The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Week 10 - Epilogue and the entire book as a whole

Posting this early due to Christmas. I hope everyone has a wonderful, safe, and healthy holiday season.

1) In the Epilogue, we learn of several heroic acts that Raskolnikov performed in the past and how, in part, those were used to justify a more merciful sentence. Does this knowledge change your opinion of Raskolnikov?

2) Did you feel an element of suspense in this novel? Did any particular scene strike you as being particularly suspenseful?

3) What role does chance play in the development of the novel? Is Dostoyevsky interfering too much with the natural course of events in order to move his story along, or is he making a point about the randomness of life, free will, and divine intervention?

4) Does the fact that Roskolnikov never uses the money he stole from the pawnbroker make him less—or more—guilty? Why do you think he never recovers the stolen items or cash?

5) Why does Roskolnikov reject his family’s and Razumikhin’s attempts at solace and comfort? Why, when they are at their most loving, does he have feelings of hatred for them? What is Dostoyevsky saying about guilt and conscience?

6) Roskolnikov emerges as a dual character, capable of cruelty and compassion, deliberation and recklessness, and alternating between a desire for solitude and companionship. Why, do you think, has Dostoyevsky created such a complex psychological portrait?

7) Fyodor Dostoevsky adored Nikolai Gogol, a writer well known for his laugh-out-loud but bleak humor. Does Crime and Punishment make you laugh? What parts, if any, are funny, and why? If you didn't find any parts of this book funny, why do you suppose that is?

8) What about Crime and Punishment's abrupt chapter endings? Do the endings comment on the chapter as a whole? Do they prepare us in some way for the next chapter?

I finished this very interesting, suspenseful book. Some thoughts:
Raskolnikov is a multifaceted personality. He has many humanitarian beliefs, and acts on them. On the other side the belief in some people‘s superiority, which seem to be fairly common during this period in history. He believes till the end in the justification for his murdering the unscrupulous money lender Alena Ivanovna. The problem is the second murder. But would he really feel guiltless, if he only would have killed the money lender? And would he have used the money etc. he stole to finish his studies? There is no clearcut answer. Maybe he never retrieved these things because of his guilt about the second murder?
Interesting is the name Raskolnikov - it derives from raskolnik, meaning schismatic. And Rodion comes from the Greek indicating an inhabitant of Rhodes. Raskol is the schism (split) of the Russian Orthodox Church into an official church and the Old Believers movement. It was triggered by reforms of Patriarch Nikon in 1653 to establish uniformity between Greek and Russian church practices. What exactly that means for the understanding of this novel, I am not quite sure. But it is intriguing, it gives Raskolnikov’s character another interesting facet. Of further interest is, that Raskolnikov is ultimately guided towards spiritual and mental rebirth by a prostitute.
I think, I will investigate these aspects further.
Dostoyevsky himself was critical of the Tsarist regime. Because of that he spent some years in a Siberian Prison, he knows firsthand about conditions there. His relationship to the regime changed in later years. It all is quite fascinating. I probably will reread this novel after I make myself more acquainted with the historical and philosophical background.
Thank you Gem for your moderation! And Happy New Year to all of you!

Sorry for not having commented anymore. I was travelling to my parents right after having finished the book.
I wish you all a Happy New Year and want to thank you all for the interesting discussion of this interesting novel. And of course special thanks to you, Gem, for the moderation and the intriguing questions.
They have made me think more about the novel than I otherwise might have done.

Some final thoughts (even if it has been more than 2 weeks since finishing the book):

As Detlef mentioned, Raskolnikov has some good, humanitarian sides, but feels on the other hand this "evil" superiority over others.
I was also thinking that the second murder "soured" the whole affair of the first murder and stealing of the goods. He is still not feeling any regret about the first murder, though. As I had mentioned in the previous thread the thing that bothers him most is that he did not complete the act properly and failed in that. That might be the second murder and that he could not go through with his hiding game.
Looking back I cannot remember having laughed in particular reading this novel. I might have considered the one or other moment slightly amusing, especially with regards to Razumihin and his relation to Dounia. Overall, this novel was mostly dominated by sinister characters, a poor and rather bleak environment and some suspense mostly caused by the cat and mouse game between Porfiry and Raskolnikov. It was also dominated by the psychological struggle in Raskolnikov's head. I am actually wondering what diagnosis a psychologist would give him.
Why did Dostoevsky create such a complex character? One thing is certain, the world is not just black and white and characters are not just good or evil. Raskolnikov is a contrast to the likes of Luzhin or Svidrigailov who only do good with an evil goal in their minds. He is a relatable person in one way, but at the same time I cannot get over his superiority complex and I wonder whether that is the reason for his shutting himself away from his family and definitely from the other prisoners.

Detlef, your mentioning of this possible religious/ philosophical component is interesting. You are right that his mental rebirth seems to come at the very end in form of Sonia. BTW, I thought his treatment of Sonia who moved to Siberia for him very unfair. IMHO he did not deserve her, but it seems that there might be a happy ending for them in sight, even though it might still take 7 long and hard years. In these last paragraphs of the book, do you think he is really completely reborn and sees his errors and his mistake of his superiority complex? Has he returned to Jesus/ faith by receiving the New Testament?

Detlef wrote: "I finished this very interesting, suspenseful book. Some thoughts:
Raskolnikov is a multifaceted personality. He has many humanitarian beliefs, and acts on them. On the other side the belief in som..."

I agree with your assessment that it was the second murder that really affected him. And the questions you pose we will never have the answers for.

Thank you for the information you posted, it answers some questions and raises more. At some point I'm going to reread this selection and I'll refer back to this.

Hedi wrote: "Sorry for not having commented anymore. I was travelling to my parents right after having finished the book.
I wish you all a Happy New Year and want to thank you all for the interesting discussion..."

No need to apologize, real life first.

Hedi wrote: "It was also dominated by the psychological struggle in Raskolnikov's head."

Admittedly, I expected more of the punishment aspect... as in prison. That said he tortured himself. I'm not sure that any punishment brought against him by society could be worse than what he did to himself.

Hedi wrote: "You are right that his mental rebirth seems to come at the very end in form of Sonia. BTW, I thought his treatment of Sonia who moved to Siberia for him very unfair. IMHO he did not deserve her, but it seems that there might be a happy ending for them in sight, even though it might still take 7 long and hard years."

This is a brilliant observation and I'm not sure, if I were Sonia I'd deal him. Of course initially he's probably still torturing himself which can make folks do stupid and terribly inconsiderate things to others.

Happy new year everybody 🥳
Thank you Gem for moderating and asking great questions.

I finished this book a bit late - I didn’t think it was a great Christmas read so I waited till after the holidays.
I voted for it so I felt committed to the project.

I know most of you enjoyed the book & I didn’t want to be negative, so I haven’t commented much.

Growing up I always heard Crime and Punishment was a classic and that Dostoevsky was a literary genius. I think I had very high expectations and therefore I was a bit disappointed.
To be perfectly honest I think this book (like many other classics) is overrated. I found several parts of it boring, drawn out, dark and depressing.
The names of the characters were very confusing and hard to keep track of. (And I’m from Eastern Europe where such names are common.)

I think liking or in some way relating to the main character is essential for me to enjoy a book and truly care about how it ends. I really don’t like Raskolnikov.
To me he is just a pseudo intellectual with delusions of grandeur.
I don’t understand his motivation at all. At the beginning I thought he was just poor through no fault of his own and was going to try to steal some money for food or rent (basic survival). I thought that in the process of his petty theft he would commit some type of crime (probably murder) by accident and spend the rest of the book feeling guilty about it. Instead I was surprised to see that he was planning to kill the lady to begin with (not just to steal from her). And with an axe or all things - just so unnecessarily gruesome. He didn’t feel any remorse he just felt bad that he might get caught. Worst of all he believed that she was the bad person because of her profession and that he was therefore justified in stealing from her. I was most annoyed by Raskolnikov’s entitled personally, his complete reckless spending and way he was giving money away. I hated how he criticized other people’s life choices while believing he is a ‘superior being’.

Another thing I found super annoying were the random side characters and the endless conversations (more like one full page rambling monologues). It all felt like bad theater. If it was a play I had paid to see I would probably walk out.

Even though I had to force myself to read it & there were many times when I felt like giving up on it - I’m glad I finally read this book. At least now I don’t have to wonder what it’s about.

Ana wrote: "Happy new year everybody 🥳
Thank you Gem for moderating and asking great questions.

I finished this book a bit late - I didn’t think it was a great Christmas read so I waited till after the holida..."

Thanks for your comments Ana. I went into reading this book expecting the worst, I had heard from two people how terrible it was. I'm fortunate I enjoyed it more than I expected to. That said I agree with you about not liking Raskolnikov.

Ana, what a pity that you did not like it. It was definitely a difference to our Musketeer series. 😉
I feel the same about Raskolnikov as a character and in general about the dark, depressing notion of the entire novel, but I rather enjoyed it from a psychological perspective. I think it also helped to read this with the group. As I stated before Gem’s questions helped me think more about the novel than what I otherwise might have done. This made me contemplate more about all the more hidden, mysterious part of the novel than the shallow, obvious. However, I feel at the end of it that there are a lot of unsolved questions and the ending is not really satisfying.
Ana, I hope you will enjoy our next joint read in a better way. 😊

This novel intrigued me throughout. No, it wasn’t a happy or an easy story, but it has depths that make it worth studying. I hope to re-read it some day and try to understand more of Dostoyevsky’s meaning. I did feel that we received more insight into the Lazarus references in the Epilogue with the “resurrection “ of Raskolnikov due to the faithful love and belief of Sonya.

Nancy wrote: "This novel intrigued me throughout. No, it wasn’t a happy or an easy story, but it has depths that make it worth studying. I hope to re-read it some day and try to understand more of Dostoyevsky’s ..."

I plan on rereading it at some point as well.