This week we will begin unpacking Crime and Punishment. We will have many discussions that will ask us to look beyond the text, apply philosophical ideas and to question our own beliefs.
Your blog this week is to take three ideas that are presented to you or that come up in discussion and explain how they change, extend, or validate your own thinking about the text. Be sure to go to the text to find quotes to help in your explanations and analysis.
Crime and Punishment centers around the murders of a pawnbroker and her sister Lizaveta. Throughout the novel the goal is to try to figure out why Raskolnikov would commit such horrible crimes. While discussing Raskolnikov's motives in class the point that he might have murdered the women because of jealousy. Raskolnikov was struggling with money and was disappointed in himself. The pawnbroker and her sister were two women her were being successful without the help of a man. So not only is he jealous but also it is emasculating because he is a man and should be the one providing money and working for his family but he cannot make money and get a job. However these two women are able to be successful with no man. Raskolnikov first shows his distaste for the women after he is unhappy with the amount of money she is giving him for the items he brings her. He begins talking to himself after the encounter and he is hinting at some things he has been thinking about doing, “Oh, god, how loathsome it all is! And can I, can I possibly...No, it’s nonsense, it’s rubbish!” (1.1.43). He is upset over the encounter and thinks he can go through with what he is thinking about but decides he can’t. However Raskolnikov does end up killing the pawnbroker and Lizaveta.
ReplyDeleteRaskolnikov kills the two women an ax. However he kills them both with two different parts of the ax. He first kills the pawnbroker, “he pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head” (1.7.21). He chooses to use the blunt side of the axe to kill her. He has to stiker her multiple times in order to kill her. But why does he choose to use the blunt side of the axe to killer her? This way takes more effort and is a longer process. He may have wanted her to suffer like he feels he has watching her being successful and for to giving him enough money for the items. Raskolnikov may have just wanted her to suffer. He may have gotten more pleasure striking her multiple times in order to kill her. When Lizaveta finds her murdered sister Raskolnikov knows she is now a witness and will turn him in for the murder. He chooses to kill her as well, “the axe fell with the sharp edge just on the skull and split at one blow all the top of the head” (1.7. 29). This murder was quick and did not require much effort. He may have chose the sharp edge because it all happened so fast that he did not have time to think and he acted on impulse. Maybe he wanted to make it look like two people commited the crimes. Maybe he just wanted her death to be quick so he could quickly get out of there.
Perhaps Raskolnikov killed the two women because he feels it was for the greater good of everyone else. He chose to do it because he was the only one who would actually go through with it, even though no one else in the two liked her. When discussing what would happen if the pawnbroker were to be killed it is said, “for one life thousands would be saved from corruption and decay. One death, and hundred lives in exchange-it’s simple arithmetic!” (1.6.14), If she were to killed and the money to be stolen it could be given back to poor instead of it being buried. In a way Raskolnikov would be helping the rest of the city out. It is a new way to look at what could have been the motivation of his murders. Did he choose to murder due to jealousy or was it to help the poor, maybe it was both.
I thought the allusions to ‘Lazarus and Dives’ and ‘Robin Hood’ discussed in one of the presentations were really interesting. Even though he is a selfish person and a murderer, Raskolnikov appears as a hero in the perspective of these stories, adding another layer of consideration when trying to pinpoint the heart of his true character. Raskolnikov overhears someone say of the pawnbroker, “Hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path … and all with her money” (Dostoevsky 1.7.14). Thinking of Raskolnikov as a savior of the poor rather than a greedy murderer gives this quote a completely different meaning; instead of seeming spiteful due to his lack of career success, he is now a champion of inequality and the struggle between social classes. This is kind of the bridge between the presentation on allusions and our own presentation on philosophy.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ideas that we were originally asked to keep in mind while reading Crime and Punishment was religion and how it affects characters in the novel. Each cross or religious object in the novel seems to have its own significance, but the necklace around the pawnbroker’s neck was the one that sparked discussion in our class. Raskolnikov notices the crosses as he inspects the scene. He cuts them off with an axe and flings “the crosses on the old woman’s body” (Dostoevsky 1.7.23). There were several interpretations of this act as we discussed. Some agreed that this was Raskolnikov’s official denouncement of religion, rejecting it completely from his life. As the people around him so clearly value religion, he instead lives as an existentialist dependent only on himself. It also has a more metaphorical significance; as Raskolnikov is forced to kill Lizaveta soon after this event to get rid of all witnesses in a “second, quite unexpected murder,” so throwing the crosses could also be the removal of another unwanted witness, God (Dostoevsky 1.7.28).
While discussing the philosophy of the book, we compared the three different schools of philosophy and were tasked with deciding which was the most important to Raskolnikov. We came to the conclusion that he is truly an existentialist who uses utilitarianism as a sort of scapegoat, even going as far as to mock the philosophy as a whole. Dostoevsky’s larger social commentary in this piece came to the surface in this discussion; he is an existentialist at heart, prodding at his contemporaries that prefer to consider the whole rather than the individual. When discussing his crime to his sister and family, Raskolnikov says that the pawnbroker was “sucking the life out of poor people” (Dostoevsky 6.7.67). However, in his essay that was referred to as a major symbol in the book, he admits that he believes certain people have superiority over others that allows them to break normal human rules. In this contrast, it becomes clear that Dostoevsky wishes to use utilitarianism as nothing more than a socially-accepted guise for his own personal philosophies.
During the jigsaws all groups used different subtopic to describe one big event in the novel, Why did Raskolnikov commit the murders? There seem to be three main opinions, Rask thought society would be better without the women, his own curiosity on murder, or he was just sick in the head. In my opinion Rask was insane. His constant doubled sided opinions, actions, and emotions causes him to play both roles of a twisted murderer and a giving citizen to those in need. Razhumini describes Raskolnikov this way, "It's as though he were alternating between two characters" (3.2.32) Raskolnikov has multiple personalities that seem to work against each other. Another sign that Raskolnikov does not have much emotion besides irritation and anger. In fact, the only time we truly see a sort of sadness is when he beings reading the letter from his mother but quickly his mood is shifted when he realizes that his sister will marry Luzhin. The whole murder scene is proof of his lack of emotion. When the killing takes place the narrator describes Raskolnikov as a type of murder, “He had not a minute more to lose. He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head” (1.7.21) It was almost like Raskolnikov was completing a job and just wanted to get it over with. Our character also finds it to be ”torturous” when surrounded by people but then unconsciously surrounds himself with people. Therefore, there is a pretty solid argument that Raskolnikov could have been well out of his mind.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first ideas that really struck me in Crime and Punishment is how gender roles impacted the novel throughout, especially in Raskolnikov’s motive in murdering the pawnbroker and her sister. At first, I only thought that Raskolnikov’s motive was caused by his principles highlighted in his article about crime where extraordinary people are not bound by anything including laws (3.5.84). In addition to Raskolnikov’s self-proclaimed extraordinary status, he always stressed that his murder was further justified because the pawnbroker, says Raskolnikov, “The old woman was a mistake… was only an illness… I killed the principle, but I didn’t overstep” (3.6.59). But as we discussed in class, Raskolnikov’s main motive could be that he felt his superiority was threatened by a woman who did not follow 19th century Russian gender roles and was independent and able to support herself with their own money and seemed to know what they are doing in life.
ReplyDeleteExistentialism helped me understand Raskolnikov’s mindset even further because I only thought Raskolnikov took any action because he considered himself extraordinary. Nihilism also helped explain Raskolnikov’s mindset at the beginning of the novel because he seemed be without purpose and lost. But as the novel progressed, Raskolnikov tried to justify his actions using utilitarianism but still ended up confessing to the crime.
Dostoyevsky also had great influence throughout the book especially since he’s the author. But what was interesting is that he seemed to model Crime and Punishment off his own life. From Siberia to religion, Dostoyevsky seemed to be reflecting on his own life and decision and trying to give advice to others or make a statement.
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky demonstrates the story of Raskolnikov, a former student in Saint Petersburg, who maliciously murders two women. Three new ideas brought forth from discussions are that women are independent and take on the roles of men, Raskolnikov views himself as a Christ like figure, and guilt can be very consuming.
ReplyDeleteCrime and Punishment shows that women are very are independent in the novel and that they take on the many roles of men. I was very shocked to see this in the novel because during this time period, the 1860s, women were viewed as property to men. For example, a very independent female character would be Alyona, the pawnbroker. The novel states, “You can always get money from her. She is as rich as a Jew, she can give you five thousand roubles at a time and she is not above taking a pledge for a rouble”(1.6.4). Alyona is a very successful female, which she makes a great amount of money and is working a “man's” job. She takes care of herself and her sister, Lizaveta without the help of any man, which defies the roles of women in the 1860s. Another character who had taken on the roles of men would be Sonia. Marmeladov, Sonia’s drunken father drank away all of their family’s money, forcing Sonia to go into prostitution: “When my own daughter first went of with a yellow ticket, then I had to go”(1.2.16). Sonia’s yellow ticket permitted her to be a prostitute, which it was legal during this time, but looked down upon. Sonia had ruined her reputation, just to take care of her family, which is why I believe she takes on the role of a man, or her fathers role. Many women in the novel are comparable to men and are independent for this time period.
Raskolnikov views himself as a Christ like figure in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov had control of murdering two women, which he had a very sinister plan to end the pawnbroker’s life. Crime and Punishment states, “Fear gained more and more mastery over him, especially after this second, quite unexpected murder”(1.7.28). Raskolnikov murdered the two women, which he did not have to and it was not morally correct. Raskolnikov determined the women’s time of death and took power into his own hands, which would be a role comparable to Christ’s. Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov continuously states that he is an extraordinary man. He writes a paper, stating, “Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary” (3.4.98). Raskolnikov believed that he had the right to murder the two women because he indeed thought he was an extraordinary man. An extraordinary man is similar to Christ, who is above all, and can commit any action he wanted. I think Raskolnikov uses this as an excuse to justify his horrible actions and I do not think he is an extraordinary man. Raskolnikov can be comparable to Christ in the novel.
Guilt is very consuming for Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. After the murders, Raskolnikov fell into a sickness, and was not the same man as he was before. He became physically ill, and had hallucinations and nightmares. The novel states, “he was not completely unconscious, however, all the time he was ill; he was in a feverish state, sometimes delirious, sometimes half conscious”(2.3.1). This quote mentions that Raskolnikov was “ill all the time”, which I believe shows the significance of how guilty Raskolnikov felt. He had very delirious dreams and hallucinations, which he feared greatly. Raskolnikov was in a very bad state: “He worried and tormented himself trying to remember, moaned, flew into rage, or sank into awful, intolerable terror”(2.3.1). When Raskolnikov remembered the murders, he became more ill. He not only had to hide the murders from the people around him, but also law enforcement. This guilt would remain with Raskolnikov throughout the novel, which he stayed sick and was taken care of by Nastasya and his friends and family. This guilt made Raskolnikov very weak and would consume every aspect of his life, which I believe that he deserves the pain. Crime and Punishment demonstrates the poor effect of guilt on Raskolnikov.
DeleteOne of the topics that changed my viewpoint on Raskolnikov was the discussion on if he really was extraordinary or not. I always just presumed he was actually extraordinary because he was able to commit the murders, but after further analysis, I do not believe he actually was extraordinary. The fact that he lives with physically sickening guilt after the murders is a good sign that he did not have the mental capacity to deal with the aftermath of the crime he committed. Even while he was murdering the pawnbroker, the narrator says, “He suddenly felt tempted again to give it all up and go away” (Dostoyevsky 1.7.23). I do not believe, according to Raskolnikov's article, that an extraordinary person would regret or question their actions.
ReplyDeleteThe next topic that was brought up that extended my thoughts was the way Lizaveta and the pawnbroker were killed. Lizaveta was killed with the sharp side of the axe and the pawnbroker was killed with the blunt side of the axe. I had figured while reading that Raskolnikov did not wish to kill Lizaveta but he did because she saw what he did. He used the sharp side of the axe on her so she would die quick, but he blunt side on the pawnbroker so she would die a more painful and slow death. I also found it interesting that the crosses the pawnbroker wore could symbolize herself and Lizaveta. “On the string were two crosses, one of Cyprus wood and one of copper” (1.7.24). The wood cross symbolizes Lizaveta’s submissiveness and the copper cross represents the pawnbrokers dominate composer.
The last thing I understood after the jigsaws was why Raskolnikov gives money to so many people in the novel. On one occasion he says, “Allow me now...to do something...to repay my debt to my dead friend” (2.7.88). I realized after examining the test with the class that Raskolnikov had pity for the ordinary people. This was a ploy by Raskolnikov to look innocent and prove himself to be extraordinary. He believed he was doing something good for everyone by giving his money away frequently, which could make him seem like someone who would not brutally kill two women. I do not think that Raskolnikov consciously knew what he was doing though. Many of his actions come from someplace deeper in him that he is not aware of.
The first idea that has changed my thinking about the text is the use of the russian class system. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky incorporates the divide between the rich and poor that existed during his lifetime. By doing this, he is able to portray a divide amongst the characters. Characters such as Luzhin and Svidrigailov are depicted as wealthy whilst characters such as Sonya and Raskolnikov are depicted as poor. This idea is evident when Dostoevsky writes about Sonya’ earnings, “...Six days ago when I brought her my first earnings in full---twenty-three rubles forty kopecks altogether she called me her little one…” (Dostoevsky 1.2.23). Dostoevsky later mentions the money that Svidrigailov possess, “He [Svidrigailov] wants to make you a present of ten thousand rubles and he wishes to see you once in my presence” (Dostoevsky 4.3.6). By doing this, Dostoevsky is able to not only create a divide amongst characters, but also create characters who act differently based on social class.
ReplyDeleteThe next idea that extended my thinking about the text was the presence of existentialism within the novel. Because existentialism poses the belief that individuals are free and responsible beings, it allows Dostoevsky to pose the question of whether Raskolnikov killed the pawn broker for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. While posing this question, Dostoevsky is able to question whether it is more important to benefit oneself or to benefit the majority, “''Existence on its own had never been enough for him; he had always wanted more than that. Perhaps it was merely the strength of his own desires that made him believe he was a person to whom more was allowed than others.'' (Dostoevsky, Epilogue.2.2) However, throughout the entirety of the novel, Raskolnikov is shown to be a nihilist due to his unforgiving nature towards the murder and lack of sympathy. However, this view is dissipated through his discovery of religion.
The expression and usage of religion was seen through allusions and gestures. Two evident examples that allowed for a better understanding of the novel were seen through the allusion to Lazarus as well as Raskolnikov’s discovery of religion. Firstly, the reference to the resurrection of Lazarus shows the change that Raskolnikov undergoes throughout the novel. At first, he is blind to religion and believes that his motives should solely benefit himself. However, as he finds religion, he is able to view the world differently; he sees that it is more beneficial to benefit the majority. This is similar to the story of Lazarus as during his beginning state, Raskolnikov is almost in a dark, dead state, blind to proper morals. However, after the discovery of religion, Raskolnikov is “resurrected,” and finds the proper ideals and morals he should follow
Throughout our group Jigsaw discussions of Crime & Punishment, I found many of the questions that were posed to have interestingly ambiguous and uncertain answers. Among these questions was that of Raskolnikov’s motives for committing the murders of the pawnbroker and her sister. I found it interesting, yet uncertain, how Raskolnikov’s actions could be explained away through contrasting reasons and viewpoints. His crime can be justified through his assuming of a higher responsibility and superior being as an “extraordinary” individual, “Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have aright to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary.” (Dostoyevsky 3.4.98). In examining this perspective, I thought it was interesting how Raskolnikov seemed to have granted himself this status of supremacy. Furthermore, the question of why Raskolnikov inevitably admits to the murders is one that helped to shed light regarding his “extraordinary” status. I still find it difficult to pinpoint whether Raskolnikov admitted in order to effectively claim credibility for his societal favor, and thereby, his remarkable and exceptional character, or if he had merely come to accept his ordinary status and his eventual punishment for his deviously unjustified acts. The other side to the explanation of Raskolnikov’s murder uses simple insanity, curiosity, and inner unrest, “He was conscious of a terrible inner turmoil. He was afraid of losing his self-control; he tried to catch at something and fix his mind on it, something quite irrelevant…”(Dostoevsky 2.1.82). This alternate reasoning completely contrasts Raskolnikov's own perspective of him considering himself as a great individual and poses an entirely unjustified and opposing motive for the committing of his crimes. I found these multiple reasonings to be both interesting due to their contradictory nature, yet disorienting and perplexing due to their uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteAnother topic or question that I found intriguing during our discussions connected the title of the novel, Crime & Punishment, to the actions of Raskolnikov in a deeper manner. Narrowing down what exactly was Raskolnikov’s “crime” and what was his “punishment” was a fundamental topic that I, once more, found to be ambiguous and unclear. Raskolnikov’s “crime” has multiple interpretations, from the literal killing of the pawnbroker, to his unjustified declaration of himself being an “extraordinary” man, and to his rejection of societal norms and expectations, indifference towards his religion, and his pitying of others. His crime is even more puzzling, as one can argue that it was his guilt, being sent to Siberia, or physical ailments. These discussions provided a wider array of perspectives regarding the novel and the unclear questions it posed.
The discussion and analysis of utilitarianism in the novel validated and supported my group's opinion that Raskolnikov hid behind the idea that he murdered to better society. He used the fact that people were angry with the pawnbroker as a scapegoat for his actions. I genuinely believe Raskolnikov would have murdered anyone, the pawnbroker was just unlucky enough to be the first person he was given the opportunity to. Which is also why he struggles to come to terms with his role in the pawnbroker's sister's death. She was innocent and there is no "justice" in her murder, unlike the pawnbrokers. “[...] tell me, would you kill the old woman yourself?” “Of course not! I was only arguing the justice of it [...]” (1.6.19 & 20)
ReplyDeleteSomething we briefly discussed as a class was the symbolism of Raskolnikov throwing the two cross necklaces on the pawnbroker's dead body. One cross was made of cypress wood which represents death and the underworld. The other cross was made of brass which represents insensibility, obscenity of sin, and strength throughout the bible. I choose to look at the first cross as representing the pawnbroker who was abrasive and abusive. She took advantage of people and because of it may reside in the underworld. The second cross represents the sister, who was innocent in society's eyes.
Something I found very interesting was the idea that Raskolnikov was extraordinary. Throughout the novel and a majority of class discussion, I believed that Raskolnikov believed he was above the law, until you (Mrs. Perrin) brought up that he felt guilt after his murders. Had Raskolnikov truly felt that he was given rights that others were not, the right to murder being one of them, Raskolnikov would have not felt any sort of remorse let alone become physically ill because of it. My perspective has completely changed and because of it the novel takes on new meaning.
The first idea that changed how I thought about the text was how Rodion’s murders was his attempt to see if he was extraordinary. I originally just considered the discussion about it to be an example of Rodya’s reasoning and to further the plot of the novel and maybe to mock ideologies of the time. However, the presentations and discussions showed me that it was much more important. Rodya says, “I simply hinted that an extraordinary man has the right to breach moral” (3.5.18). It showed me that Rodya was probably trying to see if he was extraordinary by murdering the pawnbroker, causing his “monomania”. After all, the article is about validating moral breaches of a select few, and many times after Rodion commits the murders, he often tries to make excuses, such as a reference to her as a harpy, as well as taking complaints about the pawnbroker as a call to action to kill her (1.6.4)(1.6.19). This adds depth to his motivation, as well as the article he wrote, and changes how I viewed the murders and Rodya’s personality.
ReplyDeleteThe second is Rodya’s money patterns. I originally thought he gave all his money away to increase his suffering and lessen others, like when he gives all his money to Marmeladov’s family when he is run over, “Don’t worry! He will come to; I’ll pay” (2.7.10). This is despite the fact he is in severe debt with his landlady and money from others is his only income. However, when someone brought up it was to atone for his guilt, it was a small “aha!” moment for me. To me, this concept fits much better. With this, I settled on the idea that he does acts of good to balance out his acts and thoughts of evil. The amount of money he gives greatly increases after he murders the two women, going from a handful of copecks to a dazed woman and a suffering family, to many roubles to Marmeladov’s family after the murder. In my opinion this shows a layer of the novel that tackles if rights can make up for wrongs within the many layers that deal with morality.
Lastly, I think the symbol of the blood rags helped expand an idea I already had. In class, it was discussed how it symbolized his guilt and mentally holding on to the crime. The rags function as a physical representation of his crime in the novel. He tries to hide the rags to after the crime to leave it behind him, “fling it all away to that it may be out of sight and done with at once” (2.1.13). Yet he is still haunted by both the rags and his crime within the book, worrying that the rags are discovered and identified. I noticed that they were connected while reading, but discussing it helped my identify and understand what it was that connected them. To me, the rags represent the crime haunting him through his guilt and sickness. While he was acutely worried of the rags being found, he was physically very sick and upset by his crime. It’s important to the novel, because it adds literary depth to the guilt that causes him to become incredibly sick in the second part of the novel.
When my group looked deeper into the class system and gender roles in Crime and Punishment I felt a new understanding for Raskolnikov's motive for the murder of the pawnbroker.“I didn’t kill a human being, but a principle!” (Dostoevsky 3.6), During the time period in Russia, the majority of the population was in poverty, which was very hard to get out of. The men were also expected to provide for their family, and make the money, as women were not well educated. Through Marmeladov spending all his family’s money, we see how failure to do this affects a man, which leads to his drinking problem. These same feelings probably apply to Raskolnikov because his mother sends him money and his sister sells herself short to try and provide a better life for him. As for the pawnbroker, she is a woman that can provide for herself and better off than Raskolnikov. In addition to this she is very dominant compared to her sister, and shows her clients no mercy. Raskolnikov feels emasculated by her independence and jealous of her money and control of her sister.
ReplyDeleteAnother concept that was introduced to me was Utilitarianism. I didn't even know what this meant before the discussion, but it does validate why I think Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker. “What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds” (Dostoevsky 1.6). Raskolnikov decided to commit the murder because no one else would, though they wanted to, he thought himself to be an extraordinary person who would take action for them. Utilitarianism is doing what is best for the whole, even if it may be dooming a single or small group of people. He thought by killing the pawnbroker he was freeing many of her clients from debt to her. This also weaves in with the idea of poverty because the majority of St. Peters was poor, Raskolnikov almost acted as a Robin Hood.
Comparing Raskolnikov to a Byronic hero made me reevaluate him more and brought up some things that I forgot about him. Although he did kill two women he was very smart in not getting caught and playing around with Petrovitch. His article and unapologetic justification for killing the pawnbroker shows his arrogance because he puts himself above the law. I also forgot that he was described as very attractive, though he didn’t keep up his appearance or clothing. “He was, by the way, exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair” (Dostoevesky 1.1). Raskolnikov was also very charming in the sense that Petrovitch becomes almost obsessed with him, which contrasts the fact that that he pushes his friends and family away.
The justification of Raskolnikov’s murders of the pawnbroker and her sister through the basis of nihilism changed my perspective of his character. At first, I felt, as anyone would, he was a dirty rotten scoundrel. His clarification of his motives for the murder is what allowed me to understand, rather than attack him for his actions, as he explains: “‘The old woman was a mistake perhaps, but she is not what matters! The old woman was only an illness.… I was in a hurry to overstep.… I didn’t kill a human being, but a principle! I killed the principle, but I didn’t overstep, I stopped on this side.… I was only capable of killing,’” (Dostoevsky 3.6.59). His aim to diminish the principle of greed and lack of empathy, as expressed by the pawnbroker, while having a nihilistic mindset is what drove him to his crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe text also verified the idea of independence and strength when it comes to women. Rather than having the women be overpowered by men in the novel, Dostoevsky allows the women to have a voice and impact the story. Donia, for example, refuses to escape poverty and sacrifice herself by marrying Luzhin (Dostoevsky 1.4), as well as avoids marrying Svidrigailov in order to ‘save’ him from his own mind, as she has enough self respect to avoid such marriages. She also has her own voice throughout the story, always having genuine concern for her brother, but refuses to allow him to overpower her. Her fearlessness defies the stereotypical woman from the 1860s, separating Dostoevsky’s novel from others during this time period.Sonia also reflects strength and independence. Marmeladov, Sonia’s drunken father, spends all her family’s money on his drinking problem. In order to support her family, Sonia decides to become a prostitute, instantly feeling the shame of her profession. In spite of this, she never loses connection with God, which reflects strength within her character.
The cross, a symbol of redemption for Raskolnikov and a sign of religion extends my thinking of the text. After the murder of the pawnbroker, Raskolnikov throws the cross necklace onto the corpse, as if it physically hurt him to hold it. At the end of the novel, Sonya gives Raskolnikov a cross before heading to the police station to confess his crime (Dostoevsky 6.8). This also relates to the religious aspect of the story, as he lost himself, as well as his faith, throughout the novel following the murders. Because of his denial of guilt or sin from his crime, the cross does not symbolize religion exactly, rather that he has begun on the path toward recognition of the sins that he has committed. The idea of Sonia giving him the cross represents her concern and care for him, and, similar to God, she can save and renew Raskolnikov.
This week during jigsaws, we spoke plenty on our opinions of Raskolnikov and his motives for the murders. Although this is never truly dissolved, I was drawn to new ideas I had not seen before, such as, Raskolnikov simply being a psychopath and his constant state of delirium. “He fixed a strained intent look on his sister, but did not hear or did not understand her words” (Dostoevsky 3.3. 81). I believe he eats himself away in his head, and won’t explain his thoughts. Due to his level of introvert, he finds it hard to let go of a thought, and that could trigger him to develop this thought further. This could drive him to his murder and overanalyze the position of the innocent murder of the sister.
ReplyDeleteWe also learned the background of the author himself. Dostoevsky was member of an illegal revolution where he was sentenced to death, but later pardoned and sentenced to a labor camp in Siberia. His experience parallels to that of Raskolnikov. Does Dostoevsky believe his morals that contributed to his part in the illegal revolution is parallel to that of Raskolnikov’s morals in the murder? In Raskolnikov’s attempt to indirectly justify his murders he says that “[e]xtraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary” (Dostoevsky 3.5.94). Does Dostoevsky believe he was also above the law and this is why he challenged it in his revolution? Perhaps the morals of the author himself extends the morals of Raskolnikov in the novel, in which, later proves that Rask is not extraordinary.
A symbol I had not identified before also presented itself in our discussion. Bridges are brought up numerous of times in the novel. I assumed it had to due to with Russia and its architecture itself, but a new idea is given each time there is a bridge involved. For example, Rask first ponders on all that happened that day, then brings him to the idea that each of his actions is a “predestined turning-point of his fate” (Dostoevsky 1.5.62). Raskolnikov uses the bridges to ponder on his past actions and on how each one will affect his fate, in turn, developing a new idea of his future. The bridges could represent how Rask does not consider how his actions will affect him until after he has already done so. This could deepen the explanation of his state of delusion and how he doesn’t seem to have much control of his situations. Rask is not a character that is not fully conscious of his present and active actions.
Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote a novel called Crime and Punishment which illustrates the distress one can suffer when executing an immoral crime. Rodion Raskolnikov was a student in Saint Petersburg who devised a plan to kill a pawnbroker named, Alyona Ivanovna. Raskolnikov unfortunately kills the pawnbrokers sister, Lizaveta, during this process. There were three new ideas that arise in our discussion from class. The three new ideas that were discussed was the different gender roles, what the two crosses symbolized, and how Raskolnikov portray the characteristics of a byronic hero.
ReplyDeleteDostoyevsky developed his own conception of the ideal man. This extended my knowledge of how gender roles will not always meet society’s expectations. Raskolnikov himself is not the stereotypical male character. Raskolnikov is not as dominant as society expects him to be. The main character relies on the pawnbroker to give him money in order to purchase what he needs. Alyona informs him that, “...it’s up to me whether I’m patient or whether I sell what you pawned this very day.” (1.1.6) This shows how much he depends on her to give him money. This signifies how powerful she is compared to him compared to him due to her wealth. During this time, society has made it a norm for women to rely on men and although Raskolnikov is physically stronger than the pawnbroker, he still counts on her in order for him to get by in life. This reveals society’s misconception of how dominant men are compared to women, when in reality people just simply rely on each other regardless of your gender.
Another topic that we discussed were the two crosses that Raskolnikov took from pawnbroker. The author revealed that, “Besides this there were also a small enamelled medal and two crosses, one of cypress wood, the other of brass …” (1.7.15) This symbolizes the sins that Raskolnikov commits. The crosses is symbol of the plan he formulated which ultimately lead to the death of the pawnbroker and her sister. This signifies how he disobey God by sentencing two women to their deaths. By committing this crime Raskolnikov now has to face an inevitable punishment that constantly haunts him. This validates how cruel his scheme was because it went against God’s precious word.
Raskolnikov portrays the characteristics of a byronic hero in several ways. Raskolnikov has dark attributes that are not normally associated with a hero, he is bipolar, and he is a self-made outcast. This changed the way I view Raskolnikov because he may depict characteristics of what seems to be a hero, but in reality he is an antihero. Raskolnikov plan to brutally murder the pawnbroker contributes the dark qualities that a byronic hero poses. The narrator explained that, “...he had been in a tense and irritable state of mind that verged upon hypochondria.” (1.1.2) This reveals that he has abnormal anxiety about himself and that he is constantly changing his thoughts. The narrator continues to say that he “...is so absorbed in himself had he grown, so isolated from everyone else…” (1.1.2) This goes to show that Raskolnikov sets himself apart of society on his own. Raskolnikov is not your stereotypical hero, instead he is a byronic hero. Raskolnikov is a rebellious young and handsome man who distressed by a crime he recently committed.
Several topics we discussed during our presentations on Crime and Punishment have helped expand my knowledge and understanding of the book. The first topic that helped me understand the book better was the discussion of Raskolnikov as a byronic hero. As the main character of the novel, Raskolnikov should naturally be a hero of some sort. But he’s not a traditional hero, and he’s not much of a tragic hero either. Upon hearing of the characteristics of the byronic hero, things made more sense. One characteristic that stood out to me was self-criticism. In the beginning of the novel, we see early examples of self-criticism when Dostoyevsky writes, “He turned away his eyes, and walked past as though he noticed nothing. But it was the end of everything; he had not the axe! He was overwhelmed. ‘What made me think,’ he reflected, as he went under the gateway. ‘What made me think that she would be sure not to be at home at that moment? Why, why, why did I assume this so certainly?’” (1.6.49-50). This quote shows how Raskolnikov was extremely critical of himself for something not even totally in his control. This is also symbolic of the way he seems to lose control throughout the rest of the novel. On the subject of symbols and the axe, our discussion on the symbolism behind the axe was helpful. In the murder scene it says, “He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head” (1.7.21). The mechanical way that he killed the pawnbroker and the use of the blunt side helps illustrate the almost objectification of the pawnbroker and the lack of feeling he feels towards her and the act of killing her. When Raskolnikov is forced to kill Lizaveta, though, he does so with the sharp side. This creates a bloody mess for him and is more symbolic of a slaughtering, which humanizes her and Raskolnikov. Finally, I thought the discussion on Raskolnikov’s nihilism helped with understanding the book. Raskolnikov lacks a belief in any sort of religion through much of the novel, even criticizing Sonia for her faith in Part IV. It helps explain his lack of remorse for at least the murder of the pawnbroker. It also helps create contrast and illustrate the way he changes when he adopts religion by the end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteThe topics discussed in our class presentations helped to introduce so many more ideas that I missed while reading the book. One of the most striking ideas for me was the theme of utilitarianism in the novel. Utilitarianism is the philosophy that actions are right if done for the good of society. Raskolnikov uses this philosophy as a sort of scapegoat for his actions, as he believed that the pawnbroker was a terrible person who deserved to be killed. Dostoevsky says that the pawnbroker was “sucking the life out of poor people”. With this in mine, Raskolnikov believes that he has an excuse for murdering her, as she was causing more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of existentialism that was discussed in class was also one that I found very interesting. Another way to to excuse Raskolnikov’s actions were to see them as existentialist. Existentialism is the idea that people have a responsibility for taking fate into their own hands, and this is essentially what Raskolnikov does when he “plays God” and kills the pawnbroker. In the epilogue of the novel, Dostoevsky says, “Perhaps it was merely the strength of his own desires that made him believe he was a person to whom more was allowed than others.” This shows how Raskolnikov was extraordinary and felt it was his job as a human to kill the pawnbroker for the good of the world.
The topic that I am most familiar with in the novel was class systems. The poor living conditions were very striking, and I believe they truly shaped the characters. I was also truly impacted by the sacrifice made by Sonya. The novel said, “Here, now, was a modestly and evenly poorly dressed girl”. Sonya had to become a prostitute to help her family, and this sad story shows just how bad things were for the characters in the novel. This allows me to better understand them, and why they made the decisions that they did.
Throughout crime and punishment we see a lot of power to women and an extension of women’s roles. Though the group discussions I felt that really exploring gender roles helped me gain a higher understanding of the novel as a whole. During the time period of the novel one would expect it to be more male dominated yet we often find the females such the pawnbroker and Katerina more empowered while the men seem to be viewed as failures. For example Marmeladov portrays a useless drunk and donyas husband respects someone weak. our narrator Raskolnikov also seems very powerless as he starts off the novel mentioning how poor he is. We clearly see gender roles in the novel opposing what we could call normal societal gender roles. The women are constantly in places of power and are constantly taking care of the men.
ReplyDeleteAlso through researching my groups topic of nihilism I was able to learn and observe more about the family cultures in the novel. Nihilism is the belief that life is mostly meaningless and the rejection of family norms. Marmeladov often can be seen embodying this point of view as he isn’t there for his children or Katerina and Sonya.
Throughout the book we also see the way that religion and god play a role in everyone’s life particularly Sonya’s. Sonya who is a prostitute seems to be the character in the book who believes in god the Mose which is very interesting as it shows everyone’s need to believe in something more.
As the story unfolds, Dostoevsky incorporates symbols in "Crime and Punishment", a novel about premeditated murder and its consequences. One of the symbols is the city of St. Petersburg. It is described as noisy, dirty, and crime-infested. The narrator explains, “The heat in the street was terrible: and the airlessness, the bustle and the plaster, scaffolding, bricks, and dust all about him, and that special Petersburg stench, so familiar to all who are unable to get out of town in summer--all worked painfully upon the young man's already overwrought nerves” (1,1,2). The chaos of the city reflects the mayhem that Raskolnikov feels throughout the novel. Interestingly, Raskolnikov isn’t stable until he is sent to Siberia. Raskolnikov's weapon of choice for the murders also reflect his internal havoc. Raskolnikov considers using a knife but decides that he does not want to rely on strength or precision to complete the act. The narrator notes that with each of Raskolnikov's decisions, “the more final they were, the more hideous and the more absurd they at once became in his eyes” (1,7,70). Even Raskolnikov believes that being an axe murderer is ridiculous. It is bulky, messy, and incredibly risky, yet there is a part of Raskolnikov that believes this is the only option. The cross is a symbol of redemption for sins in the Christian faith. After killing Alyona, Raskolnikov retrieves the axe. When he sees the string around her neck, “he tugged at it, but the string was strong and did not snap and besides, it was soaked with blood” (2,1,79). At this point in the story, Raskolnikov is shunning religion and his need for redemption as he believes he is above such things and making the right decision for society. Later, as guilt creeps in, Raskolnikov realizes that he does need redemption and accepts a cross from Sonia before making his confession.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ideas that aught me while seeing these presentations was the idea of Raskolnikov and him thinking that he was extraordinary, so much so that he is justified in committing his crime. This is used in the allusion to napoleon, and him being revered as a hero despite being responsible for possibly millions. Raskolnikov's deeply depressive state suggests however that he is not as extraordinary as he wants to be in order to justify himself for these actions, like he says "On the contrary, you'll have to answer, gentlemen, for violently obstructing the course of justice." (5.3.70).
ReplyDeleteHis experience at the end of the novel validates my own thinking about the text when he is sent to Siberia, and only then when he is caged and lost his freedom does he finally have the opportunity for a true and full life. Only once he confesses, and repents for his crime, does his life come together. Still, he is being played with, that his only reform takes place in a frozen prison, where there is not much potential for anything in his life.
The presentation that dealt with women's role extended my thinking on the importance of it in the novel. It is constantly used to compare Raskolnikov to the world around him and serve as the proving ground for his own excellence. Sonia, who plays a very caring role for Raskolnikov, is seen as the heroine of the novel for saving him. The pawnbroker is seen as a villain to him and plays a particularly uncaring role, and as a result is the target of his anger and frustration. It contrasts what women are traditionally at that time thought to suppose a role of, and how a woman who defines themselves in this same existentialist complex and how the novel shapes around this theme of other women who do not do that, and how this affects the main character.