Hugh’s Comments (group member since Mar 10, 2009)

Hugh’s comments from the fiction files redux group.

I was hoping to like this book more -- and am definitely going to check out the short stories. I've read other works of science fiction or mystery that have a great concept but feel overstuffed with details.

That said, I know some folks really enjoy things like the genealogical details that were provided at length. But where I had to put the book down before proceeding was this particular passage:

They cooked hamburger sandwiches for themselves and one for Victor Colon. They had found loaves of multigrain bread, hamburger meat, and bags of French fries in the freezer, and had put the meat and bread in the lower part of the refrigerator to thaw. Now, they fried the meat and the potatoes in cast-iron pans on the stove. There was salt and pepper, mustard and catsup, and a pickle relish in the cupboard but, of course, no fresh vegetables. At some point were were going to have to find a supermarket.

I have enjoyed philosophical asides in some novels and have even reread the entire Eschaton scene in Infinite Jest every time I've reread the book, but this had to be the first time I've paused for a defrosting of meat. Passages like this and the double-digit number of times we were told that Shori had no memory, detracted from my deeper fascination with the concept she was working with.

Elizabeth: have you finished? Don't want to post any spoilers.

Thanks for the recommendation on the short story collection. I'm wondering if I might like her work better in a more condensed, short story form. (There seems to be a lot of filler in this book, not least the memory thing... but that's another topic.) I'm fascinated by the issues of race in this relative to the Ina/human dynamic -- and there's some pretty on-the-nose comparisons during the trial when Shori is told: "You, more than anyone, must show that you can follow our ways. You must not give the people who have decided to be your enemies any advantage. You must seem more Ina than they."

Patty: Would love to hear your thoughts on how this fits into Butler's other work (well, and what you thought of it.)

Elizabeth: You bring up and interesting point of the concept of Reincarnation, being em-bodied without recalling a previous life.

Elizabeth and Dan: Have either of you read any other Octavia Butler? I'm curious how this stacks up with her other novels, since it seems a little less science fiction and more horror/fantasy?

Dan,

I'm about halfway through and must admit the amnesia thing has worn a bit thin for me. She places so much weight on it, having to explain every fact ("she only knew that because Wright had told her")... I'm hoping there is a big payoff.

What I'm finding fascinating is how the author is purposely playing with the taboo here, making her so physically young but sexually active. Same goes for this sense of the eroticism (fetishism?) of the bite.

I need to get through the rest to fairly speak to what seem like significant signs and metaphors: the skewed familial connections, the amnesia, the dependencies (they call them "addictions"). I get the sense she is making social commentary here but at present I'm too dense to get it.

I'm glad you suggested this though. I've not read any of her work before and am intrigued by her world-building.

I was a bit apprehensive in Chapter One. The vague details of her amnesia kept me at arms length; but the unique details in Chapter Two have definitely drawn me in. I don't normally react chapter by chapter but so much rides on this style.

Thank you for the heads up. I think I'll give it a shot.

Patty, I'm open to the discussions mentioned though will admit I probably lack a syllabi gene, so I'll defer to you and others. Your mention of garbage got me thinking of Gaddis who, like Pynchon I think, is fascinated by the idea of entropy. (I could swear there's some wordplay on that in the Recognitions, or maybe it was in JR?)

Given Gaddis' encyclopedic style I can think of plenty of topics from Law (and the legal profession) to Capitalism (perhaps to narrow that down Art vs. Commerce (in the U.S.?))... I don't know if his prose style would fit as a subject of inquiry. (One of the running jokes in The Recognitions is that "the author" is working on a novel that is like Faulkner's in style but "not as good"... And certainly JR's use of all dialog (save for a few gorgeous detours into more narrative prose) definitely recalls some of Faulkner's best.

More of a ramble than I intended but yeah, still interested.

Sounds intriguing, Patty. And certainly amenable to one of my favorites, dear Dostoevsky. ( Maybe William Gaddis, too?)

For those of you who may find yourself wandering before you get to Part Six, let me just say it's the most (to use a cinematic cliché) action-packed in the book and absolutely fascinating....

The detective, Porfiry Petrovich, does indeed turn out to be a bit of a Columbo character (for those of you old enough to remember that great TV show). His confrontation with Raskolnikov is wonderfully orchestrated and contains this bit:

"It's good that you only killed a little old woman. If you'd come up with a different theory, you might have done something a hundred million times more hideous! Maybe you should still thank God; how do you know, maybe God is saving you for something. Be of great heart and fear less. Have you turned coward before the great fulfillment you now face? No, it's a shameful thing to turn coward here. Since you've taken such a step, stand firm now. It's a matter of justice, So, go and do what justice demands. I know you don't believe it, but by God, life will carry. And then you'll get to like it. All you need is air now -- air, air!"

and then...
"You won't know an hour beforehand that you're gong to come and confess your guilt. And I'm even sure you'll 'decide to embrace suffering'; you won't take my word for it now, but you'll come round to it yourself. Because suffering Rodion Romanych, is a great thing; don't look at me, fat as I am, that's no matter, but I do know - don't laught at this - that there is an idea in suffering. Mikolka is right. No, you won't run away, Rodion Romanych."

At this point, these posts may be more like little messages in a bottle, but I love lines like:

"There's nothing in the world more difficult than candor and nothing easier than flattery."

I hear you, Robert. It's one of the marvelous thing about this book... the unravelling of all of his "motives."

Right up the very end (I don't think this is a spoiler) Raskolnikov is still not "getting it". D. writes:

Still another question remained insoluble for him: why had they all come to love Sonya so much? She had not tried to win them over, they met her only rarely, at work now and then...

In the end (and this probably requires a SPOILER ALERT):

However, that evening he could not think long or continuously of anything, could not concentrate his mind on anything; besides, he would have been unable to resolve anything consciously just then; he could only feel. Instead of dialectics, there was life, and something completely different had to work itself out in his consciousness.

Love that last bit: and something completely different had to work itself out in his consciousness.

I'm torn... I don't want to be one of those people who takes over the conversation, but at the same time if there are folks who are thinking about taking on Crime and Punishment, I gotta tell you: I enjoyed this novel far more than I thought I would and I had pretty high expectations.

Part Six is filled with so many twists and turns and built up tension that I'm a bit challenged in speaking to them without dropping a spoiler.

There's the return of (and confrontation with) Porfiry Petrovich. And then Svidrigailov... in the true spirit of Dostoevskian doubling he provides a brilliant counterpoint to Raskolnikov. (Would love to hear what you think of his "going to America.")

And the doubling goes even deeper when Sonya herself has the two crosses: one of cypress, the other of brass.

Oh, and we could talk about the existential insights too! But enough of my thoughts...

Before the Internet, before Comment sections were filled with "trolls" and "flamers", we had passages like the three-page paragraph in Chapter II of Part 5.

It's just a part of an extraordinary two chapter scene in Katerina Ivanovna's in which there are key charges and counter-charges leveled against various nasty characters. Here's just a small part of the sniping and gossip that tumbles across these pages:

At the same moment, Amalia Ivanovna, now utterly offended because she had not taken the least part in the entire conversation and no one would even listen to her, suddenly risked a last attempt and, with concealed anguish, ventured to offer Katerina Ivanovna an extremely sensible and profound observation about the necessity, in the future institute, of paying special attention to the girls' clean linen (die Wasche) and "of making sure dere iss vun such good lady" (die Dame) "who should look vell after the linen," and second, "that all the girls mussn't sneak any novel by night to read." Katerina Ivanovna, who was really upset and very tired, and was already thoroughly sick of the memorial meal, immediately "snapped" at Amalia Ivanovna that she was "pouring out drivel" and understood nothing.

I'm exhausted and I'm not even at the party. But don't those charges and counter charges sound like what you'd stumble upon in some angry online exchange?

Now, that we're farther into the book -- and Nikita has weighed in on that section where D. describes people crowding the open door of the dying man to watch -- I wanted to revisit a question I posed earlier (in a different context). How much does Crime and Punishment still work as a "contemporary novel" for you? Does it feel dated and mannered ("Oh, those wacky, overwrought 19th century folks from St. Petersburg?") or does its observations on human psychology and behavior still carry some relevance for you?

Brian: I hope you weren't reading and driving. Seriously though, hope you're in full recovery and looking forward to your future insights.

Nikita: I completely agree. That scene is amazing with the crowd at the door and Sonya walking up in her "work attire". D. has such an insightful way of showing how crowds react to these horrible situations.

The Pevear/Volokhonsy translation I have reads: "The tenants, one by one, squeezed back through the door, with that strange feeling of inner satisfaction which can always be observed, even in those who are near and sea, when a sudden disaster befalls their neighbor and which is to be found in all men, without exception, however sincere their feelings of sympathy and commiseration."

The German word "schadenfreude" is probably a bit to strong for what Dostoevsky is describing but he definitely feels the crowd is getting some satisfaction out of this tragedy.

(And getting back to the "three temptations of Sonya", I was also struck by his immediate call, after she had rebuffed his temptations, for her to read the Gospel story of Lazarus, the dead man brought back to life... and then a few pages later when he tells her: "I have chosen you." He alternates between tormenting her an dtreating her as if she was his salvation, his deliverance.)

Anyone else find the scene in Part Four, when Raskolnikov comes to Sonya, more than a little creepy?

I was thinking about a scene that appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and is a one line statement in Mark) when Jesus is tempted by the Devil... He is tempted three times.

And in Chapter IV of Part 4, Ras. harshly challenges Sonya in three ways. The first is asking her outright why, given her life, she doesn't just jump in the river. (One of the temptations of Christ is that he should throw himself off a cliff and see if angels catch him.) "It would be more just, a thousand times more just and reasonable to jump headfirst into the water and end it at once!"

He also challenges her to acknowledge the existence of God: "But maybe there isn't any God."

Having challenged that existence, he then tests her faith: "So you pray very much to God, Sonya?" he asked her...
"And what does God do for you in return?" he asked, testing her further.

Immediately after this Raskolnikov lurches for the Bible to discuss the story of Lazarus, but I wonder if these first three "temptations" (or as the text calls them "tests") are Raskolnikov's way of "proving" her purity.

João: so I have to ask -- how old were you? (I'm imagining you were quite young (only because I imagine you reading before you were walking.))

And I agree completely about D. being accessible (and that being a problem for some). I'm currently reading a biography of Jack London who was vilified for not being part of the intelligentsia of the time and more a writer of "adventure stories". Dostoevsky has a way of evoking gritty environments that may seem a bit overwrought with melodrama (and to be honest, sometimes are) but suit the lives these people are living in rooms that are confused with closets as underage prostitutes try to bring in money for their childlike parents (one of whom is trampled by a horse and carriage!)

And Brian: two hands, my friend... one for the vodka, the other for Crime and Punishment. Think of it as a Russian holiday.