So I just finished reading part 3 and I have so many conflicting thoughts about it that I am afraid I will just forget them all.
First off I feel I have to say the most interesting scene in the reading for this weekend, and the biggest "conincidence" I htink we've come across so far, is when Raskolnikov goes to see Porfiry and it turns out he happened to write a piece called "On Crime" about how some people are above the law, and have the right, or even the duty in some cases to commit crimes. I felt like a.) this was a little too much of a conincidence b.) it was strange he was unaware it was published c.) it very much bothered me that this was just dropped in there, and he never espoused any of these beliefs when discussing his original concern over the killing. When he was pondering whether or not to commit the crime, he was not torn between deciding if he was an "ordinary" or "extraordinary" person, and thus allowed or not allowed to commit the crime. That type of arguement never entered into his consciousness. It was all a result of the effect of his environment, and the small conincidental events that lead him to think signs were pointing him towards the crime. I still maintain that I believe that without being about to blame his actions on the fact that he was given 'signs' he never would ahve been able to agree with one side of teh arguement long enough to resolve to actually kill someone. But other than these issues it was a very interesting scene to me, I thought that his argument was well rendered, and the questions raised are truly the questions that remain today concerning crime. When Raskolnikov asks - is it not even more appalling to judge crime based upon conscience than official legal permission - I stopped to ponder that, because in many cases we do look at criminal situations emotionally and say that if we are not content to say the law is always right, that our consciences can choose who does and doens't deserve to be punished. But how can that be right? When Porfiry continues to bring up issues about problems that could arise as a result of Raskonlikov's theory I found his response very telling. When Raskolnikov states "I am not to blame for it. That's the way it is and always will be," I started thinking back to the signs and religion. Raskolnikov is constantly looking for somewhere else to lay the blame for his actions, be it signs, predestination, or God, I have yet to decide because I feel he was yet to. He does not know the reason, but he seems resolved to believe that there is a reason outside of himself. Even earlier on pg 169 he approaches a crossroads and stops to decide whether to go or not to go, and it says "he paused in the middle of the road and looked as though he expected to hear the last word from somebody outside himself." At the time that line really stood out to me.
Going back to the conicidences, at times it seems that they are so blatant that they are ridiculous, however when you look at the book in terms of being a chracter study - though a book about crime and punishment must have a good plot - it becomes most important that the author does whatever is necessary to portray an accurate view of the character. What matters is not the events, but Raskolnikov's reactions to them. That is why every conicidence is so purposefully rendered. And that is why, as overt as they are, they are completely necessary.
I love Sonia, I feel so bad for her. The whole time they described her sitting in his room, ashamed to be sitting with his mother and sister my heart ached for her. She is such a good person and does not deserve the life that has been forced upon her. And then when she was so moved by the sacrafice Raskolnikov made for her, I felt all the more sympathy for her plight. I'm interested to know what happens when/if he goes to visit her. And was the man following her after she left Peter Petrovich? It kind of seemed that way to me. I hate him. He's definetly hiding a lot, more than just the fact that he's a huge jerk.
I find it a little strange that when Raskolnikov remembers/ regrets the murder, he only regrets the suffering and torment it has brought him afterwards, but never does he grapple with a desire to take it all back. He does not mourn the loss of the old woman or her sister, he is just worried about running from it the rest of his life.
And why did Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov show up at the end, and how the heck does he know Raskolnikov is a murderer?
After reading part 3, all i can think about is Razumikhin and Dunya. Razumikhin has an obvious attraction to her, as stated by him several times, and it is also obvious how wrong Luzhin is for her. And yet I can't decide what Raskolnicov would ratehr have. I know that he adores his friend when he is not botehring him with questioning about the murder or his "condition" and he loathes Luzhin considerably, but I wonder what would be worse in his eyes. I believe that he would almost feel as if his friend is taking advantage of his depleted mental condition if Razumikhin were to make a serious move.
On another note, I want to talk about Raskolnikov's mental state. I am getting irritated by the amount of time spent on discussing it. Every single chapter recently seems the same as the last: meetings go on around a hallucinating/dreaming/gradually insane Raskolnikov. I am getting bored with this. I know that murder is an act that clearly creates a complex web of emotional issues in a person, but it is almost as if the many subplots surrounding it are of no consequence. It makes me wonder why Dostoyevsky even bothers putting in these subplots if they are all just leading back to the original problem of Raskolnikov's insanity.
I didn't particularly like this section. The whole thing with Roskolnikov being all crazy is annoying. Roskolnikov just sits around in various states of unconsciousness while the people around him worry about him. It also irritates me that so many things are going on at once. It is annoying that Roskolnikov is alternatively crazy and hallucinating but then is still capable of dodging the question about the painters by remembering exactly when they started painting.
The part when Roskolnikov talks about the article he wrote is kind of interesting. It at least relates back to the title of the book which is nice. It also seems to have a purpose, unlike a lot of the other things that go on in the section. The part of the section where Roskolnikov says that certain people are allowed to murder because they are "better" than other people is interesting and brings up a lot of questions about morality as a book called Crime and Punishment should. The part where he says he killed an idea not a person is also an interesting take on morality of committing murder.
The whole Dunia situation is also really annoying. By now we know that Razumikhin likes her and that marrying Luzhin would be bad. I wish she would just pick somebody and get married so we don't have to deal with this aspect of the story anymore.
Finally, the conclusion of the section is really dumb. Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov just sort of appearing in the story and knowing about the murder is a convenient event in the plot but by now im kind of used to Dostoyevsky randomly introducing characters with names that are impossible to pronounce to move the story forward.
I agree with Julia that the appearance of this article from Raskolnikov's past is very fishy. If he actually wrote an article about the possible justifications for one to murder, how could he never express a thought along those lines early, during the his period of intense guilt. Even after finding the article, he doubts that he fits the bill for a superhuman type justified murderer. He insteads finds resolve in deeming the lives of those he killed somehow to be worthless.
If Raskolnikov were the type of person mentioned with a moral license to kill he would not have attacked a pawnbroker and her hardworking sister. Those murders lack vision. He would have more likely targeted a person with an integral role in keeping him and all of the other in a depressed economic state.
I personally disagree that someone can find justification for murder and give themselves the power of God. We can not decide when a person deserves to die and attempting to do so is wrong. I disagree with this content of Raskolnikovs article and I think that the his mind set when he wrote the article was drastically different from his current outlook. These two Raskolnikovs seem like completely different people.
okay so a couple of things: 1. Razumikhin and Dunya: I don't know about this...I find it a tad weird. However, he was slightly drunk when he started to get attracted to her. He thinks she is beautiful and strong. I thought it was great when he tried to set Zossimov up with the landlady only because the doc complimented Dunya. wow jealous much?!?! Even better, the next day he regrets everything and thinks he was crazy to even think about Dunya that way. LOVE TRIANGLE!!!
2. Raskolnikov is just so stupid: The whole thing with getting back his watch that he pawned was very silly on his part. Then, the article that Raskolnikov didn't even know was published ("On Crime"), I mean come on...this whole coincidence thing is so annoying. It is starting to really bother me. However, something I thought was really important came up when Porfiry and Raskolnikov were talking about his article...this idea of the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary." I think this concept is going to be really key in the rest of the book.
I thought most of part three was pretty slow, especially toward the beginning. But, some of the most interesting scenes occurred at the end when Raskolnikov went to see Porfiry and the stranger was stalking Raskolnikov, later on appearing in his dream and his apartment. I agree with Julia that having the 'On Crime' article just thrown in there and having him unaware that it was published was a little too convenient. But, I think it brought up some really important ideas and concepts about death and crime for a further understanding of Raskolnikov’s motivation, maybe not motivation necessarily, but some kind of justification for his actions. Like the discussion before about the importance of ‘the influence of the environment’ it gives Dostoyevsky an opportunity to tell us why Raskolnikov was just in his killings. The original discussion begins with the question, “…is there such a thing as crime or isn’t there?” (246). Then the debate leads into Raskolnikov talking about the separation between the ‘ordinary’ and the ‘extraordinary. It’s consistent with the meaning of his name, which literally means the word ‘schism’, that he would believe in divisibility among people. Although, I am still unsure whether or not Raskolnikov believes he himself is part of the ‘extraordinary group’ or if he is just one of the lucky few ‘ordinary’ people who has gotten away with his schemes so far. Right now I think it is the latter but I am unsure if this will change in the future. I thought it was strange that Razumikhin said, “I might as well tell you frankly I noticed they were up to something quite a while ago. I noticed the idea of theirs. Barely noticeable, or course. Still just hatching…How dare they!” (258). It was such a drastic change in shift. At first he is telling Raskolnikov that he might have known he was going to be in for some sketchy conversations when he brought him to meet Porfiry, but he is so mad at how Porfiry and Zamiotov reacted and treated him. Like dude, seriously? How do you really feel? The dream sequence at the ending was particularly interesting to read. When he tries to hit the old pawnbroker with the ax and she rolls on to the floor and then laughs hysterically, I took it as a sign of foreshadowing. This nightmare shows that he is being mocked because he of the laughter from the crowds of people and by the old woman himself. The stranger who we now know as Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov led him there. So, I believe Ark is going to lead him to trouble later on in the future because he will mock him almost by abusing the fact he knows Raskolnikov is a murdered and use him for something.
Alot has already been said, so i wont be repetitive- i must say though, the whole Raskolnikov going crazy thing does seem to be getting a little old.
BUt, what julia said about him looking to put the blame on someone outside himself was very interesting to me as well. I think this all essentially leads back to dosteyevsky's naming of him, and the idea that he is "split" with this supposed schism. Clearly, he is torn between this superman he thinks he can be and the man he actually is. One line really stood out to me in light of this, other than the one that julia already mentione, he describes Roskolnikov as almost having "two opposite characters in him". We particularly see him struggle with this with Porfiry while he tries to maintain his collectiveness so as to not give himself away, yet he faints when his sister merely mentions killing someone. I think we have much more of this character "split" to see with raskolnikov.
One thing I noticed about this section was that everyone's opinions seem to be all over the place. At this point I'm used to Raskolnikov's conflicting views and emotionss, but everyone else seem change their minds every five seconds. For example, when Dunia and her mother are walking with Razumikhin when he is drunk, first they trust him, then they don't, then they trust him again. Also, the moods shift very quickly. When Raskolnikov is attempting to make up for acting out the day before, everyone feels excited, then upset, then confused, then probably worried again. Even his illness is conflicting: sometimes he's sick, sometimes he isn't. Emotions and health flip in a millisecond in this novel, and it gets tiresome after a while.
I agree with everyone else: the coincidences are getting ridiculous and Jane Eyre-esque. But I did think the whole "On Crime" was pretty cool, it's the first time the book directly addressed this idea of Raskolnikov thinkiung of himself as having an exemption from morality.
On a sidenote, so far most drunks in this novel make pretty kickass speeches, like Marmeladov and his forgiveness speech and Razumikhin and his speech about nonsense. I think this whole idea of alcohol plays an important role as the characters are rarely completely sober, and are often in an altered state of mind. When Raskolnikov is not drunk he is sick, or crazy, which affects the decisions he makes.
A major part of this book is suspense, and something random I noticed not just in part 3 but in the entire book is the way Dostoyevsky constantly introduces new characters at the end of a chapter. He does this on pg. 137: "'oh, come o-o-on!' cried Razumikhin, but at that moment the door opened and a new person came in, a man none of them had ever seen before." He does the same at the end of part 3 by introducing Svidrigailov. This creates suspense, because first of all, the guy shows up while Raskolnikov is sleeping which is creepy, and we know that he (like all the other new characters who are introduced) is going to provide another plot twist. The structure is so similar for each new character that's introduced. At the end of a chapter, he/she is introduced. Then in the next, Dostoyevsky describes the character physically, and then he shows us the character's interaction with Raskolnikov. I think that all these new characters (with such difficult names) who present new situations to which Raskolnikov reacts in different ways make this book so overwhelming. I just thought this was an interesting part of the structure.
Now to the events of part3... So I pretty much agree with everyone about "On Crime." I find it annoying that Dostoyevsky only now mentions it. We see pretty every single one of Raskolnikov's thoughts, especially the unimportant ones (like him changing his mind about which way to walk or about his German hat at the beginning of the book), but we aren't told his reasons/motives for murder? I also feel like this section kind of advances Rasakolnikov's character by showing how inconsistent it is. Readers are meant to doubt his sanity, because of this guilt that is causing him to suffer so much, but he constantly reacts differently to this. Sometimes he is so proud (like when he tells off Luzhin). But then all of a sudden he faints when his sister mentions murder. Also, he can't decide whether he wants to confess or get away with the crime. This helps establish the schism in his character.
I almost feel a somewhat anti-intellectual vibe coming from the author during this section. So far, we have been given the portrait of a man torn apart by his own insecurities and neuroticism. We are watching a person be destroyed by his crime. Sure, Raskolnikov has made several attempts to try to justify his crime to himself, but I doubt many people in class think these arguments are treated as fully valid and not just excuses. I know I don’t. Then we discover that he had previously written an article discussing how certain people of extraordinary intellects are so superior to their peers that they are exempt from laws. Our sad protagonist is initially described as an intellectual, and he has been suffering for most of our reading, so I think that this is an indictment of the theory that he wrote about. People are just people. Intellectuals can try to brand themselves as superior, but this is based primarily on delusions of grandeur and that their minds will have some monumental effect on the universe that everyone else cannot fathom. Raskolnikov was smart, but he is still having a nervous breakdown like anyone else would.
Hi! Sorry this post is well after midnight, I did not allow myself enough time to read this section...who knew there would be an extremely dense section with Raskolnokov and Porfiry? Not me. Anyway, I agree with those who said this section was not as enjoyable and much slower than the other sections, but I also think it's really important structurally. Obviously, we know the first section of the book is the "crime" and the rest of the chapters and sections are likely the "punishment." Part Two seemed to focus on a sub-conscious, sort of self-inflicted punishment of being ill, miserable, and delirious. He didn't even realize when four days passed; sometimes, when he woke up, he forgot about the murder. Essentially, he avoided what he did by going crazy. In Part Three, his punishment seems to be- while still self-inflicted- more conscious. First off, he voluntarily goes to see Porfiry, who is investigating the case of the murder. He knows he will have to endure at least some questioning. In addition, he resents his mother and Dunia; they are worried about him and so full of love for him, and he cannot accept it after what he has done. Interestingly, I used to love Raskolnikov and hope that he wouldn't get caught or turn himself in, but by the end of this section, I had much less respect for him. After so many attempts to justify his murder (p.264, "I didn't kill a person, I killed a principle!") and after the way he treats the murder like a joke, like taunting Zamiotov in Part Two and Razumihin on pages 258-9, I can no longer justify his murder or response. I wasn't worried when Porfiry questioned him about On Crime, like if he believes that he is extraordinary, and I was not concerned when the artisan called him a murderer and showed up in his apartment. I'm interested to see what happens with the artisan, Arkady Uvanovich Svidrigailov.
i agree with everyone else that Rosco going crazy is starting to get boring-we get it Dostoy. anyway, i would have liked to see more about Rosco as the murderer, possibly getting caught/questioned by police, etc. in this section. i simply saw part 3 as some extra plot devices, such as Sonia becoming more of a central character and the introduction of Rosco's family.
i think the whole family reunion was pretty funny, if not a bit disturbing. his sister and mother are so excited to see him and they wait for him for an hour and then...he bitches them out by yelling at them about how stupid the marriage is. it was basically a huge slap in the face. i can't really figure out dunia at this point- she says she isn't marrying for Rosco's sake and that she truly loves Petrovich, but can she really be blind to the mistreatment that he gives her? idk, i can't figure out her true motives, although i suspect Rosco is right on this one.
13 comments:
So I just finished reading part 3 and I have so many conflicting thoughts about it that I am afraid I will just forget them all.
First off I feel I have to say the most interesting scene in the reading for this weekend, and the biggest "conincidence" I htink we've come across so far, is when Raskolnikov goes to see Porfiry and it turns out he happened to write a piece called "On Crime" about how some people are above the law, and have the right, or even the duty in some cases to commit crimes. I felt like a.) this was a little too much of a conincidence b.) it was strange he was unaware it was published c.) it very much bothered me that this was just dropped in there, and he never espoused any of these beliefs when discussing his original concern over the killing. When he was pondering whether or not to commit the crime, he was not torn between deciding if he was an "ordinary" or "extraordinary" person, and thus allowed or not allowed to commit the crime. That type of arguement never entered into his consciousness. It was all a result of the effect of his environment, and the small conincidental events that lead him to think signs were pointing him towards the crime. I still maintain that I believe that without being about to blame his actions on the fact that he was given 'signs' he never would ahve been able to agree with one side of teh arguement long enough to resolve to actually kill someone. But other than these issues it was a very interesting scene to me, I thought that his argument was well rendered, and the questions raised are truly the questions that remain today concerning crime. When Raskolnikov asks - is it not even more appalling to judge crime based upon conscience than official legal permission - I stopped to ponder that, because in many cases we do look at criminal situations emotionally and say that if we are not content to say the law is always right, that our consciences can choose who does and doens't deserve to be punished. But how can that be right? When Porfiry continues to bring up issues about problems that could arise as a result of Raskonlikov's theory I found his response very telling. When Raskolnikov states "I am not to blame for it. That's the way it is and always will be," I started thinking back to the signs and religion. Raskolnikov is constantly looking for somewhere else to lay the blame for his actions, be it signs, predestination, or God, I have yet to decide because I feel he was yet to. He does not know the reason, but he seems resolved to believe that there is a reason outside of himself. Even earlier on pg 169 he approaches a crossroads and stops to decide whether to go or not to go, and it says "he paused in the middle of the road and looked as though he expected to hear the last word from somebody outside himself." At the time that line really stood out to me.
Going back to the conicidences, at times it seems that they are so blatant that they are ridiculous, however when you look at the book in terms of being a chracter study - though a book about crime and punishment must have a good plot - it becomes most important that the author does whatever is necessary to portray an accurate view of the character. What matters is not the events, but Raskolnikov's reactions to them. That is why every conicidence is so purposefully rendered. And that is why, as overt as they are, they are completely necessary.
I love Sonia, I feel so bad for her. The whole time they described her sitting in his room, ashamed to be sitting with his mother and sister my heart ached for her. She is such a good person and does not deserve the life that has been forced upon her. And then when she was so moved by the sacrafice Raskolnikov made for her, I felt all the more sympathy for her plight. I'm interested to know what happens when/if he goes to visit her. And was the man following her after she left Peter Petrovich? It kind of seemed that way to me. I hate him. He's definetly hiding a lot, more than just the fact that he's a huge jerk.
I find it a little strange that when Raskolnikov remembers/ regrets the murder, he only regrets the suffering and torment it has brought him afterwards, but never does he grapple with a desire to take it all back. He does not mourn the loss of the old woman or her sister, he is just worried about running from it the rest of his life.
And why did Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov show up at the end, and how the heck does he know Raskolnikov is a murderer?
wow ... I got a little carried away. sorry.
After reading part 3, all i can think about is Razumikhin and Dunya. Razumikhin has an obvious attraction to her, as stated by him several times, and it is also obvious how wrong Luzhin is for her. And yet I can't decide what Raskolnicov would ratehr have. I know that he adores his friend when he is not botehring him with questioning about the murder or his "condition" and he loathes Luzhin considerably, but I wonder what would be worse in his eyes. I believe that he would almost feel as if his friend is taking advantage of his depleted mental condition if Razumikhin were to make a serious move.
On another note, I want to talk about Raskolnikov's mental state. I am getting irritated by the amount of time spent on discussing it. Every single chapter recently seems the same as the last: meetings go on around a hallucinating/dreaming/gradually insane Raskolnikov. I am getting bored with this. I know that murder is an act that clearly creates a complex web of emotional issues in a person, but it is almost as if the many subplots surrounding it are of no consequence. It makes me wonder why Dostoyevsky even bothers putting in these subplots if they are all just leading back to the original problem of Raskolnikov's insanity.
I didn't particularly like this section. The whole thing with Roskolnikov being all crazy is annoying. Roskolnikov just sits around in various states of unconsciousness while the people around him worry about him. It also irritates me that so many things are going on at once. It is annoying that Roskolnikov is alternatively crazy and hallucinating but then is still capable of dodging the question about the painters by remembering exactly when they started painting.
The part when Roskolnikov talks about the article he wrote is kind of interesting. It at least relates back to the title of the book which is nice. It also seems to have a purpose, unlike a lot of the other things that go on in the section. The part of the section where Roskolnikov says that certain people are allowed to murder because they are "better" than other people is interesting and brings up a lot of questions about morality as a book called Crime and Punishment should. The part where he says he killed an idea not a person is also an interesting take on morality of committing murder.
The whole Dunia situation is also really annoying. By now we know that Razumikhin likes her and that marrying Luzhin would be bad. I wish she would just pick somebody and get married so we don't have to deal with this aspect of the story anymore.
Finally, the conclusion of the section is really dumb. Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov just sort of appearing in the story and knowing about the murder is a convenient event in the plot but by now im kind of used to Dostoyevsky randomly introducing characters with names that are impossible to pronounce to move the story forward.
I agree with Julia that the appearance of this article from Raskolnikov's past is very fishy. If he actually wrote an article about the possible justifications for one to murder, how could he never express a thought along those lines early, during the his period of intense guilt. Even after finding the article, he doubts that he fits the bill for a superhuman type justified murderer. He insteads finds resolve in deeming the lives of those he killed somehow to be worthless.
If Raskolnikov were the type of person mentioned with a moral license to kill he would not have attacked a pawnbroker and her hardworking sister. Those murders lack vision. He would have more likely targeted a person with an integral role in keeping him and all of the other in a depressed economic state.
I personally disagree that someone can find justification for murder and give themselves the power of God. We can not decide when a person deserves to die and attempting to do so is wrong. I disagree with this content of Raskolnikovs article and I think that the his mind set when he wrote the article was drastically different from his current outlook. These two Raskolnikovs seem like completely different people.
okay so a couple of things:
1. Razumikhin and Dunya: I don't know about this...I find it a tad weird. However, he was slightly drunk when he started to get attracted to her. He thinks she is beautiful and strong. I thought it was great when he tried to set Zossimov up with the landlady only because the doc complimented Dunya. wow jealous much?!?! Even better, the next day he regrets everything and thinks he was crazy to even think about Dunya that way. LOVE TRIANGLE!!!
2. Raskolnikov is just so stupid: The whole thing with getting back his watch that he pawned was very silly on his part. Then, the article that Raskolnikov didn't even know was published ("On Crime"), I mean come on...this whole coincidence thing is so annoying. It is starting to really bother me. However, something I thought was really important came up when Porfiry and Raskolnikov were talking about his article...this idea of the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary." I think this concept is going to be really key in the rest of the book.
I thought most of part three was pretty slow, especially toward the beginning. But, some of the most interesting scenes occurred at the end when Raskolnikov went to see Porfiry and the stranger was stalking Raskolnikov, later on appearing in his dream and his apartment.
I agree with Julia that having the 'On Crime' article just thrown in there and having him unaware that it was published was a little too convenient. But, I think it brought up some really important ideas and concepts about death and crime for a further understanding of Raskolnikov’s motivation, maybe not motivation necessarily, but some kind of justification for his actions. Like the discussion before about the importance of ‘the influence of the environment’ it gives Dostoyevsky an opportunity to tell us why Raskolnikov was just in his killings. The original discussion begins with the question, “…is there such a thing as crime or isn’t there?” (246). Then the debate leads into Raskolnikov talking about the separation between the ‘ordinary’ and the ‘extraordinary. It’s consistent with the meaning of his name, which literally means the word ‘schism’, that he would believe in divisibility among people. Although, I am still unsure whether or not Raskolnikov believes he himself is part of the ‘extraordinary group’ or if he is just one of the lucky few ‘ordinary’ people who has gotten away with his schemes so far. Right now I think it is the latter but I am unsure if this will change in the future.
I thought it was strange that Razumikhin said, “I might as well tell you frankly I noticed they were up to something quite a while ago. I noticed the idea of theirs. Barely noticeable, or course. Still just hatching…How dare they!” (258). It was such a drastic change in shift. At first he is telling Raskolnikov that he might have known he was going to be in for some sketchy conversations when he brought him to meet Porfiry, but he is so mad at how Porfiry and Zamiotov reacted and treated him. Like dude, seriously? How do you really feel?
The dream sequence at the ending was particularly interesting to read. When he tries to hit the old pawnbroker with the ax and she rolls on to the floor and then laughs hysterically, I took it as a sign of foreshadowing. This nightmare shows that he is being mocked because he of the laughter from the crowds of people and by the old woman himself. The stranger who we now know as Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov led him there. So, I believe Ark is going to lead him to trouble later on in the future because he will mock him almost by abusing the fact he knows Raskolnikov is a murdered and use him for something.
Alot has already been said, so i wont be repetitive- i must say though, the whole Raskolnikov going crazy thing does seem to be getting a little old.
BUt, what julia said about him looking to put the blame on someone outside himself was very interesting to me as well. I think this all essentially leads back to dosteyevsky's naming of him, and the idea that he is "split" with this supposed schism. Clearly, he is torn between this superman he thinks he can be and the man he actually is. One line really stood out to me in light of this, other than the one that julia already mentione, he describes Roskolnikov as almost having "two opposite characters in him". We particularly see him struggle with this with Porfiry while he tries to maintain his collectiveness so as to not give himself away, yet he faints when his sister merely mentions killing someone. I think we have much more of this character "split" to see with raskolnikov.
One thing I noticed about this section was that everyone's opinions seem to be all over the place. At this point I'm used to Raskolnikov's conflicting views and emotionss, but everyone else seem change their minds every five seconds. For example, when Dunia and her mother are walking with Razumikhin when he is drunk, first they trust him, then they don't, then they trust him again. Also, the moods shift very quickly. When Raskolnikov is attempting to make up for acting out the day before, everyone feels excited, then upset, then confused, then probably worried again. Even his illness is conflicting: sometimes he's sick, sometimes he isn't. Emotions and health flip in a millisecond in this novel, and it gets tiresome after a while.
I agree with everyone else: the coincidences are getting ridiculous and Jane Eyre-esque. But I did think the whole "On Crime" was pretty cool, it's the first time the book directly addressed this idea of Raskolnikov thinkiung of himself as having an exemption from morality.
On a sidenote, so far most drunks in this novel make pretty kickass speeches, like Marmeladov and his forgiveness speech and Razumikhin and his speech about nonsense. I think this whole idea of alcohol plays an important role as the characters are rarely completely sober, and are often in an altered state of mind. When Raskolnikov is not drunk he is sick, or crazy, which affects the decisions he makes.
A major part of this book is suspense, and something random I noticed not just in part 3 but in the entire book is the way Dostoyevsky constantly introduces new characters at the end of a chapter. He does this on pg. 137: "'oh, come o-o-on!' cried Razumikhin, but at that moment the door opened and a new person came in, a man none of them had ever seen before." He does the same at the end of part 3 by introducing Svidrigailov. This creates suspense, because first of all, the guy shows up while Raskolnikov is sleeping which is creepy, and we know that he (like all the other new characters who are introduced) is going to provide another plot twist. The structure is so similar for each new character that's introduced. At the end of a chapter, he/she is introduced. Then in the next, Dostoyevsky describes the character physically, and then he shows us the character's interaction with Raskolnikov. I think that all these new characters (with such difficult names) who present new situations to which Raskolnikov reacts in different ways make this book so overwhelming. I just thought this was an interesting part of the structure.
Now to the events of part3...
So I pretty much agree with everyone about "On Crime." I find it annoying that Dostoyevsky only now mentions it. We see pretty every single one of Raskolnikov's thoughts, especially the unimportant ones (like him changing his mind about which way to walk or about his German hat at the beginning of the book), but we aren't told his reasons/motives for murder?
I also feel like this section kind of advances Rasakolnikov's character by showing how inconsistent it is. Readers are meant to doubt his sanity, because of this guilt that is causing him to suffer so much, but he constantly reacts differently to this. Sometimes he is so proud (like when he tells off Luzhin). But then all of a sudden he faints when his sister mentions murder. Also, he can't decide whether he wants to confess or get away with the crime. This helps establish the schism in his character.
I almost feel a somewhat anti-intellectual vibe coming from the author during this section. So far, we have been given the portrait of a man torn apart by his own insecurities and neuroticism. We are watching a person be destroyed by his crime. Sure, Raskolnikov has made several attempts to try to justify his crime to himself, but I doubt many people in class think these arguments are treated as fully valid and not just excuses. I know I don’t. Then we discover that he had previously written an article discussing how certain people of extraordinary intellects are so superior to their peers that they are exempt from laws. Our sad protagonist is initially described as an intellectual, and he has been suffering for most of our reading, so I think that this is an indictment of the theory that he wrote about. People are just people. Intellectuals can try to brand themselves as superior, but this is based primarily on delusions of grandeur and that their minds will have some monumental effect on the universe that everyone else cannot fathom. Raskolnikov was smart, but he is still having a nervous breakdown like anyone else would.
Hi! Sorry this post is well after midnight, I did not allow myself enough time to read this section...who knew there would be an extremely dense section with Raskolnokov and Porfiry? Not me. Anyway, I agree with those who said this section was not as enjoyable and much slower than the other sections, but I also think it's really important structurally. Obviously, we know the first section of the book is the "crime" and the rest of the chapters and sections are likely the "punishment." Part Two seemed to focus on a sub-conscious, sort of self-inflicted punishment of being ill, miserable, and delirious. He didn't even realize when four days passed; sometimes, when he woke up, he forgot about the murder. Essentially, he avoided what he did by going crazy. In Part Three, his punishment seems to be- while still self-inflicted- more conscious. First off, he voluntarily goes to see Porfiry, who is investigating the case of the murder. He knows he will have to endure at least some questioning. In addition, he resents his mother and Dunia; they are worried about him and so full of love for him, and he cannot accept it after what he has done.
Interestingly, I used to love Raskolnikov and hope that he wouldn't get caught or turn himself in, but by the end of this section, I had much less respect for him. After so many attempts to justify his murder (p.264, "I didn't kill a person, I killed a principle!") and after the way he treats the murder like a joke, like taunting Zamiotov in Part Two and Razumihin on pages 258-9, I can no longer justify his murder or response. I wasn't worried when Porfiry questioned him about On Crime, like if he believes that he is extraordinary, and I was not concerned when the artisan called him a murderer and showed up in his apartment. I'm interested to see what happens with the artisan, Arkady Uvanovich Svidrigailov.
i agree with everyone else that Rosco going crazy is starting to get boring-we get it Dostoy. anyway, i would have liked to see more about Rosco as the murderer, possibly getting caught/questioned by police, etc. in this section. i simply saw part 3 as some extra plot devices, such as Sonia becoming more of a central character and the introduction of Rosco's family.
i think the whole family reunion was pretty funny, if not a bit disturbing. his sister and mother are so excited to see him and they wait for him for an hour and then...he bitches them out by yelling at them about how stupid the marriage is. it was basically a huge slap in the face. i can't really figure out dunia at this point- she says she isn't marrying for Rosco's sake and that she truly loves Petrovich, but can she really be blind to the mistreatment that he gives her? idk, i can't figure out her true motives, although i suspect Rosco is right on this one.
Post a Comment