Crime and Punishment: Yet Another Question

[mea505]

In Part V, specifically, in chapter 1, we see Luzhin characterized as a self-serving, materialistic, pompous person who is profoundly obsessed with money. In this section, he blames a specific character's rejection of him on entirely materialistic motives, thinking that once this character had the inheritance from Marfa Petrovna, she and her mother will no longer need him. <B>Who is this character</B>? Okay, that was an easy one, but it gets more interesting. After this section, Luzhin simply disappears from the text, never to be heard from again, <B>why</B>? And, after or following the aftermath of Luzhin, Dunya is completely free to turn her attention towards <B>which character</B>?

One more: A specific character in the same section, next chapter, functions as a humorous, sarcastic caricature of the pompous but stupid intellectual, as well as the "proverbial emperor without any clothes." Who is this character? And why was it important for Dostoevsky to include this character in the novel? (This last question will have no clear answer; it is merely one that is formed from an opinion. What would be your opinion?)

[bazarov]

<B>Who is this character</B>? Okay, that was an easy one, but it gets more interesting. After this section, Luzhin simply disappears from the text, never to be heard from again, <B>why</B>? And, after or following the aftermath of Luzhin, Dunya is completely free to turn her attention towards <B>which character</B>?

Dunya; she can turn to Razumihin.
Luzhin is not needed anymore; Dunya left him. He is needed later, when he tries to accuse Sonya for steeling his money. After that, his story ends.

One more: A specific character in the same section, next chapter, functions as a humorous, sarcastic caricature of the pompous but stupid intellectual, as well as the "proverbial emperor without any clothes." Who is this character? And why was it important for Dostoevsky to include this character in the novel? (This last question will have no clear answer; it is merely one that is formed from an opinion. What would be your opinion?)

Lebezyatnikov; to show ''progress'' of young socialists?

[mea505]

I am taking a Break from the forum until after the holidays. Be back Friday.

[WoodDraw]

I like Luzhin for some reason. Not in the likable, relatable way, but he is a fun character.

He's fun for me in that he doesn't have any of the deeply philosophical or psychological traits that normally follow Dostoevsky's characters. Yes, he's arrogant and a jerk, but he's someone you meet every day. He doesn't mean bad; he's just really that arrogant. He's worked his way up from nothing, and he has this grand plan that he's figured out in his head. For him, Dunya was the completion of this plan. He's not a bad guy, per se. Sure, he's not a good guy. He's A jerk. An ***. But a villain? I don't think so. Just someone way too good for Dunya. He wants someone to complete HIM. Someone he can take care of, who has no basis in life other than him. He wants to RESCUE someone. He's not an important character by himself - just in relation to Dunya and Rodya.

Again, I think the more important question is would Dunya have married him if Rodya did not exist? Another one I don't have the answer to, but I have my thoughts. I'll let some other people jump in first, but I wanted to rescue a few of these threads after a holiday off. Hope everyone is still alive. I'm finally going to finish the book right now, so I'll be in the mood to discuss more over the next few days...

[Gladys]

I think the more important question is would Dunya have married him if Rodya did not exist?

Not a chance. Dunya shares Raskolnikov's integrity, generosity and self sacrifice. She would do anything for her brother and he knows it.

But how does she understand his murders?

[bazarov]

Agree with Gladys.
She doesn't understand murder, but she will understand everything for and from her brother.

[mea505]

Question Number One: Dunya, but like I said, that was an easy one.

Question Number Two: Dunya was now able to freely turn her direction towards Razumikhin, the man whose "rightness" for her has been clear from the start.

Question Number Three: Lebezyatnikov functions as this humorous, sarcastic caricature of the pompous but stupid intellectual.

The other questions that I posed were merely opinions, but, if one were to ask me as to why Dostoevsky chose to include this character, the answer would be because he (the author) wanted to criticize the actual intellectual currents and fads that were sweeping the nation in the 1860s, and emphasize how much more profound, albeit equally misguided, Raskolnikov's theories are.

I do hope that everyone enjoyed their holidays and that everyone remained safe! I will now continue with the questions: perhaps later today I will pose a much more difficult, mind, boggling question that will prove to stump even the best of the best!