Ok, so the 1st part of the novel has officially been read! The 1st two chapters were a little difficult to get into, and I didn't get going with the story until after Raskolnikov's mother's letter. Still, that had a lot more to do with my busy schedule, and less with Dostoevsky! Before I get into any specifics, let me state a few things for the record: 1. While attempting to read this novel one night, I was interrupted by an old friend with news of his recent arrest, and subsequent sentencing of 10 months of house arrest, and some new "jewelry" for his ankle. As always, art and life go hand in hand. I didn't get to read that night, but I do think I reflected on the novel's themes in a more CAPT question 3, Response to Literature way. My God, I miss my old life... 2. I have not yet decided how I plan to format these blogs, so this may be the way I do it for each part (with an overall commentary, and then a few specifics), or it may not. What the heck, this is a blog, not a Thesis. 3. Like everyone else, the Russian names are frustrating me, but I'll survive. No matter how many Checkov plays you read, or smart you are, Russian names are much harder to keep track of (especially with the first, middle, and last name thrown at you all at once - my god, who'd want to keep typing those names all the time?) than Joe Blow, and Rob Fabrizi. Finally, 4. I'm really glad to be reading this novel, and, so far, I like it very much. I could easily read another Part tonight, but we all have to wait for our buddy MF to catch up!
Specifics:
1. I think it's really interesting that FD starts the novel off with Raskolnikov's plan already in the works. This struck me as terribly efficient, and a great way to hook the reader from the get go. R's nasty attitude and superiority complex - coupled with his dilapidated outer-garments - instantly gets you wondering whether or not you're going to find yourself rooting for this character, or against him.
2. I found myself thinking a lot about Dickens while reading the first part of the novel, and Victorian Literature in general. Much like any good Dickens novel, you really need to keep track of all of the characters, since there's a better than average chance you'll run into them again. The Alyona Ivanova's and Marmeladov's of the novel - as well as the drunk girl (on her way to The Little Red Schoolhouse, I imagine) and her drooling suitor in chapter 4 - would easily fit into any one of the larger Dickens' novels I've read. So would Mr. Svidrigailov, Luzhin, and you get the point.
3. At this stage of my reading life, the drunkard character has been done too many times for me to underline all of his words of inebriated wisdom. Yes, Marmeladov has a few philosophic things to say, but I've heard most of them before (largely by my roommates in college).
4. I liked the mother's letter a lot, but I liked even more how Raskolnikov broke it down and read between the lines in Chapter 4. When he starts using some of the more reprehensible characters as metaphors for future behaviors he observed (such as when he referred to the fat dandy in Chapter 4 as Svidrigailov, and resigned the drunk Lydia character to the Darya Frantsovnas of the world), I was both pleased with myself for knowing who the hell is who in this darn novel, and with FD For adding that extra layer. Remember: Sonia's life is no worse than a life with Mr. Luzhin.
5. Connecting Marmeladov's daughter with Raskolnikov's sister was pretty clever.
6. "Anyway, he must decide on something, or else... "Or throw up life altogether!"" (44, in my book). I think about this sentiment quite a bit. I think we all do.
7. Who hasn't drank a little too much vodka and fell a sleep in a bush for a while? I hope this isn't the reason why FD is considered great! If this is the criteria for greatness, I know a few self-proclaimed poets - myself included - from college that should be Literary Gods by now.
8. The dream REALLY upset me. I had my hand over my heart half the time, and I even covered my eyes and peaked at the page once or twice. There's a few things in this world that REALLY bug me, and animal cruelty is one of them. I won't ever lose this scene from my mind. Thanks a lot Dostoevsky! I'm sure the helpless horse is symbolic in it's inability to meet the impossible demands of it's owner, to the Russian poor, or some other such nonsense that we'll figure out in a few weeks.
9. I liked how he "looked back" at the choice to walk through the Hay Market at just the wrong (or right) moment. This practice of identifying turning points in a person's life (which I first considered after reading an excellent essay by Mark Twain, called "The Turning Point of My Life"), is one that I really enjoy, in any form.
10. Mark and Rob" Why do writers sometimes just give the first letter of a word, and then an underline follows it? E.G., He's from the Province of N _ (62, in my book). In "The Devil and Tom Walker", Tom says "The D_ take me, if I have made a farthing!" Hemingway also does this to aviod using the F word in A Farewell to Arms. I've always wanted to know this.
11. Great moments of suspense in the last chapter of Part 1. FD does an excellent job with the whole murder/robbery. Is anyone else guilty of wondering if by walking on a newly painted floor, Raskolnikov has left a trail right to his house? It may be a stretch, but I did go to the same school that boasts the teachings of Henry Lee.
Well, that's all for now. I hope this wasn't too much for you all to read. I'm going to go read Ford's Blog now, and wait for the rest!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wait for MF to catch up? "MF" this, bud! Still, as I only just finished Part One, I suppose I have little to say, especially since Ford's blog appeared on Wednesday. (Show off!)
(BTW, weren't two young intellectual sycophants supposed to comment also? I figured I'd be the fourth person to respond to your blog.)
Anyway, I'm impressed with your comments. I agree with your observation about Dostoevsky's beginning. He pulled me right in with Raskolnikov's musings on his impending crime on page one. Actually, I half-thought he was going to commit the murder right there, instead of eighty pages later.
Dickensian is a good way to describe the novel. I was thinking of Dickens (heh, heh...Dickens!) as I read, too. I thought the lustful "gentleman" from whom Raskolnikov rescues the drunk girl was a great touch, especially Raskolnikov's "race" to get to the girl before he did. Not to mention Raskolnikov's about-face after the cop escorts the drunk girl (wow, I'm reminded more and more of that red-headed girl from NB ... what's her name again?) to safety. Pretty cool.
I agree with MB about Raskolnikov's interpretation of the mother's letter. I took the mother at face value -- I guess I just wasn't paying close enough attention -- and was surprised at Raskolnikov for his immediate dismissal of Luzhin. I also loved the Sonia-Dounia connection. Brilliant juxtaposition!
The "passing out in a bush" scene lacked credibility with me because it did not jibe with my own experiences. After all, when he wakes up, he's not soaked in his own urine. Like you, the horse-beating dream was disturbing to me. I like your interpretation, too, except that I would add the enjoyment felt by the aristocracy (or bourgeosie) at the degradation of the proletariat, the enjoyment those in power feel when unleashing their destructive impulses on those unable to defend themselves, wanton destruction, and an owner's right to dispose with "his property" in any way he sees fit, regardless of the rights of said property.
I was thinking also of the newly-painted floor, but because the detail seemed glossed in the text, I tossed the idea aside. You might be right, though; perhaps it leads the cops to his house.
I don't know why authors do that with place-names and other info. Poe does it. So does Flaubert. Mary Shelley, too, esp. in regards to dates. Anyway, it might be a literary convention of the time. Might have something to do with not wanting to establish specificity in setting or something like that. Kind of like our writers always use "555" as a phone number prefix. (Maybe not for the same reason, but something similar.)
I really like your allusion to Dickens. For whatever reason, I have always thought of the Russian Realists (Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Checkov) and the Victorians as mutually exclusive. It would be interesting to do a comparative study of Dickens and Dostoevsky and show how the two authors (and their respective movements) are one and the same. Or, conversely, figure out what it is exactly that distinguishes them.
You both made note of the connection between Sonya and Dunya and the similar sacrifices they make for their families. I made a little note of that, too, and maybe it's worth discussing in more detail.
Let's assume that it's not a flippant gesture on the part of Dostoevsky and that it has some greater meaning or significance. If so, what? I'll give an obvious, trite answer, but leave other possibilities unstated for now lest discussion begin and end with me: it's simply a common depiction of women as objects and property.
Post a Comment