Dana, thank you for bringing this book to life for me! I've tried it twice before, having given up both times due to the intensity of some scenes and utter exasperation with others, but with your insightful guidance it's becoming a favorite. Apologies if you've already posted about future plans but are you planning to continue your Dostoevsky Book Club into 2025?
Thank you for such thoughtful feedback. It's truly meaningful that my modest essays help readers appreciate Dostoevsky's genius. I've been on this journey myself—there was a time when I didn't always enjoy his work.
As for next year's plans, I haven't outlined them yet since I'm still finalizing the reading list. Rest assured, the club will continue. After "Crime and Punishment," specifically in winter, I would like to read some short stories. And then yes, move on to "The Idiot" or "The Brothers Karamazov."
I really loved this part of the book! Throughout Crime and Punishment, I haven’t had strong feelings towards any of the characters — I don’t particularly like or dislike them, nor do they bother me. My goal in reading is to learn, to understand the time period and the society Dostoevsky portrays. But this section, this conversation between Porfiry and Raskolnikov, feels like a special gem! I’m definitely marking it in my book and plan to revisit it. I believe there’s a lot to learn here, especially about handling conversations with someone who is hiding something, angry, or trying to deceive me.
For example, I love how Porfiry stands up and walks around — it’s such a clever way to unsettle the other person and throw off their bad intentions.
It's fascinating how you approach reading Crime and Punishment with a focus on learning about the time period and society, rather than becoming emotionally invested in the characters. The conversations between Porfiry and Raskolnikov are indeed masterful pieces of writing that reveal much about human psychology and interrogation techniques.
I find it difficult to read for pleasure—Porfiry, in particular, irritates me. However, when read slowly, the novel reveals many interesting plot devices and veiled historical references, primarily concerning Napoleon.
What's particularly intriguing is how Porfiry employs different techniques in each of his encounters with Raskolnikov.
I got confirmation that I don't like Porfiry almost as much as I dislike Columbo. Part of it is me being autistic and finding people who talk in riddles so difficult to read. But also Porfiry was playing the cat-and-mouse game with Mikolka too, apparently? He was rude to the tradesman as well. Indeed I kept comparing him to a cat having fun torturing an already bleeding prey. And how annoyed he gets when someone interrupts his game! Rodion is already losing his grip on reality, I feel like sitting through mental torture is gonna make things even worse. I know, I know, one's the bad guy and one's the good guy. This book drives me crazy.
In the pairing with Raskolnikov, Porfiry should indeed be the "good" character and Rodion the "bad" one. However, I haven't considered how Porfiry interacts with others. In the Russian Empire, police officers weren't always viewed positively, though those handling criminal cases seemed more reputable than others—such as those involved in political cases, for which Dostoevsky himself nearly faced execution. Dostoevsky's true feelings about the police remain unclear to me; it's a sensitive topic that could land one in prison for criticizing law enforcement.
You're right—upon reflection, Porfiry is an unusual investigator. He divulged many case details to Razumikhin, who then spread this information freely. It's unfortunate we don't see Porfiry's interrogations of Mikolka and the tradesman, as these would have provided more insight into his character. However, Porfiry isn't meant to be likable. His primary role is to uncover Rodion's guilt
The first time I read this book, Porfiry totally annoyed me. Now that I know he is the original (?)
Colombo and all this was on purpose, it is an amazing strategy.
All the rooms in this story are so small and confining. They are all like prisons. I grew up privileged and never realized how large American houses and rooms were until I lived overseas for a while. Someone once asked me, “What do you do with all those rooms?” Tiny homes are now becoming vogue—500ish square feet. The rooms in this story are such a contrast to how the aristocracy lives in Tolstoy’s War and Peace—two very separate St. Petersburgs.
As I know nothing about Gogol. Now you have set me on a new learning path, wanting to know how he influenced Dostoevsky. What of Gogol do you recommend to read first?
Yes, Petersburg is portrayed differently by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Gogol is also partly a Petersburg writer; he has a series called "Petersburg Tales." My favorites among them are "The Portrait" and "The Nose," which are examples of magical realism.
His Ukrainian cycle, "Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka," is written with humor and devilry. You could also choose several stories from there.
I also love "Viy," which also deals with devilry.
And his main work is, of course, "Dead Souls." But it's long.
Happy Birthday, Dana! I too am so grateful for your comments, insights & sketches. I have wanted to read Crime & Punishment ….. so glad i am finally doing so with your help. These last chapters have been intense.
There is so much going on in Chapter 5, it's difficult to make a brief precis. Porfiry launches what is virtually a battering ram of speech, coupled with his movement back and forth and around; that movement mirroring the state of Raskolnikov's mind.
Porfiry is speaking theoretically, supposedly referring to some "incognito" person but in this long diatribe he makes direct reference to what R is actually feeling: his fear that P suspects him; his nervousness; his anger and "spleen"; even R's worry at not having been arrested.
The analogy of the moth to the candle perfectly describes R's staying in P's presence, when he could simply leave; and R's previous return to the apartment and his questions about the blood - also known to P, more fear for R.
P refers several times the "incognito's" belief in his own wit and cleverness, which has been a characteristic of R, in amongst his bouts of terror. I think at times his ego leads him to take foolish risks, such as his near confession to Zamyotov.
I think this conversation with P, if I can call it that, mirrors the situation with Zamyotov, when R virtually admitted his crime. Now P virtually says he knows R is guilty, but lacks the evidence. But P gives a warning: " he himself will serve me up a nice mathematical formula like two times two - if only I give him enough latitude.
In Chapter 6, Dostoevsky throws all the cards up in air with Nickolai's false confession, again for complex psychological reasons, and R spirits rose - for now. The irony is that as R says: "It's all conjecture." There really is no evidence. All R has to do is do and say nothing. But I'm sure his mind and the prodding of his guilty conscience won't allow for that.
Dana, thank you for bringing this book to life for me! I've tried it twice before, having given up both times due to the intensity of some scenes and utter exasperation with others, but with your insightful guidance it's becoming a favorite. Apologies if you've already posted about future plans but are you planning to continue your Dostoevsky Book Club into 2025?
Thank you for such thoughtful feedback. It's truly meaningful that my modest essays help readers appreciate Dostoevsky's genius. I've been on this journey myself—there was a time when I didn't always enjoy his work.
As for next year's plans, I haven't outlined them yet since I'm still finalizing the reading list. Rest assured, the club will continue. After "Crime and Punishment," specifically in winter, I would like to read some short stories. And then yes, move on to "The Idiot" or "The Brothers Karamazov."
Can’t wait!
Ha! I start work in a minute, so I’ll be back, but I thought you’d get a kick out of what I wrote in the margin of this chapter. 😂https://drive.google.com/file/d/19xwmnzkoZMxq9ePpv8oUUUWxK5hOc1UM/view?usp=drivesdk
Yes, yes, yes! That's exactly how it was! I really can't read this monologue by Porfiry calmly. Dostoevsky knows how to make others confess 😂
Maybe he went with the wrong profession!
Nah
I really loved this part of the book! Throughout Crime and Punishment, I haven’t had strong feelings towards any of the characters — I don’t particularly like or dislike them, nor do they bother me. My goal in reading is to learn, to understand the time period and the society Dostoevsky portrays. But this section, this conversation between Porfiry and Raskolnikov, feels like a special gem! I’m definitely marking it in my book and plan to revisit it. I believe there’s a lot to learn here, especially about handling conversations with someone who is hiding something, angry, or trying to deceive me.
For example, I love how Porfiry stands up and walks around — it’s such a clever way to unsettle the other person and throw off their bad intentions.
It's fascinating how you approach reading Crime and Punishment with a focus on learning about the time period and society, rather than becoming emotionally invested in the characters. The conversations between Porfiry and Raskolnikov are indeed masterful pieces of writing that reveal much about human psychology and interrogation techniques.
I find it difficult to read for pleasure—Porfiry, in particular, irritates me. However, when read slowly, the novel reveals many interesting plot devices and veiled historical references, primarily concerning Napoleon.
What's particularly intriguing is how Porfiry employs different techniques in each of his encounters with Raskolnikov.
When's your birthday, Dana?
October 5th, so it has already passed
Aaah happy belated birthday!!!
Thank you 💕
I got confirmation that I don't like Porfiry almost as much as I dislike Columbo. Part of it is me being autistic and finding people who talk in riddles so difficult to read. But also Porfiry was playing the cat-and-mouse game with Mikolka too, apparently? He was rude to the tradesman as well. Indeed I kept comparing him to a cat having fun torturing an already bleeding prey. And how annoyed he gets when someone interrupts his game! Rodion is already losing his grip on reality, I feel like sitting through mental torture is gonna make things even worse. I know, I know, one's the bad guy and one's the good guy. This book drives me crazy.
In the pairing with Raskolnikov, Porfiry should indeed be the "good" character and Rodion the "bad" one. However, I haven't considered how Porfiry interacts with others. In the Russian Empire, police officers weren't always viewed positively, though those handling criminal cases seemed more reputable than others—such as those involved in political cases, for which Dostoevsky himself nearly faced execution. Dostoevsky's true feelings about the police remain unclear to me; it's a sensitive topic that could land one in prison for criticizing law enforcement.
You're right—upon reflection, Porfiry is an unusual investigator. He divulged many case details to Razumikhin, who then spread this information freely. It's unfortunate we don't see Porfiry's interrogations of Mikolka and the tradesman, as these would have provided more insight into his character. However, Porfiry isn't meant to be likable. His primary role is to uncover Rodion's guilt
Hope you are enjoying your birthday weekend!
Thank you 💕
The first time I read this book, Porfiry totally annoyed me. Now that I know he is the original (?)
Colombo and all this was on purpose, it is an amazing strategy.
All the rooms in this story are so small and confining. They are all like prisons. I grew up privileged and never realized how large American houses and rooms were until I lived overseas for a while. Someone once asked me, “What do you do with all those rooms?” Tiny homes are now becoming vogue—500ish square feet. The rooms in this story are such a contrast to how the aristocracy lives in Tolstoy’s War and Peace—two very separate St. Petersburgs.
As I know nothing about Gogol. Now you have set me on a new learning path, wanting to know how he influenced Dostoevsky. What of Gogol do you recommend to read first?
Yes, Petersburg is portrayed differently by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Gogol is also partly a Petersburg writer; he has a series called "Petersburg Tales." My favorites among them are "The Portrait" and "The Nose," which are examples of magical realism.
His Ukrainian cycle, "Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka," is written with humor and devilry. You could also choose several stories from there.
I also love "Viy," which also deals with devilry.
And his main work is, of course, "Dead Souls." But it's long.
Happy Birthday, Dana! I too am so grateful for your comments, insights & sketches. I have wanted to read Crime & Punishment ….. so glad i am finally doing so with your help. These last chapters have been intense.
Thank you, Karen 💕 The whole book is insane. Dostoevsky loves to play with our emotions
Happy Birthday!
Thank you 😊
There is so much going on in Chapter 5, it's difficult to make a brief precis. Porfiry launches what is virtually a battering ram of speech, coupled with his movement back and forth and around; that movement mirroring the state of Raskolnikov's mind.
Porfiry is speaking theoretically, supposedly referring to some "incognito" person but in this long diatribe he makes direct reference to what R is actually feeling: his fear that P suspects him; his nervousness; his anger and "spleen"; even R's worry at not having been arrested.
The analogy of the moth to the candle perfectly describes R's staying in P's presence, when he could simply leave; and R's previous return to the apartment and his questions about the blood - also known to P, more fear for R.
P refers several times the "incognito's" belief in his own wit and cleverness, which has been a characteristic of R, in amongst his bouts of terror. I think at times his ego leads him to take foolish risks, such as his near confession to Zamyotov.
I think this conversation with P, if I can call it that, mirrors the situation with Zamyotov, when R virtually admitted his crime. Now P virtually says he knows R is guilty, but lacks the evidence. But P gives a warning: " he himself will serve me up a nice mathematical formula like two times two - if only I give him enough latitude.
In Chapter 6, Dostoevsky throws all the cards up in air with Nickolai's false confession, again for complex psychological reasons, and R spirits rose - for now. The irony is that as R says: "It's all conjecture." There really is no evidence. All R has to do is do and say nothing. But I'm sure his mind and the prodding of his guilty conscience won't allow for that.