|
I finished the book last night. An interesting observation is that we seem to have similar opinions when typically our opinions are more varied and extreme. I alternated between like and dislike. Razumov's histrionics were a real slog, but they would be followed by periods of suspenseful, fast-paced text. The book turned for me at 50% when the revolutionary characters were added to liven up the plot. In the end I'm glad I read it. It's clearly not his greatest work so I will give some of his other books a try someday.
One of the reasons I nominated the book was because I am interested to understand the Zeitgeist of the early 20th-century leading up to World War I and the Russian Revolution. The book accomplished that for me. Conrad believed in the early 20s that his book became irrelevant after the Russian Revolution occurred. I do wonder what he would think now in the context of Russian & world history 100 years later. Here we are new readers still discussing it! I also wonder if we in the Western world today are unable to fully understand the title or have different expectations of its portrayal. What was the true meaning of Western? Clearly the definition of liberty was different between European democracy and the Russian revolutionary ideas. But perhaps our own notions of freedom now make it difficult to understand Western freedoms then?
I think Conrad was balanced in his critique of both the Russian autocracy and the revolutionists - a difficult task considering his personal history. I didn't like Razumov in the beginning, especially after his violent beating of Ziemianitch. However I strongly felt the helplessness at the fate of his situation (damned if you do or don't) and the paranoia of being watched even though he was a conservative. In his world benign associations and patriotic actions can be made subversive and turned against you to suit the government's purposes. Even your thoughts don't feel like your own. Mikulin takes advantage of this fear to recruit Razumov as a political spy. I liked Razumov better in the second half of the book as he grappled with being thrust into this dissembling role. I also liked how Razumov transitioned from the betrayer to the betrayed by his own self-remorse and feelings of love for Miss Haldin, the crime and the punishment playing out.
To add to issybird's comments about the female revolutionists, I read that this was the first book that Conrad wrote that had strong female characters. He also included them in future books. Previously his works were thought of as books for men and didn't have popular, mass appeal to women.
None of us seem enthused about his narration choice. Perhaps because it was too inconsistent. Conrad abandons it at convenience and switches into third person omniscient. The Professor of Languages knows too much about other characters. He starts out detached providing events translated from Razumov's journal, and then he becomes more involved by witnessing events from his point of view. He also developed sympathetic affections for Miss Haldin.
I read that to complete the book was a complex task. He worked on it for two years while writing other books at the same time. He first produced the book in longhand, then pages were typed up, and then he corrected them by hand. These stages took place simultaneously. Even after that he made huge cuts and changes for serialization. The English and American editions also contain differences. I also read that he wanted to call the book Razumov, but he was forced to choose a different title after Gertrude Atherton published a book called Rezanov in 1906.
Certainly reading an annotated edition enhanced my likability of the book. I wish that I was familiar with Crime and Punishment to understand those parallels better.
|