Are you ready for the last third of the novel? The first two chapters are warm-ups, describing the overall challenging atmosphere, and then each new chapter will be captivating, I promise.
Was digressing in a novel to criticize current thoughts a thing with these Russian authors? Last week was a slog through War and Peace reading Tolstoy’s attempt to dismantle the Great Man Theory in History.
Katarina is another unstable character. Judging by her past, she probably was the instigator in the tussle with Leb. She has reasons to lie, he does not. And Luzhin is getting more dislikable as the book progresses. Counting his money but he would not part with any to bring Dunya and Pulcheria to St. Petersburg. Reminds me of Scrooge.
Yes, this is generally a phenomenon of the 19th century, especially the second half. Not only in Russia. Books and newspapers were the only relatively fast media. And everyone considered it their duty not just to criticize, but to insert references, to argue with other works. Chernyshevsky's works were, you could say, bestsellers of those years; everyone read them, many disagreed with them. And these were new ideas. Tolstoy was writing "War and Peace" at the same time.
Luzhin is a separate type of Scrooge. He also wants others to suffer. And he does this with the help of his money, manipulating.
I second others’ comments about how helpful your summary is. And i so enjoy your art work. It’s such a rich experience to have you & this group for my first reading of Crime & Punishment.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I sincerely hope that "Crime and Punishment" will leave a lasting impression. There's still so much to explore and discuss about this novel.
Thank you for your excellent analysis, which I will once again be citing in my own chapter analysis. I know from having read a biography of Lenin that he was influenced by Chernyshevsky's novel, so to read how these ideas were in the zeitgeist is very enjoyable.
Do we know more about the mentor/mentee relationship between Luzhin and Lebezyatnikov? I'm going so slowly that I can't actually recall is this has been mentioned before.
I'm also curious what Luzhin's motive is in dishing out money to Sonya and the family.
And your artwork is such a joy to look at. You're so talented!
Thank you. The relationship between Lebeziatnikov and Luzhin is only revealed in these chapters, and it was actually quite strange to give them such a dynamic. Lebeziatnikov works under Luzhin in some ministry related to court and law. And why would a boss live with his employee - that's too much. I think Dostoevsky simply needed this to advance the plot with Sonia and the money. I can't believe Luzhin would live with him, considering how poor the rooms are there. But on the other hand, Luzhin is very miserly. And Lebeziatnikov is needed as a parody character - Dostoevsky simply had to mock the ideas of the "new people," the followers of nihilists, the character Bazarov from Fathers and Sons, and all followers of Chernyshevsky. And Chernyshevsky was tens or hundreds of times more popular than Dostoevsky in those years, it was his ideas that led to anarchists and revolutions.
Luzhin's motive will be revealed in the third chapter. Raskolnikov will state it quite clearly. Although this is also a dubious and stupid motive - to influence Rodion through Sonia, and consequently Dunya. By the way, Sonia and Raskolnikov have only known each other for a couple of days.
I have a list of ideas from their dialogue that I managed to record, it might be useful.
1. The structure of the new commune—inspired by Fourier and Chernyshevsky’s “What Is to Be Done?”
2. The concept of civil marriage (not church-based)—likely a reflection of contemporary ideas. In general, in the 1860s, there was no institution of civil marriage, as already existed in some European countries. Only the church could perform this. Therefore, the concept of «civil marriage» here essentially means cohabitation of two people.
3. The notion that environment shapes individual behavior and crime—derived from Chernyshevsky’s 1860 article “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy.”
4. The critique of hand-kissing—an allusion to the heroine Vera Pavlovna’s perspective in Chernyshevsky’s “What Is to Be Done?”
5. Ideas about room allocation in communes—also from “What Is to Be Done?”, though Dostoevsky presents a more radical version.
6. The belief that socially useful activities surpass the value of art—echoing Bazarov’s statement in Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons”: “A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet.”
7. The maxim “What is useful is noble!”—another reference to “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” (1860).
As much as I enjoyed the catfight at the end of 5.2, I really missed the chaos of Rodion’s mind. I’ve been sick this week and found it hard to follow what was happening in 5.1. I even read a summary to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I must say, I should have waited for your article. It was far superior. I’m looking forward to seeing how Dostoevsky wraps this up. I still have no idea where we are heading!
I agree that the chapters without Raskolnikov aren't as captivating, though there will be a couple of exceptions coming up. Dostoevsky won't be sparing us from events now.
I've decided to diversify the pictures, brainstorming new ideas for them. I'm a bit weary of drawing people in static poses—either standing or sitting.
Your essay certainly helped me understand how much I would have missed without your help. I have thought this before, but realise even more now how important it is to have some grasp of the the social and political times in Dostoevsky's era. Particularly interesting is the way in which authors referenced, critiqued, and argued the pros and cons of each others ideas and works. These are significant layers in the story that an ordinary reader, like me, could not otherwise possibly grasp. I had a giggle at the realisation that the 'hippie' movement of the 1960's and 70's had a precursor in 1860's
For me, Dostoevsky paints such a sympathetic portrait of Katerina Ivanovna, whilst, at the same time, showing her to be rather nasty: she is rude to her guests; both laments the absence and scorns those who don't come; keeps crowing about her so-called higher class origins; and is really horrible to the two who most helped her, the landlady and the Pole. Still, I can't help but feel sorry for her. Hers has been a terrible life, and here she is in a stew of poverty, grief, love, hopelessness, and trying to keep up appearances. Her great redeeming feature is her love and championing of Sonya, against whom she will hear no ill word. She is, indeed, a woman brought low by circumstances, such as I could never imagine having to deal with.
Thank you! Dostoevsky is one of those authors who didn't write for posterity; he didn't think about how his works would be read, or if they would be read at all, 100-200 years later. He wrote for his contemporary residents of the Russian Empire. That's why his books contain many details in passing, things that were well-known at the time, things everyone knew: laws, wars, events. For example, in "The Idiot," there's a reference to a notorious murder of 6 people, and he never names the victims or the killers. And now it's completely incomprehensible what he's talking about. But back then, everyone knew who was being tried and for what, and they filled in the details in their minds. Like now we can talk about current events in hints and everyone will understand. Fortunately, Dostoevsky's books have now been deciphered, these references have been found. Otherwise, it would indeed be impossible to sit in archives trying to figure it out.
There is a suggestion that Dostoevsky based the entire character of Katerina Ivanovna on his first wife. But judging by her behavior, it still seems to me that this is far-fetched. His wife was not so hysterical and irresponsible. Here, Katerina Ivanovna is actually not bad, she simply couldn't cope with the hardships of life, they became stronger than her. It happens that a person gives up.
Was digressing in a novel to criticize current thoughts a thing with these Russian authors? Last week was a slog through War and Peace reading Tolstoy’s attempt to dismantle the Great Man Theory in History.
Katarina is another unstable character. Judging by her past, she probably was the instigator in the tussle with Leb. She has reasons to lie, he does not. And Luzhin is getting more dislikable as the book progresses. Counting his money but he would not part with any to bring Dunya and Pulcheria to St. Petersburg. Reminds me of Scrooge.
Yes, this is generally a phenomenon of the 19th century, especially the second half. Not only in Russia. Books and newspapers were the only relatively fast media. And everyone considered it their duty not just to criticize, but to insert references, to argue with other works. Chernyshevsky's works were, you could say, bestsellers of those years; everyone read them, many disagreed with them. And these were new ideas. Tolstoy was writing "War and Peace" at the same time.
Luzhin is a separate type of Scrooge. He also wants others to suffer. And he does this with the help of his money, manipulating.
I second others’ comments about how helpful your summary is. And i so enjoy your art work. It’s such a rich experience to have you & this group for my first reading of Crime & Punishment.
Thank you very much for your kind words. I sincerely hope that "Crime and Punishment" will leave a lasting impression. There's still so much to explore and discuss about this novel.
Love your explanation of Russian money and photos of it.
Thank you for your excellent analysis, which I will once again be citing in my own chapter analysis. I know from having read a biography of Lenin that he was influenced by Chernyshevsky's novel, so to read how these ideas were in the zeitgeist is very enjoyable.
Do we know more about the mentor/mentee relationship between Luzhin and Lebezyatnikov? I'm going so slowly that I can't actually recall is this has been mentioned before.
I'm also curious what Luzhin's motive is in dishing out money to Sonya and the family.
And your artwork is such a joy to look at. You're so talented!
Thank you. The relationship between Lebeziatnikov and Luzhin is only revealed in these chapters, and it was actually quite strange to give them such a dynamic. Lebeziatnikov works under Luzhin in some ministry related to court and law. And why would a boss live with his employee - that's too much. I think Dostoevsky simply needed this to advance the plot with Sonia and the money. I can't believe Luzhin would live with him, considering how poor the rooms are there. But on the other hand, Luzhin is very miserly. And Lebeziatnikov is needed as a parody character - Dostoevsky simply had to mock the ideas of the "new people," the followers of nihilists, the character Bazarov from Fathers and Sons, and all followers of Chernyshevsky. And Chernyshevsky was tens or hundreds of times more popular than Dostoevsky in those years, it was his ideas that led to anarchists and revolutions.
Luzhin's motive will be revealed in the third chapter. Raskolnikov will state it quite clearly. Although this is also a dubious and stupid motive - to influence Rodion through Sonia, and consequently Dunya. By the way, Sonia and Raskolnikov have only known each other for a couple of days.
I have a list of ideas from their dialogue that I managed to record, it might be useful.
1. The structure of the new commune—inspired by Fourier and Chernyshevsky’s “What Is to Be Done?”
2. The concept of civil marriage (not church-based)—likely a reflection of contemporary ideas. In general, in the 1860s, there was no institution of civil marriage, as already existed in some European countries. Only the church could perform this. Therefore, the concept of «civil marriage» here essentially means cohabitation of two people.
3. The notion that environment shapes individual behavior and crime—derived from Chernyshevsky’s 1860 article “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy.”
4. The critique of hand-kissing—an allusion to the heroine Vera Pavlovna’s perspective in Chernyshevsky’s “What Is to Be Done?”
5. Ideas about room allocation in communes—also from “What Is to Be Done?”, though Dostoevsky presents a more radical version.
6. The belief that socially useful activities surpass the value of art—echoing Bazarov’s statement in Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons”: “A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet.”
7. The maxim “What is useful is noble!”—another reference to “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” (1860).
As much as I enjoyed the catfight at the end of 5.2, I really missed the chaos of Rodion’s mind. I’ve been sick this week and found it hard to follow what was happening in 5.1. I even read a summary to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I must say, I should have waited for your article. It was far superior. I’m looking forward to seeing how Dostoevsky wraps this up. I still have no idea where we are heading!
I loved the 3D element on your artwork this week!
I agree that the chapters without Raskolnikov aren't as captivating, though there will be a couple of exceptions coming up. Dostoevsky won't be sparing us from events now.
I've decided to diversify the pictures, brainstorming new ideas for them. I'm a bit weary of drawing people in static poses—either standing or sitting.
Your essay certainly helped me understand how much I would have missed without your help. I have thought this before, but realise even more now how important it is to have some grasp of the the social and political times in Dostoevsky's era. Particularly interesting is the way in which authors referenced, critiqued, and argued the pros and cons of each others ideas and works. These are significant layers in the story that an ordinary reader, like me, could not otherwise possibly grasp. I had a giggle at the realisation that the 'hippie' movement of the 1960's and 70's had a precursor in 1860's
For me, Dostoevsky paints such a sympathetic portrait of Katerina Ivanovna, whilst, at the same time, showing her to be rather nasty: she is rude to her guests; both laments the absence and scorns those who don't come; keeps crowing about her so-called higher class origins; and is really horrible to the two who most helped her, the landlady and the Pole. Still, I can't help but feel sorry for her. Hers has been a terrible life, and here she is in a stew of poverty, grief, love, hopelessness, and trying to keep up appearances. Her great redeeming feature is her love and championing of Sonya, against whom she will hear no ill word. She is, indeed, a woman brought low by circumstances, such as I could never imagine having to deal with.
Thank you! Dostoevsky is one of those authors who didn't write for posterity; he didn't think about how his works would be read, or if they would be read at all, 100-200 years later. He wrote for his contemporary residents of the Russian Empire. That's why his books contain many details in passing, things that were well-known at the time, things everyone knew: laws, wars, events. For example, in "The Idiot," there's a reference to a notorious murder of 6 people, and he never names the victims or the killers. And now it's completely incomprehensible what he's talking about. But back then, everyone knew who was being tried and for what, and they filled in the details in their minds. Like now we can talk about current events in hints and everyone will understand. Fortunately, Dostoevsky's books have now been deciphered, these references have been found. Otherwise, it would indeed be impossible to sit in archives trying to figure it out.
There is a suggestion that Dostoevsky based the entire character of Katerina Ivanovna on his first wife. But judging by her behavior, it still seems to me that this is far-fetched. His wife was not so hysterical and irresponsible. Here, Katerina Ivanovna is actually not bad, she simply couldn't cope with the hardships of life, they became stronger than her. It happens that a person gives up.
Thanks for this further explanation. It makes much of what has puzzled me in the book much clearer.