Just finished C&P - bit of a muddle?

I guess I am a heretic for saying this, but I wasn't entirely impressed with the novel. It just seemed to drag on and on much longer than necessary. And I was struck by a sense of redundancy and repetition - how many times do we read of a character becoming pale, lips trembling, face contorted, overcome by a sudden thought or feeling, etc.

Don't get me wrong, there is much to like here. But am I stupid or is this novel a bit of a muddle at times, even disjointed? It's almost like a manuscript that needs a bit more editing. I read the Pevear/Volokhonksy translation, BTW.

Having read more than a few Dostoevsky's, C&P is not among my favourites. Admittedly, I did need someone to later explain the existential significance of Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigaïlov. The novel deals throughout with the dreadful and it shows.

I have warmed of late to the sublime part Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova (Sonya) plays in a characteristically understated, Dostoevsky ending.

I don't know Doug. I think it is pretty much perfect as it is. You aren't really very specific about what you thought could have been left out, so it is difficult to defend it.

Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, was pretty clear about what he thought was muddled in C&P. In one of his notebooks he expresses confusion about Raskolnikov's motivation for murder, reminding himself to clarify it. He didn't. Philip Rhav wrote an essay, published in the Norton Critical Edition I think, which argues that the author's failure (refusal?) to clarify the motivation is precisely what makes the characterization exceptional. Mikhail Bakhtin (in Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics) would describe this as the author adopting a dialogic stance with respect to the character, claiming that this way of approaching characterization was revolutionary. Essentially, Dostoyevsky listened to Raskolnikov's thoughts and words closely enough to know that the murder was within the range of actions he might perform, but without really knowing exactly why he in fact did it. He related to Raskolnikov as if he were a real person--allegedly, according to Bakhtin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Having read more than a few Dostoevsky's, C&P is not among my favourites. Admittedly, I did need someone to later explain the existential significance of Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigaïlov. The novel deals throughout with the dreadful and it shows.

I have warmed of late to the sublime part Sofia Semyonovna Marmeladova (Sonya) plays in a characteristically understated, Dostoevsky ending.

---

Interesting, thanks. I've only read C&P but Notes From Underground looks interesting, and quite short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

I don't know Doug. I think it is pretty much perfect as it is. You aren't really very specific about what you thought could have been left out, so it is difficult to defend it. ...cut...

---

I guess it's just a general observation. FD's prose itself is rather long-winded. Dickens strikes me similarly, in terms of the wordiness. As for the repetition comment, I just felt like there were moments in the dialogue where I was thinking, "haven't we been down this road already?". Almost a circular quality to some of the action, which made me impatient. I can't find any specific examples and I'm too lazy to keep looking.

Anyway, I had been wanting to read C&P for a long time, and had built up expectations, and that can be a bad thing.

As for RRR, I thought the characterization was brilliant. Some of the others too -- Razumikhin, Dunya, Porfiry -- were great. I was ok with the ambiguity in RRR's motives.

I read Notes From Underground a month ago and struggled through.