Top positive review
5.0 out of 5 starsReading so exciting it knocks you out of your armchair!
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 20, 2022
"Out of Shakespeare, there is no more exciting reading than Dostoevsky" -- Virginia Woolf. I agree. I would like to add that, in all of Dostoevsky, there is no more exciting reading than "Crime and Punishment." Let me take that a step further. In "Crime and Punishment," there is no more exciting reading than Constance Garnett's translation of THE climactic exchange between murderer Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov and detective Porfiry Petrovitch:
" 'Then...who then...is the murderer?' he (Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov) asked in a breathless voice, unable to restrain himself.
" Porfiry Petrovitch sank back in his chair, as though he were amazed at the question. 'Who is the murderer?' he repeated, as though unable to believe his ears. 'Why, you, Rodion Romanovitch! You are the murderer,' he added, almost in a whisper, in a voice of genuine conviction. "
Wow! It just doesn't get any better, any more exciting, any more dramatic than that. Better than any other translator, Constance Garnett knocks the reader out of the armchair!! See for yourself. Compare. I could prove my point by quoting from another translation or two. But that would only bore you. And where's the fun in that? Not there. But here. Here in Chapter Two of Part Six of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" AS TRANSLATED BY CONSTANCE GARNETT.
I don't care whether a translation is true to the original or not. Truth has no place in the world of dramatic fiction. If a translation improves upon the original, so much the better. Shakespeare improved upon Plutarch, did he not? For those who insist on literal translation, I would advocate for interlinear translation, which would allow us Engloids to "read between the lines" of the Russian original.
I first read Constance Garnett's translation of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" when I was a student at Boston Latin School, fifty years ago. That translation seems to have gotten better with age. I would like to say the same about my self. But I won't. I can't. Why not? I'll tell you why not! I do not live "in the world of dramatic fiction." That's why not.
Cheers! Happy reading!!
P.S. For more on Dostoevsky and "Crime and Punishment," please see Joseph Frank's "Dostoevsky: the Miraculous Years, 1865-71," and Mikhail Bakhtin's "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics."
P.P.S. Eureka! I have found it!! By "it," I mean the "little fact" that Porfiry tells Raskolnikov he (Porfiry) has, but won't reveal. Part Six, Chapter Two. OK. So. Porfiry refuses to tell Raskolnikov what his "little fact" is. Very well. Be that way. I, by contrast, am not so coy. I will tell my fellow Amazonians what Porfiry's "little fact" is. Porfiry's "little fact" is Raskolnikov's phony "pledge" item: a tightly wrapped-and-tied piece of metal-and-wood that Raskolnikov had made at home. Part One, Chapter Six. Raskolnikov told the pawnbroker it was "a silver cigarette case," handed it to her, and then murdered her. Part One, Chapter Seven. It was found in her hand after the murder. Epilogue. So. There you have it. Porfiry's "little fact" you can "get your hands on." Part Six, Chapter Two. How about that! Bingo!! "Never mind all this psychology stuff," as Porfiry might put it. Raskolnikov's phony "pledge" item in the murdered pawnbroker's hand was physical evidence that placed Raskolnikov right there, right then: at the murder scene, at the time of the murder. Got 'im.
SECOND THOUGHTS FROM A DOUBTING THOMAS: We readers of Part One, Chapters Six and Seven, know all about the connection between Raskolnikov and the phony "pledge" item that was found in the pawnbroker's hand after the murder. Epilogue. My guess is that said "pledge" item was the "little fact" that Porfiry mentioned in Part Six, Chapter Two. Be that as it may, I ask myself whether Porfiry would have been able to link that "pledge" item to Raskolnikov -- without the benefit of Raskolnikov's confession!? We readers know that the "pledge" item found in the pawnbroker's hand after the murder was Raskolnikov's homemade decoy. Part One, Chapter Six. It was designed to -- and it did -- absorb all the attention of the pawnbroker. Part One, Chapter Seven. Diverted and pre-occupied with untying and unwrapping the "pledge" item, the pawnbroker became unaware of Raskolnikov as he opened his coat, pulled out his axe, and raised it over her head. Id. After the murder, the "pledge" item was found in the pawnbroker's hand. Epilogue. OK. So. There you have it. The "little fact." Part Six, Chapter Two. The thing "you can get your hands on." Id. That raises this question: Was there anything in, on, or about the "pledge" item that could connect it to Raskolnikov? I don't know the answer to that question. I think I'm so smart. And yet, I'm stumped. I really am. Assuming the "pledge" item found in the hand of the murdered pawnbroker came from the murderer, such a murderer must have known that the pawnbroker made loans secured by "pledge" items. Such knowledge, however, was common knowledge. Everybody knew. But not everybody would be allowed in by the pawnbroker. There were no signs of entry having been forced. So, the pawnbroker must have let the murderer in. Whom would she let in? Someone she knew. A known customer, quite likely. A known customer bearing a "pledge" item. Raskolnikov was the last customer to come forward and claim valuables pawned before the murder. So, in a narrow field of promising suspects (i.e., customers of the pawnbroker), Raskolnikov was the one who stood out. But still! Raskolnikov's delay in coming forward is psychological or behavioral evidence, not physical evidence, not a "thing" that you can "get your hands on." Part Six, Chapter Two. By contrast, the "pledge" item found in the hand of the murdered pawnbroker IS physical evidence. Epilogue. How could Porfiry connect Raskolnikov to that "pledge" item? That is the question. The easy answer is that Raskolnikov's confession made the connection. Epilogue. The more difficult question is this: What if Raskolnikov had not confessed? How could Porfiry have connected Raskolnikov to the "pledge" item found in the murdered pawnbroker's hand? By other physical evidence? By psychological and/or behavioral evidence? By something else? By some other way? I wonder.
I also wonder whether Porfiry's "little fact" might be the stone under which Raskolnikov hid what he had stolen from the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov told Zametov about the stone; Zametov told Porfiry; and Porfiry asked Raskolnikov to leave a note about the stone if he decided to commit suicide. Such a note would give Porfiry a "thing he could get his hands on," together with Raskolnikov's own handwriting connecting him to it.
Oy! All this writing, all this thinking, all this reading, all this . . . What, in the end, what does all this come down to? I am left guessing, wondering, thinking, writing. What if Porfiry's "little fact" was something other than the "pledge"? something other than the stone? something else entirely? something I did not write down? something that did not even occur to me? What then? Who knows? Who can say? I, for one, cannot say. For, I do not know. I want to know. But I do not know. I am left wondering. To this day, this hour, this moment, that is all I can do. I can only wonder. And THAT, to my way of thinking, is not a bad state of mind to be in. Not bad at all. Good, actually. Even wonderful. Yes. Of course. Now I see it clear and say it plain: It is wonderful to wonder!
PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPH: By continually referring to Alyona Ivanova not by her name, but as "the pawnbroker," I took away her identity, her personality, her life. I did not intend to do so. Nor would I want to do so. And yet, I did do so -- unintentionally, inadvertently, not knowing what I did. Unfortunately, this is one of those contexts in which a person is identified not by who they are (Alyona Ivanova) but by what they do (pawnbroker). So, please. Help me out here. Do me a favor. When you read "pawnbroker," think "Alyona Ivanova."
ULTIMATE PARAGRAPH: Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov deserved the death penalty. Alyona Ivanova and her step-sister Lizaveta did not. Their lives were infinitely more valuable and virtuous than his. They did not coldly and calculatedly butcher two innocent defenseless old ladies. He did. They did not deserve to die. He did.
