We have finished reading Crime and Punishment. Now we are jigsawing:) With such a large text, it can be easy to overlook the way in which the author is able to convey his ideas. So for this week, I want you to pull a passage that you find to be thought provoking or interestingly constructed. Type out the passage and then break it down for us. Go line by line analyzing how each word, each sentence, and the use of language impacts what is being said. (Choose a small enough passage so that this is possible.)
“The terror that possessed him had been growing greater and greater, especially after this second, unpremeditated murder. He wanted to get away as quickly as possible. If he had been in a condition to exercise a soberer judgement and see things more clearly, if he could only have recognized all the difficulty of his position and how desperate, hideous, and absurd it was, if he could have understood how many obstacles to surmount, perhaps even crimes to commit, sill lay before him, before he could escape from the house and reach the home - very probably he would have abandoned everything and given himself up, not out of fear for himself so much as from horror and repulsion for what he had done. Repulsion, indeed, was growing in his heart with every moment. Not for anything in the world would he have returned to the trunk, or even to the room” (Dostoevsky, 1.7.26).
ReplyDeleteThis passage is at the point in the book between the entrance of Lizaveta into the murder scene of Alëna Ivanovna and Raskolnikov's murder of Lizaveta. The first line of this passage shows Raskolnikov's fear of that which he cannot control - he is okay with committing crimes and sacrificing his own well-being, but not having a "choice" in the matter or being forced to do something does not work well with Raskolnikov; he is terrified at the thought of unpremeditated murder because it does not fit into the controlled plan that he had created and followed up until this point. The next line reveals Raskolnikov's cowardice, especially in regards to control as was just discussed. He requires knowledge and control of what will happen next in a situation, and when he does not have that, Raskolnikov goes into flight mode. Next, Raskolnikov's need for logic and thinking through situations is elaborated on as Dostoevsky states that if only Raskolnikov had had "soberer judgement", he would not have been put in this situation in which he is forced relinquish control. It is part of Raskolnikov’s character to be (logically) prepared for anything, and his lack of preparation for this moment is what Dostoevsky is trying to emphasize. The next part of that line shows how analytical and judgemental Raskolnikov is regarding his own actions: “he would have abandoned everything and given himself up, not out of fear for himself so much as from horror and repulsion for what he had done” (Dostoevsky, 1.7.26). Raskolnikov’s logic failed him in this instance, and that is what he had built himself off of for the majority of his life, if not for all of it; now that it has failed him he feels he has disgraced himself, and that he should not have the pleasure of being able to finish committing his crime, or walk free for that matter. Next, with the growing repulsion of every moment, Raskolnikov’s habit of dwelling on things is revealed; he lets himself over think what has happened, allowing his emotions to grow even more extreme. The last line then solidifies for the reader Raskolnikov’s shame, as he would refuse to return to the trunk (or the room), for he believes himself to be a failure, not only in failing to carry through his plan, but also in failing to think through every situation and determine a logical path for him to follow.
“‘Do you know, Sonia,’ he said suddenly with conviction, ‘let me tell you: if I’d simply killed her because I was hungry,” laying stress on every word and looking enigmatically but sincerely at her, “I should be happy now. You must believe that! What would it matter to you,” he cried a moment later with a sort of despair, “what would it matter to you if I were to confess that I did wrong? What do you gain by such a stupid triumph over me? Ah, Sonia, was it for that I’ve come to you to-day?’” (5.4.101)
ReplyDeleteIn this passage Raskilnikov has recently confessed to Sonia that he murdered the pawnbroker woman and her sister Lizaveta. When he asks the question, “Do you know, Sonia” he sets himself up to reveal that there is something else beneath the surface of his murderous actions and their aftermath. The inclusion of the word “conviction” adds an air of intensity to his words as he explains himself further to Sonia. In his explanation, he states that “If I’d simply…”, which again creates a sense of a deeper meaning, and lends the idea that this is not a simple situation, and is in fact a more complex situation than just a man killing two women. Dostoevsky writes that Raskolnikov was “laying stress on every word” which demonstrates that Raskolnikov is making what he believes to be a very important point. The fact that Rodya is looking “enigmatically but sincerely” at Sonia shows his kinder side, even though this a moment of torment for him. In his next statement, Dosteovsky has put the word “happy” in italics, creating a deeper emphasis on the word and demonstrating Raskolnikov’s suffering, as his actions have not garnered the results he was expecting. This italicized “happy” also serves to demonstrate that Raskolnikov is not completely evil as a murderer, he struggles with it and doesn’t find himself satisfied with his actions. Rodya’s next questions, “What would it matter to you” directed at Sonia, show that he is still somewhat unaware of the unfailing devotion Sonia would show him soon. Her convictions and the reasoning behind them are not yet clear to him. His successive questions which end the passage exemplify that he is tormented by what has done, as he asks them in a very exasperated tone. This entire passage serves to demonstrates Rodya’s constant mulling-over of his murderous actions, and shows a much more complex picture of a murderer, as he committed the crime but struggles with what he has done.
“Well, anyway, they put me in jail that time, for debt. On account of a dirty Greek from Nezhin. That’s where Martha Petrovna came in. She made an arrangement and bought me out for thirty thousand, silver. (I was in debt for seventy thousand in all.) So I married her according to law and she had me shipped off at once to her place in the country, like some kind of treasure. She was five years older than I was. She was very much in love. For seven years I didn’t leave our village. All her life, mind you, she kept that document against me, in somebody else’s name, for those thirty thousand rubles” (Dostoevsky, 4.1.13)
ReplyDeleteSvidrigailov was a Russian serf, indentured by his society. He served jail time for not only personal debt, but for the debt of his previous manner as a well mannered individual to a hardened swinder. In swindling the Greek girl, Svidrigailov showed just how vulnerable women were to dominant men. Martha Petrovna saved him. She pulled Arkady away from his thought process and taught him a new way of life. He would still, however, have to put in debt by Martha for seventy thousand rubles. He was special to her, so special that he was considered a treasure, an object of incredible value and worth. As many times as he wanted to, he never got the courage to live the village to seek out Dounia. Even if he left, he would remain forever connected to his debts and Martha Petrovna.
“She gave him a joyful smile of welcome, but held out her hand with her usual timidity. She was always timid of holding out her hand to him and sometimes he did not offer it at all, as though afraid he would repel it. He always took her hand as though with repugnance, always seemed vexed to meet her and was sometimes obstinately silent throughout her visit. Sometimes she trembled before him and went away deeply grieved. But now their hands did not part...How it happened he did not know. But all at once something seemed to seize him and fling him at her feet. He wept and threw his arms round her knees. For the first instant she was terribly frightened and she turned pale. She jumped up and looked at him trembling. But at the same moment she understood, and a light of infinite happiness came into her eyes. She knew he had no doubt that he loved her beyond everything and that at last the moment had come...They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other” (7.2.17).
ReplyDeleteI found this to be one of the most profound passages in the novel. In the Epilogue, Raskolnikov professes his love for Sonia. Dostoyevsky begins by describing Sonia’s timid actions. Their relationship seems awkward as if they rarely interact. Words such as “vexed” and “repugnance” show Raskolnikov’s annoyance towards Sonia. Dostoyevsky then proceeds by contradicting the previous description of their encounter. Sonia and Raskolnikov now hold hands with comfort as he is overpowered by his love for Sonia. His actions to follow show his compassion. It is evident that Raskolnikov is a dynamic character. He is able to love and fit in with mainstream society for the first time. He no longer battles physical or mental challenges. He breaks down in tears, showing remorse for his sins and joy in finding meaning in his life. Raskolnikov realizes he is able to care for someone more than he cares for himself. He has overcome selfish motivation by admitting to his crime and loving Sonia. The sentence structure of the passage is simple. Each line states a brief idea, however the passage flows with completion. The imagery describe the setting and emotions of the characters, powerfully encapsulating the scene in which Raskolnikov faces such an “epiphany”. The last portion of the passage use anaphora to emphasize the unity Sonia and Raskolnikov have no discovered. They no longer experience division due to Raskolnikov’s ignorance. This newfound love injects his life with fresh meaning and importance.
“‘To him. Where is he? Do you know? Why is this door locked? We came in at that door and now it is locked. When did you manage to lock it?’” - Dounia
ReplyDeleteDostoevsky does this a lot throughout Crime and Punishment, he has surroundings described by dialogue rather than third person narration. A healthy balance of the two creates equal presence in the characters and narrator, with neither outweighing another (if, for example, there was a great sum more narration to describe settings and events, it would characterize the narrator to the point that he/she becomes another character in the novel, [not to say that this is a bad thing, it works in other contexts] but because of the way Dostoevsky crafts his equilibrium, he avoids this hurdle). One of the greatest successes of this book, and a reason it is marveled as a classic, lies in the execution of this balance and the effect it has on the reader. So, at the surface level we have dialogue as a means to describe events and surroundings; on a second, subterranean level we have dialogue working to dictate the passage of time. Because Dounia says “We came in at that door and now it is locked. When did you manage to lock it?” she exposes that something happened while she was unaware, and this calls the reader to create an image of Svidrigailov locking the door behind them, or perhaps having it back-locked long beforehand. Now the dialogue is describing events, creating a timeline and characterizing Svidrigailov. Because Dostoevsky has Dounia ask a direct question to Svidrigailov, accusing him of locking the door, he is further characterized as untrustworthy, and Dostoevsky creates a shift in power with these words. Dostoevsky could have written “I wonder how this door got locked” but it would have a different result, it would be inconsistent with Dounia’s character of a motivated and skeptical individual. This is evidence that there is no coincidence in good art. Now Svidrigailov is in control of the situation, for this is his flat and he has locked the only means of egress, the door. His control over the situation is perpetuated by Dounia asking a series of questions, showing her at a disadvantage, “Where is he? Do you know? Why is this door locked? … When did you manage to lock it?” she needs information which puts Svidrigailov in control. With this kind of advanced attention to detail and creation purely in a sequence of 6 sentences, it’s no wonder that Crime and Punishment has aged so well.
“At the beginning of their happiness at some moments they were both ready to look on those seven years as though they were seven days. He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering. But that is the beginning of a new story - the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life. That might be the subject of a new story, but our present story is ended” (Epilogue.2.29)
ReplyDeleteThe use of the phrase “at the beginning of their happiness” is a clear indicator of change within Raskolnikov and Sonia. The two are no longer suffering, they found each other and they are learning to be happy in spite of their former lives. It is a clear beginning, and this beginning comes from our story’s end. The use of the number seven can be an allusion to the bible, where seven is used in the case of the number of days it took God to create the earth, the seven deadly sins, the seven sacraments, etc. The number seven is also considered lucky in Greek mythology. It symbolizes completion, and in this case it is the completion of Raskolnikov’s rehabilitation. The next line is foreshadowing, stating that Raskolnikov knows he must suffer, and he is willing to pay the price for his new life. Then, there is a shift in the tone. The narrator goes from a third person to first, and the narrator talks directly to the reader, as happens several times throughout the novel. The ending reveals that this is not the end of the story. Raskolnikov’s and Sonia’s lives do not end here, they continue to live on even after the book has ended. There is also a hint that Dostoyevsky might have considered writing a sequel, saying that the future might be the “subject of a new story”. This ending is somewhat unexpected, a book entitled “Crime and Punishment” is not expected to be a love story with a happy ending. However, this provides a satisfying end.
"We’ve grown used to having
ReplyDeleteeverything ready-made, to walking on crutches, to having
our food chewed for us. Then the great hour struck,
and every man showed himself in his true colors."
Let's jump right in. "we've", is a deeply interpersonal statement that makes this statement all encompassing and applicable to everyone. Yes it is a broad generalization, but it allows for the reader to both connect with the pains of the feudal system through textual inclusion and sets the dialog up for an all encompassing conclusion. "Grown used to having everything ready made" displays cleverness in diction. The verb,"Grown" hints to the topic of serfdom trough references to crop growing, which also alludes to how the peasant class has really been in control and has been growing and enabling the upper class to become dependent on them. The next two lines, "Walking on crutches" and "having our food chewed for us" evoke imagery of such pathetic people, like the sick, crippled, and elderly, that the reader no longer feels sorry for the serfdom but rather those that ruled them and are now crippled with out them. To be missing legs or teeth is also a deeper reference to just how severe the crippling of the upper class' independence was. To not be able to eat and move on one's own implies total dependence. To be missing teeth implies that the upper class became so dependent on their social system they lost hope of controlling it and defending it much like a wolf would become helpless if their fangs were removed. The diction, "Great" forces importance on the "Hour" which alludes to freeing the surfs which cuts through the explanation and hits the reader with a sense of importance. Finally the reader is left with a feeling of vulnerability, with the use of "shown in his true colors" that gives the characters in question an air of naked failure by their own accord. This passage is a good example of the complex diction which Dostoevsky continually employs within his book.
"Raskolnikov completely lost his head, snatching up her bundle, dropped it again and ran into the entry. Fear gained more and more mastery over him, especially after this second, quite unexpected murder. He longed to run away from the place as fast as possible" (1.7.65).
ReplyDeleteOccurring immediately after Raskolnikov kills Lizaveta he immediately starts to freak out. He lost his head and could not think clearly, he could not think of how he was going to escape his situation for a long while. He could not think of a solid plan of action of what to do and this foreshadows his uncertainty of whether he will confess to the crime later in the novel. Fear dominated him all through the escape from his murder and had a lasting effect on him throughout the rest of the novel and that fear is what made him appear sick throughout the book. It is rather ironic that Raskolnikov ended up murdering the person that he was trying to free in the first place with his first murder. It is worth questioning whether the rest of the book would have played out the way it did if he had not killed Lizaveta. Would he have even felt enough guilt to even turn himself in by the end of the book because he clearly did not feel remorse for killing Alyona, but Lizaveta is clearly the murder that left him uncertain. The scene demonstrates Raskolnikov's uncertainty, and fear that he will endure for the rest of the book until he turns himself in. It clearly demonstrates how he just wishes that he had not committed this crime and how he just wants to reverse it.
“And another thing that was of special interest to you was your own sock. You whined, ‘Give me my sock.’ Zametov hunted all about your room for your socks, and with his own scented, ring-bedecked fingers he gave you the rag. And only then were you comforted, and for the next twenty-four hours you held the wretched thing in your hand; we could not get it from you. It is most likely somewhere under your quilt at this moment. And then you asked so piteously for fringe for your trousers. We tried to find out what sort of fringe, but we could not make it out”(2.3.90).
ReplyDeleteI found this passage particularly interesting because it shows two different perspectives. On one hand, Zometov and Razumhikin think that the sock is no big deal, but Raskolnikov knows that the sock has blood on it that could incriminate him. The passage is told by Raskolnikov’s thoughts and Razumihikin’s words. I find it interesting that there is so much controversy over a sock. A person may think that a sock is no big deal, but to Raskolnikov, it is so much more. If they found the blood on the sock, no one would think he was the murderer, but because he was so paranoid, he was worried that someone had found it. Dostoyevsky used the word comforted when talking about how Raskolnikov felt after he received his sock. Even in his delirious state, he still thought about his actions, killing the two sisters. Razumihikin was really confused, but the reader still worries about Raskolnikov because we are afraid that he will be found out by his old friend. When Dostoyevsky says the word wretched, describing the sock, it gives the reader understanding to how confused Razumihikin and Zometov must have been as to why Raskolnikov wanted the sock so much. Then the reader realizes that it adds to Raskolnikov’s lies that he was insane.
“I know I am not well, without your telling me, though I don’t know what’s wrong; I believe I am five times as strong as you are. I didn’t ask whether you believe that ghosts are seen, but whether you believe that they exist”-Svidrigailov
ReplyDeleteTo put this passage in context, this comes during Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov conversation regarding Dounya. I find this passage to be interesting because, while the speaker is Svidrigailov, one could think that Raskolnikov could say the same thing. I see this passage as containing two parts. The first being, “I know I am not well, without your telling me, though I don’t know what’s wrong; I believe I am five times as strong as you are.” Svidrigailov has a very arrogant and self assertive tone. He has no doubts about his own personal strength, but lacks the insight to diagnose his own condition. While I don’t believe many parallels exist between Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov, this sentence could very easily be seen as something Raskolnikov says. I find this passage to be ironic; Svidrigailov claims to be five times stronger than Raskolnikov, but in the end commits suicide for the guilt he feels for his crimes while Raskolnikov confesses in order to reconnect his emotions with the rest of humanity. The second part of the passage is the one I find more interesting. It's interesting that two grown men are talking about something as trivial as the existence of ghosts.
“Well, then, here I am, her own blood father, and I took her thirty kopecks to go and get myself drunk! And I dri-i-ink! And it’s all gone! …Well who is going to be sorry for the likes of me? … Why feel sorry, you say? Oh yes, there is no reason to feel sorry for me!” (1.2.30)
ReplyDeleteMarmeladov acts as a foil to Raskolnikov in his reaction to the poverty he lives in. Raskolnikov wants to be independent of his sister and mother; he refuses to accept Dunia’s sacrifice (“I don’t want your sacrifice, Dunia; I don’t want it, Mother dear! As long as I live it shall not come to that! It shall not, shall not come to that! I refuse to accept it!” (1.4.6)) and he lives in isolation from his family because he does not want to be a burden to them. Marmeladov recognizes that he is living as a parasite who steals crucial money that his family needs. Rather than try to change his behavior, he despairs over his situation while continuing to drink away. It is clear that he is aware of his pathetic situation by his line “Well, then, here I am, her own blood father, and I took her thirty kopeck to go and get myself drunk!”. Perhaps the only noble quality Marmeladov possess is that he accepts complete responsibility for his actions and does not try to put blame on anyone, or anything, else. Because of this, he truly believes that “there is no reason to feel sorry for [him]”, and he deserves the chaos that he has created and the anger that Katerina will project onto him. “And I dri-i-ink! And it’s all gone!” shows how drunk Marmeladov is, while also serving as a metaphor for how quickly the money that his daughter works for, the money that feeds his wife and three other children, dwindles away because of him. In comparison to Raskolnikov, Marmeladov is seen as the pinnacle of poverty, because he does nothing to try and further himself or his family. Raskolnikov at least removes himself from his family to try and keep them in a better situation than him.
“You think I am attacking them because they talk nonsense? Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen. And a fine thing, too, in its way; but we can't even make mistakes on our own account! Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. In the first case you are a man, in the second you're no better than a bird.” Razumihin
ReplyDeleteWhile the half-drunk Razumihin tries to convince Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dounia to leave Raskolnikov alone for the night in the beginning of part three, he rants to the two ladies about Zossimov talking nonsense. In the beginning lines of this quote, Razumihin points out that he is not angered by the men “talking nonsense,” or otherwise commonly referred to as “gossiping” in today’s society, because talking nonsense reveals the truth about man. In the following lines, Razumihin follows up his idea by stating that he too is a man because he makes mistakes or “errs” and that by making an amplitude of mistakes the behavior, desires, and motives of mankind can be exposed; Razumihin thus far indicates from this quote that the behavior of men talking nonsense and making errors reveals the rascally nature of mankind. This quote then takes a slight transition when Razumihin states, “...but we can’t even make mistakes on our own account!” When Razumihin says this to the women, he claims that man is at fault because he does not recognize or talk nonsense about his own self but will only talk about and inflict harm on others. This further supports Razumihin’s view on the nature of man and he then goes further to state that he would applaud or kiss one for talking nonsense about himself. Razumihin powerfully closes this quote by comparing a man who is a follower of a crowd to a bird. When he says, “To go wrong in one’s own way is better than to go right in someone else’s” Razumihin justifies that a man is able to learn more and discover the truth about himself by making his own mistakes and following his own path rather than being like a bird and going along with the rest of the flock. This entire quote from Razumihin overall analyzes the faultiness in the nature of mankind and specifically the male characters in Crime and Punishment.
“...he struck her again and yet again, with all his strength, always with the blunt side of the axe, and always on the crown of the head” (I.VII.XX).
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the book and came across this part the first time, it stood out to me how Raskolnikov (henceforth Rascal) used the blunt side of the axe when using it to murder Alena. I thought there was a chance that Rascal might be somewhat intelligent – reason being that if he uses the blunt side, investigators will find that Alena was bludgeoned to death and won’t be looking for an axe as the murder weapon. With that in mind, I read the rest of the novel thinking that investigators couldn’t have known she was murdered with an axe, missing the implication that he killed Lizaveta with the blade (which of course gives away to the investigators that the weapon was an axe).
Looking back at this quote again, I realize that I shouldn’t have jumped to that conclusion, even if I didn’t pick up on the implied blade usage in Lizaveta’s murder. The repetition in this quote –– describing the repetition of his actions –– makes Rascal seem machine-like, in the way he strikes “again and yet again...always with the blunt side...and always on the crown of the head”. Reading it now, I realize that his repetitive actions show that Rascal was on autopilot, and hadn’t really planned to kill Alena in this way. Had he planned to do this, he would have done the same with Lizaveta and killed her with the blunt side of the axe, thereby eliminating one of the few leads investigators had.
"'Oh, well - to plunder. Leave off, Sonia," he answered wearily, almost with vexation." (5.4.51)
ReplyDeleteThis is when Raskolnikov admits to Sonia that he killed Alyona and Lizaveta. Throughout the novel, Raskolinkov oscillates between being an angry and alienating figure to a helpful but anxious madman. This is demonstrated in the passage I chose. He shows how little he cares for being around other people when he tells Sonia to leave off and speaks with vexation. Although he had just admitted to an atrocity, he wishes that she would not bother her with what he considers useless questions. He is also weary and admits the truth to her, demonstrating the softer side. In this passage, we see Raskolnikov switch from on of his personas to the other. We see Raskolnikov struggle with his "Jekyll and Hyde" condition throughout the book. We can hear in his words that he almost wishes that he had not told Sonia the truth, but he could not have avoided telling her. He gives in to all of his whims, which is why he kills the women, runs around delirious, and helps out Marmeladov and his family even though it was not his responsibility. I thought this line was interesting because, though it is short, it captures Raskolnikov’s essence in such an important point in the story.
“For a moment a terrible, mute struggle took place in the soul of Svidrigailov. He looked her [Dunia] somehow in a way that was beyond words. Suddenly he removed his arm, turned around, strode quickly to the window, and stood there in front of it.
ReplyDeleteAnother moment passed.
‘Here’s the key.’ He took it from his left coat pocket and put it behind him on the table, without looking, and without turning around to face Dunia. ‘Take it, and go now! Quickly!’” (5.3.?)
Although I was admittedly beginning to tire by the end of the novel, I was always excited and enthralled by the way in which Doestoyevsky always managed to find a place for the plot to go when I could not foresee another event in sight. Rather than a lot of other fiction, however, he never had to invent some other character or part of the setting or introduce something new, but rather he took the carefully-crafted characters he had already established and drew new events out of them. They resemble real people, not solely because they shatter stereotypes and are not shallow, but because their past and their history contribute to the decisions they make and the events that play out in the book. Svidrigailov always particularly interested me, and, as with every other character in the novel, I found myself utterly unable to hate him wholly. For most, whether they had committed a crime or not, I felt pity; either they were victims of circumstance or victims of themselves, and I sincerely believe Svidrigailov is one of those characters who tortured himself so. Obviously the things he had done and the acts he had committed are terrible (poisoning his wife, molesting children and housekeepers, driving people to suicide, attempting to rape Dunia, the crime he committed to get himself into prison in the first place, etc.). However, if I were in his place, I would not know how else to get on with my life. What more could the man have done? Yes, he did terrible things, but aside from harsh judgment and saying that he deserves what he gets, how is he supposed to move on? If one judges a person, one can simply absolve themselves of any relation and move on; Svidrigailov, however, cannot, for it is a burden he must bear for as long as he exists. Although he attempts to make amends (giving money to house the orphans, letting Dunia go free, and so on), he cannot seem to either prove to the world or to himself that he is worthy of respect or that his life is one worth living. This is one of two scenes that really spoke to me, and it is exactly for that reason - for as long as he lives, he has to find hope and reason to continue, else his past will consume his whole future. The other passage that I thought was intriguing was his dream about helping the little girl; he wished that he could be pure enough to trick himself and others into thinking that his deeds could be good for good’s sake. He, however, knew he could. This chapter with Dunia is also very interesting to me, for several reasons. First of all, the reader and Svidrigailov alike know that he has claimed to have no interest or ill intent, and also that Dunia is an extraordinarily strong, independent, and capable woman who will not be dominated. However, his instincts overcome him, begging the question: are his actions really of his own choosing, or does his nature control him? Is he inherently bad, or has he chosen it? Additionally, why would he choose it if he understood its miserable effects on him. I also am friends with a girl who was a victim of the crime which he was planning to subject Dunia to. As terrible as that experience was for her, she said she always managed to pray for her tormentor, because just as she knew how difficult it was for her to endure each day having succumbed to the crime, he had to, as well. This scene reminded me of such, and despite how “lucky” he may have been to have been spared by Dunia, it potentially was for the best; then she wouldn’t have to suffer for his own being swallowed by his past and unable to outrun it. His suicide was inevitable, his suffering, “beyond words.”
“For a moment a terrible, mute struggle took place in the soul of Svidrigailov. He looked her [Dunia] somehow in a way that was beyond words. Suddenly he removed his arm, turned around, strode quickly to the window, and stood there in front of it.
ReplyDeleteAnother moment passed.
‘Here’s the key.’ He took it from his left coat pocket and put it behind him on the table, without looking, and without turning around to face Dunia. ‘Take it, and go now! Quickly!’” (5.3.?)
Although I was admittedly beginning to tire by the end of the novel, I was always excited and enthralled by the way in which Doestoyevsky always managed to find a place for the plot to go when I could not foresee another event in sight. Rather than a lot of other fiction, however, he never had to invent some other character or part of the setting or introduce something new, but rather he took the carefully-crafted characters he had already established and drew new events out of them. They resemble real people, not solely because they shatter stereotypes and are not shallow, but because their past and their history contribute to the decisions they make and the events that play out in the book. Svidrigailov always particularly interested me, and, as with every other character in the novel, I found myself utterly unable to hate him wholly. For most, whether they had committed a crime or not, I felt pity; either they were victims of circumstance or victims of themselves, and I sincerely believe Svidrigailov is one of those characters who tortured himself so. Obviously the things he had done and the acts he had committed are terrible (poisoning his wife, molesting children and housekeepers, driving people to suicide, attempting to rape Dunia, the crime he committed to get himself into prison in the first place, etc.). However, if I were in his place, I would not know how else to get on with my life. What more could the man have done? Yes, he did terrible things, but aside from harsh judgment and saying that he deserves what he gets, how is he supposed to move on? If one judges a person, one can simply absolve themselves of any relation and move on; Svidrigailov, however, cannot, for it is a burden he must bear for as long as he exists. Although he attempts to make amends (giving money to house the orphans, letting Dunia go free, and so on), he cannot seem to either prove to the world or to himself that he is worthy of respect or that his life is one worth living. This is one of two scenes that really spoke to me, and it is exactly for that reason - for as long as he lives, he has to find hope and reason to continue, else his past will consume his whole future. The other passage that I thought was intriguing was his dream about helping the little girl; he wished that he could be pure enough to trick himself and others into thinking that his deeds could be good for good’s sake. He, however, knew he could. This chapter with Dunia is also very interesting to me, for several reasons. First of all, the reader and Svidrigailov alike know that he has claimed to have no interest or ill intent, and also that Dunia is an extraordinarily strong, independent, and capable woman who will not be dominated. However, his instincts overcome him, begging the question: are his actions really of his own choosing, or does his nature control him? Is he inherently bad, or has he chosen it? Additionally, why would he choose it if he understood its miserable effects on him. I also am friends with a girl who was a victim of the crime which he was planning to subject Dunia to. As terrible as that experience was for her, she said she always managed to pray for her tormentor, because just as she knew how difficult it was for her to endure each day having succumbed to the crime, he had to, as well. This scene reminded me of such, and despite how “lucky” he may have been to have been spared by Dunia, it potentially was for the best; then she wouldn’t have to suffer for his own being swallowed by his past and unable to outrun it. His suicide was inevitable, his suffering, “beyond words.”
“What was taking place in him was totally unfamiliar, new, sudden, never before experienced. Not that he understood it, but he sensed clearly, with all the power of sensation, that it was no longer possible for him to address these people in the police station, not only with heartfelt effusions, as he had just done, but in any way at all, and had they been his own brothers and sisters, and not police lieutenants, there would still have been no point in this addressing them, in whatever circumstances of life.” (Dostoevsky 2.1.98).
ReplyDeleteI found this part of the novel interesting, because it captures the feelings of Raskolnikov. At this point of the novel, Raskolnikov’s crimes catch up to him, and he begins to realize the punishment. Raskolnikov realizes that in murdering Alyona and Lizaveta, he has isolated himself from society. By being a ragged ex-student, he was already somewhat isolated; but these murders have made him completely isolated. A majority of the novel reflects this; Raskolnikov’s identity breaking down and his alienation increasing. Only when Raskolnikov confesses his sins to Sonia do we see him begin to rejoin society.
“Something was happening to him, something entirely new, sudden and unknown. It was not that he understood, but he felt clearly with all the intensity of sensation that he could no longer appeal to these people in the police office with sentimental outbursts, or with anything whatsoever; and that if they had been his own brothers or sisters and not police officers, it would have been utterly out of the question to appeal to them in any circumstance of life. He had never experienced such a strange and awful sensation.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote from chapter one part two is one I have noticed reveals the essence of the book as a whole, regarding all Crime and Punishment. The new ‘something’ that is happening to Raskolnikov (narration is in his mind) is the moral revolution of his brain post-murder. The change is so sensational because, as Raskolnikov suspects, it is the beginning of his own self-punishment as a result of attempting to violate the traditional morals of man. He feels he cannot use sentiment to talk to the police officers anymore because by definition if he is to believe himself a nihilistic ‘superman’ then these emotions should be moot. He also mentions he could never ask his own brothers or sisters for help (reflective of all the inner turmoil surrounding his mother and Dunia to come, as he cannot decide whether to cut them off or not), because he has completely singled himself out at this point with this single act, and he is now of an entirely different movement of thinking than them. The reason he feels so awful is the newness and severity of it all that he thought he could transcend but ultimately was incapable of.
Each word in a phrase contributes to flow and feeling. This concept means writers and speakers must choose logical structures and words carefully to avoid making some of those words/structures repetitious and obsolete, or empty. Take, for example, a masterful passage by Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his novel Crime and Punishment. This passage occurs in a meeting between Raskolnikov and Porfiry. Porfiry slyly initiates the conversation by implying that he still convicts Nikolai, and then proceeds to lay out all the evidence that instead points to Raskolnikov as the murderer. Raskolnikov weakly asks if Porfiry still convicts Nikolai, and he trails off:
ReplyDelete“His breath failed him, and he did not finish. He had listened in inexpressible excitement to the way this man who had seen through him to the very bottom disavowed himself. He was afraid to believe it, and he did not believe it. In the still ambiguous words he greedily sought and hoped to catch something more precise and final” (6.2).
Each phrase, each word contributes its own dollop of meaning.
The use of “his breath failed him” gives us visceral apprehension because we naturally associate difficulty of breathing with tension and alarm.
“and he did not finish” is just an informational statement, but it does not break the flow of emotion due to its plainness. It connects to the previous phrase with alliteration between the main verbs “finish” and “fail.”
The phrase “inexpressible excitement” with its “x” consonance continues the tension portrayed by the original phrase so that it is maintained in the new action verb “listened”
All these instinctual responses are characteristic of someone who has been been “seen through… to the very bottom,” as if pierced clean through by a spear. This image helps us experience the profound, penetrating effect of Porfiry’s monologue on Raskolnikov’s mental state.
“disavowed himself” is a short informational statement that stresses the idea that Raskolnikov’s extreme reaction has to do with how comfortable he was when Porfiry was initially implying his innocence, and it is only the sudden, unpredicted new switch in stance that is triggering Raskolnikov’s fight or flight.
“He was afraid to believe it, and he did not believe it” is a repetition that psychologically complements the previous logical idea that Porfiry’s turnabout is the source of Raskolnikov’s torment. The “afraid” indicates simultaneous hope and despair: the repetition and “did not believe” indicates an instability, a tormented, illogical refusal to believe an unpleasant possibility.
This instability is accentuated in the final sentence. The adjective “greedily” complements the sequential verbs “sought” and “catch;” all three words are flavors to portray the desperation with which he clings onto the ambiguity of the words as a distant source of hope. The adjectives “precise” and final” are used as flavors of the concreteness and finality that Raskolnikov scrabbles for.
The passage is chock-full of interconnected verbs and adjectives which amplify and accentuate and build over each other. This unifies the passage’s meaning. The diction includes both psychological and physical descriptors to capture the entire human state mind. The effect of this unification and realistic, encompassing presentation is to strengthen the visceral impact of Raskolnikov’s fight or flight response, helping the audience feel like a cornered animal, too.
"If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be punishment-as well as the prison."
ReplyDeleteThis quote inparticular stood out to me because it depicts the books itself perfectly. The entity of the novel focuses on the main character, Raskolnikov, and his life after committing two murders. The story goes on to describe his life and his encounters with the other characters. After Raskolnikov commits both murders, he goes through the stages of grief and goes insane. His conscience eats him alive because he does not know whether to turn himself in or to run away from his problems. This quote relates to the whole book because it is the story and depth of his life. In the conversation between Raskolnikov and Zametov, the underlying message to this passage explains the feelings of Raskolnikov. The first part of the passage is “If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake”, which explains that sometimes the conscience can sometimes cause more suffering and pain than being in prison. Raskolnikov already feels guilty about the murders and he is going mad because of his conscience. The second part of the quote is, “That will be punishment-as well as the prison”, which concludes that the conscience itself can be prison because the guilt is overpowering. While being alone in a prison cell, there is plenty of time to think about what crime was committed, thus having time for the guilt to sink in. Since Raskolnikov feels guilty of the murders, his conscience will be more punishment than going to prison.
"Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?" (1.6.14)
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention was how this conversation that Raskolnikov overheard is one of the reasons he used to justify killing the pawnbroker. For Raskolnikov to kill her, he battled between many possibilities that could come with this decision. He would be doing the greater good for society by eliminating the pawnbroker from it.Why not do what seems to be best? I believe that this passage is one that creates a common theme throughout the book. Helping all of humanity by taking out the factors that bring it down does not seem all a bad idea until you put murder into the equation, then it becomes harder to justify but not unjustifiable.
“It was like this: I asked myself one day this question- what if Napoleon, for instance, had happened to be in my place, and if he had not had Toulon nor Egypt nor the passage of Mont Blanc to begin his career with, but instead of all those picturesque and monumental things, there had simply been some ridiculous old hag, a pawnbroker, who had to be murdered too get money from her trunk (for his career, you understand). Well would he have brought himself to that if there had been no other means? Wouldn’t he have felt a pang at its being so far from monumental and… and sinful, too? Well I must tell you that I worried myself fearfully over that ‘question’ so that I was awfully ashamed when I guessed at last (all of a sudden, somehow) that it would not have given him the least pang, that it would not even have struck him that it was not monumental… that he would not have seen that there was anything in it to pause over, and that, if he had no other way, he would have strangled her in a minute without thinking about it! Well, I too… left off thinking about it… murdered her, following his example. And that’s exactly how it was! Do you think its funny? Yes, Sonia, the funniest thing of all is that perhaps that's just how it was.” (5 .4. 33)
ReplyDeleteIn this passage Raskolnikov is trying to explain to Sonia his motivation behind killing the pawnbroker. The passage starts off with the allusion to Napoleon and how he compares Napoleon to himself, this correlates with his theory that there are extraordinary people that can transgress morals and commit sinful acts. Raskolnikov is puts Napoleon in his place and decides to think about what he would have done and felt had he been in Raskolnikov’s position. In the next line he is discussing how the ordinary people would have had a pang of guilt for committing a sin and a small non monumental crime. He questions on if Napoleon would have felt this ‘pang’ as well. Raskolnikov then goes to explain that he believes that Napoleon would not have even batted an eye as he committed the act. He then in the lines after explaining how Napoleon would have acted, told Sonia that he followed in Napoleon’s footsteps and killed the pawnbroker. This is where we see that Raskolnikov wanted to see if he too were an extraordinary or if he were like everyone else. He then in the last sentence, tries to laugh it off and say that the whole situation is quite comical, and that all of what had happened had just been for the test to see if he were like Napoleon. Here we are able to see the reason behind the murder and the process of thought that went into the before it had taken place.
“The old woman was a mistake perhaps, but she’s not the point! The old woman was merely a sickness...I was in a hurry to step over...it wasn’t a human being I killed, it was a principle! So I killed the principle, but I didn’t step over, I stayed on this side...All I managed to do was kill. And I didn’t even manage that, as it turns out…” (3.6)
ReplyDeleteThis is when Raskolnikov is lying in bed thinking to himself, analyzing the seriousness of his crime and trying to justify it in his head over and over again. The language and sentence structure, specifically the frequent use of ellipses, is used to reflect Raskolnikov’s frantic state of mind. He feels anxious because although he is a murderer, he is not a “successful” murderer due to the fact that this kill will not benefit him or give him any sort of advantage in his life. Raskolnikov’s need to constantly reassure himself of his intellectualized motivations for murdering the pawnbroker only show his insecurities about the whole situation. It can also be looked at as a foreshadowing clue for later in the novel when he’s still protesting that murder itself is not wrong, only the failure to profit from it is the real loss.
“Well, my friend, I don’t mind. It’s a good place. When you're asked, you just say he was going, he said , to America.”
ReplyDeletehe put the revolver to his right temple.
“You can’t do it here, it’s not the place,” cried Achilles, rousing himself, his eyes growing bigger and bigger.
Svidrigailov pulled the trigger(6.6. 39).”
This passage is during Svidrigailov's suicide in front of what he considers an “official witness(6.6. 36).” The passage itself is rather short, as is his suicide. Svidrigailov begins his personal reconciliation by addressing a complete stranger as a friend as well as kindly refuting Achilles’s earlier claim that their current location is not one for jokes. Keeping with his calm demeanor, in comparison to Raskolnikov, when he left his apartment Svidrigailov answered in a rather straightforward manner by saying,” I don’t mind,” so the reader gains a sense that he is keeping up his kind and benevolent persona. Where the stereotypical reaction from someone about to commit themselves to nonexistence would be an unnerving combination of emotion outlashes , but Svidrigailov remains rather calm. In calling his current location as,” a good place,” Svidrigailov is demonstrating how he feels at home near an area reminiscent of his previous abode. Before he lived, though by his own claims in prison, a higher lifestyle before the death of his wife, so in conceding his final moments to a place important enough to be guarded the reader could view it as Svidrigailov reminiscing of better times. Furthermore, his immediate attempt to instruct the guard as to what to do after his resignation is complete could be viewed as proving how Svidrigailov is completely driven to end it all, as in no going back. The specific use of,” America,’ as to where he would be going shows the reader how the amalgamation of all his past experiences, as well as what we could consider crimes,” has ravaged his very being, and in choosing America as his so called destination Svidrigailov is striving to free himself of his past as well as himself. No longer will his own instincts plague him as he will finally reach the self proclaimed land of freedom. True freedom from everything there is, including himself. Not to mention, as Dostoevsky proceeds to simple write how Svidrigailov prepares to shoot himself as he puts the gun,” to his right temple,” the reader is demonstrated how even Svidrigailov's physical actions are following his internal resolution to ascertain freedom. Not only has he exclaimed his intentions for it, but Svidrigailov is now actually going to shoot himself in reality. In response the guard answers,” You can’t do it here, it’s not the place,” as the guard appears to still believe he can deter what Svidrigailov perceives now as inevitable.
Answer continued.
ReplyDeleteThough in crying out his answer the guard nicknamed Achilles is presenting his authority, but with no adjectives in describing his command the reader could gain a sense of self assurance within Achilles. Achilles believes that Svidrigailov is still trying to be funny around him, and considering his occupation s a guard a distraction would most certainly be avoided at all costs. However, as Achilles eyes widen the reader is finally shown after failing to take Svidrigailov serious he realises the random man in front of him is not joking. Thereafter, Svidrigailov just pulls the trigger. No grandiose explanation to the guard or declaration against fate. With such simple wording, dialogue, and description the reader gains a sense of how peculiar Svidrigailov's suicide is. Simply put, Svidrigailov walked up to a guard as he declared he was leaving for greener pastures where upon he prepared and then shot himself in the head to assure his death. In front of a guard he is surely to be remembered as to have killed himself, not been shot by someone else or found dead lying in some decrepit alley under mysterious circumstances. To outside viewers, in the novel’s setting, he would appear to have gone mad but thanks to the struggle the reader is introduced beforehand in the novel we finally witness the fruits of his personal struggle in one quick flourish.
‘“Oh, you particular gentlemen! Principles! You are worked by principles, as it were by springs: you won’t venture to turn round on your own account. If a man is a nice fellow, that’s the only principle I go upon. Zametov is a delightful person.’ [said Razumihin]
ReplyDelete‘Though he does take bribes.” [said Zossimov]
‘Well, he does! and what of it? I don’t care if he does take bribes.’ Razumihin cried with unnatural irritability, ‘I don’t praise him for taking bribes. I only say he is a nice man in his own way! But if one looks at men in all ways--are there many good ones left? Why, I am sure I shouldn’t be worth a baked onion myself...perhaps with you thrown in.’
‘That’s too little; I’d give two for you.’” (2. 4. 24.).
Throughout reading Crime and Punishment, I always thought highly of Razumihin. He was a loyal and very caring friend to Raskolnikov, and a fair suitor for Dounia. In this passage, Razumihin observes that the firmly-held principles of Zossimov and men similar are like springs, rocketing them to quickly judge others, and therefore quickly shifting focus off of themselves. Despite Zametov’s flaw of accepting bribery, a widely frowned-upon act for a policeman to do, Razumihin insists on looking over this. In John 8:7 of the Bible, Jesus says, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” Razumihin understands that for himself, or any man, to judge another solely for his dishonest acts therefore means becoming a hypocrite since not one person is without sin or fault. One may ask how a man who accepts bribes can still be good, but this can be likened to Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, who openly accept the stolen money. If we viewed Robin Hood “in all ways,” -- equally as a stealer and a giver, or even as more of a stealer than a giver-- he would no longer be as pure of a character as the child inside of us wants him to be. However, since the good acts Robin Hood does is emphasized exponentially more, he is “good.” Razumihin seeks the same for Zametov. He does not want him to be defined by the petty (in the grand scheme of things) act that he does, but rather for what he is aside of that. Razumihin understands that nobody is truly and wholly “good,” but with an open mind and the realization that nobody is perfect, a person will be able to see others in a more positive and forgiving way.