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.
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.
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)!