Question for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. Hill

The whipped horse is very explicit, and in my opinion placed there by Dostoevsky for the purpose of conveying Raskolnikov's compassion.

---

I agree that the symbolic dream of the whipped horse is a case where Raskolnikov's compassion is apparent; HOWEVER, do not forget that it was when he was a boy. Also do not forget that a primary intention of Dostoyevsky's was to show the dangers of nihilism ('the will to nothing' as Nietzsche thought it).

Bearing this in mind, it is my opinion that Dostoyevsky inserted the dream as an example of Raskolnikov's transition into the abyss of nihilism. He once was a young country boy with morals and compassion, but after moving into the city, his mind had become infected by nihilistic values amongst other things. No longer is he that boy who wept for the old mare. I assent with the view Raskolnikov is compassionate at heart, but it is buried deep underneath his detachment to morality. And, at the end of the novel, we see it is Dunya that has been his tonic.

Having said that, I agree with mea505. The breaking of Dunya and Luzhin's engagement is a turning point for Raskolnikov. However, I also think it is the death of Marmeladov that is the catalyst - hence the compassionate giving away of money to the widow Catherine Ivanovna. Can we deny that it had a profound effect on him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

I don't believe Raskolnikov had a turning point at all.

Unlike Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov is, by nature, a compassionate man. That is the paradox of the novel: Raskolnikov is compassionate but also lethally rational.

---

I agree, at least through Part IV which is as far as I am. I don't see any distinct turn from selfishness to compassion. As early as part I, chap. 2 he shows compassion in leaving money for the Marmeladov's. He immediately regrets it, but that's part of his self torment. Same thing in chap. 4 when he tries to protect the girl from the prying man, only to regret it.

The better question is why does he immediately regret his compassion in both of these situations? As he is plotting to steal and murder, he's keeps giving away money and trying to help people. Two very opposing personalities. Even as he shows compassion in himself through the dream about the beating of the horse and his temporary disgust about his plans, he still murders soon after.

I'm not sure on the answer - is it all part of his "super man" theory, that he thinks he is truly better than these people? Part of himself feels sorry for these people and wants to help them, but the other competing part puts himself above all else.

The later hints of compassion in Rodya are more convincing, but I wouldn't call them turning points. While it's true that he doesn't leave Dunya and his mom until after the engagement is off, I wouldn't call him leaving after that compassionate. He still hasn't decided to turn himself in, so how is his leaving benefiting his family? Plus, his love for Dunya is nothing new.

His talk with Sonya also shows a more likable side, but he still comes across as a bit of an *** as he compares his sins to her sins. Really, these two scenes make him more likable to me based largely off of Dunya and Sonya being involved in them. They are the selfless, compassionate ones, not Rodya. If anything, these scenes just prove that he still needs a turning point. He's no where close to Dunya or Sonya yet.

Sorry for the rambling, but I hope that made some sense outside of my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Beard

Having said that, I agree with mea505. The breaking of Dunya and Luzhin's engagement is a turning point for Raskolnikov. However, I also think it is the death of Marmeladov that is the catalyst - hence the compassionate giving away of money to the widow Catherine Ivanovna. Can we deny that it had a profound effect on him?

---

I forgot about that last point somehow. I do think this is Rodya's most convincing moment. Not only can you tell that it has a profound effect on him at the time, but it's the one event that he doesn't seem to immediately regret or work against. In fact, he defends it to Luzhin, and seems unapologetic to his family.

I'd have to read back through, although it does seem to be as close to a turning point as anything. But, he still shows the same compassionate/nihilistic split afterwards, so I'm not sure too much emphasis can be put on it as a revelation in itself.

All you've written makes so much sense, WoodDraw, that I await your further insights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

His talk with Sonya also shows a more likable side, but he still comes across as a bit of an *** as he compares his sins to her sins. Really, these two scenes make him more likable to me based largely off of Dunya and Sonya being involved in them. They are the selfless, compassionate ones, not Rodya. If anything, these scenes just prove that he still needs a turning point. He's no where close to Dunya or Sonya yet.

---

It is my opinion that this scene in the novel best portrays Raskolnikov's "compassionate/nihilistic split," as you put it. I'm not sure why I even mentioned it, but I just thought I'd add a thought. :)

Edit: Oh, and welcome, WoodDraw. :)

After reading your post WoodDraw, I changed my mind about there being a turning point; twas an astute observation :)

Speaking of turning points though, I read somewhere (probably the unreliable wikipedia) that Dostoyevsky employs a systematised structure as a reflection on the ruling principles of Raskolnikov. What's meant by this is that the first three parts represent his imperious side, while the last three parts show his humbleness. Apparently the 'turning point' from pride to humility occurs exactly in the middle of novel.

Now, if you look at what happens, it is the appearance of Svidrigailov. So maybe I had it wrong in thinking the death of Marmeladov was the point of turning from indifference to compassion, rarely observable. Perhaps it is the threat to his family (mainly Dunya) that brings out this side of Raskolnikov. This would explain why he turns to the concern of confessing his crime, only after he considers his family to be in the safe hands of Razumikhin.

What does everyone think? I feel I'm definitely missing something important here.

Does Marmeladov have any true significance to Rodya? He's near delusional when he finds him dying in the street. He calls Marmeladov a friend when he dies, but I would never call them friends really.

I think the true significance to Rodya is with his kids. In the little ones, he sees a child like innocence - something gone from him, Sonya, and the rest of the older world. Everyone else did something to deserve their plight, but why should the children suffer? A common theme for Dostoevsky.

With Sonya, he sees himself in her. Later when he visits her, he tells her that she killed someone too - herself - and what's the difference? They're both sinners, and he wants to run off together. There's also the telling of the Lazarus story at the same time here - the ultimate redemption from death by belief in God.

To me though, this is still Rodya's problem. He sees him and Sonya as equals at this point, but why? Sonya's sins came from her unselfish desire to help her family. Arguably still a sin, but can you equate that with Rodya's pure selfishness in murdering? I don't think so, and I doubt Dostoevsky does either. My guess is that this is where the plot is heading. But will Rodya discover the difference between his sin and Sonya's, or will only the reader? I don't think Sonya needs to do anything to be redeemed, but Rodya can't be redeemed as long as he equates the two as equals.

Anyway, that's where my mind is stuck right now. I think I need to read some more to go any further. I'll keep an eye on Svidrigailov and see what I think. Dostoevsky is fun though, and addicting. Glad I stumbled upon this forum.

I am inclined to think that most of you enjoy the "question for the day." If you want me to continue to post these, so state. I will, therefore, if desired, post at least one question at least once every two days. This will give those who live way beyond my time line a chance to consider the question(s). However, please reply, and state your true feelings with respect to the questions. I am under the impression that they are welcomed.

Please, continue. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

The better question is why does he immediately regret his compassion in both of these situations? As he is plotting to steal and murder, he's keeps giving away money and trying to help people. Two very opposing personalities. Even as he shows compassion in himself through the dream about the beating of the horse and his temporary disgust about his plans, he still murders soon after.

I'm not sure on the answer - is it all part of his "super man" theory, that he thinks he is truly better than these people? Part of himself feels sorry for these people and wants to help them, but the other competing part puts himself above all else.

---

He gave money away and actually he doesn't have money so he gave all he has; nothing has left so he regrets immediately. He helped too poor, to those who are no better than him.
I would go with ''Super man'' theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Beard

Perhaps it is the threat to his family (mainly Dunya) that brings out this side of Raskolnikov. This would explain why he turns to the concern of confessing his crime, only after he considers his family to be in the safe hands of Razumikhin.

---

Nope. He just declared that he doesn't want his sister to suffer for him, especially with jerk like Luzhin, confession has nothing to do with that. Even more, Razumihin is in no much better situation that Raskolnikov. They could all live like they lived so far, with or without Luzhin and Rodyas' confession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

I think the true significance to Rodya is with his kids. In the little ones, he sees a child like innocence - something gone from him, Sonya, and the rest of the older world. Everyone else did something to deserve their plight, but why should the children suffer? A common theme for Dostoevsky.

---

Yes; Dostoevsky once wrote that kids before age of 7 shouldn't suffer and cannot be wrong and shouldn't be punished for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

He gave money away and actually he doesn't have money so he gave all he has; nothing has left so he regrets immediately. He helped too poor, to those who are no better than him.
I would go with ''Super man'' theory.

---

I think drunk with existential despair. The "Super man" idea is a, not altogether convincing, way of coping with this despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Beard

Perhaps it is the threat to his family (mainly Dunya) that brings out this side of Raskolnikov. This would explain why he turns to the concern of confessing his crime, only after he considers his family to be in the safe hands of Razumikhin.

What does everyone think? I feel I'm definitely missing something important here.

---

In existential despair, Raskolnikov scarcely prefers hiding his crime to confessing it (compare Mersault in Camus' "The Outsider").

Ecclesiastes 2:17___Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Beard

After reading your post WoodDraw, I changed my mind about there being a turning point; twas an astute observation :)

Speaking of turning points though, I read somewhere (probably the unreliable wikipedia) that Dostoyevsky employs a systematised structure as a reflection on the ruling principles of Raskolnikov. What's meant by this is that the first three parts represent his imperious side, while the last three parts show his humbleness. Apparently the 'turning point' from pride to humility occurs exactly in the middle of novel.

Now, if you look at what happens, it is the appearance of Svidrigailov. So maybe I had it wrong in thinking the death of Marmeladov was the point of turning from indifference to compassion, rarely observable. Perhaps it is the threat to his family (mainly Dunya) that brings out this side of Raskolnikov. This would explain why he turns to the concern of confessing his crime, only after he considers his family to be in the safe hands of Razumikhin.

What does everyone think? I feel I'm definitely missing something important here.

---

I want to respond to this now, since I'm about to finish the book and want to have some record of my thoughts before I dive in to the last few pages. ;)

I've read the wikipedia entry (plus others) that talk about a defined structure, but I just don't see it. There is a duality, but I think trying to split the book into I-III, IV-VI, and then Epilogue is too much. I mean, the book is called Crime and Punishment and Rodya's name means a split or division in Russian if I remember right. The duality isn't hidden; in fact, it's essential to understanding the book.

But, is there a turning point? I just don't see it. It's a slow progression. Rodya sees himself as a "superman"; someone not only capable of normally forbidden action, but almost fated towards that action. Even early on though, Rodya never comes across as being all that special, maybe even in his own eyes. He's never a good person, just like he is never completely void of compassion. But that is still how he justifies those actions. He doesn't care about money; he just wants to be special.

I'm just a chapter in a halfish into Part 6 right now, so I'll see where it takes me from here. I think I'm using these posts as my own personal brain dump again, so I'll apologize if this doesn't make much sense outside of my head or relates much - i'll try to clear it up later when I read back through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

He doesn't care about money; he just wants to be special.

---

Is Raskolnikov clear about what he wants? I don't think so. He swings haphazardly back and forth between despair and passion.

mea505: Your questions are quite thought provacative, so please continue!

I really feel that I cannot truly appreciate a book unless I've discussed it with other people. Also I really don't know where to start when looking introspectively, thus discussion questions really help further my appreciation of a book.