This is the first meeting between detective Porfiry Petrovich and Raskolnikov. Now the game begins of who will outsmart whom. Will Porfiry be able to punish Rodion without having clear evidence?
When Porfiry Petrovich said "let me ask just one little question," that was SUCH a Peter Falk moment, my second read-through had a whole other flavor thanks to that mental image alone.
My experience with Dostoevsky has been such a roller coaster compared with Tolstoy's smooth sailing, I hate him and love him and hate him and love him. Just like with Raskolnikov himself.
Those words Porfiry nudged out of him at the end stood out to me too, "Truly great people, I think, must feel great sadness for the world." In all his delusions of grandeur, I do believe that one thing completely, Rodion is suffering and has been suffering for a long time, the state of the world (judging by how suffocating St. Peterburg is) must seem unbearable. I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of lonely young boys today can still relate to Rodion, and just like him, have come to all the wrong conclusions.
(Sorry I'm uploading all my ramblings together Dana, this week I really bit more than I could chew, I did read the chapter but had no time to comment them)
In the original Columbo series, the writers claimed that the catchphrase "Just one more thing" emerged from a need to extend episode runtimes. Since they used typewriters, adding to the end was easier than rewriting entire scripts. But I think, it's likely that Porfiry Petrovich also influenced this technique.
Dostoevsky's works indeed evoke passionate responses. His writing style contrasts sharply with Tolstoy's. Tolstoy, born into wealth and nobility, wrote for personal fulfillment rather than financial necessity. Dostoevsky, however, was a struggling professional writer who relied on his publications for income. This financial pressure might explain the frequent emotional peaks in his narratives—he needed to keep readers engrossed, especially since his novels were often serialized in magazines over the course of a year.
C&P is required reading in schools, but few students truly engage with or understand Rodion Raskolnikov's character. From my recollection, many teenagers gravitate towards Dostoevsky's love story "White Nights"—a more accessible novella.
I find your reflections fascinating, so please don't concern yourself with quantity or frequency. Share your thoughts whenever and however you feel inclined.
A bit late for the discussion,but just a couple of comments. This was such an engrossing chapter and such a clever point and counterpoint in the dialogue. This may sound strange, but I found it a bit comical; I could imagine it as some sort of witty farce. Even Rasumikhin asks if their talk is a joke: "Are you pulling each other's legs, or aren't you?"
Of course, though it is deadly serious for both men, and I think Raskalnikov wins this round. What I found interesting is that it is Razumikhin who divines that Raskalnikov's argument for justifiable killing is put "on grounds of conscience." Isn't this the way Raskalnikov originally rationalised his killing of the old woman, that she was somewhat of a social pariah, or something to that effect? It seems to me that, at bottom, it is the murder of Elizabeta, which is barely mentioned, that is the source of Raskalnikov's now agonised state.
It's a dense chapter indeed. The comical elements you noticed are not out of place at all. Dostoevsky masterfully incorporated humor in the tradition of Gogol. Your literary instinct is commendable—spotting this amidst the weighty philosophical dialogue is no small feat. Dostoevsky imbues all scenes with Porfiry with a subtle comic touch.
Regarding Raskolnikov's motivations, he spent considerable time rationalizing the murder of the old woman before committing the act. In his mind, he had already justified it. Lizaveta's murder, however, is a different story. He hadn't considered her; her death wasn't part of his plan. This unintended killing weighs heavily on him, unlike the old woman's murder, which was ideological—a means to prove his theories.
As for Columbo, it's indeed a classic that has stood the test of time. While I'd struggle to name many modern detective series, Columbo always comes to mind. It's one of those shows that seem to permeate cultural consciousness—I felt I knew about it even before watching. Now that I'm viewing the episodes in order, I find it utterly captivating.
I appreciate your insights. Remember, there's no rush with our discussion—feel free to read at your own pace, Glenys.
I was impressed by how eloquent Raskolnikov became when he was discussing his article. Usually his conversations are very awkward, jerky and spasmodic. It occurs to me that Razumikhin and Raskolnikov are on opposite ends of the Extrovert/Introvert spectrum. Extroverts derive energy by interacting with people, they think by talking. When they are trying to solve a problem, they go look for someone to talk to about it - not so much to get the other person's input, but to process their own thinking by expressing it to another. Introverts hate doing that, they like to go away and work the problem out in detail before presenting it to others. And they are drained by social interaction - that's not so say that they don't enjoy it, but it tires them out and they need to go off by themselves to recover. When an introvert has it all worked out, though, he can go on for paragraph after paragraph without skipping a note.
Your observations are spot-on. Indeed, Razumikhin and Rodion are polar opposites. The extroverted Razumikhin, in a mere four days of Rodion's illness, has already befriended his entire household and made numerous acquaintances. Rodion, on the other hand, had scarcely left his house for several months prior and only interacted with others when absolutely necessary.
None 😅 Forensic science was in its infancy during this period. Criminal record-keeping and offender profiling had only just begun. I won't even mention fingerprints and photographs. There's a stark difference between solving a case accurately and merely closing it. Many innocent people fell under suspicion and were wrongfully convicted, with crimes they hadn't committed attributed to them. This practice persisted well into the 20th century. In the 19th century, a methodical killer—as opposed to an impulsive one—could evade justice with relative ease.
Wow, what an amazing chapter! There are so many meaty and intricate philosophical discussions here and it finally felt like Roskolnikov met someone who can be on his level discussing and, more importantly, challenging his ideas! I also found it fascinating that Perfiry Petrovich was ready with his article for Raskolnikov's arrival!
I found it really interesting that ideas discussed here are so relevant in today's word:
- The environment vs. nature is a great one and continues to be very relevant and much discussed in the present times, there's a huge correlation between poverty and injustice and the amount of crime in society - like petty crime driven by poverty; or how you hear someone was born 'evil' when it comes to serial killers or pedophilia etc but then you learn about their childhood of neglect and abuse and wonder how that environment contributed to someone becoming 'evil' and commiting unimaginable crimes or whether they were always gonna do it?. It makes me wonder who uses what side of this argument for their own gain - is it convenient to say that this is 'nature' and therefore no improvements in the society are needed to eradicate poverty and we just need to punish the criminal? Or is it used to obsolve a criminal of what they did, because its their environment that made them do it and how morally dangerious this is? Perhaps very irrelevantly, it made me think of genetics and health as a comparison - one might be predesposed to a particular disease, but if one leads a lifestyle that makes that disease more likely, it's more likely that it will activate that particular gene - whereas a person without a gene might not develop that disease with the same lifestyle - all to say, that yes there might be some 'nature' traits in people, but they might or might not act on them, depending on the environment that supresseses or activates those 'natural' behaviours.
Another tangent in my mind, triggered by the comment of child abuse as an argument for "nature" playing part in crime, was Nabokov's Lolita novel that, in my opinion, really highlighted the role of the society/environment as an enabler of Humbert Humbert getting away with his crime: even if HH was evil (nature) (I don't remeber if the novel talked about his background?), did society enable him (ignoring the signs, Dolores's living situation made her vulnerable etc) and therefore also responsible for that crime, however indirectly?
- the concept of nature/environment and ordinary/extraordinary humans, committing a crime for the greater good brought to mind the reaction to the muder of the CEO of a healthcare company in New York and how many people highlighted the injustice and indirect murder of healthcare companies declining treatment and almost justifying this one act? It was fascinating to watch the news and see how the government, politicians, journalists and internet reacted to it - I wonder what would Dostoyevsky make of it? Another thing, I wonder, if the murderer saw himself as 'extraordinary' person in this theory of Raskolnikov as it seems that there was nothing in his 'environment' to lead him towards this crime?
The next thing that stood out for me was the allusion to the 'leaders of men' and how theirs shedding blood was justified by a greater purpose:
- reading War and Peace in parallel, I was struck how the conversation about Napoleon and his execution of George was justified along the same lines by Pierre, this seems to be quite a en-vogue topic in the 19th century!
- The reference to Onegin's line of 'Who of us Russians doesn't think we are a Napoleon?' was very poignant - this view when one or one nation starts believing that they are justified in their crimes, for the so-called 'greater benefit' or 'serving their purpose' because they are 'extraordinary' is really terrifying and sadly all to familiar in the current news across the world. The genius of Pushkin continues to be relevant!
I really liked how a character of Porfiry Petrovich now can provide a real smooth unpicking of these drastic and warped ideas that Raskolnikov has. I'm looking forward to reading how Porfirty Petrovich continues!
It's very interesting how this chapter has generated so many ideas for discussion. Readers are divided into those who find the chapter tedious and skip through it, and those who really enjoy this mid-19th century philosophy. Regarding environment and nature as causes of human actions - this topic will probably always be relevant, as people keep searching for non-existent genes in DNA, wondering if there's a killer gene there. This will likely continue in the future - people want to immediately identify bad people and remove responsibility. After all, if it's determined by nature, what can a person do about it - nothing.
The glorification of Napoleon truly stems from Pushkin's ideas; he was the first to consider him a superman, a leader of the planet. But in Eugene Onegin, it was written that all of humanity, every person envies Napoleon. "We all look to Napoleon." Dostoevsky, 50 years after 1812, had already reworked this idea. For him, what matters is not all of humanity, but his land. And in the original, it's not about nationality, not about Russians, but "Come now, who among us in Rus’ (Русь) doesn't consider themselves Napoleon these days?" What's important here is specifically Rus’, before it became the Russian Empire or anything else - for Dostoevsky, with his philosophy of pochvennichestvo, what matters is the nurturing soil itself. Although this idea of the superman is itself terrible and one-sided. Even in his article, Raskolnikov constantly reverts to bloodshed and tyrants. He occasionally speaks again about great scientists, but his ideal remains Napoleon, not Newton, for example. And that's sad.
Ah very interesting about ‘Rus’ - that makes it read completely differently! And I think it does make it more relevant - it’s like ‘who’s in all our land doesn’t think oneself a Napoleon’.
Raskolnikov is definitely giving me those radicalised men’s vibe - part of me really wants to understand how he thought before and how his unravelling started - the book gives us him already in the grip of ‘Roskol’ but was he different before and how his descent into darkness started?
Incidentally, this fashionable theory of nature versus environment can also be applied to his "Raskol". Without revealing too much, there are signs pointing to both influences shaping his behavior, though I lean more toward environmental factors—specifically the circumstances and events beginning eighteen months earlier. But there are also many hints in favor of "nature" as well. Dostoevsky presents all of this through subtle hints rather than direct statements. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts after reading about what seems to be the main cause of Raskolnikov's downfall.
3.5 has now moved into first place on my favorite chapters list! What brilliant writing! Aside from geeking out on Columbo similarities, I adored the lightening fast changes of perspective and seeing Rodion’s thoughts alongside his words.
This chapter was the first in which I was truly creeped out by Rodion…and a bit by Dostoevsky. How does an author so convincingly create a character with the depths of darkness that Rodion has been wallowing in for months? Reading about Rodion’s article made me have to face the fact that perhaps there will be no redemption for him in the final
I loved the repetition of the line, “All this raced through his head like lightening.” You can just feel his thoughts racing…tying to stay one step ahead of Porfiry.
I also really enjoyed the exploration of punishment and penitence in this chapter. Rodion’s claim that penitence belongs to the “ordinary” people, and his implied counterpoint that the “extraordinary” have no need of penitence was chilling. His assertion was that because they are by definition “extraordinary,” the elite group is incapable of making a mistake when acting for the good of humanity and committing grievous crimes, thus entirely negating the need for penitence and repentance. I know Dostoevsky was no psychologist (nor am I), but Rodion seems to be displaying some significant psychopathic tendencies here.
Heather, you seem drawn to philosophical and meandering reflections. While this chapter is intriguing, its musings often plunge readers into melancholy. Yet I, too, find it captivating, and I suspect you'll discover a new favorite later!
As for Porfiry—he truly evokes Columbo. I can visualize him as I read! I've even taken to drawing with the series playing in the background; it sets the perfect mood.
Indeed, Dostoevsky unwittingly portrays psychological disorders with seemingly modern insight. Psychiatrists have compared Raskolnikov's behavioral details to contemporary classifications, finding remarkable accuracy. Though Dostoevsky wasn't a psychiatrist—the profession didn't exist then—he was exceptionally observant. After all, isn't psychology fundamentally the observation of human behavior?
You’re so right on all accounts here! Both C&P and W&P, although very different, have amazed me with the authors’ ability to capture elements of human nature so succinctly. I don’t know that I’ve read a modern author that does it so well. Have you read Hillary Mantel? I have not. Does she write this way as well? I’d love to read a modern work with this strength of observation in order to compare them.
And I can just see you drawing with Columbo on in the background! I love it!
Have you read Tokarczuk? If so, which of her works? (I love her very much). I'm curious about any books that remind you of Dostoevsky or Tolstoy—please share your personal associations. It's always challenging for me to pinpoint similarities between books. Often, I find connections based on emotions rather than content. For instance, books I've read during the same period of my life can feel similar, even if they're vastly different in reality.
I just recently read “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead” and absolutely loved it. I’m on a quest to read least one work by every Nobel author (A life reading project that I may or may not have time to finish, since I read a lot of other authors as well. It’s so fun to experience authors I wouldn’t have read otherwise.)
Now that I think of it, the main character of that work actually reminded me of Rodion in the earlier parts of C&P. I hadn’t compared them before since the two books provide such a different reading experience. I’ll have to reread “Drive” once C&P is over to do a closer comparison.
Let me think on this during the day. I’ll get back to you once I’ve ruminated a bit. 😊
I love this book, and the film adaptation of the book is quite good too, you can watch it as well.
Reading all Nobel laureates is very ambitious. Save a spot for Coetzee, the 2003 laureate, if you haven't read him yet. I think maybe we could read him on Substack, as he has a novel about Dostoevsky: "The Master of Petersburg" 🤔
Yes! I really enjoyed Coetzee! I’ve read “Dusklands” and “Disgrace.” I started reading Nobel works shortly after he won, and at that point I was working my way backwards. Now I read something from the new winner each year and then I hop around wherever the wind takes me.
Funny, you should mention “The Master of Petersburg.” I put that on hold at the library shortly after we started reading together. I plan to read it once I finish
I haven't yet read Hilary Mantel. I would have joined Simon's group, but I discovered it after it had started and hesitated to catch up. Many have compared her works to "War and Peace," so they're likely similar in scope.
There are numerous authors who vividly portray characters. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, for instance, have distinct styles. Tolstoy focuses more on external aspects—describing events, actions, and lifestyles. Dostoevsky, conversely, emphasizes internal experiences—offering minimal setting descriptions but delving deeply into thoughts and emotions. Your preference depends on what appeals to you in a book.
If you enjoy family sagas, consider some epics. From the 21st century, Donna Tartt's "The Goldfinch" chronicles an entire life. Alternatively, try Olga Tokarczuk's "The Books of Jacob."
Finding a 21st-century author similar to Dostoevsky is challenging. Patrick Süskind's "Perfume" might be comparable. For closer parallels, look to 20th-century works like Albert Camus' "The Stranger" or John Fowles' "The Collector."
Thanks for the recommendations! I’ve read “The Goldfinch” and enjoyed it. I love Olga Tokarczuk but haven’t “The Books of Jacob” yet. I’ll have to add it to my list! “The Stranger” has been on my list for ages, but it keeps getting bumped down. lol I don’t know John Fowles. I’m check him out.
Razumikhin is thinking about something else entirely. At first, he was angered by Raskolnikov's jabs while he was recovering from them. Then Porfiry started questioning him about crimes due to social environment. And then he just sat there in shock from Rodion's article. There's no room here to notice detective games. Besides, he most likely really fell in love with Dunya, and he doesn't care about the others, for the most part.
Wonderful chapter. It felt as though I was reading a dialogue between Socrates (Porphyry, the astute maieutician) and Nietzsche (the advocate of the Übermensch, beyond good and evil)!
When Porfiry Petrovich said "let me ask just one little question," that was SUCH a Peter Falk moment, my second read-through had a whole other flavor thanks to that mental image alone.
My experience with Dostoevsky has been such a roller coaster compared with Tolstoy's smooth sailing, I hate him and love him and hate him and love him. Just like with Raskolnikov himself.
Those words Porfiry nudged out of him at the end stood out to me too, "Truly great people, I think, must feel great sadness for the world." In all his delusions of grandeur, I do believe that one thing completely, Rodion is suffering and has been suffering for a long time, the state of the world (judging by how suffocating St. Peterburg is) must seem unbearable. I wouldn't be surprised to find out a lot of lonely young boys today can still relate to Rodion, and just like him, have come to all the wrong conclusions.
(Sorry I'm uploading all my ramblings together Dana, this week I really bit more than I could chew, I did read the chapter but had no time to comment them)
In the original Columbo series, the writers claimed that the catchphrase "Just one more thing" emerged from a need to extend episode runtimes. Since they used typewriters, adding to the end was easier than rewriting entire scripts. But I think, it's likely that Porfiry Petrovich also influenced this technique.
Dostoevsky's works indeed evoke passionate responses. His writing style contrasts sharply with Tolstoy's. Tolstoy, born into wealth and nobility, wrote for personal fulfillment rather than financial necessity. Dostoevsky, however, was a struggling professional writer who relied on his publications for income. This financial pressure might explain the frequent emotional peaks in his narratives—he needed to keep readers engrossed, especially since his novels were often serialized in magazines over the course of a year.
C&P is required reading in schools, but few students truly engage with or understand Rodion Raskolnikov's character. From my recollection, many teenagers gravitate towards Dostoevsky's love story "White Nights"—a more accessible novella.
I find your reflections fascinating, so please don't concern yourself with quantity or frequency. Share your thoughts whenever and however you feel inclined.
“…a Peter Falk moment.” Yes! Yes! 💯
A bit late for the discussion,but just a couple of comments. This was such an engrossing chapter and such a clever point and counterpoint in the dialogue. This may sound strange, but I found it a bit comical; I could imagine it as some sort of witty farce. Even Rasumikhin asks if their talk is a joke: "Are you pulling each other's legs, or aren't you?"
Of course, though it is deadly serious for both men, and I think Raskalnikov wins this round. What I found interesting is that it is Razumikhin who divines that Raskalnikov's argument for justifiable killing is put "on grounds of conscience." Isn't this the way Raskalnikov originally rationalised his killing of the old woman, that she was somewhat of a social pariah, or something to that effect? It seems to me that, at bottom, it is the murder of Elizabeta, which is barely mentioned, that is the source of Raskalnikov's now agonised state.
It's a dense chapter indeed. The comical elements you noticed are not out of place at all. Dostoevsky masterfully incorporated humor in the tradition of Gogol. Your literary instinct is commendable—spotting this amidst the weighty philosophical dialogue is no small feat. Dostoevsky imbues all scenes with Porfiry with a subtle comic touch.
Regarding Raskolnikov's motivations, he spent considerable time rationalizing the murder of the old woman before committing the act. In his mind, he had already justified it. Lizaveta's murder, however, is a different story. He hadn't considered her; her death wasn't part of his plan. This unintended killing weighs heavily on him, unlike the old woman's murder, which was ideological—a means to prove his theories.
As for Columbo, it's indeed a classic that has stood the test of time. While I'd struggle to name many modern detective series, Columbo always comes to mind. It's one of those shows that seem to permeate cultural consciousness—I felt I knew about it even before watching. Now that I'm viewing the episodes in order, I find it utterly captivating.
I appreciate your insights. Remember, there's no rush with our discussion—feel free to read at your own pace, Glenys.
I was impressed by how eloquent Raskolnikov became when he was discussing his article. Usually his conversations are very awkward, jerky and spasmodic. It occurs to me that Razumikhin and Raskolnikov are on opposite ends of the Extrovert/Introvert spectrum. Extroverts derive energy by interacting with people, they think by talking. When they are trying to solve a problem, they go look for someone to talk to about it - not so much to get the other person's input, but to process their own thinking by expressing it to another. Introverts hate doing that, they like to go away and work the problem out in detail before presenting it to others. And they are drained by social interaction - that's not so say that they don't enjoy it, but it tires them out and they need to go off by themselves to recover. When an introvert has it all worked out, though, he can go on for paragraph after paragraph without skipping a note.
Your observations are spot-on. Indeed, Razumikhin and Rodion are polar opposites. The extroverted Razumikhin, in a mere four days of Rodion's illness, has already befriended his entire household and made numerous acquaintances. Rodion, on the other hand, had scarcely left his house for several months prior and only interacted with others when absolutely necessary.
I’m really regretting writing an article about murder now 😳!
Make sure it's only published in print, and you're safe. No detective will go to the library to read 😅
The cool thing is how many academic journals are now scanned and online going back to the late 1800s.
I am curious about the state of forensic science at this time; without a witness or confession, how much could they definitively prove?
None 😅 Forensic science was in its infancy during this period. Criminal record-keeping and offender profiling had only just begun. I won't even mention fingerprints and photographs. There's a stark difference between solving a case accurately and merely closing it. Many innocent people fell under suspicion and were wrongfully convicted, with crimes they hadn't committed attributed to them. This practice persisted well into the 20th century. In the 19th century, a methodical killer—as opposed to an impulsive one—could evade justice with relative ease.
Wow, what an amazing chapter! There are so many meaty and intricate philosophical discussions here and it finally felt like Roskolnikov met someone who can be on his level discussing and, more importantly, challenging his ideas! I also found it fascinating that Perfiry Petrovich was ready with his article for Raskolnikov's arrival!
I found it really interesting that ideas discussed here are so relevant in today's word:
- The environment vs. nature is a great one and continues to be very relevant and much discussed in the present times, there's a huge correlation between poverty and injustice and the amount of crime in society - like petty crime driven by poverty; or how you hear someone was born 'evil' when it comes to serial killers or pedophilia etc but then you learn about their childhood of neglect and abuse and wonder how that environment contributed to someone becoming 'evil' and commiting unimaginable crimes or whether they were always gonna do it?. It makes me wonder who uses what side of this argument for their own gain - is it convenient to say that this is 'nature' and therefore no improvements in the society are needed to eradicate poverty and we just need to punish the criminal? Or is it used to obsolve a criminal of what they did, because its their environment that made them do it and how morally dangerious this is? Perhaps very irrelevantly, it made me think of genetics and health as a comparison - one might be predesposed to a particular disease, but if one leads a lifestyle that makes that disease more likely, it's more likely that it will activate that particular gene - whereas a person without a gene might not develop that disease with the same lifestyle - all to say, that yes there might be some 'nature' traits in people, but they might or might not act on them, depending on the environment that supresseses or activates those 'natural' behaviours.
Another tangent in my mind, triggered by the comment of child abuse as an argument for "nature" playing part in crime, was Nabokov's Lolita novel that, in my opinion, really highlighted the role of the society/environment as an enabler of Humbert Humbert getting away with his crime: even if HH was evil (nature) (I don't remeber if the novel talked about his background?), did society enable him (ignoring the signs, Dolores's living situation made her vulnerable etc) and therefore also responsible for that crime, however indirectly?
- the concept of nature/environment and ordinary/extraordinary humans, committing a crime for the greater good brought to mind the reaction to the muder of the CEO of a healthcare company in New York and how many people highlighted the injustice and indirect murder of healthcare companies declining treatment and almost justifying this one act? It was fascinating to watch the news and see how the government, politicians, journalists and internet reacted to it - I wonder what would Dostoyevsky make of it? Another thing, I wonder, if the murderer saw himself as 'extraordinary' person in this theory of Raskolnikov as it seems that there was nothing in his 'environment' to lead him towards this crime?
The next thing that stood out for me was the allusion to the 'leaders of men' and how theirs shedding blood was justified by a greater purpose:
- reading War and Peace in parallel, I was struck how the conversation about Napoleon and his execution of George was justified along the same lines by Pierre, this seems to be quite a en-vogue topic in the 19th century!
- The reference to Onegin's line of 'Who of us Russians doesn't think we are a Napoleon?' was very poignant - this view when one or one nation starts believing that they are justified in their crimes, for the so-called 'greater benefit' or 'serving their purpose' because they are 'extraordinary' is really terrifying and sadly all to familiar in the current news across the world. The genius of Pushkin continues to be relevant!
I really liked how a character of Porfiry Petrovich now can provide a real smooth unpicking of these drastic and warped ideas that Raskolnikov has. I'm looking forward to reading how Porfirty Petrovich continues!
It's very interesting how this chapter has generated so many ideas for discussion. Readers are divided into those who find the chapter tedious and skip through it, and those who really enjoy this mid-19th century philosophy. Regarding environment and nature as causes of human actions - this topic will probably always be relevant, as people keep searching for non-existent genes in DNA, wondering if there's a killer gene there. This will likely continue in the future - people want to immediately identify bad people and remove responsibility. After all, if it's determined by nature, what can a person do about it - nothing.
The glorification of Napoleon truly stems from Pushkin's ideas; he was the first to consider him a superman, a leader of the planet. But in Eugene Onegin, it was written that all of humanity, every person envies Napoleon. "We all look to Napoleon." Dostoevsky, 50 years after 1812, had already reworked this idea. For him, what matters is not all of humanity, but his land. And in the original, it's not about nationality, not about Russians, but "Come now, who among us in Rus’ (Русь) doesn't consider themselves Napoleon these days?" What's important here is specifically Rus’, before it became the Russian Empire or anything else - for Dostoevsky, with his philosophy of pochvennichestvo, what matters is the nurturing soil itself. Although this idea of the superman is itself terrible and one-sided. Even in his article, Raskolnikov constantly reverts to bloodshed and tyrants. He occasionally speaks again about great scientists, but his ideal remains Napoleon, not Newton, for example. And that's sad.
Ah very interesting about ‘Rus’ - that makes it read completely differently! And I think it does make it more relevant - it’s like ‘who’s in all our land doesn’t think oneself a Napoleon’.
Raskolnikov is definitely giving me those radicalised men’s vibe - part of me really wants to understand how he thought before and how his unravelling started - the book gives us him already in the grip of ‘Roskol’ but was he different before and how his descent into darkness started?
Incidentally, this fashionable theory of nature versus environment can also be applied to his "Raskol". Without revealing too much, there are signs pointing to both influences shaping his behavior, though I lean more toward environmental factors—specifically the circumstances and events beginning eighteen months earlier. But there are also many hints in favor of "nature" as well. Dostoevsky presents all of this through subtle hints rather than direct statements. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts after reading about what seems to be the main cause of Raskolnikov's downfall.
PS: I am amazed that people have such strong memories of Colombo after all these years. Mine has completely faded.
3.5 has now moved into first place on my favorite chapters list! What brilliant writing! Aside from geeking out on Columbo similarities, I adored the lightening fast changes of perspective and seeing Rodion’s thoughts alongside his words.
This chapter was the first in which I was truly creeped out by Rodion…and a bit by Dostoevsky. How does an author so convincingly create a character with the depths of darkness that Rodion has been wallowing in for months? Reading about Rodion’s article made me have to face the fact that perhaps there will be no redemption for him in the final
I loved the repetition of the line, “All this raced through his head like lightening.” You can just feel his thoughts racing…tying to stay one step ahead of Porfiry.
I also really enjoyed the exploration of punishment and penitence in this chapter. Rodion’s claim that penitence belongs to the “ordinary” people, and his implied counterpoint that the “extraordinary” have no need of penitence was chilling. His assertion was that because they are by definition “extraordinary,” the elite group is incapable of making a mistake when acting for the good of humanity and committing grievous crimes, thus entirely negating the need for penitence and repentance. I know Dostoevsky was no psychologist (nor am I), but Rodion seems to be displaying some significant psychopathic tendencies here.
…parts of the novel. I seriously can’t wait to see what happens.
Heather, you seem drawn to philosophical and meandering reflections. While this chapter is intriguing, its musings often plunge readers into melancholy. Yet I, too, find it captivating, and I suspect you'll discover a new favorite later!
As for Porfiry—he truly evokes Columbo. I can visualize him as I read! I've even taken to drawing with the series playing in the background; it sets the perfect mood.
Indeed, Dostoevsky unwittingly portrays psychological disorders with seemingly modern insight. Psychiatrists have compared Raskolnikov's behavioral details to contemporary classifications, finding remarkable accuracy. Though Dostoevsky wasn't a psychiatrist—the profession didn't exist then—he was exceptionally observant. After all, isn't psychology fundamentally the observation of human behavior?
You’re so right on all accounts here! Both C&P and W&P, although very different, have amazed me with the authors’ ability to capture elements of human nature so succinctly. I don’t know that I’ve read a modern author that does it so well. Have you read Hillary Mantel? I have not. Does she write this way as well? I’d love to read a modern work with this strength of observation in order to compare them.
And I can just see you drawing with Columbo on in the background! I love it!
Have you read Tokarczuk? If so, which of her works? (I love her very much). I'm curious about any books that remind you of Dostoevsky or Tolstoy—please share your personal associations. It's always challenging for me to pinpoint similarities between books. Often, I find connections based on emotions rather than content. For instance, books I've read during the same period of my life can feel similar, even if they're vastly different in reality.
I just recently read “Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead” and absolutely loved it. I’m on a quest to read least one work by every Nobel author (A life reading project that I may or may not have time to finish, since I read a lot of other authors as well. It’s so fun to experience authors I wouldn’t have read otherwise.)
Now that I think of it, the main character of that work actually reminded me of Rodion in the earlier parts of C&P. I hadn’t compared them before since the two books provide such a different reading experience. I’ll have to reread “Drive” once C&P is over to do a closer comparison.
Let me think on this during the day. I’ll get back to you once I’ve ruminated a bit. 😊
Hope all is well with you.
I love this book, and the film adaptation of the book is quite good too, you can watch it as well.
Reading all Nobel laureates is very ambitious. Save a spot for Coetzee, the 2003 laureate, if you haven't read him yet. I think maybe we could read him on Substack, as he has a novel about Dostoevsky: "The Master of Petersburg" 🤔
Yes! I really enjoyed Coetzee! I’ve read “Dusklands” and “Disgrace.” I started reading Nobel works shortly after he won, and at that point I was working my way backwards. Now I read something from the new winner each year and then I hop around wherever the wind takes me.
Funny, you should mention “The Master of Petersburg.” I put that on hold at the library shortly after we started reading together. I plan to read it once I finish
“The Gambler Wife.”
I haven't yet read Hilary Mantel. I would have joined Simon's group, but I discovered it after it had started and hesitated to catch up. Many have compared her works to "War and Peace," so they're likely similar in scope.
There are numerous authors who vividly portray characters. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, for instance, have distinct styles. Tolstoy focuses more on external aspects—describing events, actions, and lifestyles. Dostoevsky, conversely, emphasizes internal experiences—offering minimal setting descriptions but delving deeply into thoughts and emotions. Your preference depends on what appeals to you in a book.
If you enjoy family sagas, consider some epics. From the 21st century, Donna Tartt's "The Goldfinch" chronicles an entire life. Alternatively, try Olga Tokarczuk's "The Books of Jacob."
Finding a 21st-century author similar to Dostoevsky is challenging. Patrick Süskind's "Perfume" might be comparable. For closer parallels, look to 20th-century works like Albert Camus' "The Stranger" or John Fowles' "The Collector."
Still working on my list! This week has been incredibly busy!
Don't worry. 💕 When it comes together, it'll be good. Yes, my autumn is always super busy.
Thanks for the recommendations! I’ve read “The Goldfinch” and enjoyed it. I love Olga Tokarczuk but haven’t “The Books of Jacob” yet. I’ll have to add it to my list! “The Stranger” has been on my list for ages, but it keeps getting bumped down. lol I don’t know John Fowles. I’m check him out.
Razumkhin seems to be ignorant of the game Porfiry Petrovich is playing.
Razumikhin is thinking about something else entirely. At first, he was angered by Raskolnikov's jabs while he was recovering from them. Then Porfiry started questioning him about crimes due to social environment. And then he just sat there in shock from Rodion's article. There's no room here to notice detective games. Besides, he most likely really fell in love with Dunya, and he doesn't care about the others, for the most part.
Wonderful chapter. It felt as though I was reading a dialogue between Socrates (Porphyry, the astute maieutician) and Nietzsche (the advocate of the Übermensch, beyond good and evil)!