In the first chapters, we quickly learn what happened during the two days after the end of Part 5, we talk with Razumikhin, and Porfiry Petrovich pays us a visit.
While I did not make the connection between Gogol’s Diary of a Madman and Crime and Punishment, and the phrase “a string vibrates in the fog,”. I did ponder the phrase both times reading it. The String Theory of quantum physics postulates that the fundamental “element” of everything in the universe is just a vibration. I wondered is some mysterious and unconscious knowing in both these men understood vibration as a foundation for existence. Is evil a different vibration than goodness, is that was Raskolnikov cannot escape?
I appreciate your notes on quantum physics and elements. Though these concepts were unknown in the 19th century, people might have sensed them through mysticism and spiritualism. Gogol's monsters, manifesting from people's negative actions and thoughts, could be interpreted as a kind of quantum realm or dark energy—phenomena still largely mysterious today. I believe the "vibrations" of good and evil differ, perhaps relating to what some call an aura. Raskolnikov's condition seems akin to a disease; he can't simply rid himself of it. Instead, it likely requires systematic, long-term treatment through acts of kindness.
I couldn’t help but think of Emerson’s work “Self Reliance” when I read about the vibrating string. “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” He wrote that in 1841, before Gogol would have been translated into English.
In his confession to Sonya a bit back, Raskolnikov says he wanted to be like Napoleon, Great Men could do anything. I assumed he made up this theory in his head, but in the chapter for tomorrow’s slow read of War and Peace, Tolstoy criticizes historians and their Great Man Theory, “For the “great” man nothing is wrong, there is no atrocity for which a “great” man can be blamed.” This Great Man Theory must have been a “thing” in that milieu? And it would have influenced an unstable person like Raskolnikov?
Yes, during the writing of both novels, these ideas were very widespread. It all stems from Chernyshevsky with his "new people", as well as from nihilism, which is celebrated by Turgenev in Fathers and Sons. Dostoevsky truly disliked this movement, but at the same time, as we now know, these ideas captured people's minds and led to the revolutions and wars of the 20th century.
I’ve been enjoying the little hints that Dostoevsky places in the novel about what is to come…phrases like, “When he remembered this time later on, long afterwards…”. We know several characters who will survive, but it’s killing me not knowing what this “final catastrophe” is that is mentioned in the first paragraph of 6.1. Knowing D as we do by this time, I’m not eliminating any options. Im utterly terrified for everyone…other than maybe Svidrigailov. I might cheer if he is offed. 🫢 I’m loving the building of tension this close to the end!!!
I’ve been shocked by how cinematic the novel is. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it wasn’t this. Any recommendations for what I should read next of D’s?
Yes, Dostoevsky loves to leave these brilliantly placed details. And overall, it's difficult for me to understand how he manages to arrange them so well without getting confused, considering that he wrote without a computer with quick search capabilities and generally published chapter by chapter, unable to revise previous ones.
Dostoevsky doesn't have many novels, so the choice is limited. The most suspenseful one, in my opinion, is Demons. But it contains a lot of politics and historical events. It's difficult to read in some parts.
In second place for unexpectedness, I think, is The Idiot.
Among the short novellas: The Double is gripping, The Gambler is amusing, and the lesser-known The Eternal Husband also has interesting twists.
Thanks for the recommendations! Demons was at the top of my list last night when I was reviewing my options, so I may go that route. I was surprised by how short the list was. He certainly had a lot of obstacles to writing. His epilepsy alone would have been enough to stunt productivity. My husband has had seizures since he was a child. Gratefully, after two brain surgeries things are better, but he has lost years of memory. I can’t imagine what living with epilepsy would have been like in Dostoevsky’s time (It’s terrible today.), let alone trying to write with it.
I wouldn't say Dostoevsky wrote little; my list here is just brief. While many authors were more prolific, there are also great writers with only a few books, like Joyce or Salinger. Dostoevsky penned 5 major novels, about a dozen novellas (short novels of 100-200 pages), around 20 short stories, and various articles and journalistic pieces.
However, he did face numerous obstacles to productivity. For nearly a decade—almost the entire 1850s—he was unable to write while in prison and the army. In prison, he lacked even basic access to paper and pen. His most productive writing period began after age 40, but was then hampered by illnesses and persistent financial troubles.
I sincerely sympathize with your husband.
Questions also surround Dostoevsky's epilepsy. No doctor officially diagnosed him, though he wrote extensively about his seizures. While I won't speculate on whether he truly had epilepsy, it's possible these were panic attacks—which are also quite distressing.
While I haven’t experienced seizures or panic attacks, Dostoevsky uses the feeling of a seizure briefly in the final chapters of C&P that exactly mirrors the experience that Joe has described to me…and the way it appears to the outside observer. I wonder if panic attacks overtake someone the same way.
Ah. I was just looking at his full length novels when considering what to read next. I wonder if he found shorter works easier to manage due to his epilepsy/panic attacks. Easier to reread and continue, perhaps? Pure speculation. :-)
In fact, his works progress in scale - the most voluminous one, The Brothers Karamazov, is his last novel. So it's likely that he was simply learning to write in a larger form or gaining the courage to do so as he matured. Generally, I think the short form was easier for publications, as all novels were initially printed in journals, so it was simpler to print short and complete works rather than stretching a novel across issues for years. But another factor was his wife, Anna - she helped him stenograph his thoughts, allowing him to work faster. Short forms were mainly before meeting her, and occasionally between major novels.
I'm flabbergasted at how much I loved chapter 6.2, considering that Porfiry annoyed me so at first. I dislike manipulative people, but this time he's actually sincere? Well, almost, he's also using a new strategy to catch his perp, but I want to believe there's honest care behind it. It all comes back to the man VS homunculus discourse, and I'm just glad Porfiry treated Rodion like a person and showed him empathy (Sonya did too in a way, but that poor girl shouldn't have Rodion's fate on her shoulders, she has way too many problems on her own.)
Rodion is completely isolated at this point, he needs help and expiation but he's too proud and scatterbrained to seek it directly, except from a poor girl who has no power over him. Razumikhin is too innocent and naive, his mother is too self centered (I cannot believe she dragged herself to his door only to make a scene and go in hysterics about Sonya, jealous much??) Dunya might very well shut him out completely if she learned what he did.
And here comes Porfiry of all people finally talking openly about the elephant in the room, and I love love love that he didn't absolve him, he basically said, hey kid, you did something very wrong and it's eating you inside. I can understand why you did it, I had similar thoughts myself at some point, but there is no escaping what you did, you need to face it the hard way if you ever want to make peace with yourself. And he talked about how Rodion can't shut himself up to the world too, because we need other people to survive. My guess is that needing air in this context means a change of scenery, gaining a different prospective. Am I making himself clear, I don't know.
I'm not sure myself whether Porfiry is sincere or not, but I think he wouldn't do this with a suspect. He is, after all, at work and a policeman. His hints that he has a "lead" or "evidence" could also be a bluff. As he never actually reveals it, and there aren't many options. Of course, I'll write later about what evidence Porfiry might have had, but these are all speculations. You can also write your own versions.
But at the same time, I also think that Porfiry would like Rodion to rid himself of the burden - not as a criminal, but as a believer. After all, this is important for Dostoevsky: confession, absolution of sins, and so on.
I also have many questions about Rodion's mother. She's not empathetic at all, and probably also mentally ill, like her son. It's likely they have some family trait. And Dunya was lucky not to inherit it.
Yes, air is indeed a change of scenery. Since Raskolnikov is going in circles in his thoughts, it's about time he did something else.
I think these two chapters were do amazing, so much change and tension. As you said above, how did D manage to arrange all the complexity of these conversations, and describe R's thoughts all jumping around as he tries to respond, keep his secret to himself, and at the same time, long to communicate his guilt. He has the worry that S has overheard his confession, which in Chapter 5 he put in such a calculating, but merry, way; That was so chilling. And his feelings about Dunya and his mother continue to haunt him. Then Razumikhin gives the news of Mikolka's confession, and his rationalisation of his defence of Mikolka makes so much sense. I think Razumikhin must feel relief. There are his unfinished sentences, "one moment when I thought...." But R is left with the awful fear of Porfiry, his psychological approach, and the memory of their last meeting.
The 16 pages of Porfiry's visit and his psychological game of cat and mouse are such a masterpiece. I even thought P was apologising to R for his suspicions, especially with his little giggles here and there. Then comes the thunderclap, but P still leaves him free. "You can't get along without us." Says P as if he had read R's mind in Chapter 1, "What I want is some kind challenge again., an attack from someone to fend off." So will R "fend off" P, or wil P's predictions that R will finally turn himself in and "accept suffering" be the outcome - or perhaps something different again? R is already suffering to an extraordinary degree, but perhaps the suffering that results from confession could also be the means of his redemption, which I think was suggested by Sonya.
Porfiry cannot bring charges against Rodion without direct evidence and having a confession from Mikolka. No way. At that time, courts did not consider cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. And in Rodion's case, he's lucky that apart from his strange behavior, no evidence points to him. He left no witnesses, and no evidence was found on him. So it's indeed a psychological game of cat and mouse.
And Razumikhin should indeed understand what Rodion is constantly hinting at. He also frequently communicates with Porfiry, so he knows about his suspicions too. But, as a friend and someone in love with Rodion's sister, he simply doesn't allow these thoughts. Therefore, he's more likely to think that Rodion is involved in some other matters - for example, political ones.
While I did not make the connection between Gogol’s Diary of a Madman and Crime and Punishment, and the phrase “a string vibrates in the fog,”. I did ponder the phrase both times reading it. The String Theory of quantum physics postulates that the fundamental “element” of everything in the universe is just a vibration. I wondered is some mysterious and unconscious knowing in both these men understood vibration as a foundation for existence. Is evil a different vibration than goodness, is that was Raskolnikov cannot escape?
I appreciate your notes on quantum physics and elements. Though these concepts were unknown in the 19th century, people might have sensed them through mysticism and spiritualism. Gogol's monsters, manifesting from people's negative actions and thoughts, could be interpreted as a kind of quantum realm or dark energy—phenomena still largely mysterious today. I believe the "vibrations" of good and evil differ, perhaps relating to what some call an aura. Raskolnikov's condition seems akin to a disease; he can't simply rid himself of it. Instead, it likely requires systematic, long-term treatment through acts of kindness.
I couldn’t help but think of Emerson’s work “Self Reliance” when I read about the vibrating string. “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” He wrote that in 1841, before Gogol would have been translated into English.
Oh, what an amazing quote. I'd really like to know if Gogol had heard it.
So many vibrating strings. Worth pondering.
Right? I love to try to follow literary “threads” like that. 😊
In his confession to Sonya a bit back, Raskolnikov says he wanted to be like Napoleon, Great Men could do anything. I assumed he made up this theory in his head, but in the chapter for tomorrow’s slow read of War and Peace, Tolstoy criticizes historians and their Great Man Theory, “For the “great” man nothing is wrong, there is no atrocity for which a “great” man can be blamed.” This Great Man Theory must have been a “thing” in that milieu? And it would have influenced an unstable person like Raskolnikov?
Yes, during the writing of both novels, these ideas were very widespread. It all stems from Chernyshevsky with his "new people", as well as from nihilism, which is celebrated by Turgenev in Fathers and Sons. Dostoevsky truly disliked this movement, but at the same time, as we now know, these ideas captured people's minds and led to the revolutions and wars of the 20th century.
Oh! Thanks. More to explore.
I’ve been enjoying the little hints that Dostoevsky places in the novel about what is to come…phrases like, “When he remembered this time later on, long afterwards…”. We know several characters who will survive, but it’s killing me not knowing what this “final catastrophe” is that is mentioned in the first paragraph of 6.1. Knowing D as we do by this time, I’m not eliminating any options. Im utterly terrified for everyone…other than maybe Svidrigailov. I might cheer if he is offed. 🫢 I’m loving the building of tension this close to the end!!!
I’ve been shocked by how cinematic the novel is. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it wasn’t this. Any recommendations for what I should read next of D’s?
Yes, Dostoevsky loves to leave these brilliantly placed details. And overall, it's difficult for me to understand how he manages to arrange them so well without getting confused, considering that he wrote without a computer with quick search capabilities and generally published chapter by chapter, unable to revise previous ones.
Dostoevsky doesn't have many novels, so the choice is limited. The most suspenseful one, in my opinion, is Demons. But it contains a lot of politics and historical events. It's difficult to read in some parts.
In second place for unexpectedness, I think, is The Idiot.
Among the short novellas: The Double is gripping, The Gambler is amusing, and the lesser-known The Eternal Husband also has interesting twists.
Thanks for the recommendations! Demons was at the top of my list last night when I was reviewing my options, so I may go that route. I was surprised by how short the list was. He certainly had a lot of obstacles to writing. His epilepsy alone would have been enough to stunt productivity. My husband has had seizures since he was a child. Gratefully, after two brain surgeries things are better, but he has lost years of memory. I can’t imagine what living with epilepsy would have been like in Dostoevsky’s time (It’s terrible today.), let alone trying to write with it.
I wouldn't say Dostoevsky wrote little; my list here is just brief. While many authors were more prolific, there are also great writers with only a few books, like Joyce or Salinger. Dostoevsky penned 5 major novels, about a dozen novellas (short novels of 100-200 pages), around 20 short stories, and various articles and journalistic pieces.
However, he did face numerous obstacles to productivity. For nearly a decade—almost the entire 1850s—he was unable to write while in prison and the army. In prison, he lacked even basic access to paper and pen. His most productive writing period began after age 40, but was then hampered by illnesses and persistent financial troubles.
I sincerely sympathize with your husband.
Questions also surround Dostoevsky's epilepsy. No doctor officially diagnosed him, though he wrote extensively about his seizures. While I won't speculate on whether he truly had epilepsy, it's possible these were panic attacks—which are also quite distressing.
While I haven’t experienced seizures or panic attacks, Dostoevsky uses the feeling of a seizure briefly in the final chapters of C&P that exactly mirrors the experience that Joe has described to me…and the way it appears to the outside observer. I wonder if panic attacks overtake someone the same way.
Ah. I was just looking at his full length novels when considering what to read next. I wonder if he found shorter works easier to manage due to his epilepsy/panic attacks. Easier to reread and continue, perhaps? Pure speculation. :-)
In fact, his works progress in scale - the most voluminous one, The Brothers Karamazov, is his last novel. So it's likely that he was simply learning to write in a larger form or gaining the courage to do so as he matured. Generally, I think the short form was easier for publications, as all novels were initially printed in journals, so it was simpler to print short and complete works rather than stretching a novel across issues for years. But another factor was his wife, Anna - she helped him stenograph his thoughts, allowing him to work faster. Short forms were mainly before meeting her, and occasionally between major novels.
I'm flabbergasted at how much I loved chapter 6.2, considering that Porfiry annoyed me so at first. I dislike manipulative people, but this time he's actually sincere? Well, almost, he's also using a new strategy to catch his perp, but I want to believe there's honest care behind it. It all comes back to the man VS homunculus discourse, and I'm just glad Porfiry treated Rodion like a person and showed him empathy (Sonya did too in a way, but that poor girl shouldn't have Rodion's fate on her shoulders, she has way too many problems on her own.)
Rodion is completely isolated at this point, he needs help and expiation but he's too proud and scatterbrained to seek it directly, except from a poor girl who has no power over him. Razumikhin is too innocent and naive, his mother is too self centered (I cannot believe she dragged herself to his door only to make a scene and go in hysterics about Sonya, jealous much??) Dunya might very well shut him out completely if she learned what he did.
And here comes Porfiry of all people finally talking openly about the elephant in the room, and I love love love that he didn't absolve him, he basically said, hey kid, you did something very wrong and it's eating you inside. I can understand why you did it, I had similar thoughts myself at some point, but there is no escaping what you did, you need to face it the hard way if you ever want to make peace with yourself. And he talked about how Rodion can't shut himself up to the world too, because we need other people to survive. My guess is that needing air in this context means a change of scenery, gaining a different prospective. Am I making himself clear, I don't know.
I'm not sure myself whether Porfiry is sincere or not, but I think he wouldn't do this with a suspect. He is, after all, at work and a policeman. His hints that he has a "lead" or "evidence" could also be a bluff. As he never actually reveals it, and there aren't many options. Of course, I'll write later about what evidence Porfiry might have had, but these are all speculations. You can also write your own versions.
But at the same time, I also think that Porfiry would like Rodion to rid himself of the burden - not as a criminal, but as a believer. After all, this is important for Dostoevsky: confession, absolution of sins, and so on.
I also have many questions about Rodion's mother. She's not empathetic at all, and probably also mentally ill, like her son. It's likely they have some family trait. And Dunya was lucky not to inherit it.
Yes, air is indeed a change of scenery. Since Raskolnikov is going in circles in his thoughts, it's about time he did something else.
I think these two chapters were do amazing, so much change and tension. As you said above, how did D manage to arrange all the complexity of these conversations, and describe R's thoughts all jumping around as he tries to respond, keep his secret to himself, and at the same time, long to communicate his guilt. He has the worry that S has overheard his confession, which in Chapter 5 he put in such a calculating, but merry, way; That was so chilling. And his feelings about Dunya and his mother continue to haunt him. Then Razumikhin gives the news of Mikolka's confession, and his rationalisation of his defence of Mikolka makes so much sense. I think Razumikhin must feel relief. There are his unfinished sentences, "one moment when I thought...." But R is left with the awful fear of Porfiry, his psychological approach, and the memory of their last meeting.
The 16 pages of Porfiry's visit and his psychological game of cat and mouse are such a masterpiece. I even thought P was apologising to R for his suspicions, especially with his little giggles here and there. Then comes the thunderclap, but P still leaves him free. "You can't get along without us." Says P as if he had read R's mind in Chapter 1, "What I want is some kind challenge again., an attack from someone to fend off." So will R "fend off" P, or wil P's predictions that R will finally turn himself in and "accept suffering" be the outcome - or perhaps something different again? R is already suffering to an extraordinary degree, but perhaps the suffering that results from confession could also be the means of his redemption, which I think was suggested by Sonya.
I agree with your thoughts.
Porfiry cannot bring charges against Rodion without direct evidence and having a confession from Mikolka. No way. At that time, courts did not consider cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. And in Rodion's case, he's lucky that apart from his strange behavior, no evidence points to him. He left no witnesses, and no evidence was found on him. So it's indeed a psychological game of cat and mouse.
And Razumikhin should indeed understand what Rodion is constantly hinting at. He also frequently communicates with Porfiry, so he knows about his suspicions too. But, as a friend and someone in love with Rodion's sister, he simply doesn't allow these thoughts. Therefore, he's more likely to think that Rodion is involved in some other matters - for example, political ones.