Profane Challenge and Orthodox Response in Dostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment'. (Studies in Slavic Literature and Poetics) by Janet G. Tucker

Abstract

MLR, 105.1, 2010 303 it, repeatedly stressing the poet's vitality and relevance to today's world. It is a crucial addition to the library of every Pushkin scholar. Queen Mary, University of London Muireann Maguire Profane Challenge and Orthodox Response inDostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment'. By Janet G. Tucker. (Studies in Slavic Literature and Poetics) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. 2008. 285 pp. 58. ISBN 978-90-420-2494-6. JanetG. Tucker's monograph contains one of themost extraordinary statements that the present reviewer has ever encountered in a scholarly work: 'Today's reader must bear inmind that newspapers were the CNN of Dostoevsky's day' (p. 17). Any book would struggle to recover from the inclusion of such 'insights', and Profane Challenge and Orthodox Response inDostoevsky's Crime and Punishment' fails to do so on almost every level. The premiss is that Dostoevskii wrote the novel to turn young radical readers away from atheist and nihilist philosophies, and back towards theirRussian religious roots, through evocations of traditional Russian culture and Orthodoxy. There are chapters on oral traditions, the religious symbolism of clothing, iconic imagery within the Petersburg setting, the parable of the prodigal son as a subtext for the novel, the dichotomy of Russia and the West, and a reconsideration of the Epilogue as offering a dual resolution to that aspect of the novel. The approach is dubious for two reasons. Firstly, the very idea of a 'target reader' whom Dostoevskii 'considered it most important to reach' (pp. 14-15) involves a naive appeal to authorial intention, and denies the reader anything other than a passive role (one need think only of Pisarev's interpretation of the novel to see the flaws in this conception). Secondly, the very fixed and dogmatic form of religious faithwhich Tucker ascribes toDostoevskii is closer to theRussian Messianism expressed primarily in the non-fictional forum ofDiary of a Writer in the 1870s than to themore moderate and nuanced approach we see in his fiction, particularly in the 1860s. Tucker's analysis isgenerally thin and unconvincing. There is a tendency to con flatedifferent issues; for example, folkloric and religious references are discussed without differentiation inChapter 1.Religious significance is ascribed to networks of symbolism on the basis of insufficient evidence; the assertion that references to stairs in Crime and Punishment denote the iconic ladder and its association with salvation and perdition (p. 104) seems to be based purely on the fact that many staircases appear in the novel. While one may relate this to the imposition of Western architecture on Russian culture, it ishard to see why it should be deemed a specifically Orthodox feature, particularly when, as Tucker admits, staircases also feature prominently in Stendhal's novels (p. 106). The attempt, of which this is part, to define a religious dimension to Petersburg (Chapter 3) generally has very little grounding in the text,while the idea of 'anti-iconic' images (p. 129) adds nothing to existing interpretations. Stylistically as well, the book is problematic; there is a great deal of repetition, particularly in the introductory sections, where 304 Reviews thewriting also frequently jumps from one topic to another without explaining the connections. There are also issues with referencing, from irrelevant footnotes, to over-reliance on unpublished essays by certain scholars, to an obsession with acknowledgements; while thanking those who have helped and supported one's research is natural, documenting every instance?sometimes more than once?of a book recommended, an offprint or reference provided, or invitation to give a seminar, seems excessive. The book is also poorly proofread. Finally, and ironically for a book which takes target audience as itspretext, it is difficult to see precisely atwhom it is aimed. The blurb suggests that it should be of special interest to secondary and university students', and one can only assume that the CNN analogy was intended for that audience, although most undergraduates aremore than capable of seeing through such comments. However, in its focus on Orthodox elements, the general appeal of the study is limited,with certain aspects of the novel receiving very little attention (Porfirii Petrovich isbarely mentioned). On the other hand, the basic level of much of the information?for...