Why does luzhin frame sonya

I think the contrast is not Luzhin's crime vs. Oct 25, AM. Christopher wrote: "Thanks for the summary and discussion openers. But I wonder if it is helpful to compare Luzhin and Raskolnikov as offenders rather than comparing an offender to a victim. It seems to me that the central issue in both cases is power over other people; the difference is one of degree. Both Luzhin and Raskolnikov "step over" the boundary of common decency in their disrespect for other people, and it's probably no accident that those people are women.

Sonya is the perfect "victim:" meek, humble, and forgiving. No wonder then that she becomes a target for Luzhin, or that R. Yes, but the other contrast is L. That he winds up humiliating himself instead of Sonya and R.

I mean, is it a transgression? It's a fraud, but it depends on society's outrage at theft. I'm going to slip you some money and then claim you took it. Then YOU will be disgraced. More like, perhaps murder is not wrong, it's only a convention. This I will prove by murdering someone. Oct 26, AM. Thomas wrote: "Lebeziatnikov is characterized by his ideology and comes off as slightly insufferable, in my opinion.

But he is paired with Luzhin, who eventually makes Lebeziatnikov look good by comparison I think Sonya plays a central role in this section just so that we can see her virtue held up as a standard to compare with the vices of the men around her, including the drunkard at the wake.

Lebeziatnikov is the least offensive, but is subject to some intense ridicule on the part of the author, not least for his views about cuckoldry and raising other people's children in a commune which reminded me a little of our discussion on Plato's Republic.

Luzhin's attempt to make Sonya beholden to him financially is sinister, especially the line, "for what better friend could you have at this moment? As ever with Dostoevsky's characters, though, not all is straightforward — Lebeziatnikov ends up as Sonya's saviour, and Svidrigailov comes to the rescue of Katerina Ivanovna's children. Oct 26, PM. Maybe Dostoevsky interjected his comments earlier on in the novel and I missed it. But this struck me as a bit odd and out of place. Dave wrote: "As ever with Dostoevsky's characters, though, not all is straightforward — Lebeziatnikov ends up as Sonya's saviour, and Svidrigailov comes to the rescue of Katerina Ivanovna's children.

Nothing is ever clear-cut. Sonya comes close to being a sort of moral center, but she is a prostitute. Lebeziatnikov comes across as a bit ridiculous but he does rescue Sonya. Luzhin is completely despicable. And Svidrigailov, who has admitted to beating his wife, behaves selflessly and with compassion--or so it seems right now. Oct 27, AM. Dave wrote: "I find it hard to trace any thread between this crime and R's murder, in fact it's still not clear to either R or the reader exactly why he killed — he's so confused that, at one point, R even manages to mistake hate for love!

The reader has to play psychologist. There are a lot of things I don't like about this book -- it's messy, the characters are inconsistent, the treatment of women is generally abhorrent -- but Dostoevsky draws me in with this psychological challenge. My take is that R, first of all, does not know who he is. Maybe his illness, which involves the frequent loss of consciousness, is a physical manifestation of this. One consequence of this identity crisis is that he has to "decide" who he is, and he ends up reeling in self-deception.

He makes himself a Napoleon, or a revolutionary, or some other heroic figure, rather than a down-and-out former law student rotting away in his garret. When he is on the bridge after his dream about Mikolka and the horse, he declares his freedom from all that.

With an act of violence he thinks he can simply walk away from the vulnerable little boy, his past, and everything he truly is. But with this act of violence he is lying to himself. His crime makes no sense in terms of his identity. He gives away the only money he has out of compassion for the Marmeladovs. He tries to rescue a drunken girl on the street. He's basically a nice guy! Why murder an old lady for half-baked ideological reasons, and an innocent Lizaveta for no reason at all except fear?

All of the justifications he comes up with in Book 5 Chapter 4 are lies, but they aren't random lies. But as Razumikhin said in his drunken speech earlier in the book, through lies may come the truth. Oct 28, PM. Luzhin - I didn't think he could be more despicable - but he has proved me wrong.

Get a predatory feeling when he appears on the page. R continues in my mind to justify the murders and it is becoming apparent that more than just Sonya knows, he is beginning to panic.

Svidrigailov, I was surprised at his generosity - everyone else at the death was in crisis but his intervention was so clear and calm and immediate, He gave practical help. Svidrigailov, Okay, I understand that he is supposed to be wicked, amoral etc, etc but he seems to me to be the more "humane" of any other character.

There is "good and bad" in everyone and his character seems to exemplify that human trait. I felt in a way he was also searching for redemption.

Oct 30, AM. Thomas wrote: "I think R's motive for the murders is not clear because R himself does not know. Reading modern psychologists like Daniel Kahneman the question of why we make decisions — or why we think we make decisions — is still a live issue. Even the question of whether a criminal has a mental disorder, and should therefore in some way be excused for their crime, is still very much a live issue in our society today. As for motivation, that's an interesting point about telling lies as a path to the truth and I hadn't made that connection to Razumikhin's earlier speech.

I also wonder if Dostoevsky is less interested in helping us solve this psychological puzzle, and more focused on the social and cultural angle, especially the impact of ideology and modern city life on vulnerable individuals. Tamara wrote: "Do we see that kind of authorial intrusion and direct social commentary in fiction nowadays? Dostoevsky does it quite cleverly by hiding his authorial intrusion under the cover of the third person objective voice. It reminds me a lot of Dickens.

I can't think of any good modern examples. Some writers like Kurt Vonnegut do use authorial intrusion, but more to blur our sense of reality and narrative than to pass comment. Dave wrote: "I also wonder if Dostoevsky is less interested in helping us solve this psychological puzzle, and more focused on the social and cultural angle, especially the impact of ideology and modern city life on vulnerable individuals.

Dire poverty, social circumstances, modern city life have an impact on vulnerable individuals. But the problem is those same circumstances impact different individuals differently. At this time, Luzhin leaves as quickly as possible, but someone throws a glass at him. The glass misses Luzhin, but it hits the landlady who in turn orders Katrina out of the house. Sonya could endure no more and "she gave way to hysteria" and hurried home.

Raskolnikov follows her wondering what she can say now about her predicament. From the wild, frantic scene in Chapter 2, we move to a quieter but more intense chapter where we see Luzhin's attempt to frame Sonya. His elaborate preparations to prove her to be a thief indicate his desperation, his vileness, and his amoral stance. His attempt to disgrace her is only so as to cast aspersion upon Raskolnikov, thereby hoping to prove to Dunya that he was right in his judgment about Raskolnikov's relationship to Sonya.

He is ultimately the most despicable person in the novel, and this scene proves that Raskolnikov was right in strongly opposing Dunya's marriage to him. Sonya leaves before the horror of the scene is over.

When she goes to her own room to escape Katerina's hysteria, Amalia Ivanovna's anger, and the general air of disillusionment, she intuitively knows that Raskolnikov will follow her.

Note that Raskolnikov watches Sonya's behavior and concludes that "she was capable of bearing everything. Meanwhile, he and Lebezyatnikov have been invited to the memorial dinner that Katerina Ivanovna, who lives in the same building, is holding for Marmeladov. Lebezyatnikov is a pompous fool, though Luzhin initially thought of him as a thoughtful young man who could help him navigate the new political waves of liberalism, radicalism, and nihilism washing over Russia.

Luzhin invites Sonya to his room and gives the embarrassed girl a ten-ruble note. Only Raskolnikov and the lowliest of the tenants, who behave rudely, attend the affair. Meanwhile, she appears increasingly unwell, coughing up blood during the meal.

She ends up fighting with her landlady while her guests egg her on. In the middle of the fight, Luzhin appears in the doorway and Katerina rushes to him. Luzhin insultingly brushes Katerina aside as she implores his protection from the landlady. Turning to Sonya, he accuses her of stealing a one-hundred-ruble note. Sonya denies the theft.

Katerina becomes incensed at the insult to her stepdaughter and starts raving against Luzhin and the landlady. Luzhin magnanimously agrees not to press charges. Raskolnikov then explains that Luzhin was probably trying to embarrass him about his association with Sonya.