Friends, I apologize for not posting a blog last week, it was inexcusable. The good news is that I am now reading "Crime and Punishment" and am half-way through the book. I also happened to notice a couple of similarities between the murder by Raskolnikov of a pawnbroker and the murder mystery in which Dmitry Fyodorovich now finds himself. For starters, Dmitry was seriously contemplating suicide shortly before being found by the police; in "C&P" a painter who is wrongly accused of the pawnbroker's murder is found preparing to hang himself before being apprehended by the police. I wonder if this is Dostoevsky's way of hinting to his fans that Dmitry is not the killer?
Returning to my theory that Smerdyakov may be the killer, I would like to point out that Dr. Varvinsky mentioned that Smerdyakov's fit is lasting much longer than most epileptic episodes (587). This increases my suspicion that he is faking to avoid being accused of the murder. Also, in "C&P" Raskalnikov suffered a long series of fainting spells while trying to process the reality that he had actually murdered another human being.I believe that Smerdyakov's "fit" may be a genuine physical response to his having killed Fyodor and that the reason it appears so long to the Doctor is that his previous one was a fake; the doctor of course puts the chronology of the fake fit and that of the real one together!
Now, I turn your attention to the public procurator Ippolit Kirillovich. It is interesting that Dostoevsky puts his age at 35 - the very same age as Porfiry, the magistrate who engages Raskalnikov in a game of wits! This may be a deliberate comparison, or else Dostoevsky simply likes his sleuths to be middle-aged. His mind, we are told, is "very solid," and he possesses "a special knowledge of the human soul, a special gift for the analysis of the criminal and of his crime." (581) It is interesting that Dostoevsky describes this special analytical power as "artistic" because John Douglas, the former head of the FBI's profiling unit - whose job is remarkably similar to Kirillovich's - in his book "Mindhunter", more than once compared forensic profiling to the ability of an art appreciator to step into the mind of a painter and feel empathy with how he felt applying his brush to canvas. This is a clear example of hoe Dostoevsky was both a competent psychoanalyst and far ahead of his time in the field of studying the human mind.
I appreciate your comparisons between the books because I have not read anything else of Dostoyevsky's. Your comments remind me of Shakespear and how he used the same ideas throughout his comedies. I can see how your theory about Smerdyakov would work. I have my doubts that the epileptic fit is real, he may be trying to hard to make it seem real. Or as you say part of it could be real while the rest was fake. Kirillovich didn't stand out to me much, it might have been that I confused when he was talking and when Nikolay was talking. The inspector seemed to do a lot more than the procurator, at least to me.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it was the procurator and not the investigator who noticed Dmitry's mistake about the door being closed? (page 624)
DeleteThose are some very interesting comparissons and yes, I too now believe that the murderer was Smerdyakov! Dimitry cannot be the killer because even when Grushenka finally chooses him he begins to regret the blood on his hands which he identifies as Grigory's. Furthermore, if he was lying there is no reason he would go into such great detail of how he actually wanted to kill his father. He would most likely omit that portion and move on. You bring up a very important point when you notice that his episode lasts much longer than most cases. I am convinced that he is faking it. Although less grounded I also have some suspicions for the doctor. The doctor claims that Smerdyakov may not survive. Is Smerdyakov such a good actor or is the doctor in on it. (Just like in the book "And then there were none"). Furthemore, it is suprising that Smerdyakov would do it the same night Dimitry was found on the premises. At this point I wonder if he had been waiting for Dimitry all along of if this happened by chance.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason the doctor thinks S will die is because his fit appears to have lasted so long, but if the fit before the murder was fake and the fit after the murder was real, then the doctor is mistaken about the length of the fit. Regarding the coincidence of the fit, in "Crime and Punishment," Raskalnikov chooses the time of his murder because he overheard a conversation that his victim would be alone the next day. It may be that Smerdyakov heard something which convinced him that Dmitry would attempt to rob his father that very night and then decided to fake a fit at the same time.
DeleteI love the progress your argument has now made with the new parts that have been read. I would also like to add that the only other person who knew the signals to gain entrance to the house was Smerdyakov and could explain why the door was found open. However, I would like to know what your considerations of the empty envelope are because the thievery seems out of place if the murderer is Smerdyakov. Also, you have made great connections between the two books and if you would like more i could point some out to you at another time.
ReplyDeleteVery cool blog! It has been too long since I have been able to pick up C&P. Of course, it might not be the healthiest piece of leisure reading as I'm heading into thesis...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm interested in your comparison between Ippolit Kirilovich and Porfiry. There seems to be a more distinct difference between the two. Ippolit strikes me as a bit of an idiot, who's been pigeon-holed and unfortunately knows it. Porfiry, although also a buffoon in his own right, seems rather more capable than our wonderful public procurator. Any thoughts?
Have you noticed how this new kid Kolya in Book 10 seems to resemble Raskalnikov. He is arrogant, a believer in the scientific skepticism of the west; and the way he commands the respect of his classmates reminds one of the ideal of the Napoleonic superman. It would be an interesting twist if Dostoevsky made this boy the killer of Fyodor Pavlovich - maybe he bought the toy cannon with the 3000 roubles he stole.
Delete