The Amazingly Specific Insults of Dmitri Prokovich Razumihin

This blog has been known to take enjoyment in the antiquated put-downs of classic literature (cf. “Son of a Rum Puncheon!”)…but no one matches Razumihin in the department of withering zingers.  What he lacks in brevity he makes up for in amazing specificity.  Here’s how he lays it on Raskolnikov

You are made of spermaceti ointment and you’ve lymph in your veins instead of blood.

You can’t take that back.  I probably would have just shrieked “Dickhead!!!” and started crying out of frustration.

And get your head out of the gutter it’s an ointment based on the “wax present in the head cavities of the sperm whale” (Wikipedia).  Inappropriate.

I just finished part two.  We had a return visit from Marmeladov.  My earlier assumption was that Marmeladov’s character was intended to showcase Raskolnikov’s humanity…showing the duality residing in him — at once murderer and caring individual.  In this scene Marmeladov wakes Raskolnikov from his post-murder depression/stupor/fugue state…and I guess he gives Raskolnikov another opportunity to show his better self, but I’m left questioning the full import of his character’s role.  I’m sure someone’s written about it, but I”m a glass of wine into the evening and starting to feel tired and “not carey”.

Also…maybe I’m too pedantic in my reading, but there seem to be a lot conveniences in the plotting of this book…every time this guy leaves a building he runs into another of the major characters.  When I walk around the city I almost never see anyone I know, let alone Marmeladov.

Now that Raskolnikov’s family has come for a visit, I think the real fun is going to start (and by fun I mean despair that is slightly less stultifying).

Jon

Obsession

I can’t stop being fixated by the size of Raskolnikov’s room!  We get this description:

Mistrustfully and with an affectation of being alarmed and almost affronted, he [Luzhin] scanned Raskolnikov’s low and narrow “cabin.”

Sounds tiny, right?  But then by my count there are five people in the room: Raskolnikov (in bed), Razumihin, Zossimov, Luzhin, and (I think, in the corner) Nastasya.  And three of them (Razumihin, Zossimov and Luzhin) are sitting–that means three sitting platforms in addition to the bed…it’s now sounding practically palatial.  But remember he can reach the door from his room.  Maybe it’s some kind psychadelic “breathing” room, expanding and contracting, expanding and contracting.

Or it’s just a normal room that I can’t picture well.  I don’t have a good imagination.

I still don’t understand what puts Raskolnikov in such a snit about Luzhin.  He seems like an okay guy to me…but he can’t do anything right in the eyes of Raskolnikov.

But then again Raskolnikov murdered an old lady, so maybe we shouldn’t trust his emotional intelligence.

Fun fact!  We learn here (Part II, Chapter V) what Raskolnikov’s first name is…Rodion.  So next time you play Trivial Pursuit and the answer is “Raskolnikov” you can say “Rodion Raskolnikov” or even “Rodion Romanovich Roskolnikov” or if you’re feeling cool “R Cubed” and when your opponents look confused you can say with a withering look of disbelief “uh…Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, you know the most famous anti-hero of literature.”  However you say it what you’ll be saying is “I’ve read Crime and Punishment” (we won’t tell them about your lack of blog posts).

Well either “I’ve read Crime and Punishment” or “I’m a pedantic ass.”

Potato, Potato.

Jon

Guilt By Association

Whoa…time to blow the cobwebs off my copy of C&P.  This weekend I have watched two movies (Arbitrage and Rope) where the protagonist(s) is the purveyor of a crime.  As I watched Richard Gere fleece Graydon Carter and Farley Granger sweat under the disappointed moue of Jimmy Stewart I realized I’d been neglecting the goings-on of that other protagonistic criminal, Roskolnikov, and decided to find my copy of the book.

One quick side note about Rope….John Dall looks a lot like the actor Ben Affleck.  I found it distracting.  I just kept thinking “Wow, Ben Affleck could play John Dall in the The John Dall Story!”

One more side note about Rope…Constance Collier and Cedric Hardwicke walk away with that film…so good.

But I digress about Rope…back to books.  Much of section two has focused largely on Roskolnikov in bed.  So far we’ve had about forty solid pages of hallucinatory lying about.  My working hypothesis is that this is where Dostoevsky metes out Punishment to the reader (Our crime?  Undisclosed, but I’m betting it’s “hope”).  But things have started to pick up now that Roskolnikov’s friend (?) Razumihin (I know I haven’t read this book for a while…but where did this character come from??) recounts the latest developments in “The Case of the Murdered Pawnbroker” to Roskolnikov as he lolls.

In this recounting we learn that the head of the Investigation Department is Porfiry Petrovich.  This was also the first name and patronymic of the protagonist of a series of mysteries I read in high school Stuart M. Kaminsky‘s Rostnikov novels (well worth a read!–I’m thinking I’ll re-familiarize myself with those soon)…so that was a pleasant literary daisy chain! (for me…possibly boring for you).

A tall dark stranger just entered the text when I stopped reading this afternoon…so I’m thinking (and, for the love of goodness, hoping) that the action is going to pick up.  I’ll keep you posted.

Jon

 

Demoted To A Conceit

Well twin brother, I’ve decided to wait no longer for another post from you.  I get your “I’m too cool for school” message loud and clear.  You’re just not into Dostoevsky.  Roger that.

But I will not stop reading this book…I’ve decided instead to treat you as a sort of WordPress conceit…it’s kind of like when I watch Pretty Little Liars with my dog.  Sure she doesn’t really have any idea who A might be (how could she–she hasn’t seen the first season!!!) but it’s fun to pretend that someone else who cares about that show is watching it with me.

So that is how I shall continue reading (and posting — lucky you one reader in Ecuador!) as if you were posting responses, but without having to talk about boring things I’m not interested in.

So here is what I’m interested in…the layout of Raskonikov’s room  (apartment?).  Get a gander of this description:

His room was so small that he could undo the latch without leaving the bed.

Wowser!  I thought….that’s a tiny room!  How would that work?

So I drew a schematic:

Quite Small!

As you can see quite tiny!  As you can also see “straight lines” are not my forte.

I don’t know that that room is factually accurate (I didn’t consult the text while drawing).  But it is definitely a room from which a door could be unlatched from the bed-area.

Oh blog reader you might just be lucky enough to find more Raskolnikov inspired art on this blog yet!

Until next time,

Jon

What Would Peyton Randolph Do?

Only the history books know for sure.  But I feel pretty secure in stating that whatever the president of the first Continental Congress may have done throughout his lifetime, one thing I feel pretty secure in saying wasn’t in his wheelhouse was grisly axe murder.

Like most people on the 4th of July, no matter what I’m doing — enjoying a bratwurst, melting in the 100+ degree heat during local neighborhood festivities — my thoughts tend to drift towards how the Founding Fathers might react in similar situations — How much Benjamin Franklin would enjoy that particular Slip-N-Slide, how William Few and George Clymer would have dominated that volleyball tournament.

So as I lay down to read a few pages of our selected text before bed, my thoughts were drifting towards Jacob Broom and Jared Ingersoll frolicking with sparklers.  Too soon those entertaining anachronisms were wiped clear from my mind. Eradicated from my imagination box,  as I entered into some of the most frightening pages of any book I’ve ever read.  Dostoevsky is very….descriptive.

So instead of dreams of Thomas Jefferson (remember I’m a bit of a Jefferson scholar, so those dreams are firmly rooted in the historical record) and John Dickinson, instead I had nightmares about poor Lizaveta (poor, poor Lizaveta). 

As I start Part II, I am interested to see how Roskolnikov will get caught, but before that happens I have a feeling we’re in for a lot of angst (his and ours).

Did the book play any part in your holiday festivities?  A Crime and Punishment-themed barbecue mayhaps?  Has it played a part in your summer at all? (n.b. It was still spring the last time we heard from you).

Happy (belated) Independence Day!

Jon

Dog and Pony Show

Well twin brother it’s been a while.  I think I wrote my last post right before I embarked on my travel to your nuptials…and now here we find ourselves almost a month later with nary a post published, with virtual cobwebs starting to obfuscate the pretty picture of books found in the banner of this blog.

My excuse is this:

That’s right…I’m blaming the puppy.  No one tells you when you get a puppy that you will find yourself with little to no time to concentrate on anything other than said puppy.  If I’m not looking for signs that she has to pee (and then cleaning up subsequent messes), I’m pulling shoes, iPhones, and pillows out of her mouth (or trying, “I am the Alpha!”).  Luckily tonight we took her for a long walk  that has sufficiently tired her out (doesn’t she look like an angel when she sleeps????) so she has removed herself to under the sofa, which mean I find myself with some time to write a quick post while she’s out for the count.

Because of said puppy I also haven’t read much further in C&P, but I’m hoping to work in some regular Dostoevsky time now that she’s a little more settled.  I just finished the chapter where young Roskolnikov witnesses the horse murder.  As I read it I could only imagine the term paper upon term paper that has probably been written on that scene.  Roskolnikov’s moral outrage over the horse killing in relationship to his actions later in the book (or at least the actions I’m surmising will happen later in the book).

Since so much has already probably been written about it, I’ll just add here that I am no fan of horse murder.  Not even a little.  I’m against any form of horse death imaginable.

Soooo….are you still reading the book?  No pressure.  Just, um, looking for someone to talk to about Roskolnikov and that horse and whatnot.

The puppy is emerging from under the couch…I must sign off.

Jon

Things Can Only Get Better From Here

….PSYCH!

Or so I imagine our friend, Fyodor shouting in the face of his unsuspecting reader.  After taking the reader away from the sad unicorn, Dostoevsky shines a little ray of hope into the story in Raskolnikov’s letter from his mother.  Or rather…Dostevsky SEEMINGLY shines a little ray of hope into the story.

In my reading of the letter it seemed like good news…all Sonia’s engaged, we’re out of penury, hope she’s not a bridezilla (but then you know Sonia!).  Ahh…a soupcon of relief!  But this New Yorker cartoon from two years ago (which I just read–don’t judge me!) should have primed me for disappointment.  I mean with a title like that…(like Crime and Punishment–not cheery concepts either one).

For in the next chapter Raskolnikov turns his unblinking eye of despair on the seemingly joyous news and quickly disabuses the reader of any hope for even the tiniest scrap of happiness in the next four hundred odd pages.  Raskolnikov’s skill as a sadness radar (and magnet?) is matched only by his adherence to the New Criticism (anachronism alert!)…for he close reads the hell out that missive and un-earths the grimy, forlorn subtext that, in fact, Sonia’s betrothed cares nothing for her and she has saddled herself (knowingly!) into an unloving marriage all for Roskolnikov.

So… cheery that.  Was I slow on the uptake…did you pick up the clues that this letter was, in fact, bad news?   Or did you have to wait for the next chapter (or this blog post?!–oops.  *Spoiler Alert*) to find out as well.

With all this cheeriness I suppose it’s easy to see why instead of reading on I’ve been watching reruns of The Vicar of Dibley (no unexpected subtext there–just pastoral hilarity!).

Well I’m excited to see how this book will get sadder…I’ll keep you posted!

Jon

 

The Unique Sadness of the Unicorn Man

That character that you (mis)translated as a unicorn, was in fact Marmeladov.  Don’t let his seemingly joyous sounding name fool you, for far from being a mythical, single-horned equine, he is instead, The Saddest Man In The World.

Your “unicorn” is an inveterate alcoholic, he’s drunk his family to penury–not once, but twice!  This has resulted in a daughter who has turned to prostitution and a wife whose love has evaporated.  Oh how I wish for a hovercraft sub-plot a la Back to the Future Part II (Or as I call it Just To The Future)!

I’ve spent some time pondering what role Marmeladov plays in the larger narrative and here’s what I’ve got as working hypotheses:

• Perspective Fairy:  Marmeladov is there to show us (and Raskolnikov) that things could be worse.  Sure you didn’t get as much money for your pretty trinket at the pawn shop, but at least you aren’t forcing your loved ones to debase themselves for a kopek or two.
• Humanity Mirror:  Marmeladov shows us that Raskolnikov is a good person…sure he’s thinking about murder via italicized adjectival nouns, but he’s not all bad.  He gives some of his much needed lucre to the Marmeladovs in their time of need.
• Inveterate One-Upper:  We’ve all been there…you’re telling the story of your bad day and there’s that guy at the bar who, of course, has had it worse.  “Oh you had three meetings today, boo hoo.  I was  in meetings from 7AM til 8PM…and my daughter’s a prostitute because of me.”  “You‘ve got a busy weekend?!  I have to sit here all day and drink until my wife’s last ounce of love is completely gone…that’s what I’d call busy!”

…and I think he’s a symbol of purity and grace.

I hope your reading has more unicorns and hovercrafts…they sure do brighten up this book!

Jon

Translation? Uhh…Who Said Anything About Translation

Wait a second…we’re reading this book in translation. Ok, had I known that I have a feeling I would be quite a bit further along. I am two chapters in, but those two chapters were the end result of about 15 hours of reading. (It is ssslllooowww going with Dostoevsky in one hand and my Russian to English Dictionary in the other.)

I think my favorite part so far is when Raskolnikov meets a gregarious, enchanted unicorn bellied up to the bar in Chapter 2. (Did I mention, when I get tired of translating I just start making stuff up? That’ll be important to know.) All I can say is that I don’t know what that unicorn did, but he sure did seem to make his unicorn wife angry. I am guessing he stole her unicorn hovercraft.

In reality, I am reading the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translation. I mean really, Constance Gardner is so 1991. (This version published in 1992.) Sorry, to miss out the fun of reading the Gardner version. When you quote long passages in formal mid-century English, I will let you know what the jazzed-up 90s version is like. It’s kind of like you’re listening to Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” and I am listening to Natalie Cole’s “Unforgettable.” The same story with a different flavor.

So, two chapters in: I am intrigued. Looking forward to reading Chapter 3.

Justin

P.S. I am the only one who wishes there were unicorns in this book? Well, unicorns and hovercrafts.

Lost In Translation

Hello dear reading twin!

We’ve both been lax in our reading/posting and I’m sure we’re both feeling guilty about it…so why not mire ourselves in that classic of guilt and regret Crime and Punishment.  I don’t know a lot about this book (other than the fact that it’s a “classic”) but I do slightly remember the Made For TV Movie starring Patrick Dempsey and Julie Delpy and if I recall correctly anguished delinquency was running amok (okay I really only remember Patrick Dempsey’s sad eyes–they looked very regretful).

I noticed as I started reading yesterday that my copy of the book is translated into English by Constance Garnett and it reminded me a quotation regarding this very translator that I came across years ago (like 5 years ago) and I’ve always found it amusing.  It comes from Joseph Brodsky:

“The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren’t reading the prose of either one. They’re reading Constance Garnett.”

And just as proof that I didn’t make this up–here’s a real-life quotation of it in the New Yorker.

So how much actual Dostoevsky I might be getting is up for debate, but I’ll take what I can get.  Are you reading the same translation?  It might be fun to compare how the translations match up (and when I say it will be fun I mean “fun for reading dorks like twins who blog about what their reading” as opposed to “fun” fun.)

But it could also be fun to read the same translation (see caveat above).

Anyway we read it it will be fun, fun fun!  FUN!!!

…and that’s probably the last bright post we’ll see while reading this book.  The first chapter opens up mighty gloomy and if Patrick Dempsey’s sad eyes were a harbinger of things to come, this is going to be an examination of misery to last us hundreds and hundreds of pages .

I’m looking forward to it!

Jon