Different perspectives or ways to read the work: lenses.
Reader response lens: how was it for me, the reader
Moralistic/religious lens.
It’s hard not to bring yourself into the work.
Close reading: using the work itself to inform your reading of it. The new and most accurate lens, they say. This is how we study the Bible these days, an exegetical approach. In previous centuries they interpreted the Bible differently.
This work fits into so many categories: Russian literature, Western canon, psycho-drama, political statements, new philosophies: nihilism
How to approach the plot
Imagine a circle with Raskulnakov in the center, going out in spokes:
- Sonia
- Razumíkhin
- Svidrigáylov (foil, double)
Character traits of Rask:
- impulsively generous
- bright but didn’t finish (sign of class despite not finishing)
- lazy (Sasha always says he’s lazy)
- always in a hurry but isn’t getting anything done
- he’s always so torn
Techniques:
Division/schism: show a character in light of another one that is his double or counterpoint.
Is he redeemed at the end, or merely redeemable? Last few pages show hope, if mechanical, as he turns to the NT that Sonia provides.
Sonia
From R’s perspective, they are similar—they both destroyed someone, in her case, herself. She’s prostituted herself, going against moral code. Yet they are both the great ones, testing to see if this theory was true.
But he’s prideful and selfish, where she is humble and practical.
Over time R’s swings between wanting to confess and self-preservation became more violent. By the end he is creating opportunities to confess.
Possible outcomes when dealing with his sin: sink into depravity (seared conscience), suicide, or go mad (Mr. Marmaledov). Sonia offers 4th option: redemption.
The Murder
Based on a theory that some people are extra-ordinary, perhaps have to do something morally wrong to get to the place of greatness. Before the murder thinking mostly academic and some moral struggle. But after the murder it was so moral, haunting his conscious. Did he do it for money? He never used the money.
For him (utlitarianism), the end justifies the means, that she (he calls her a louse) would be better off dead, and the money given to the poor. First you have to de-humanize a person before you can justify killing them. (cf, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl where slaves were de-humanized by slave owners).