or playing dead? Even my dog looks like she’s up to something 😂
This is indeed an interesting perspective. Is lying only a verbal form? Or do facial expressions and gestures count too? But I've often heard that a person's posture and gestures can't lie and reveal their true self. Or lie detectors - they don't check the words themselves, but physiological processes.
Dogs don't lie — they merely conceal their intentions.
1) I'm not sure what it is I like about the novel. The psychological underpinnings are still perplexing at this stage. The plot is interesting but not riveting. The characters are generally unlikable except for Dunya and I feel sorry for her mother. The symbolism would totally go over my head if not for your summaries. And yet, somehow, the sum is far greater than the parts, and I find it compelling?!
2) Ultimatums always go well. Right?
3) I was counting on Razumikhin to be a voice of reason for Rodion, but he's turing out to be...an odd fellow himself...
4) 43-year olds then seem so much older than they do today!
It's a peculiar characteristic of the novel. When I start pondering individual parts, I too find many things I dislike and that irritate me. Yet the more I analyze the novel now, writing articles, the more I yearn to immerse myself in it again and again. Every comment here in the group or outside provides new interpretations. Even after 150 years and numerous translations, there's still so much to explore that hasn't been written about. Indeed, you're right—the sum is greater than all the parts individually.
In the short term, probably yes, but in the long term, I don't think so. If given such an ultimatum, I would most likely choose Rodion, but I probably wouldn't forgive him for forcing me to make that choice. However, the ultimatum here is quite lenient; Dunya herself isn't particularly attached to Luzhin.
Oh, this Razumikhin really irritates me. We discussed him a bit in the comments with @Ellie, noting how annoying he is. But imagine the kind of social circle in the novel where Razumikhin is the most reasonable one! So far, he has generally acted for the good. But when drunk, he's quite the romantic hero.
Actually, I'm still surprised by how age was described in novels, even writing about 20-year-olds sometimes that they are no longer young. Сonsidering that it wasn't really the case that everyone died early. There were quite a few elderly people who were 70–80. But nowadays, there's also various chatter on social media about life ending at 30—this "crisis of 30." It's a frightening number. I don't see much of this for 40, 50, 60. Perhaps in the future, it will also seem from the outside that in our time, everyone over 30 was considered old.
I heartily second everything you say here!!!
I really like the photograph of the 43 year old writer and the paralel with the 43 year old mother both of the creator of the main character.
Really interesting to learn about "pochvennichestvo", it reminds me of similar nationalist movements that were popping all over in the 19th century (most eventually developing into ultranationalism by the 20th.) Would you say Razumikhin is an ideal poster child for the movement? I'm thinking now that Dostoevsky fully realizes Razumikhin comes off as overbearing, or rather, he thinks this kind of personality is ideal. The hand squeezing and the women screaming in pain happens not once, but several times, it makes me flinch but it's like we're supposed to find Razumikhin endearing in his drunken state, as if being stripped of any filter makes him a true man, passionate and honest and all that. It's funny he's called "reason" since he seems to operate mostly on instincts.
I don't know if I'm making any sense, ahahaha. It's like, Luzhin is a rational egoist while Razumikhin is an emotional one. Which is not to say he's selfish, more like self-centered, he's a good guy but goes through life like a bulldozer, he imposes himself on others but since he's a red-blooded young man his reactions are supposedly natural and justifiable.
And yet he was repeatedly hurting those hands. He's been nosing about crime investigations. He's about to dump the landlady without a care in the world (I'm a bit mad about that). And he's absolutely making a mess with Rodion, who in my opinion needs to be (humanely) locked away ASAP where he can't hurt any more people or himself. Razumikhin would benefit from some reasoning indeed, instead of REACTING, just stop for a moment and try to understand how his actions are affecting others. Alas, he's a big gorgeous idiot lost in his own gorgeous reality, a "tempestuous, open-hearted, straightforward, honest, strong as a fairy tale hero, and tipsy" man. It's a slippery slope.
In this novel, Razumikhin — really the ideal posterboy of pochvennichestvo. However, I'm uncertain about the movement's broader impact. While well-known, it never gained significant traction. Instead, more influential ideologies—primarily communism—paved the way for the 1917 revolution.
The detail about Razumikhin's hands is undoubtedly intentional, though its purpose eludes me. Could it suggest that he, too, struggles to control his impulses? That he's only a step away from Rodion's state? Among the novel's men, he's certainly the most level-headed so far. I appreciate the description of him as an "emotional egoist"—he practically assaults others with his emotions and care. In modern terms, he's a textbook extrovert, oblivious to the existence of introverts. While not entirely rational, Razumikhin does possess many sound ideas.
lie - my translation (hungarian) gives clearly lie
I am happy to read about the psychology parts.
three fishes that hold up the world - my book says: the origin of the world
fish pie - it is nice, my book doesn't mention fish food, because it is not common here, (not very rare, but not common) it mentions "nutritious snacks"
pancakes - the word mentioned here is more like donuts
At the next time if it is possible I would be happy to read about all the food mentioned in the book. The tea with what kind of sugar (and milk?) and what they eat with the tea? The evening tea means dinner? The different pies and pirogs, maybe with pictures. What food was common and what is still common today? Thank you!
It's very interesting how such details were translated. In Dostoevsky's original, it's not actually "fish pies" but the specific word "kulebyaka"/ couliciac (and they're not only filled with fish) - this dish is known in Hungarian cuisine. What are such closed pies called?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulibiac
As I recall, there wasn't much food present, and Rodion barely ate anything. I plan to write about tea in more detail tomorrow, as there are some aspects to discuss.
Later, I'll compile information about the food mentioned in the text and write about it. It's fascinating to explore the novel from this new perspective—I've never examined it through the lens of food before.
This novel! I dislike everyone, but I can’t get enough!!!
You mentioned monomaniac. I’m reading McDuff, and this is the second time the word is missing the text. Is that true of the version you’re reading, or is this the first die you? For you, the word is first used at the beginning of Part 1, Chapter 3: “He was in the condition that overtakes some monomaniacs entirely concentrated upon one thing.” Are there alternative translations?
Indeed — this novel: every character is a whole set of vices!
In the 3.1, you're correct—the word itself appears for the second time. I expressed this incorrectly in the article. However, it's the first time Raskolnikov is directly given this diagnosis—Zosimov explicitly states it as a character. This isn't merely an external observation by the omniscient author. In this novel (as in most novels), the author knows more than the characters. For instance, we know about Raskolnikov's crime with certainty, while his “friends” don't.
The phrase from 1.3 translates literally as follows: "He resolutely withdrew from everyone, like a turtle into its shell, and even the face of the servant girl, who was obliged to wait on him and sometimes peeked into his room, aroused bile and convulsions in him. **This happens with some monomaniacs who are too focused on something**."
Here, it's not definitively stated that Rodion is a monomaniac; it's merely hinted at. Just as Rodion isn't literally a turtle, but the comparison is used figuratively.
Ahhhh!! I see!! Just the planting of the seed. I’m fascinated by the idea of monomania. I was not familiar with the term before, and now it’s a treasure hunt to find each mention in the text. I’m going to have to do some additional research on it.
Sometimes it is called "wellington", which is the british name for that I think. And usually it called "tésztában sült ..valami..." ....something..... baked in dough. Something can be meat, mushroom. My Mom bakes it only for easter with ham, and it is "kalács" = scone type of dough.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1328281291442195
The smaller ones are more common, it called "húsos batyu" or "húsos táska" which is about meat bag, meat bundle. Here is video with one of my favorite chef, he is so casual and homemade but professional also:
https://youtu.be/a9eLEaVrC5s?si=Giiug8XA6B_nVfOW
The most popular to make at home is small roll with "virsli" which is a very mild sausage, it cooks really fast and not spicy. It is a must at New Years eve, or anytime for guests. Can be filled with only "virlsi" or virsli and cheese, bacon. It can be made from frozen dough, it is fast to do, or some can make it with homemade yeast dough.
https://youtu.be/6LijAbOE3aw?si=IMHFzgp23uPGbQd3
Thank you, I would love to read about tea. Please include the sugar, I imagine kandis rock sugar, but I am not sure:
https://theteahaus.com/honey/kandis-rock-sugar-brown.html
Yes, I'll cover sugar as well.
Baked goods are generally very similar everywhere, I suppose they're roughly the same, only the details differ. Kalács looks just like the kulebyaka that Dostoevsky mentioned in the quote. And húsos táska are very similar to Polish pierogi. I haven't encountered such virsli, usually I see a whole sausage into a bun and it didn't have a specific name, it was just called: sausage in dough.
Thank you for this excursion into Hungarian baked goods. I only knew kürtőskalács, but here in Poland, where I am, they call it Trdelník.
Hello Dana, I got behind, as explained to Paula, but I am working on catching up. "Work" is sort of the right word for me, grappling with the "chaotic painting" that Paula described. It's good, though rather challenging.
Hello, Glenys! Indeed, this book isn't always a pleasure—it's often work. But don't worry; you can read at your own pace. I'll always be here to answer questions and respond to comments on any chapter. Just be aware that you might encounter spoilers if we move ahead. However, I know several people are reading slower than the schedule and will continue to leave fresh comments. Feel free to write in the community chat if you want to discuss a topic outside of a specific chapter—everyone can see and engage with your messages there.
I am behind in the reading due to holidays, and then being unwell. I just started catching up tonight and have read to the end of Book 2, Chapter 5. I could not have put my feeling about the book better than you have. "This book seems......before it mesmerised." Yay, you said it so well, thanks.
This is my second reading of Crime and Punishment. My first reading was in 1973 when I was 16 years old. It was the first classic Russian novel I ever read. (I had heard that it was about a murderer who spends most of the book feeling guilty about the murder, which is sort of like saying that Moby Dick is about a bunch of guys on a boat chasing a whale.) I was fascinated by the book, so much so that I quickly devoured nearly all of Dostoyevsky's major works in the next year. I did not, and 50 years later I still do not, know just what it was that I found so fascinating, but I think a big part of it was that D. portrays so frankly how irrational human actions were, and the crazy chaotic thoughts that run through your head (especially at age 16!).Especially the conflict between what one intends to say and do and what one actually does, as in the quote that goes something like "I see the better course and approve of it, but I do the worse."
Thanks for sharing your "Crime and Punishment" experience, Robert. It's intriguing how the book resonated with you at 16 and still does 50 years later. Your insight into Dostoevsky's portrayal of irrational actions and chaotic thoughts is particularly relevant, especially for a teenage reader.
The conflict between intentions and actions you mention is a key theme in Dostoevsky's work. Your paraphrased quote aptly captures this internal struggle, reflecting the psychological depth Dostoevsky brings to characters like Raskolnikov. Your comparison of "Crime and Punishment" to "Moby Dick" highlights how these classics go beyond their basic plots, exploring complex psychological, philosophical, and moral themes. It's noteworthy that this novel led you to explore more of Dostoevsky's works.