ahhh well "you should be posting here tonight" that's quite a broad topic, what to do with the one, hmm.
Let's see, to start I really like this book. I think the questions it raises about human nature and the human condition are interesting to ponder, and at times frustrating in their complexity. What makes this book so deep is the fact that each question it posses can be answered in various ways depending upon the context of the situation. This relates to what we discussed in class, and the other major questions of the novel such as, who among us is not a criminal?
Dostoyevsky's view of religion is also very interesting to explore. I have yet to decide what I think his view of it really is. It almost seems that he is aware of it, but rather than believing or not believing he operates outside of it completely. I thought the scene in tonights reading when Raskolnikov is summoned to the station and then thinks about praying, but then chides himself for it and basically says well it's too late for that, is really telling. Many people facing that situation would turn to prayer as an avenue for hope. It is in such situations especially that people turn to religion, and it is in that situation that Raskolnikov dismisses it. He rejects the solace that religion could potentially bring him, and faces the world in his own way.
The scene in the reading that was due today, where he has the dream about the horse being beaten to death was awful. Then when he is leaving Razumikhin the incident with the horse that causes him to recall that memory was interesting. I think that his aversion to the killing of the horse, yet the fact that he kills to women is further evidence of the striking divide in his character.
Finally I think that it is very strange/ significant that Raskolnikov is so destitue yet he seems compelled to give money away. He give money to Marmeladov, to the woman to get home, he wants to thrown the things he got from murdering the pawnowner in the water, and does throw away the money given to him by a woman after the repeat horse incident. He seems to have an aversion to recieveing money, and even when he should feel guilty about not putting the money towards bettering himself, like when the money comes from his mother's pension it is always the same story.
The previous part of the novel is quite different than this part. Part One is all about plotting and committing the crime. However, Part Two shows Raskolnikov's internal conflict/punishment after committing the double murder. We start to see Raskolnikov's paranoia immediately and he begins to really suffer. After waking up, "he examined himself hastily from head to foot, all his clothes" (p. 85). Then he starts cutting everything that has blood on it...he starts to get a little crazy paranoid. Raskolnikov wants to get rid of the guilt in his mind by getting rid of all the evidence and stolen goods. The reader can see his internal conflict when he questions his hiding spot, "what's the matter with me? Do I call that hidden? Is that the way to hide things?"
In this part, Razumikhin is introduced after Raskolnikov gravitated towards his house again..Razmuikhin acts a character foil to Raskolnikov. His character development shows him as a compassionate and good friend. He seems bright and lively. When he enters the Raskolnikov's apartment, he is cheerful, "you hear! He does know the merchant Vakhrushin! How can you say he's not in his right mind?" (p. 114). Whereas Raskolnikov always seems so down and mellow.
All the names in this novel are really hard to spell.
I believe that Raskolnikov regrets murdering those two women but at the same time I think he would do it again. It is obvious that all the work hiding evidence was not worth the pay-off which was nothing. He has also had to deal with a massive amount of paranoia. I think a lot of different things caused him to committ these crimes but that he took out his anger and frustration on the wrong people. He needs to go after those that put him in his destitute position, and the pawnbroker and her hard-working sister did not do that.
As julia said, the second part of the novel is much different from the first. However, immediately we see within the first chapter that Raskolnikov begins to second guess himself once again, when he at first takes the translation from Razumikhin, and then hands it back to him. We also see him practically going insane and completely paranoid over the crimes he's committed. RIght away, Raskolnikov's downward spiral begins. Although it seems that Dostoyevsky is portraying Razumikhin as a protagonist who is trying to aid Raskolnikov, I find him extremely annoying. He's always too pushy and seeming to but his head into things that clearly are none of his business. However, i do have to give him credit for painting the scene of the crime exactly, other than being able to pin the correct murderer. Finally, this second part of the novel is clearly showing the "punishment" side. We see the pain Raskolnikov is clearly enduring internally manifest itself externally, to the point where he begins to hallucinate and lose his mind. Clearly, the paranoia is building up so intensely that I dont think he will be able to endure for much longer. It seems that the pain will force him to confess.
Ok I guess there are no posts yet. I suppose I will just give my impression of this past section. Overall, I think that this has turned out to be kind of typical mystery/crime story. The events are too convenient for my taste. It seems like a story we have heard over and over again. The criminal becomes paranoid and nearly drives himself mad(only in this story Raskolnikov DOES drive himself crazy), thinks people are suspicious of him, assumes the worst, hears people talking about some sort of crime, automatically think they are talking about him, and so on and so forth. Although it is well written, the plot is somewhat predictable. Also, I have issues with some of the characters. I feel like a lot of characters were introduced in this section and the names got extremely confusing. Between the officer at the government building, and the officer who came to visit Raskolkinov while he was in his stupor, and his friend Razhumikin, I could barely keep them all straight. Also, Rasumikhin's entrance as an important character seemed abrupt to me. It seems as if the entire part of the section dealing with Raskolkinov's "sickness" was put there merely for convenience (again) and to advance the plot. It allowed the passage of several days and shortened the story by allowing the events to be summarized by either Razumikhin or Nastasia. My final complaint is with the way Dostoevsky narrates Raskolkinov's thoughts. I will say it is interesting to sort of have some comments from the author however I do not agree with his thoughts being constantly put in quotes. To me, its seems that there are two competing points of view. Though Dostoevsky narrates the story in the third person, the thoughts and comments are so intimate that it is similar to the kinds of things you might in narration from the first person point of view. It creates a weird 1st/3rd person narration for me. The only merit I see in this is that it allows the reader to really see Raskolkinov's moral dilemmas, self contradictions, and descent into madness.
Let me start by saying that I am completely in love with this book so far. Its complex questions about, well, crime and punishment are brilliantly written. I thoroughly enjoy, and at times relate to, Raskolnikov's character and opinions. Specifically, I found Marmeladov's speech in the saloon to be fascinating. His views on G-d vs. the man of sin was so emotionally stirring that (much to my embarrasement) I cried out of pity for him. I know that a lot of people really thought that that scene was overwritten and ridiculous even, but I kept imagining Marmeladov saying this speech like a movie and it was just so unbelievably sad.
As far as tonight's reading was concerned, however, I was quite bored with them. They just seemed to fluctuate between mildly interesting scenes such as "potential prayer" and when he is so ill that he hallucinates and extremely dull scenes such as the disagreement about the earrings.
Going back to a discussion point from class today, it is worth wondering whether what we are seeing in Roskolnokov is the height of his journey to insanity (as would be marked by hallucinations etc..) or merely that he is travelling the road to arrive there. Going by the length of the book, I would assume that he is still on his way, and has indeed not undergone the punishment. It will be worthwhile to see if there is an ultimate punishment- in either a physical or divine/emotional sense- or if in fact his reactions to his actions alone are the punishment and it takes more action, thus more questioning and its effects to notice it.
I think Raskolnikov does kind of regret the murders. All of the coincidences and events prior to the murder seem to give him a sign that the murder is what is supposed to happen. However all of these justifications only apply to the murder of the pawn broker. However, the instant that he murders her sister, Raskolnikov has gone outside of the crime that he has justified in his mind. This causes problems for him and i think leads to some regret on his part. Also, the crime has caused him a great deal of trouble as he now has to hide evidence. Worst of all, he does not get any benefit from commiting the murders, they only cause him hardship.
I think that it's interesting that the dream sequence is described with enough imagery to make you feel nauseous, but that the murders that Raskolnikov commits aren't nearly as appalling to the reader because he doesn't narrate any reaction to the gruesomeness of the deed. In the moment that he actually cuts the ax through the air, it's described very matter of factly. It's only when he's standing by the door, heart racing, that you begin to feel what he's feeling again.
But, apparently bashing in the skulls of two innocent women with an ax has a few repercussions on your mental stability.
Tonight, I gave up on taking notes in the margins about Raskolnikov. My book has the words "paranoid" and "conflicted" racing up the sides of the text on every other page. I think my favorite scenes from this night's reading were the ones where his conscious was very obviously fighting him. He's shaking, fainting in public places, clenching dirty socks like Dobby the house elf after he's been freed, and sleeping nearly as much as your average bumblebee bat.
His conflicting personality and mood swings are more evident than ever. One moment he's cunningly hiding the evidence, and the next he's debating spilling the beans. "He was aware of a terrible disorder within himself. He was afraid he could not keep himself under control" (91). On a whim, he opens up to the Captain about his love life and financial hardship. Soon after, he's refusing to put on the new clothing that Razumikhin has purchased to replace the tattered, dirty rags he's been killing people and generally walking around in.
I was actually going to say this in class today, but then we ran out of time, but it's still relevant to tonight's reading. While I was reading the murder scene, I didn't register this, but reflecting, I realized that I was completely rooting for Raskolnikov. Like holding my breath, praying that those two people wouldn't find him, sighing in relief when he escaped. Tonight, I was on alert again. When he was in the police station, I was praying he wouldn't give himself in, and when he sleepily answered the door for Nastasia holding all of his bloody bits of clothing, I held my breath again. When Razumihin told Raskolnikov that he spoke in his delirium, I feared for him yet again. Normally, I would have no sympathy for someone who murdered two innocent people. However, in this case, Dostoyevsky's characterization of Raskolnikov makes me root for him, sympathize with him, and even try to justify his actions. Because much of the time we are in his head, it is difficult to question him. Obviously we know the "crime" part of "Crime and Punishment," and I find myself hoping that the "punishment" part doesn't involve law enforcement...well I actually hope there is no punishment but I assume this isn't possible.
I find it interesting that emotions that Raskolnikov is having are harming him more than anything else. From the momment that he commited the crime, his emotions tore him apart. He kept fearing over very petty details, and then not caring for a momment before he cared again. This is emotional roller coaster takes place even before he receives the summons. If not for the terrible impacts that murder has, the emotional trauma of the murderer afterward now seems like an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to kill.
Okay, truth be told I'm only on page 99 so I have not completed tonight's reading yet, obviously. But already, one thing really stuck out to me. On page 89 the bottom paragraph starts with Raskolnikov saying, "What's going on here, though? I've never had anything to do with the police! Why all of a sudden today?" This brings up the whole idea that Ms. Siegel addressed today of things being a little too convenient. Sure after two murders, he is brought down to the police station for a completely different matter of being in debt. Oh, but of course! NOT. That is one thing that I do not like in books because it almost seems like a copout.
At the beginning of this novel, I was unsure that I would like reading all of the specific information that is provided, but it really helps show Roskalniokv's obsession with things. But, I love all of his second guessing because it is so human. I think its truly interesting studying a character that comes across so many moral dilemmas by either witnessing others or actively participating in acts such as murdering someone, stealing, or even drinking. It then poses questions for the reader of what is right and wrong and is there a grey area in between. which is what we discussed earlier this week by ranking different acts from best to worst.
The second part has a complete shift in his mental attitude. In chapter one, he is searching his body and clothing to remove blood stains and cuts off pieces of clothing with such stains. He stresses over where to put these things along with what he has stolen that remained in his pockets while he slept. Complete paranoia has overtaken him. Before we saw an anxiousness because he was prepared for the events. He knew how many steps it took to get to get to the apartment of Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna. He had some sort of idea how to deal with things because he was expecting to take action. But, in part two, he had not realized what to do if he came home with objects and not money. He did not know how to dispose of his clothes and he did not know where to hide the objects he stole. He is no longer prepared for the future and is nervous about it.
Part one is the crime and part two is the beginning of the punishment. Roskolnikov suffers severely from the murder he committed. Before comming the crime he justified his choice to kill the evil pawnbroker. He believed the act may actually benefit the society. he thinks the murder will prevent his sister from sacrificing herself into a unwanted marriage. However, after he has done so he is not okay with it. He suffers in extreme compunction. This shows how different people think before and after they commit a crime. Before people think what they are about to do is not so bad. They become so excited and passionate about a wrongful act. However, after they perpetuate a crime they torment, realizing how evil it was.
While going through this story, I am trying to decide whether or not Raskolnikov is an everyman. He doubts himself, he is self conflicted, and anti social. Normal people contain all of these traits, but he seems to possess them at greater magnitudes. It the depth of his neuroticism due to his environment or his natural disposition? This ties closely to the class discussion we have been having regarding the existence of free will. Following this train of thought, would you have committed his crime as well? The issue of luck also ties in here, as we discussed that he might have not committed his crime if it had not been especially convenient.
As a matter of fact, all of this predestination business reminds me of a certain Native Son comment. So, I guess through more class discussion, we will decide if Raskolnikov is responsible for his crime or if THAT SHIP HAS SAILED long before we cracked open the book.
I really like this book so far, but am starting to think parts of it are a little too unrealistic for me. we talked in class about all the coincidences and conveniences that occurred which allowed R to commit the murder and escape. However, he's now in a police station fainting when he hears ppl talking about the murder, freaking out everytime someone mentions it, yet no one suspects him.
i think consciousness is a big motif/theme so far. we already talked about the dream sequence, but now we deal with a somewhat comatose state. each time R falls asleep, it is described as "falling into oblivion" (weird). His deep sleeps also seem to wipe out his memory, as he doesnt remember his visitors.
i think another important issue is how we perceive R as readers. personally, i am a bit torn. on one hand, we have this poor student who feels so bad about his sister that he would do anything for money. on the other, its a crazy dude who talks to himself constantly and who murders two women. i dunno, im on the fence right now.
there's an uncomfortable but really interesting central question to this book. Is morality a luxury that you "buy" into once you have enough comforts in life to sustain yourself? Does uncontrollable poverty allow for morality? When you are hungry, alone, dirty, poorly clothed, and depressed like Raskolnikov, will you respect moral boundaries that are boundaries from you getting what you need? Raskolnikov twists morality into scorn for the old pawnbroker because he can't see someone else hoarding so many vanity items.
Part II answers this question from Part I. Yes, morality can exist when you don't have the means to support yourself, it's seen in Part II as Rasko's guilt and trauma. He partly fears for himself, but he knows that the greater punishment is his guilt. This makes me wonder whether morality just a survival instinct, and if Rasko followed it before the murders he'd be in less of a predicament. is morality an innate part of humanity that allows us to deter self-hate and self-destruction, rather than higher thought?
So the first comment I want to make is on the brief discussion we had yesterday about the coincidence of the murders. I believe that the coincidences actually prove one of Dostoyevsky’s points more fully than if they didn’t occur. I know this is from earlier, but I do think it’s worthwhile to mention. So before the crimes, we find out that Raskolnikov thinks it’s his destiny to kill the pawnbroker. But he is still hesitant. Because of all the coincidences, it is easier for him to justify what he’s about to do – it buys into the whole destiny idea. So my thought is that Dostoyevsky is going to prove that thinking you’re meant to do something, a crime or not, is ignorant and well, wrong. Can he possibly be trying to disprove the whole idea of destiny? I think that, despite all the coincidences, Raskolnikov is going to accept that it was his free-will that killed the women. Dostoyevsky is saying that everything possible can go right, it can feel like it was meant to happen, but in the end it’s you that takes action, not the universe. (Watch me be completely wrong!!)
Let me just say a few words on the reading from last night. The first part of the novel is clearly pre-crime and committing the crime. I feel like the next five are going to go through all different types of punishment: physical, mental, judicial, etc. This part was clearly the physical, gut reaction to committing crimes that, I believe Dostoyevsky will prove, were 100% his free will, in a sane state of mind (that I truly believe he is in pre-crime - I attribute his scattered thoughts and disjointed tendencies to him pondering the crime). This reaction didn’t happen to Bigger because his crime was accidental at first. It didn’t happen after Bessie because by then, he had convinced himself that he had to kill her to survive, which becomes a self-defense argument in his head that is justifiable in the courts.
Wow, I can't edit my post! My last sentence above sounds a little sketchy. What I mean is that self-defense is usually justifiable, and Bigger convinced himself that that what Bessie's murder was, so he felt like it was not his free will that killed her (thus no physical sick reaction).
I was reading SVT's comment, and I guess I'm responding to that as well as to the reading tonight. I think that the fact that everything that happens is very coincidental brings into question the idea of fate or predestination. The idea of choice vs. situation, etc. Was Raskolnikov forced into this murder because of his situation and his past, or was this something he chose?
Although I do relate to SVT's frustration that everything is so coincidental, I think that Dostoevsky purposely did this to force the reader to wonder WHY he was doing it.
I too have to finish tonight's reading, so I will post again later I'm sure.
20 comments:
ahhh well "you should be posting here tonight" that's quite a broad topic, what to do with the one, hmm.
Let's see, to start I really like this book. I think the questions it raises about human nature and the human condition are interesting to ponder, and at times frustrating in their complexity. What makes this book so deep is the fact that each question it posses can be answered in various ways depending upon the context of the situation. This relates to what we discussed in class, and the other major questions of the novel such as, who among us is not a criminal?
Dostoyevsky's view of religion is also very interesting to explore. I have yet to decide what I think his view of it really is. It almost seems that he is aware of it, but rather than believing or not believing he operates outside of it completely. I thought the scene in tonights reading when Raskolnikov is summoned to the station and then thinks about praying, but then chides himself for it and basically says well it's too late for that, is really telling. Many people facing that situation would turn to prayer as an avenue for hope. It is in such situations especially that people turn to religion, and it is in that situation that Raskolnikov dismisses it. He rejects the solace that religion could potentially bring him, and faces the world in his own way.
The scene in the reading that was due today, where he has the dream about the horse being beaten to death was awful. Then when he is leaving Razumikhin the incident with the horse that causes him to recall that memory was interesting. I think that his aversion to the killing of the horse, yet the fact that he kills to women is further evidence of the striking divide in his character.
Finally I think that it is very strange/ significant that Raskolnikov is so destitue yet he seems compelled to give money away. He give money to Marmeladov, to the woman to get home, he wants to thrown the things he got from murdering the pawnowner in the water, and does throw away the money given to him by a woman after the repeat horse incident. He seems to have an aversion to recieveing money, and even when he should feel guilty about not putting the money towards bettering himself, like when the money comes from his mother's pension it is always the same story.
The previous part of the novel is quite different than this part. Part One is all about plotting and committing the crime. However, Part Two shows Raskolnikov's internal conflict/punishment after committing the double murder.
We start to see Raskolnikov's paranoia immediately and he begins to really suffer. After waking up, "he examined himself hastily from head to foot, all his clothes" (p. 85). Then he starts cutting everything that has blood on it...he starts to get a little crazy paranoid. Raskolnikov wants to get rid of the guilt in his mind by getting rid of all the evidence and stolen goods. The reader can see his internal conflict when he questions his hiding spot, "what's the matter with me? Do I call that hidden? Is that the way to hide things?"
In this part, Razumikhin is introduced after Raskolnikov gravitated towards his house again..Razmuikhin acts a character foil to Raskolnikov. His character development shows him as a compassionate and good friend. He seems bright and lively. When he enters the Raskolnikov's apartment, he is cheerful, "you hear! He does know the merchant Vakhrushin! How can you say he's not in his right mind?" (p. 114). Whereas Raskolnikov always seems so down and mellow.
All the names in this novel are really hard to spell.
I believe that Raskolnikov regrets murdering those two women but at the same time I think he would do it again. It is obvious that all the work hiding evidence was not worth the pay-off which was nothing. He has also had to deal with a massive amount of paranoia. I think a lot of different things caused him to committ these crimes but that he took out his anger and frustration on the wrong people. He needs to go after those that put him in his destitute position, and the pawnbroker and her hard-working sister did not do that.
As julia said, the second part of the novel is much different from the first. However, immediately we see within the first chapter that Raskolnikov begins to second guess himself once again, when he at first takes the translation from Razumikhin, and then hands it back to him. We also see him practically going insane and completely paranoid over the crimes he's committed. RIght away, Raskolnikov's downward spiral begins.
Although it seems that Dostoyevsky is portraying Razumikhin as a protagonist who is trying to aid Raskolnikov, I find him extremely annoying. He's always too pushy and seeming to but his head into things that clearly are none of his business. However, i do have to give him credit for painting the scene of the crime exactly, other than being able to pin the correct murderer.
Finally, this second part of the novel is clearly showing the "punishment" side. We see the pain Raskolnikov is clearly enduring internally manifest itself externally, to the point where he begins to hallucinate and lose his mind. Clearly, the paranoia is building up so intensely that I dont think he will be able to endure for much longer. It seems that the pain will force him to confess.
Ok I guess there are no posts yet. I suppose I will just give my impression of this past section.
Overall, I think that this has turned out to be kind of typical mystery/crime story. The events are too convenient for my taste. It seems like a story we have heard over and over again. The criminal becomes paranoid and nearly drives himself mad(only in this story Raskolnikov DOES drive himself crazy), thinks people are suspicious of him, assumes the worst, hears people talking about some sort of crime, automatically think they are talking about him, and so on and so forth. Although it is well written, the plot is somewhat predictable. Also, I have issues with some of the characters. I feel like a lot of characters were introduced in this section and the names got extremely confusing. Between the officer at the government building, and the officer who came to visit Raskolkinov while he was in his stupor, and his friend Razhumikin, I could barely keep them all straight. Also, Rasumikhin's entrance as an important character seemed abrupt to me. It seems as if the entire part of the section dealing with Raskolkinov's "sickness" was put there merely for convenience (again) and to advance the plot. It allowed the passage of several days and shortened the story by allowing the events to be summarized by either Razumikhin or Nastasia. My final complaint is with the way Dostoevsky narrates Raskolkinov's thoughts. I will say it is interesting to sort of have some comments from the author however I do not agree with his thoughts being constantly put in quotes. To me, its seems that there are two competing points of view. Though Dostoevsky narrates the story in the third person, the thoughts and comments are so intimate that it is similar to the kinds of things you might in narration from the first person point of view. It creates a weird 1st/3rd person narration for me. The only merit I see in this is that it allows the reader to really see Raskolkinov's moral dilemmas, self contradictions, and descent into madness.
haha i guess everyone posted at once. disregard my first comment that no one has posted. my b. irc
Let me start by saying that I am completely in love with this book so far. Its complex questions about, well, crime and punishment are brilliantly written. I thoroughly enjoy, and at times relate to, Raskolnikov's character and opinions. Specifically, I found Marmeladov's speech in the saloon to be fascinating. His views on G-d vs. the man of sin was so emotionally stirring that (much to my embarrasement) I cried out of pity for him. I know that a lot of people really thought that that scene was overwritten and ridiculous even, but I kept imagining Marmeladov saying this speech like a movie and it was just so unbelievably sad.
As far as tonight's reading was concerned, however, I was quite bored with them. They just seemed to fluctuate between mildly interesting scenes such as "potential prayer" and when he is so ill that he hallucinates and extremely dull scenes such as the disagreement about the earrings.
Going back to a discussion point from class today, it is worth wondering whether what we are seeing in Roskolnokov is the height of his journey to insanity (as would be marked by hallucinations etc..) or merely that he is travelling the road to arrive there. Going by the length of the book, I would assume that he is still on his way, and has indeed not undergone the punishment. It will be worthwhile to see if there is an ultimate punishment- in either a physical or divine/emotional sense- or if in fact his reactions to his actions alone are the punishment and it takes more action, thus more questioning and its effects to notice it.
I think Raskolnikov does kind of regret the murders. All of the coincidences and events prior to the murder seem to give him a sign that the murder is what is supposed to happen. However all of these justifications only apply to the murder of the pawn broker. However, the instant that he murders her sister, Raskolnikov has gone outside of the crime that he has justified in his mind. This causes problems for him and i think leads to some regret on his part. Also, the crime has caused him a great deal of trouble as he now has to hide evidence. Worst of all, he does not get any benefit from commiting the murders, they only cause him hardship.
I think that it's interesting that the dream sequence is described with enough imagery to make you feel nauseous, but that the murders that Raskolnikov commits aren't nearly as appalling to the reader because he doesn't narrate any reaction to the gruesomeness of the deed. In the moment that he actually cuts the ax through the air, it's described very matter of factly. It's only when he's standing by the door, heart racing, that you begin to feel what he's feeling again.
But, apparently bashing in the skulls of two innocent women with an ax has a few repercussions on your mental stability.
Tonight, I gave up on taking notes in the margins about Raskolnikov. My book has the words "paranoid" and "conflicted" racing up the sides of the text on every other page. I think my favorite scenes from this night's reading were the ones where his conscious was very obviously fighting him. He's shaking, fainting in public places, clenching dirty socks like Dobby the house elf after he's been freed, and sleeping nearly as much as your average bumblebee bat.
His conflicting personality and mood swings are more evident than ever. One moment he's cunningly hiding the evidence, and the next he's debating spilling the beans. "He was aware of a terrible disorder within himself. He was afraid he could not keep himself under control" (91). On a whim, he opens up to the Captain about his love life and financial hardship. Soon after, he's refusing to put on the new clothing that Razumikhin has purchased to replace the tattered, dirty rags he's been killing people and generally walking around in.
Now, if only the names were pronounceable.
I was actually going to say this in class today, but then we ran out of time, but it's still relevant to tonight's reading. While I was reading the murder scene, I didn't register this, but reflecting, I realized that I was completely rooting for Raskolnikov. Like holding my breath, praying that those two people wouldn't find him, sighing in relief when he escaped. Tonight, I was on alert again. When he was in the police station, I was praying he wouldn't give himself in, and when he sleepily answered the door for Nastasia holding all of his bloody bits of clothing, I held my breath again. When Razumihin told Raskolnikov that he spoke in his delirium, I feared for him yet again. Normally, I would have no sympathy for someone who murdered two innocent people. However, in this case, Dostoyevsky's characterization of Raskolnikov makes me root for him, sympathize with him, and even try to justify his actions. Because much of the time we are in his head, it is difficult to question him. Obviously we know the "crime" part of "Crime and Punishment," and I find myself hoping that the "punishment" part doesn't involve law enforcement...well I actually hope there is no punishment but I assume this isn't possible.
I find it interesting that emotions that Raskolnikov is having are harming him more than anything else. From the momment that he commited the crime, his emotions tore him apart. He kept fearing over very petty details, and then not caring for a momment before he cared again. This is emotional roller coaster takes place even before he receives the summons. If not for the terrible impacts that murder has, the emotional trauma of the murderer afterward now seems like an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to kill.
Okay, truth be told I'm only on page 99 so I have not completed tonight's reading yet, obviously. But already, one thing really stuck out to me. On page 89 the bottom paragraph starts with Raskolnikov saying, "What's going on here, though? I've never had anything to do with the police! Why all of a sudden today?" This brings up the whole idea that Ms. Siegel addressed today of things being a little too convenient. Sure after two murders, he is brought down to the police station for a completely different matter of being in debt. Oh, but of course! NOT. That is one thing that I do not like in books because it almost seems like a copout.
At the beginning of this novel, I was unsure that I would like reading all of the specific information that is provided, but it really helps show Roskalniokv's obsession with things. But, I love all of his second guessing because it is so human. I think its truly interesting studying a character that comes across so many moral dilemmas by either witnessing others or actively participating in acts such as murdering someone, stealing, or even drinking. It then poses questions for the reader of what is right and wrong and is there a grey area in between. which is what we discussed earlier this week by ranking different acts from best to worst.
The second part has a complete shift in his mental attitude. In chapter one, he is searching his body and clothing to remove blood stains and cuts off pieces of clothing with such stains. He stresses over where to put these things along with what he has stolen that remained in his pockets while he slept. Complete paranoia has overtaken him. Before we saw an anxiousness because he was prepared for the events. He knew how many steps it took to get to get to the apartment of Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna. He had some sort of idea how to deal with things because he was expecting to take action. But, in part two, he had not realized what to do if he came home with objects and not money. He did not know how to dispose of his clothes and he did not know where to hide the objects he stole. He is no longer prepared for the future and is nervous about it.
Part one is the crime and part two is the beginning of the punishment. Roskolnikov suffers severely from the murder he committed. Before comming the crime he justified his choice to kill the evil pawnbroker. He believed the act may actually benefit the society. he thinks the murder will prevent his sister from sacrificing herself into a unwanted marriage. However, after he has done so he is not okay with it. He suffers in extreme compunction.
This shows how different people think before and after they commit a crime. Before people think what they are about to do is not so bad. They become so excited and passionate about a wrongful act. However, after they perpetuate a crime they torment, realizing how evil it was.
While going through this story, I am trying to decide whether or not Raskolnikov is an everyman. He doubts himself, he is self conflicted, and anti social. Normal people contain all of these traits, but he seems to possess them at greater magnitudes. It the depth of his neuroticism due to his environment or his natural disposition? This ties closely to the class discussion we have been having regarding the existence of free will. Following this train of thought, would you have committed his crime as well? The issue of luck also ties in here, as we discussed that he might have not committed his crime if it had not been especially convenient.
As a matter of fact, all of this predestination business reminds me of a certain Native Son comment. So, I guess through more class discussion, we will decide if Raskolnikov is responsible for his crime or if THAT SHIP HAS SAILED long before we cracked open the book.
I really like this book so far, but am starting to think parts of it are a little too unrealistic for me. we talked in class about all the coincidences and conveniences that occurred which allowed R to commit the murder and escape. However, he's now in a police station fainting when he hears ppl talking about the murder, freaking out everytime someone mentions it, yet no one suspects him.
i think consciousness is a big motif/theme so far. we already talked about the dream sequence, but now we deal with a somewhat comatose state. each time R falls asleep, it is described as "falling into oblivion" (weird). His deep sleeps also seem to wipe out his memory, as he doesnt remember his visitors.
i think another important issue is how we perceive R as readers. personally, i am a bit torn. on one hand, we have this poor student who feels so bad about his sister that he would do anything for money. on the other, its a crazy dude who talks to himself constantly and who murders two women. i dunno, im on the fence right now.
there's an uncomfortable but really interesting central question to this book. Is morality a luxury that you "buy" into once you have enough comforts in life to sustain yourself? Does uncontrollable poverty allow for morality? When you are hungry, alone, dirty, poorly clothed, and depressed like Raskolnikov, will you respect moral boundaries that are boundaries from you getting what you need? Raskolnikov twists morality into scorn for the old pawnbroker because he can't see someone else hoarding so many vanity items.
Part II answers this question from Part I. Yes, morality can exist when you don't have the means to support yourself, it's seen in Part II as Rasko's guilt and trauma. He partly fears for himself, but he knows that the greater punishment is his guilt. This makes me wonder whether morality just a survival instinct, and if Rasko followed it before the murders he'd be in less of a predicament. is morality an innate part of humanity that allows us to deter self-hate and self-destruction, rather than higher thought?
So the first comment I want to make is on the brief discussion we had yesterday about the coincidence of the murders. I believe that the coincidences actually prove one of Dostoyevsky’s points more fully than if they didn’t occur. I know this is from earlier, but I do think it’s worthwhile to mention. So before the crimes, we find out that Raskolnikov thinks it’s his destiny to kill the pawnbroker. But he is still hesitant. Because of all the coincidences, it is easier for him to justify what he’s about to do – it buys into the whole destiny idea. So my thought is that Dostoyevsky is going to prove that thinking you’re meant to do something, a crime or not, is ignorant and well, wrong. Can he possibly be trying to disprove the whole idea of destiny? I think that, despite all the coincidences, Raskolnikov is going to accept that it was his free-will that killed the women. Dostoyevsky is saying that everything possible can go right, it can feel like it was meant to happen, but in the end it’s you that takes action, not the universe. (Watch me be completely wrong!!)
Let me just say a few words on the reading from last night. The first part of the novel is clearly pre-crime and committing the crime. I feel like the next five are going to go through all different types of punishment: physical, mental, judicial, etc. This part was clearly the physical, gut reaction to committing crimes that, I believe Dostoyevsky will prove, were 100% his free will, in a sane state of mind (that I truly believe he is in pre-crime - I attribute his scattered thoughts and disjointed tendencies to him pondering the crime). This reaction didn’t happen to Bigger because his crime was accidental at first. It didn’t happen after Bessie because by then, he had convinced himself that he had to kill her to survive, which becomes a self-defense argument in his head that is justifiable in the courts.
Wow, I can't edit my post! My last sentence above sounds a little sketchy. What I mean is that self-defense is usually justifiable, and Bigger convinced himself that that what Bessie's murder was, so he felt like it was not his free will that killed her (thus no physical sick reaction).
I was reading SVT's comment, and I guess I'm responding to that as well as to the reading tonight. I think that the fact that everything that happens is very coincidental brings into question the idea of fate or predestination. The idea of choice vs. situation, etc. Was Raskolnikov forced into this murder because of his situation and his past, or was this something he chose?
Although I do relate to SVT's frustration that everything is so coincidental, I think that Dostoevsky purposely did this to force the reader to wonder WHY he was doing it.
I too have to finish tonight's reading, so I will post again later I'm sure.
Post a Comment