It is not just that R thinks he is more deserving, it is that he thinks ordinary rules (even the prohibition of murder) do not apply to him. He is a psychopath. His furious attitude on receiving the letter from his mother looks totally mad. After he has been a wastrel, deceitfully sponging off the sacrifice of his family, he still has the effrontery to feel he has the right to form opinions about his sister's marriage based on very limited information and understanding. Raskolnikov lives in a fantasy world. The question his story raises is how typical this mentality is in the world today, and how much his story remains a parable for pervasive syndromes of self-delusion.

Robert Tulip wrote:It is not just that R thinks he is more deserving, it is that he thinks ordinary rules (even the prohibition of murder) do not apply to him. He is a psychopath.

Actually, that isn't quite right. His psychopath position is a philosophy, and a temporary mental illness. I think we can assume that R is drawn from aspects of Dostoevsky's personal history. The author seems to have some idea how a person of great insight and creativity can turn this into a torment of frustration that they do not have more influence on the world. And then that they can turn the frustration into blame of the rest of society, and, following Nietzsche (I don't know if Dostoevsky had read any of Nietzsche) into a belief that their unique powers put them above morality.

Yet Raskolnikov does have considerable moral feeling, and lacks the true insensitivity of the psychopath. He challenges himself to overcome his sensitivity, but the result is further torment as he is set against himself internally.

Robert Tulip wrote: His furious attitude on receiving the letter from his mother looks totally mad. After he has been a wastrel, deceitfully sponging off the sacrifice of his family, he still has the effrontery to feel he has the right to form opinions about his sister's marriage based on very limited information and understanding.

And yet his views are accurate. He correctly surmises that the suitor of his sister is an abuser and a trifler, taking advantage of her vulnerable position. Where she and his mother would just accept these slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Raskolnikov keenly feels the injustice of it. No doubt we are meant to see that he is the source of much of the injustice, and I think to surmise that he is aware of that fact but mainly in denial about it.

From one point of view he is "only" a narcissist, but from another he is a heroic tilter at windmills, raging at the debasement that befalls those who are less fortunate materially.

Robert Tulip wrote:Raskolnikov lives in a fantasy world. The question his story raises is how typical this mentality is in the world today, and how much his story remains a parable for pervasive syndromes of self-delusion.

I tend to take the side of Quixote. Self-delusion may be one way of seeing extreme determination to make a mark on the world. I have often taught my students that the character played by Will Smith in "The Pursuit of Happyness" is wrong, believing in a long-shot leap out of the grind of ordinariness, but they will have none of it. Every one of them thinks he is right. And I am happy to let them try, because there is something noble, if naive, about it.

At this point I agree Raskolnikov is not a psychopath but develops a sense that the rules do not apply to folks like him. He does know right from wrong. One example is on a walk he takes shortly after reading his mother’s letter. He sees a highly intoxicated young woman staggering in front of him who passes out on a bench. R attempts to protect her from a man skulking about who intends to assault her. A policeman intervenes, but ultimately we don’t know if the woman was protected.

Another example of R knowing right from wrong is the dream he had that night. R is about 7 years old, walking along with his father when they happen upon an extremely violent horse-whipping. A man is whipping his old nag everywhere even the eyes and inviting others to join in. Ultimately the crowd kills the horse, even employing a crowbar.

But the poor boy is beside himself. With a shout he tears through the crowd to the gray horse, throws his arms around her dead, bleeding muzzle, and kisses it, kisses her eyes and mouth… Then he suddenly jumps up and in a frenzy flies at Mikolka (owner of the horse) with his little fists. At this moment his father, who has been chasing after him all the while, finally seizes him and carries him out of the crowd.
...”Papa! What did they...kill...the poor horse for!” he sobs, but his breath fails, and the words burst like cries from his straining chest.

- Chapter V of Part 1, pgs 58 & 59 in my copy

When this wakes him up, R compares the hideous death of the old horse with what he is planning for the old pawnbroker woman.

”God!” he exclaimed, “but can it be, can it be that I will really take an axe and hit her on the head and smash her skull…slip in the sticky, warm blood, break the lock, steal, and tremble, and hide, all covered with blood...with the axe...Lord, can it be?”

...”No, I couldn’t endure it, I couldn’t endure it! Suppose, suppose there are even no doubts in all these calculations, suppose all that’s been decided in this past month is clear as day, true as arithmetic. Lord! Even so, I wouldn’t dare! I couldn’t endure it, I couldn’t!… What, has this been all along?…”

...”Lord! He pleaded, “show me the way; I renounce this cursed...dream of mine!”

It will be interesting to see how R talks himself out of this, how he convinces himself to commit the crime.

I mentioned before that I read this book in high school a long time ago (ahem over 45 years) and remember very little about it. But such is the power of his writing that after all that time as the section on the dream approached I had this sense of rising bile and a bit of panic “Oh dear Lord, please! NO! Not the horse-whipping scene!”

# 2 My copy has a note about the dream, referencing Revelations 13: 15-16. I have no idea why…

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

KJV

He is obviously more a sociopath... And a bit of a narcissist.

I am so slow in getting started on this book.

The convo with the drunk in the pub was a bit overdone and got annoying. This seems it will be a slog. And probably could have been a shorter work. Does anyone else's translation have the drunk say full names all the time? Was that the intent? Any thoughts why? It got so tedious that I feel there has to be a reason.

The revelation quote is funny. Probably just the same old same old with Christians trying to superimpose their faith on eventlything that slightly resembles it. But perhaps there is meaning...

I find it takes a fair amount of patience to read older books. My theory is part of this is the lack of other media - no radio, TV, internet, or records. Other than going to a play or concert, books were about the only source of entertainment other than the music or stories families generated on their own. So books could afford to be long and drawn out due to lack of competition and people enjoyed the extra details. Crime and Punishment was originally published in 12 monthly installments in 1866. If you hang in there 'til Chapter V in Part 1, the pace picks up...

That letter from his mom. I just finished that. Wow...it seems to me that the mom and sis are desperate and a bit naive. I have a feeling that they end up not being safe nor secure with this guy (name escapes me right now.)

I am thinking a little bit bipolar too now that I read through his reaction after reading the letter. Guy is messed up.

LanDroid wrote: At this point I agree Raskolnikov is not a psychopath but develops a sense that the rules do not apply to folks like him. He does know right from wrong.

So I am not sure R knows right from wrong. It seems to me that he has an idea of what is right and wrong insofar as what society dictates and he is really, in his sociopathic and narcissistic mind, testing these ideas out. Going through motions and ending up following his drive to eventually commit the most egregious of crimes simply to...further his experiments or satiflsfy his urge? That is not someone who is firmly grasping right from wrong, but rather someone who cannot possibly comprehend.

Was he always like this? Determined by his heredity to succumb to these urges, or is it due to a temporary insanity that befalls him due to his perceived injustice of being wronged by life? He seems a bit off kilter to me down to the core.

The strange incident of the young drunk girl in the street occurs after reading his mother’s letter, and ruminating on the sad fate of his sister. Raskolnikov is walking along when he sees a girl aged about fifteen, totally drunk and with ripped clothing suggesting she has already been attacked. He is overcome by compassion for her, seeking at first to protect her from another man who it seems wants to rape her, and then explaining the situation to a policeman who intervenes in his altercation with the other man. The girl has no wish for help, and wanders off followed by the policeman and the alleged rapist.

The purpose of this vignette appears to be to illustrate the depths of moral depravity that have infested Russian life, a complete moral corruption in which such scenes of public drunkenness and squalor and degradation are commonplace. Dostoyevsky is seeking to prick the national conscience for allowing this to happen with such indifference.

Raskolnikov’s behaviour is noteworthy. His initial sentiment of compassion for a complete stranger, like the Good Samaritan, is compounded by giving the policeman money to take the girl home, and by his angry desire to fight the other man who he thinks has evil designs on the lass’s honour. But then when the girl walks off, he totally gives up, and regrets giving away his money.

Dostoyevsky has a remarkable talent for description of character. Raskolnikov has shown us his divided mind, jumping from compassion to indifference toward the distressed girl on the street. Next he reveals himself as quite scattered in his thinking, forgetting why he is there, perhaps due to the shock of his mother’s letter. He recalls he is off to visit a friend. We learn that “in his studies, he kept aloof from everyone, went to see no one, and did not welcome anyone who came to see him, and indeed everyone soon gave him up. He took no part in the students’ gatherings, amusements or conversations. He worked with great intensity without sparing himself, and he was respected for this, but no one liked him. He was very poor, and there was a sort of haughty pride and reserve about him, as though he were keeping something to himself. He seemed to some of his comrades to look down upon them all as children, as though he were superior in development, knowledge and convictions, as though their beliefs and interests were beneath him.”

This picture of the arrogant loner who is superior but socially inept is building the portrayal of severe mental health concern. It makes me wonder what he was keeping to himself. Is it a general attitude of secrecy born of embarrassment?

Robert Tulip wrote:The strange incident of the young drunk girl in the street occurs after reading his mother’s letter, and ruminating on the sad fate of his sister. Raskolnikov is walking along when he sees a girl aged about fifteen, totally drunk and with ripped clothing suggesting she has already been attacked. He is overcome by compassion for her, seeking at first to protect her from another man who it seems wants to rape her, and then explaining the situation to a policeman who intervenes in his altercation with the other man. The girl has no wish for help, and wanders off followed by the policeman and the alleged rapist.

I took it as a demonstration of R's genuine concern for the downtrodden and Dostoyevsky's honest effort to put R's ravings and narcissistic effort to transcend morality into perspective, noting that everyone accepts the horrors brought on by poverty and the ordinary immorality that is all around them. Raskolnikov seems to have some project in mind of transcending moral obligation, but comes at it from a base that seems to represent a kind of nobility of soul.

I am no more able now to work out exactly what the author has in mind than when I first read it, but my guess is that Dostoyevsky had entertained such thoughts himself. The reference to Napoleon as a standard would be a slap in the face to Russians, a kind of assertion that Napoleon could get away with being above ordinary mortals as long as he won the battles. The suffering that Napoleon inflicted on Russia, while he was being above morality, was truly horrific, and in turn the czar's scorched earth methods of defeating him meant that the suffering fell most heavily on the serfs. No one's hands were clean, no one was on the side of morality, and the entirety of the society was still ordered by violence and oppression 70 years later. But I get ahead of the story.

Robert Tulip wrote:The purpose of this vignette appears to be to illustrate the depths of moral depravity that have infested Russian life, a complete moral corruption in which such scenes of public drunkenness and squalor and degradation are commonplace. Dostoyevsky is seeking to prick the national conscience for allowing this to happen with such indifference.

Rather Dickensian, I would say.

Robert Tulip wrote:Raskolnikov’s behaviour is noteworthy. His initial sentiment of compassion for a complete stranger, like the Good Samaritan, is compounded by giving the policeman money to take the girl home, and by his angry desire to fight the other man who he thinks has evil designs on the lass’s honour. But then when the girl walks off, he totally gives up, and regrets giving away his money.

Yes, an interesting twist. He would like to overturn all the oppression, is willing to put his own money (well, his mother's, actually) on the line for one small effort at redeeming one person, and finds it futile. I would guess many of the students of the day believed in such an overturning, and were similarly caught by the impracticality of actually trying to do something about it.