All Four of Matt's posts on Crime and Punishment

Though it may not make for an easy read the great amount of detail and description in Crime and Punishment sets it apart from other novels I’ve read. It’s not so much the description of events in the novel but more so the great amount of detail used to describe the feelings and thoughts of Rodya. These descriptions allow you to understand the feelings of Rodya. For example on the bottom of page 11 when there is a mention of how there are certain people, even strangers who for some reason just get our attention. It’s impossible to have not witnessed this feeling before. Once I read it I was at that bar witnessing the intriguing drunk official.

Though I have never experienced committing a crime anywhere never to the severity of murder I was still able to relate to the feelings going through Rodya’s head. The way in which he scrutinized every little detail inside his head, trying to make sure that he covered up every lose end but still feeling as if no matter how hard he tried he’d forget something obvious was something I could relate to. Without bringing in any specific examples, (for obvious reasons) when I’ve done something (in theory) that I wasn’t supposed to, that ran the risk of getting me in trouble I went over the top to ensure that I didn’t get caught. No matter how much you stress over the situation or how long you spend getting rid of any shred of evidence you still feel as if there is something obvious that due to your panicked state of mind you overlooked. I may have never committed a real crime, but the description of Rodya’s state of mind made me feel his panic and experience his neurotic state of mind as he looked around thinking of every last detail.

So far my favorite part of the book was the conversations had between Rodya and Porfiry Petrovich. Not only was it between the Murderer and a detective but I actually thoroughly enjoyed the discussion about Rodya’s article. I found his philosophy about extraordinary people and ordinary people. I agree with certain facets of it. Though I think taking it to the level of taking lives maybe to much, I think that certain people maybe required to break laws or go against society's accepted ways in order to further mankind or improve the world. Galileo was on the verge of being executed while in reality he was correct and generations ahead of the people around him. I wonder will there be an extraordinary person in my lifetime? Has there already been?

I wonder if Rodya is going to use his philosophy to justify the murder he committed. He did have noble intentions and weighed the good verse the evil in what he was doing. Clearly he cannot include himself in the same category as Mohamed or Napoleon but he did kill for the benefit of others. I’m not sure if Porfiry brought up Rodya’s article to coerce a sort of confession out of him but it defiantly struck a nerve, I’m interested to see what Rodya makes of this incident.

Porfiry’s interrogation of Rodya was intense and very descriptive. I felt as if I was sitting the room watching them each play mind tricks on the other. Each man was cunning, as they attempted to out smart the other. I loved how Porfiry explained the legal interrogation techniques that he uses to Rodya as he was using them on him. I kept seeing the scene as if I was watching Law and Order. I want to know what Porfiry really knows. Is Rodya freaking out or is Porfiry really purposely driving him crazy with the knowledge of Rodya’s guilt? I was especially intrigued by Porfiry’s reference of criminals being like moths circling around a candle unable to fly away. That’s just how Rodya is, he should probably be avoiding the police yet he voluntarly showed up and approached Porfiry without being asked to.

The in depth mind games going on in the novel keep me hooked. No only do you see what’s going on but you truly understand every aspect of it. I can’t think of any other work I’ve read that gets the reader so involved in the story. I feel as if I really know the characters due to the amazing character development. From physical characteristics to emotional feelings Fyodor Dostoevsky leaves nothing out.
posted by Matt S.

All Four of Matt's Posts on Heart of Darkness

After reading Crime and Punishment, Heart of Darkness seems like a nice change so far. It’s going quickly and isn’t over burdening with minute details. I am still not sure of the plot but I have a very good image in my mind of what’s happening. To be honest after the first 25 pages I don’t really have too much to say. I suppose there seems to be a good set up for an adventure story but nothing has really stood out to me so far.
I must admit I am beginning to get lost at some points of this book. While I understand what is going on and have a decent idea of the characters the vagueness is starting to frustrate me. Perhaps as I go on I will be able to understand it better, but as of now all I understand is that the crew is sailing down a river towards this unknown character Mr. Kurtz. I am curious as to whether or not he is all he’s said to be. Also confusing me is how desolate the land around the river is. I feel as if one page it is claimed to be completely uninhabited then the next page talks of towns along it or drums being heard.

Catching my attention was Marlow’s feelings on how terrible lying is. This grabbed my attention since I recently finished Crime and Punishment in which a philosophy was mentioned that lying was good, that it indeed leds to the truth. This is a tough debate; I think that taking middle grounds is the best answer. While at times it is evil, it is other times a necessary tool to find the truth or accomplish a task.
I’m enjoying the seeming simple plot of this book. Unlike Crime and punishment it dives right into the story and you have to just pick up on it as it goes along. I wish however that there was a little more to the book. It seems like it needs another big event, more action possibly. It might sound juvenile to say that but I really am bored with this book. I cannot relate to the philosophical conversations and ideas in this book as well as the ones in crime and punishment. I’m also slightly confused with the book's use of quotes, I’ve found my self drifting away as I read not quite realizing who’s talking or if some one is thinking.

I’m hoping for a good ending however I really just don’t know what is going to happen. Hopefully the book picks up soon and there’s a twist of some sort. There’s not that much left in the book so I’m guessing I can’t be to far from some action.
I’m not quit sure how I felt about this book. I didn’t finish it with a sense of satisfaction but it left me wanting more. Maybe it’s because I’m unable to truly understand the greatness of Mr. Kurtz. He seems like an amazing man but I don’t think the book did a good enough job of describing him. In Crime and Punishment I was able to see, feel, and understand the characters, I wasn’t able to do that in this novel. I almost want Fyodor Dostoevsky to describe Mr. Kurtz. I’m slightly confused as to how Mr. Kurtz’s wife was found at the end of the story. Their conversation didn’t really settle too much for me. I also don’t understand how close Marlow and Mr. Kurtz could have gotten. It seemed to me that they barely made contact with each other yet Marlow explains him to be such a good friend.

Despite any criticisms I may have I did enjoy reading the short story. While it may not of been as in depth as Crime and Punishment or as exciting as other works it still had an adventurous feeling and left it to the reader to fill in much of the story as they wish.
posted by Matt S.

Marlow

Throughout the middle of Heart of Darkness, I can already tell that Marlow is quite different from the other crew members on the expedition. Embarking on their journey through the Congo, Marlow views a man shooting a gun into the quiet, and gloomy rich forest; insisting that the men should go about the unknown territory with perspectives of peace and caution, yet he is soon overwhelmed with disgust by the hasty, and rude actions that he is surrounded by. Finally after pages and pages of confusion, I can finally understand that Marlow may have some imperialistic views that I might not agree with, he has a completely different aspect towards the expedition and the endeavors he is enduring, concerning both the new society and the natives.
Marlow soon becomes better acquainted with the eerie and enigmatic Kurtz, as he soon learns his disturbing truths and views during the expedition. Though rumors throughout the company claim that Kurtz is supposedly a friendly humanitarian towards the newly explored lands, Marlow soon learns that similar to the crewmen who are only interested in finding wealth and treasure, Kurtz too becomes almost obsessed in striving towards embodying a “divine god” toward the native “savages” who are in desperate need of being civilized, and cultured through European imperialism. It soon becomes clear that the main excuse for trying to suppress the natives is for the crewmen and Kurtz to say it is their duty and obligation as Europeans to shed light onto hopeless people without culture and life. Miscommunication and lack of knowledge of the native people cause Kurtz to assume that they have no way of life, and that only through their submission and the crew’s domination will they find higher civilization.
Through the trials and tribulations Marlow is suffering in his journey, I wonder if his perspectives on imperialism will continue to change effectively. Will he digress from the narrow-minded and hasty actions of the crew, or will he too become blinded by greed?
posted by Jennifer J.

Book and Movie

) I decided to rent crime and punishment to supplement my reading in the book. The movie was well done; it was a decent adaptation of the book. The set was filmed on location in St. Petersburg to give an authentic feeling to the movie. Most of the actors in the movie play their roles well. In the movie Marmeladov is very much like I imagined him- he is a true alcoholic. The bar was complete with wooden tables and cups just like I imagined. The people around his table were slightly more sober, but not by very much. Marmeladov stuttered when he spoke and there were some people playing musical instruments. He had dirty clothes, messed up hair and look sleep deprived. The crime was also well done in the movie. The pawn broker’s apartment was furnished with antique furniture. After he stuck the pawn broker with the axe, Raskolnikov fumbled for the keys and stole some items out of the locked box. The whole time he was sweating bullets and looked hesitant to commit the crime. There was an expression of uncertainty before the first murder occurred. By no means should this movie be used as a replacement for the book. Many parts are cut out and original dialogue is somewhat altered. There is no way you can get a feel for Dostoevsky’s writing style by watching the movie. For example, the part about the train station is cut out from the ending of the movie. Although John Hurt is too old to pass for Raskolnikov, he gives a good performance.
Jack N.

Poor Moral Reasoning

I enjoyed the ending to Crime and Punishment; it was a great read. After reading the book I could not help but think of what was to come of Raskolnikov and Sonya. Will Raskolnikov be able to integrate back into society or will he remain socially alienated? I think that his new found love will help him experience the better side of human emotion. He was so wound up in negative emotions like guilt, fear, anxiety and disgust that he completely lost touch with what was good. The moment he “given up attending to matters of practical importance”, his life began to go down the drain. He entered into a self fulfilling prophecy that he carried out and executed. In a way, he made himself mentally ill and refused treatment from true friends like Razumikhin and his mother. This story ends with a glitter of hope; there can be bright future for Raskolnikov. Through murder, mental anguish and punishment he learned the lessons of life the hardest way possible. A man who once thought he was above the moral rules of society realizes that he is nothing more than a common criminal and a murder. Hopefully in the future, Raskolnikov will stick to more sound moral codes and reasoning.
Jack N.

Writing Style

) I enjoy Dostoevsky’s writing. He has good content and is now one of my favorites. I feel like I am a witness to what is going on around me. I get a full picture with all the dialogue, thoughts and descriptions. He writes from an omniscient viewpoint and displays a great understanding of the human psychological condition. His sentence structure isn’t perfect and choice of words could use some work. I will cut him some slack because I am reading a translated version of his original work. I enjoyed reading the bit where Marmeladov was describing his life story. Dostoevsky was able to successfully build the character so I can understand him as a person. This is truly a psychological book, as it focuses on what is going on inside Raskolnikov’s head. I got a clear picture of his motives, justifications and guilt after the crime had been committed. It was like I was able to take a mind reading device and think what he was thinking. Dostoevsky focuses more on the characters’ actions and words instead of filling page space up with small details. I think that Joseph Conrad used too many details. Most of them were unnecessary to the plot line. Dostoevsky gives me a good experience without the extra baggage. Besides, if he used as many details as Conrad, the story would have been twice as long. Dostoevsky is able to clearly convey Raskolnikov’s conscience after the crime has been committed.
Jack N.

A change of scenery

) I have just stared reading Crime and Punishment. I find the book to be very different from Heart of Darkness and enjoy the “change of scenery”. Raskolnikov seems to be in a hopeless situation. He lives an isolated existence “giving up on matters of practical importance.” He is in a bad situation; his mental and economic states complete the recipe for disaster. The descriptions of St. Petersburg momentarily reminded me of New York City. We are not surprised to see shabbiness in the street or drunken people. The murder plot seems to serve as a vacation from harsh reality. Raskolnikov becomes excited by the thought, even rehearsing the act. I am confused with Raskolnikov’s interaction with Marmeladov. I wonder what his purpose in the story is and how it will fit into the plot. Dostoevsky has succeeded in giving me a firm understanding of Raskolnikov’s situation and mental reasoning. I look forward to reading more of this book. Raskolnikov is in a bad mental state to start out with; I predict he will become completely neurotic after committing the crime. He can’t function as it is with no guilt, I can only wait and see how he will function with guilt. His suffering seems bad now, so committing the crime will probably make it ten times worse.
Jack N.

The Ending

I was satisfied with the book’s ending but it ended with a hopeless feeling. The mood in the end of the book is the antithesis of its beginning. I was doing some extra reading online and found out there are small details and connections that I had previously missed. While reading http://amis_lee.tripod.com/fallingtree/hod.html (I must confess that my reading of Conrad's story is quite an idealized one. The ending to HoD, in fact, may be seen as quite, quite hopeless by someone with a more pessimistic view than mine. Also, a point of interest - the Intended has actually been interpreted as someone quite terrifying, and not the faithful, grieving lover as she appears to be. I'm actually in agreement with this interpretation of the Intended as a powerfully dominating presence - seen in the way she totally directs Marlow's conversation and controls what he says in a wonderfully subtle way. She is also the controlling presence in Kurtz's life, the "idol" upon which he bases his ideals. A beautifully eerie moment in the novel is when you establish the connection between the Intended and Kurtz's last words, and realize that Marlow's lie to her at the end is not really a lie after all). I found out that Marlow may have not been lying when he told her fiancé Kurtz’s last words. I now agree with this new interpretation and think Joseph Conrad was trying to make a subtle point. There is a lot of hidden content that goes into books that can only be uncovered by multiple readings or by reading interpretations. I was left with many questions after completing the book. I wondered what was to become of the Russian trader and Marlow himself. Would the company be able to maintain business without Kurtz’s leadership?
Jack N.

No Empathy?

Marlow is not very sensitive to the harm being inflicted on the native population. He is not as bad as the other people in the company, but he is far away from viewing the natives as equals. Marlow doesn’t seem like a racist, just like a normal member of society during that period. By today’s standards he would be racist but in his time period he was one of the more sympathetic characters. The pilgrims’ actions on the ship made Marlow’s views look meek in comparison. However, he seemed to show little remorse when the Native Helmsman died at his feet. He was more concerned with wiping the blood away and getting rid of the soiled shoes. Marlow thoroughly believes in imperialism; he thinks that the company is a legitimate business. He did notice the stark contrast between the rough pilgrims and well behaved natives, but not much else. Marlow is just a typical profiteer trying to make money at the expense of the native inhabitants.
Jack N.

The Adventure

Marlow’s journey is becoming more exciting to read each day. I can only imagine traveling two hundred miles with a caravan of sixty men. The constant adventure and occasional dashes of humor make this book fun to read. Kurtz remains a mystery to me and Marlow. The man is mysterious and seems to play and important role for Marlow. He has a quiet fascination with the man that seems to be the glue holding the company together. In the beginning the company seemed grandiose and extravagant, but now it seems to be in disrepair. If it takes three months to get rivets to repair a boat, there is something wrong. It seems that Marlow has got more than he bargained for. The once simple company job has turned into an adventure filled with danger and excitement.
Jack N.

And the Story Begins...

As I begin to read Crime and Punishment I can tell that this book will be every interesting just by the first page. I like how Fyodor Dostoevsky describes the setting because it sets the tone for the book, which is very mysterious and suspenful. I could vividly imagine Raskolnikov walking through the streets of St. Petersburg, sweat dripping from his face from the hot summer heat yet he is still emerged in one thought, the “act” he is thinking of committing. I can’t wait to find out what this “act” is.
Grace O.

Good vs. Evil

In the end of chapter I Rask is fixated on the idea that it is his destiny to rid the world of Alyona. In the beginning of chapter 2 the crime has been already committed. Except that in the process of getting rid of Alyona, Rask also kills her sister Lizveta in order to try to cover up his trace. He has killed someone that had not fault just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead of doing something good, like he convinced himself he was doing, by killing Alyona Rask made it worse by killing Lizveta. His conscience finally catches up to him when he faints at the police station and when he loses conscious for fours days. I do believe that his conscience will worsen and will lead him to confess.
Grace O.

The End

Overall I really liked this book. It took us through Raskolnikov’s journey to find peace with himself. In the beginning of the book he was very troubled and tormented, he then committed the crime and fell very ill until he finally confesses. He’s thrown into jail and it is in the epilogue that the readers find out that Raskolnikov is a changed man. Thanks to Sonya, the woman that stood by his side, made him see happiness, and showed him the light again, Raskolnikov did a 180. “He had asked her for it himself [New Testament] not long before his illness and she brought him the book without a word. Till now he had not opened it.”
Grace O.

Brothers to the End

Razuminkhin and Raskolnikov are really good friends, almost like brothers. One of my favorite parts of the book was in the end of part IV chapter 3 because Razuminkhin finally discovers that Rask is the murderer. Razuminkhin finds out not by Rask verbally telling him but by just looking into his eyes he knew. This shows the strong bond they had between each other. “Suddenly Razumihin started. Something strange, as it were, passed between them. . . . Some idea, some hint, as it were, slipped, something awful, hideous, and suddenly understood on both sides. . . . Razumihin turned pale.” He then walks away and returns with the others.
Grace O.

Louse or Superman?

Up until Part III of the novel, Raskolnikov is continuing to struggle with himself, and cannot bear the guilt. I was curious as to why Raskolnikov went ahead and committed this atrocity, but things became much more clear when I learned of Raskolnikov’s article. When he arrived with Razumikhin to Porfiry’s he was in good spirits, he was even laughing along with him. Porfiry immediately rubbed Raskolnikov the wrong way. It later became evident that Porfiry had some information on him. Raskolnikov did not expect this. He went to the station to declare that he had pawned some items, and wished to redeem them. Porfiry knows about Rodya’s illness, his strange behavior, and all that he revealed to Zamyotov. Once again, Raskolnikov’s composure is tested. He does not like the game that Porfiry seems to be playing, and one point considered confessing it all. But, aware that it may be a trick, he lets the idea go. As the conversation continues, the topic of crime comes up, and Porfiry announces that he has read Raskolnikov’s article, and would like Raskolnikov to explain further.
Raskolnikov’s theory, which I later learned is called “Ubermensch”, divides humans into two categories : the ordinary and extraordinary. Rodya believes that those who are the “extraordinary” ones have to right, or duty, to transgress the law and make changes. Mainly because the “ordinary” ones are content with the world, and preserve it as it is. They do not think or dare to try to change anything. The “extraordinary” man, or the “superman” takes it upon himself to better the world by stepping over obstacles that deter them from a goal. He mentions great men such as Napoleon and Newton, and justifies them by stating that in order for them to carry out their wishes, and thus improve the world they lived in, some had to be taken out. This relates to Raskolnikov’s superior behavior throughout the novel. Clearly, he considers himself as an “extraordinary” man at one point. He felt that he was better, and that he was destined to do something to break through the obstacles he faced, because as an “extraordinary” being, he had every right to do so. It seems like this theory is what led Raskolnikov to justify the murders, even though he tries to hide that from the rest of the men at the station. He later reveals to Sonya that he killed the old crone because she was merely an obstacle, of no real use to anyone. If he took her out, he would then benefit, and be closer to his goal. Deep down, he wished that he could somehow rise up from his poverty, and protect his mother and sister. As he begins to open up to Sonya, he reveals that this was no longer the case. He killed to prove to himself that he was one of those extraordinary men, just like Napoleon. Defeated, he comes to the conclusion that he simply isn’t. He couldn’t completely step over the obstacle, the guilt wouldn’t let him. Rodya proclaimed that he, too, is nothing but a “louse”. Even though he is a criminal, I began to feel a certain sympathy towards Raskolnikov. I hoped that there could be some way for him to be free, and resume his life. I’m anticipating the ending, and how everything will unfold.
Posted by Wendy C.

Review of C&P

Crime and Punishment is without a doubt one of the best books I have read. It has climbed to the top of my list, and I wouldn’t doubt recommending it to anyone. Aside from the thrilling crime story that was the main plot, Crime and Punishment contains a lot of psychology. It makes the reader think, much like Heart of Darkness, but in a much more interesting manner. The way Dostoevsky managed to intertwine all the characters, and have them all linked to one another was amazing. At points I found myself asking, what does this person have to do with the story? Why are they being mentioned so much? Towards the end, everything became clear. What I love the most was the amount of suspense that Dostoevsky kept me in. It was not until Part VI that everything truly began to unravel. I especially loved the cliffhanger at the end of Part VI, even though the epilogue did not allow the reader to make up their own mind and leave them wondering.
Throughout the entire novel, Raskolnikov remained my favorite character. I found him to be fascinating. He was versatile, twisted, and genuine. I could see someone like him existing and at times I felt sorry for him and all the suffering that he had to endure. Even though he confessed, in the epilogue he found the peace that he had been searching for.
All, in all, Crime and Punishment is a prime example of writing that keeps the reader intrigued until the very end.
Posted by Wendy C.

The Epilogue

Upon finishing Crime and Punishment, I thought that much of the epilogue was unnecessary and I found myself feeling that everything was being tied up nicely. The scene in which Raskolnikov finally realizes that he loves Sonya, when he collapses at her feet and weeps, is the first time that he is portrayed as being truly happy. Even though it seemed abrupt, I was glad that he had finally found peace of mind.
The descriptions of Raskolnikov’s life in prison confirm that Raskolnikov, despite having confessed, is not yet truly repentant of his crime. He is still convinced that his crime was an “error,” not a sin, and it causes him to be isolated from his fellow inmates, even as Sonya befriends them all.Raskolnikov continues to cling to a belief in the justification, even nobility, of the murder of Alyona Ivanovna.
I have noticed that the theme of religious redemption is paired with Raskolnikov's reintegration into society. The cross that Sonya gives Raskolnikov and the Bible that he begins to read in jail are symbols of his awakening religious faith. His faith is a way for him to reconnect with the people around him as it has become a channel for him to bond with Sonya.
I actually enjoyed reading Crime and Punishment. I enjoyed unraveling all the elements of the story and the contrasting personalities of the characters, and the ever-twisting plotline. Dostoevsky is a brilliant author who knows how to keep his reader's attention.
Mikaela M.

Raskolnikov and Virginia Tech

"It was remarkable that Raskolnikov had almost no friends while he wasat the university, kept aloof from everyone, visited no one, and haddifficulty receiving visitors. Soon, however, everyone also turnedaway from him. General gatherings, conversations, merrymaking-- hesomehow did not participate in any of it. He was a zealous student,unsparing of himself, and was respected for it, but no one loved him.He was very poor and somehow haughtily proud and unsociable, as thoughhe were keeping something to himself. It seemed to some of his friendsthat he looked upon them as children, from above, as though he wereahead of them all in development, in knowledge, and in convictions,and that he regarded their convictions and interests as somethinginferior." Page 51The way Dostoevsky describes Raskolnikov here reminded me of the massmurderer from Virginia Tech. He was a man who kept to himself justlike Rodya. It's interesting how both of these murderers had suchsimilar schooling experiences. Do past experiences really play a partin situations like this? If so, why did school make Raskolnikov likethis? When Rodya got the letter from his mother, he wanted to killLuzhin, however he ended up murdering Aloyna Ivanovna and Lizaveta.The VA Tech murderer wanted to kill his ex-girlfriend and the man shewas with and he succeeded in doing so, but why would he kill theothers? Rodya and the man who murdered dozens of innocent collegestudents seem to have a lot in common.

Dosteovsky and his characters

Rodya's characteristics and personality traits haven't changed much atall throughout the book. Normally I would be bored by this, however Iabsolutely love that Rodya is one of the only people that change, butdon't at the same time. In the beginning of Crime and Punishment therewere many clues that something was not right with Rodya. After themurder these little clues just became more apparent. I don'tunderstand how people don't notice these things. Every time the murderis mentioned, Raskolnikov starts sweating, getting sick, becomingfrighteningly pale. How come the other characters such as Razumikhin,who is with Rodya all day, appear to be so naive and gullible?Dostoevsky does an amazing job putting dramatic irony into Crime andPunishment. It makes me want to keep reading about Rodya's outburstsand about the horrible conditions of most of the other characters.
Dylan P.

Respect

"She washes the floors herself and eats black bread, but disrespectfor herself she will not tolerate."This quote really stood out to me, especially the part about respect.Women today have lost so much respect for themselves. Respect foroneself is crucial because if you don't respect yourself, who willrespect you? Katerina definitely comes across as a hardworking,selfless, respectable woman. Her husband on the other hand seemssomewhat sleazy and sketchy. Katerina and Marmeldov don't seem to havea mutual respect, which makes their relationship seem fake and forced.The characters in this book have been attracted to all the wrongthings. They don't look for love, but for money and economicstability. Materialism is incredibly important. Obviously thingshaven't changed so much in that sense, but the importance of respectfor oneself has dramatically decreased over the years.
Dylan P.

Can't Put it Down

I love this book. From the second I picked it up, I have as if I wereliving in Russia in the 1860s. I am completely engrossed in Crime andPunishment. I feel a real connection to Rodya. He is a typical manwith real problems, problems that affect people today, almost 150years later. I like how the book is written. The reader constantlyknows about Raskilnikov is thinking, how he is feeling, and what he isdoing. I especially like how you hear him reasoning with himself as ifyou could hear the angel and the devil. There are also parts in thebook where I feel that Rodya is going insane especially after hereceived that letter from his mother. "Anger boiled up in him more andmore, and he thought that if he met Mr. Luzhin right then, he mightkill him!" page 41. I'm definitely excited to continue reading.
Dylan P.

Dissappointment

I was disappointed after reading Heart of Darkness. My feelings havenot changed whatsoever. I was even more disappointed with the lack ofconnection with the characters. In a good book I feel as if I form arelationship with a character. When a character cries, I cry, howeverin Heart of Darkness I did not. When Kurtz died, I did not feel onebit of sorrow. There was obvious intensity between two of thecharacters, however as the reader I did not share the same intensity.This part of the book just added to the many things I disliked aboutHeart of Darkness.
Dylan P.

Mr. Popular

What is so special about Kurtz that people are constantly running backto him? Why do they always find the need to impress him? Everyoneseems to be fake around him. They change to get information. Why dopeople act fake? What is the purpose? Kurtz creates hysteria wheneverhis name is mentioned. People put on an act pretending to like himwhen they really don't just to gossip. Kurtz may be wise and wealthy,but I still don't see what is so special about him. All they seem tobe able to talk about is Kurtz. He doesn't seem to be that importantto me.
Dylan P.

Lies

"You know I hate, detest, and can't bear a lie, not because I amstraighter than the rest of us, bust simply because it appalls me.There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies-- which isexactly what I hate and detest of the world-- what I want to forget.It makes me miserable and sick, like biting something rotten woulddo." pages 96-97This quote really stood out to me while reading Heart of Darkness. Thedescription of how he feels when lied to was very vivid. I had thisimage of eating a sour tasting piece of fruit or smelling old milk.Then I began to wonder about lies and truth. How do we know that thetruth is not a lie? What is the truth? What about the saying thatevery lie has some truth in it? Has he really never stretched thetruth? Has he never told a white lie? I find that hard to believe. Ihate when people lie to me, but I would be lying if I said I havenever told a lie. In fact, I would be telling a lie if I said I knewsomeone who has never told a lie. People say truth v. lie just likegood v. evil, however sometimes I feel as if the truth and a lie arealmost the same thing.
Dylan P.

Needing a Change

I absolutely hate Heart of Darkness so far. I can't get into the book.It seems so dragged out and dense. Every time I open Heart ofDarkness, I just want to put it right back down. I feel lost almostall the time. Conrad's lengthy descriptions have put me to sleep sofar. I hope that there are some changes throughout the book. Maybepart of the problem is the format. A paragraph can last pages andpages, making it very easy to get lost or drift away from the story.Maybe it is how the story is being told. I just feel that Heart ofDarkness is incredibly difficult to get into.
Dylan P.

Imperialism in Heart of Darkness

Now that I’ve finished the book and thought about it, I think that theme-wise, throughout Heart Of Darkness, the insincerity and deceit of imperialism played a vast role. But the theme that I found more appealing was the result of imperialism- lunacy and madness. It threw whatever was connected with it into a whirlwind. In the story, Africa was responsible for mental disintegration, for example. Madness gets a reaction from the reader, because it’s usually ironic in some fashion and gains the reader’s compassion (in the way that Kurtz was mad, and Marlow ended up seeing through it, or maybe not even seeing it at all. The company that he worked for was also a bit mad for thinking that they were “helping” natives, et cetera), and it is used to alienate a character and create more individual characteristics.What other themes does everyone else think were important?
posted by Devon V

Reality TV shows and C&P

There is something magical about watching someone change right before your eyes. Unfortunately, I never had the privilege of having a younger sibling to watch grow up. My only comparison is those reality makeover shows, like The Swan or America’s Next Top Model. However, those shows care mostly about the changes made on the outside. Dostoevsky chose to monitor the inward changes of the human mind after committing a murder.
Even before the murder took place, I found Raskolnikov to be paranoid and suspicious. My thoughts were further strengthened after reading the letter from his mother about the engagement. I thought there was nothing wrong with it, however, Raskolnikov found lines expressing despair and doubt. He lived in his own little world of monologues and prejudices towards others. Impulsiveness was one of his greatest vices, since he was constantly handing off money to others without much thought of himself (until he realizes he needs that money and wants it back). His worst trait had to be his ‘holier than thou’ views. Raskolnikov believed that he didn’t need to mingle with people since they were of a lower class. By criticizing others flaws he was able to put himself on a pedestal. Only after the murder did these little idiosyncrasies intensify.
Raskolnikov’s justification for murder was that he was removing a woman who had no place in the land of the living. As the holder of a higher truth he believed that he had a right to kill someone evil. However, plans rarely go as intended. Escaping the crime site, the guilt begins to bubble within him since he killed an innocent woman, the pawnbroker’s sister. Nearly getting caught raises his paranoia that people suspect him as the murderer. He seeks assistance for his guilt but then shuns the idea of getting help from others. Switching back and forth from confessing and denying makes Raskolnikov agitated very quickly. Continuing his impulsive behavior, Raskolnikov has no filters when he speaks to people, choosing to be as blunt as possible about his desires. The most prominent emotion is paranoia that people might discover he is the killer, which leads to distress when the murder case is mentioned. However, in the end, Raskolnikov cannot deny how the guilt is eating his soul and confesses to the police about his sin (or ‘error’ as he calls it). He chooses to take full responsibility, losing all his fear and returns to his normal character.
posted by Kayla H.

Point of View

Personally, I love when authors write in the third person omniscient because it’s like watching a movie in 3D; you are not involved in the story line but everything and everyone seems tangible. There is no guess work in a character's motivations, feelings, or thoughts. Perhaps there is subtext between the lines but that is not strange to find in any novel. Writing in the first person as opposed to writing in this style would have hindered the novel's ability to write about human interaction. The reader needed to become an amateur psychologist in regard to this book. The novel needed to have the reactions of people as the protagonist, using the third person allowed parts of the involved with the murder case so we could analyze the different feelings people had. Although the novel was written as Raskolnikov novel without be seen, creating a more vivid scene than if just explained to the reader. For example, the part where Svidrigailov lures Dunya to his home was written as if it was happening, giving the scene more tension.
Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote this way to show almost a ripple effect. First Raskolnikov heard about the pawnbroker from Razumikhin, and went to see her. After meeting her, he decides himself that she is an evil woman. Contemplating killing her, he overhears a conversation about that same topic. He decides to kill the pawnbroker using a twisted version of getting rid of ‘evil’ as justification. The murder of the pawnbroker, and the accidental murder of her sister, affected all who Raskolnikov came in contact with. From one coincidental mentioning of a person brought the lives of a dozen people together. Dostoevsky probably wanted to show all the interactions and events the happened independent of the main character.
posted by Kayla H.

Review of Crime and Punishment

Crime and Punishment was honestly the most thought provoking novel I haveever read, although a bit perplexing in terms of what exactly it was tryingto convey, since I felt their were multiple themes and different plots andit could possibly be the most enigmatic novel I have ever read, I willhonestly say this novel goes right on top with Catcher in the Rye as well asThe Raven. As odd as it may sound I could relate to our protagonist, hisideologies have base in my opinion, the way the characters all intertwined,were in my opinion perfection. Symbolism also played such a key role interms of why Rodion was the way he was, his mindset towards the human raceall could point to the environment in which he was surrounded, the lack offreedom, his leaving condition, perhaps he felt “cleansing” the world if youwould create the freedom and the clarity he wanted, but overall the novelwas powerful as well as enjoyable, very few times do you find both of theseattributes in one single novel.
posted by Oscar P.

Conrad and Prejudice

Though some what with reason, Marlow is a prejudiced man; he is the epitomeof colonialism. Going into the Congo, Marlow views the natives asprehistoric evils in desperate need of white influence and civilization.Throughout the physical journey, Marlow is confronted with the natives timeand time again, seeing them chained as slaves, living in a village andattacking his own steam boat. Marlow holds fast his prejudiced view of thenatives, referring to them as savages or even worse something as derogatoryas "niggers'" (Conrad 65), until halfway through his journey. Whiledrifting up the Congo, Marlow and his crew encounter a group of native onthe shore. Instead of demeaning the natives, Marlow wishes he could join thenatives in their primitive behavior. Such a desire is a great step in theprogress of Marlow's psyche. His desire to join the natives demonstrates hisconsumption by the heart of darkness, as he reverts back to a more savagedstate of being. Furthermore, Marlow encounters Kurtz's mistress, a native,and describes her with awe and respect.Finally, Marlow makes a radical change in his view of Kurtz in between hissetting off on the Congo and his arrival at the Central Station. Uponhearing of Kurtz, with all his credentials and successes, Marlow findshimself awed at Kurtz's profile, saying that Kurtz and his crew were "nocolonist; their administration was only a squeeze; they were conquerors. Itwas just robbery by violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and mengoing at it blind-as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness" (Conrad63). Marlow, from the very beginning, develops a need to find Kurtz.However, as Marlow travels deeper and deeper into the jungle and furthermoreinto his own mind, Marlow hears of Kurtz becoming ill, lying and usingconniving methods to gain success. By the time Marlow reaches Kurtz, he isovercome with dignity and respect for Kurtz's ability to survive. Oncedisgusted by his unfair practices, Marlow finds himself respecting theepitome of all evil.
posted by Oscar P.

Main Themes of Heart of Darkness

After concluding with Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” I felt a great sense ofpride in myself, as well as a great deal of relief. True I respect the bookin all sense of the word, for me a novel to truly be worth revisiting orenjoying for that matter one must find something to hang on to. Somethingwhich captivated the reader, though the message Conrad was trying to conveyobvious, restraint and reason. Yet racism and prejudice, is the common vibethroughout this vague and intellectually sound novel. The writing styledisplayed by Conrad was truly advanced for his time, though sometimes a bitquizzical in plot.For example the general vibe of the novel was to expose the sadistic-ness ofthe Whiteman, present the animalistic views of the time. Rather by showingnatives Kurtz ruled under as innocent victims of imperialism, it raises asort of sympathy for the natives in the reader. Manifest Destiny was thegeneral idea here. To spread the culture of the majestic land known asEurope only presenting the darker and less sugar coated version one wouldexpect other novels would do. Also the lasting thought that the book triedto establish as many others have said was through the growth of civilizationthe death of barbarianism was inevitable.Overall though the book had no real basis in terms of actual story, it wasenjoyable a bit different but enjoyable.
posted by Oscar P.

Imagery

Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness centers itself around its multiloquentprotagonist, Charlie Marlow, an unreliable narrator whose interpretation ofevents is often open to question. Conrad forces the reader to take an activerole in his somewhat choppy very ambiguous novella, through painfullyextensive details and very vivid imagery to perhaps vicariously throughMarlow, gain a better understanding of its events and of the overall themein this novella, restraint and reason. By no means was this intended to be asugar coated, stick to the plot, happy ending type novel. The title of thebook even premeditates one of the lack of clarity, Heart of Darkness, whichis just as ambiguous as its entire novella. Heart of Darkness is JosephConrad's tale of one man's journey, both mental and physical, into thedepths of the wild African jungle and into the human soul. The seaman,Marlow, tells his crew an eye opening very detailed tale of a man namedKurtz and his excursion which all culminates in his encounter with thesupposed savior Kurtz, and inevitably his very demise. The novel itself iscomposed Marlow's two opposing points of view: naive Marlow, which comesbefore Marlow's eventual epiphany after having met Kurtz, and the maturedperspective he takes on after all of the events leading up to his andKurtz's encounter. Yet really what allured me into reading this book was theimagery, true one can complain that the novel really has no real plot ordirection but the imagery with each passing page jumped the reader intodifferent locations and made you feel as well as see what was going on,which made up for the choppy storyline.The use of imagery and metaphor to illustrate to the reader the contrastbetween light and dark was brilliant by Conrad. Imagery itself is a majorliterary element found any book but its one the few positive attributes ofthis novella. Conrad use of Imagery can be noted as soon as you beginreading the story as know because it immediately starts out with thesecondary narrator describing our protagonists surrounding, such as, "A hazerested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness. The airwas dark above Gravesend, and farther back still seemed condensed into amournful gloom, brooding motionless over the biggest, and the greatest, andtown on earth". With this quote alone, you can envision the dark very grungysetting the story first takes place. The use of imagery is the only thingworth actual reading, never has a book captivated me with only details.Marlow himself uses imagery a lot throughout the novella, for example what Ifound most visual was his description of the African Americans: ““A lot ofpeople, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants”. I don’t really knowif its crude humor but I found that amusing but again Conrad more then wellmade up for his lack of story with rich and detailed imagery.
posted by Oscar P.

Kurtz-- Deeper Meaning

Kurtz, first-class agent, painter, musician, politician-- a jack of all trades if you will. A god to the ignorant and weak. Merely gazing upon him or justbeing in his presence changes the course of one's life forever. A mythological creature is what Marlow described him to be basically. "He is a prodigy;" "an emissary of pity and science and progress, and devil knows what else" (Brick master). Kurtz is introduced to us by word of mouth. "A remarkable man" (Company chief) was overhead by Marlow. Driven by curiosity, he bases his entire journey on finding this remarkable divine force seemingly from above. Kurtz like Marlow traveled to the motherland, Africa, in search of adventure—particularly however to colonize, extend Europe’s vast as well as enhance its political, social, and economic influences. Yet once he saw the ignorance in the natives of Africa as well as their feebleness he dropped his benevolent intentions and took the position of tyrant or god to the natives. Ironically Kurtz wanted to bring "light" to the people of Congo, but towards his final hours he only wishes death on the very same people he wanted to reform. Kurtz, in my opinion, represented the gilded attitude of the human race. He was covering up intentions with noble excuses, only he wasn't so descriptive in terms of his intentions. Kurtz represented the greed and the inhumane side of the human race that doesn't seem to come alive so vividly. In part III, Kurtz makes his grand appearance, but he wasn't exactly what Marlow or I for that matter would have expected. Again he was portrayed as a divine creature, yet he had this skeleton like appearance to him, perhaps because of his illness. This is the very same illness that has left him seemingly battered, physically as well as mentally,without enough strength to even utter a single coherent sentence; truly he is near his death. In shambles really is how Kurtz is found. Afterwards he of course dies and leaves one disappointed. I thought that this entire experience of the novel would all culminate with Kurtz sharing his wisdom with Marlow as well as myself. I for one was expecting some sort of fulfilling knowledgeable quote or showing from Kurtz, yet in reality it just ruined my experience of the novel.
posted by Oscar P.

Redemption and Impulsivity

As part two of Crime and Punishment comes to an end, Raskolnikov still cannot forget his doing. He continues walking down the path of unavoidable guilt. He wishes to redeem himself through the act of compassion and human affection. When Raskolnikov finds Marmaledov in the streets after getting run over by a carriage, Raskolnikov carries Marmaledov home, where he dies. To further alleviate his growing guilt, Raskolnikov gives Marmaledov’s family the 20 rubles he received from his mother. Other than helping out a devastated family, he wanted to ease his guilt by committing good deeds, believing that these kinds of acts can help him forget his sins. On the 1st impression, Raskolnikov was a cold-hearted person; however, as the book progresses, readers see that his biggest obstacle is his capricious behavior. When he almost confesses his crimes to Zamyotov through impulsive action shows that Raskolnikov has yet to overcome himself.
Dostoevsky shows us the compassionate side of Raskolnikov and helping Marmaledov’s family is the first step towards redemption.
posted by John I.

Raskolnikov's Relationships

Raskolnikov was a poor student in college and did not have many friends. One of his few circles of friends is RAZ, who is still attending college. Razumikhin is described as a warm and outgoing person. Readers soon find out that Raskolnikov could not attend the university anymore because of his impoverished state.
In the first few chapters of the book, Raskolnikov is giving money away as if he were rich; he gives Marmaledov’s family some money out of pity for them, three kopecks to Natasya for bringing him tea soup, and a letter from his mother, and twenty kopecks to the policemen after encountering a teenage girl that was getting harassed by a man. Raskolnikov is the type that usually watches his money very closely but he gives money to people he deems needy. This shows Raskolnikov isn’t really a cold-hearted person. After reading the letter, I learned that Raskolnikov mother seems to care more for his well-being then her own daughter, Dunya. She’s even willing to sacrifice Dunya to ensure deems needy happiness. Even though Dunya doesn’t mind sacrificing her future by being engaged to someone she hardly knows. I can’t wait to find out how this engagement unfolds. Will Raskolnikov's family and Razumikhin be his downfall?
posted by John I.

Predictions

Upon reaching the midway point of the novel, I have some predictions of how the story will continue. First, to recap the main points of what has happened: Raskolnikov has killed not only the feeble pawnbroker, but also her sister. Thoroughly shocked by his unexpected second murder, he narrowly escapes without being seen. The next day Raskolnikov is summoned to the police station, not for murder charges, but for being in debt to his landlady. However, at the station, he meets some people who get suspicious of him. After leaving the station, he wanders to his old friend Razumikhin’s house. He doesn’t stay long but enough to get Razumikhin interested in Raskolnikov’s life again… By now, the mere mention of the murders of the pawnbroker and her sister cause Raskolnikov to be agitated, or at most, faint. At the Porfiry’s house, Raskolnikov’s nervousness about the murder case is evident making him a suspect in Porfiry’s and Zamyotov’s eyes.
Based on the information presented so far, I believe that Dunya isn’t going to marry Luzhin. Razumikhin, although trying to deny his feelings for her, is going to interfere in the relationship. Within days of meeting her, he has already tried to get the doctor to fall in love with the landlady to eliminate him as competition. Also, I don’t think that Svidrigailov is completely out of the novel yet. Too much time was spent on that story to leave him wallowing in self pity back home. Whether or not a man vies for Dunya’s hand, Raskolnikov is obsessed with exposing Luzhin as a fraud and stopping the wedding himself.
Raskolnikov and Razumikhin seem to have gotten closer from the time they first met again. I think if there is anyone that Raskolnikov might confess to it’s him. In the second half of the novel, Raskolnikov is going to be overcome by guilt and the suspicion everyone has towards him. If he doesn’t trust Razumikhin, he might go insane having to keep the secret. This may be the start of his descent into paranoia, hallucinations, overanalyzing details and most of all, distrust of everyone.
posted by Kayla H.

Concluding Heart of Darkness

In essence, the conclusion to Heart Of Darkness was this:
Marlow went back to Europe, and is again overcome with the feeling that he cannot relate to those around him. He gives Kurtz’ report to the “The Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs,” and the letters to Kurtz’ “intended” (fiancé?). He meets her a full year after Kurtz’ passing, and she is still in mourning. He dutifully delivers the letters and portrait, and he accidentally blurted out that he was with Kurtz during his final moments. She asks what his last words were, and he said they were her name, rather than tell her the disturbingly vague declaration that he actually made. She was satisfied with his answer, however, saying that it was something that he would say. She remembered him as a great man, but Marlow didn’t tell her the frail man that he had been reduced to. He felt disgusted with himself for lying, but failed to stop himself.Throughout the novel, you get to know the evil that is masked by civilization. The nameless narrator on board the Nellie continues narrating and speaks of the tide and the overcast, and how it lead into “…the heart of an immense darkness.”I was pleased with the ending, but I thought that it could have been better. I sort of felt robbed of a plot, since the entire story was a story being told by a nameless character, but I was satisfied with the significance of it all.
posted by Devon V

The Taming of the Wild Side

In the “Heart of Darkness”, Joseph Conrad explores two extremes of the human soul, which are barbarianism and civilization. Barbarianism is represented by Kurtz, who rejects the rules of conducting ivory trade, and has his own methods to get what he wants. Which in turn causes him to become a sort of wild man, when compared to the rest of the ivory traders. Civilization is represented by the ivory traders, who hold their heads up high, follow the moral code that Kurtz strongly rejects, and don’t give second thought to the natives, whose resources they are abusing.
Throughout the novel these two extremes are battling with each other, until finally Kurtz’s dramatic death brings the conflict to a close. As Kurtz represented barbarianism, then his death would also bring about the oblivion of that extreme. During a time when imperialism was trying to teach the natives civilization and Christianity, civilization began to spread to the farthest reaches of the world. So it is only reasonable to say that Kurtz’s long fight against illness would represent the savage nature of the human soul slowly dying away, and with Kurtz’s death came the oblivion of this one extreme. With Kurtz’s death, the ivory traders continued to handle their business without any intervention from him.
posted be Eddie D.

Final Thoughts on Heart of Darkness

After reading “Heart of Darkness” I found myself utterly frustrated with the writing style that Joseph Conrad used to get his message across. Sometimes when trying to find the underlying message of the story, I would find myself incredibly lost and needed to read back in-order to find out what exactly I missed. However while I found the writing incredibly complex, I thought that the story, and the message of “heart of darkness” were very deep, and thoughtful.
For example I saw the book as more of a “stop abusing the natives of Africa” book, instead of a racist one. Yes the way that the natives were portrayed in the story made them look idiotic, but at the time the book was written, that’s what people thought of them as.
Rather by showing the natives as innocent pawns of imperialism, it raises a sort of sympathy for the natives in the reader.
I also saw “Heart of Darkness” as a very anti-imperialism novel. It shows the ivory traders who represent the spreading ideal of civilization, as snobby, condescending men who abuse the natives to get what they want, yet they don’t give them a second thought afterwards. This shows that while civilization is regarded as an orderly, and maybe even advanced ideal, the fact is that during the time Conrad wrote his novel, civilization had become more of a plague for the African natives, rather than a helpful resource for them.
Also the ending of the book showed that Conrad believed that with the growth of civilization, came the death of barbarianism. Kurtz who is the representation of the savage “dark” part of the soul is always at conflict with the ivory traders, and especially the ship captain who plans to bring about Kurtz’s downfall. As the traders journey deeper and deeper into the jungle, Kurtz gets weaker and soon enough he has no way of fighting his illness, and dies. This proves that as civilization began to spread farther into Africa, the freedom and chaos of barbarianism began to shrivel away.
posted by Eddie D.

Conscience as Adversary

At the beginning of Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky doesn’t mention the protagonist’s name, making the novel more intense. As we continue reading, we discover that the character's name is Raskolnikov, an isolated young man who is full of scorn and contempt. We soon find out that most of the novel takes place in Raskolnikov’s mind, how he’s contemplating a crime in his head. He is debating to himself whether or not he should commit the crime. He makes his decision by focusing on Alyona Ivanovna’s loathsome qualities. Chapter VI of part I shows how Raskolnikov first develops the idea of killing the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna. Raskolnikov develops a strong hatred and contempt the first time he sees her. As I continue reading eagerly, I wonder how Raskolnikov can possibly muster the courage to commit the crime. The way Raskolnikov executes the crime is not like an experienced mastermind, in fact, he almost gets caught in the act.
I believe Raskolnikov's conscience is his main adversary in this novel. The way he commits the crime seems as if he wants to get caught. I can’t wait to see how Raskolnikov will receive his punishment.

posted by John I.

Intentions

Joseph Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness” explores certain aspects of the human soul by using characters such as Kurtz, and the ivory traders to represent this. Two specific aspects are the free, yet savage extreme of barbarianism which is represented by Kurtz, and the moral yet condescending civilization which is represented by the ivory traders. Kurtz’s years in the Congo had led him to ignore the moral conduct that had been followed by the ivory traders that have come down to the Congo to do business. He has taken a liberty to show off his advanced technology in order to make the natives believe that he is one of their charismatic demigod. Kurtz represents the freedom of savagery because he follows his own methods to get what he wants. He has long since rejected what was considered normal business practices, and as a result has turned into a representation of what imperialism sought to control.
The ivory traders on the other hand follow the code of conduct very strictly. They focus on making money, and look down at the natives who they are oppressing. They think of Kurtz as a man who once was capable of great things, yet as his health began to fail him he became nothing more then a unimpressive has-been. The traders represent the “light of civilization” as opposed to the “Darkness of Savagery” that Kurtz represents.
These two extremes exist in the human soul, and Conrad’s intention was to explore the two them in-depth. The freedom that savagery and barbarianism represent also comes with the loss of control of impulses. However on the other side of the spectrum, the rules and moral conducts that keep civilization under control, gives a false sense of advancement, and superiority. Marlow, who is caught in the middle of these two conflicting forces represents the average person who within this internal battle is waging.
posted by Eddie D.

Irony

I found this book to be quite hilarious. So many people died in vain. I believed Dunya was right in accusing Svid of killing his wife. Svid felt sort of obligated to his wife after she bailed him out of jail. He also probably wanted her to be dead before she and Dunya realized he was the bad one because he loved Dunya over his wife, and Dunya didn't want anything to do with him. However, after her death Svid did the same thing to Dunya as his wife did to him which was make him feel obligated to be with her. First he tried to bribe Dunya and then he tried to blackmail her and when that failed he killed himself for not only being a horrible person for falling in love with someone other than his wife but for also becoming the person he secretly hated. Meanwhile Rask finally realized he had done something wrong and contemplated suicide. However after hearing that Svid had killed himself he thought he couldn't do it because he was better than Svid and therefore could not degrade himself by doing the same thing Svid had done. In the end Rask feels sad and confesses but still feels right in a way. He feels that if he had killed Alyona only and gotten away with it he would've been justified but since he killed an innocent person (Lizaveta) he has to be redeemed. So in the end he kills Alyona for his "heroism" to be recognized and applauded because he was the only one with enough guts to finally kill Alyona. Yet he was actually condemned for what he had done.
posted by Nateil O.

Role Reversals

In Part Three of Heart of Darkness, a very confusing and contradictory moment takes place while Marlow is traveling to see Kurtz. The roles of cannibal and pilgrim seemed to be reversed creating a strange atmosphere. The pilgrims aboard the ship are rough men, and the “cannibals” are quiet and behaved. This switching of stereotypes leads one to believe which group really needs the civilizing. Another stranger scene is when Marlow’s helmsman gets struck by an arrow during the attack of the ship. Marlow watches him die and instead of showing any emotion to this loss, he takes his socks and shoes off because of the blood. I can really see underlying darkness laid out in the story.
posted by Christina R.

The Tormented Criminal

I now realize that even though Rask stole some jewelry and things from Alyona that it wasn't only greed that led Rask to kill the woman. I thought that Rask was driven by greed because he was going to kill her for money but now I see he was driven by greed and madness. His Plans were so intricate that it revealed how sick he really was. He didn't even think about getting caught or repercussions until after the fact. He did take some jewelry but no money which shows he really did think he was doing the world a favor by killing Alyona, and by taking her jewelry he was doing himself a favor as well. However, now he feels guilty and he didn't just kill Alyona he killed Lizaveta too. He didn't want to kill Lizaveta but in order to really save himself from getting caught he had to. Throughout the rest of the book though he feels remorse but also tries to validate her death almost like he had a split personality. He's tormented but also feels it was the right thing to do and he still feels sort of like a hero because he rid the world of such a vile person. On the contrary however he can't tell anyone he did the crime so he's tormented by the fact that he can't get recognition for his "heroism" either.
posted by Nateil O.

Reaching out to Marlow

Heart of Darkness is very vague, yet full of detailed wordy paragraphs. One part that had me scratching my head is the moment before Kurtz dies. Kurtz suddenly yells out in a pained voice, “The Horror, The horror”! I wasn’t quite sure what it meant, but it sounded so profound that I felt there had to be some meaning in it. It dawned on me that Kurtz was reaching out to Marlow in his last moments and “the horror!” , fit perfectly with that. The horror of colonization! , the horror of death.
posted by Christina R.

Greed vs. Madness

While reading Crime And Punishment I've kept the thoughts of Edgar Allen Poe in the back of my mind. I'm still trying to make a connection between the two. Right now I'm up to the part of the book where Rask is going to kill Alyona Ivanovna. I think since overhearing the officer and student's conversation at the other table next to him, Rask's decision to kill Alyona is based more on greed than anything else. He is also using the theories that he is killing someone horrible as validation. I think he's really killing her just to get all her money and because she was evil and mean to him in the beginning so this would be the perfect payback. In " A tell Tale Heart" however the character was driven by madness because after he killed the man due to his own craziness, he didn't steal from him and he felt remorse. I think Rask is going to be different though and steal the woman's money and not feel any remorse because he will trick himself into believing it was the right thing to do.
posted by Nateil O.

Long-Term Effects

In the beginning of Heart of Darkness , Marlow is examined by a doctor who studies a man’s head before travels to study the effects of the head afterwards. Well the effects are more internal then physical. Marlow returns to the Brussels a different person. Sure he survives his illness, but he barely survived the experience, a darkness that will remain with him.
I felt that although Heart of Darkness was a great story, it was a little dull at times. Some things were very difficult to comprehend at first glance. And at times I found myself zoning out while reading, which caused me to have to reread passages. It took me some time to read Heart of Darkness because of the wordiness of Conrad’s writing style. However one thing I was able to feel through the book was the always present darkness. There’s a couple of the things I’m still fuzzy on, but I’m looking forward to discussing all of it in class.
posted by Christina R.

Pre-Reading for Crime and Punishment

The back of the book says the book is a murder story narrated by the murder. My first thoughts are that the book is going to be similar to Edgar Allen Poe's " A Tell Tale Heart". In which case the narrator will be jumpy, eager and will act guilty and suspicious. I think Raskolnikov will end up ratting himself out in the end as well. However, no book ever turns out the way you think it will. I think the end will also have a shocking twist and it would have all been some weird trick just like in the book Bodega Dreams by Ernesto Quinonez. Since at the end no one knew the truth besides one person. Does anyone else share these feelings?
posted by Nateil O.

Christianity in Crime and Punishment

While reading Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, I noticed that Christianity plays quite a role in the actual novel. Of course murder, revenge, prostitution, as well as other themes pertaining to this novel aren’t exactly reflections of typical Christian beliefs. There were however many instances where faith, suffering and redemption were present. These occasions show that the underlying theme of Crime and Punishment is one of Christianity. The references to Lazarus, New Jerusalem and the constant presence of suffering prove that the novel has biblical meaning. One prime example was before Rodion’s confession, his visit to Sonya towards the end of my reading. Sonya gives Rodion a cross, a symbol of Jesus' sacrifice for the sins of humanity. After receiving the cross Rodion tells Sonya that he isn’t with sin and that he isn’t one of the best examples really of Christianity. Yet in reality the cross didn’t symbolize redemption or his new profound faith, no it more or less signified the first steps to his rebirth. Sonya bestowing Rodion with the cross symbolized her role as the Christ like figure in Crime and Punishment, enforcing that although Rodion stepped away from the word of God, he became God’s son once more and thanks so Sonya, gained salvation. By kissing the ground before his confession, Rodion placed an exclamation mark on the theory of his rebirth, since by doing so he showed humility and acceptance to his fate.
posted by Oscar P.

Ubermensch

"One death, and a thousand lives in exchange--it's simple arithmetic." -Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov, throughout the course of three months, had created a collection of his own thoughts on crime and punishment in an article entitled "On Crime." Porfiry, who is investigating a murder and feels Rodion is perhaps the culprit, has discovered this, read the piece, and tells Raskolnikov that he is very interested in learning about his ideas. Porfiry sparks a conversation with Raskolnikov on his ideology, primarily however to find out more about Raskolnikov's possible involvement in the crime and Rodion discusses his philosophy of man, Ubermensch.
Ubermensch is the belief held by Rodion that the human race is divided into two classes. The "ordinary" and the "extraordinary". The ordinary's vocation is to be obsequious to that of the "extraordinary", since based on Ubermensch they are riffraff. The "extraordinary" are much more above the normal man. They have the ability to transgress frivolous laws since they are the salvation, the future. Rodion tells of Newton, Mahomet, Napoleon, all being "extraordinary." According to Rodion under Ubermensch, Newtown if needed could've used the "ordinary" as genuine pigs to test his theories of gravity. "The first class of people preserve world, the second move the world and lead it to its goal." Despite the obvious superiority that the extraordinary people are afforded, Raskolnikov maintains that both classes have an equal right to exist. However without the "extraordinary" without their adeptness and moral responsibility to overstep the bounds of society at certain times, the world would have never progressed to where it is currently. The most brutal of men would still be standing on empty field trying to find new ways of attaining nourishment. If one had not transgressed traditional ideologies and made an innovation then, the human race would still pertain to that very same brute, on that very same field. Without innovation and efforts to survive, the human race as we know it would be dead, we live in an ever changing world and were going to need those "extraordinary" men to help us move along with the times, help us adapt to all the changes, no matter the situation. The fact is that Rodion's theory is somewhat correct. There are different people each of whom make earth shattering changes and others who just wait for their time to come, occupying space really. I feel that Rodion based this ideology on the benefit of mankind, although he did phrase it a very disturbing fashion and often times it seemed to serve as an excuse to defend his killings, whether for the benefit of mankind. The quote "the ends justify the means" comes to mind, as long is it's beneficial to the human race then everything will be forgiven, that to me is the heart, the true intentions if you will of Ubermensch.
The pawnbroker Rodion murdered under Ubermensch is somewhat justifiable. The wealthy pawnbroker, truth be known, was sadistic as well as crude, somewhat evil. Under Ubermensch an "extraordinary" is morally obligated to remove the "louse" for the overall benefit of humanity. Rodion taking her wealth for his own benefits is also justifiable since being that he is an "extraordinary" his goal is ultimately to help humanity, thus if he uses the money for his education to aid him in his very goal in the long run it would serve to be beneficial. The ideology as Porfiry had mentioned has base, it is Rodion who must carry it out on a morally correct fashion and not use it as justifiable reason to commit murder on just about anyone.
posted by Oscar P.

Shades of Rodion: Sonya, Porfiry & Arkady

Rodion himself harbors dual personalities and both are very easily distinguishable by their traits (in my opinion). One can presume that Dostoevsky, to serve as a better understanding on how distinct each personality is, established three characters each with separate mirror images of Rodion. Two of these characters are truly incomparable and in my opinion incredibly similar to Doctor Jekyll and Hyde from The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde written by the legendary Robert Louis Stevenson, as well as an additional character which to me is the perfect blend, having the best attributes of each.
One is Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov, the epitome of purity and innocence, the compassionate and awfully humble love interest of our main protagonist, the seemingly bi-polar Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov. Sonya throughout the novel represents the softer side of Rodion, the humane, charitable, very meek and sensitive Rodion who throughout the entire novel, one tends to see, makes quick rare appearances. Sonya's role was to help Rodion recover that amiable side to him, since she is somewhat his conscience. Many times throughout the novel she is thought to be "the suffering of all humanity" yet through all of her trials and tribulations she still maintains this glimmer of hope, that incredible faith, something which you can feel that Rodion still has. Yet in reality she was more or less Rodion's confidant or muse, since she didn’t try and reform Rodion though action and blatant advice, she inspires him to change, she was someone he could trust with his feelings. Little by little she broke down that wall and forced him to drop all those shields he had and bring forth that softer side of Rodion, similar to Sonya herself, the meek very weak Rodion as well as other feeble human emotions he so desperately wants to avoid all together.
Arkady Skidrigailov is the apathetic very cold self-willed intellectual, someone who feels no remorse, no compassion, a real sinner in all definitions of the word. Arkady represents in my opinion the reflection of who Rodion has become as well as his future if he continuous this path of self destruction. Inevitably because of his lack of compassion and his scandalous very impious behavior, past as well as present, he cannot attain the love of one named Dunya, sister of Rodion, whom he has become so attached to. Though both were so incomparable to begin with in terms of their definition of morality. Realizing Dunya will probably never return his affection the coward takes his life, since he wasn't too keen on the idea of being alone with his wife’s passing and all, even though he was already making advances to Dunya while married to her and denied it when caught. Yet again he is the reflection of what’s to become of Rodion.
Porfiry Petrovitch is a criminal investigator who I believe serves as the reflection of the perfect mesh of Rodion's two personalities. Porfiry's purpose was to bring Rodion to equilibrium of the compassionate, strong willed and clear minded intellectual. Porfiry sees immense potential in Rodion, He feels if Rodion would just hone in his potential for something beneficial instead of ignorant and without morality he would bring great success to Russia. Though one knows that although being compassionate as well as charitable are good qualities, one still needs a self-willed very detached attribute to one self to succeed in this cut throat world as well as survive, but one must be able to know when to turn on the switch. In reality we all have duel personalities, which is what Dostoevsky was trying to convey through Rodion.
posted by Oscar P.

The Punishment, and the Justification for murder

In the epilogue of “Crime and Punishment” Radion Ramanovich Raskolnikov confesses to his crime of killing the old pawnbroker and her sister. However this is not the punishment that is referred to in the title of the story. Rather it is his strong feeling of guilt, lack of conviction, and ultimately the realization that he is a scoundrel, and not one of the few extraordinary men that he thought himself to be. In the beginning of the novel, Raskolnikov has a theory that in a world full of ordinary people, there are an extraordinary few who rise up, and achieve greatness. Therefore they are able to go against the moral code that affects the ordinary due to their impending destiny. Raskolnikov uses this as one of his justifications for murdering the pawnbroker. He thought that because he himself is one of the few extraordinary, then he can get through feeling guilty for his actions. He also believed that by killing the pawnbroker there would be one less evil in the world, and he was in fact committing a crime for the common good. However by the end of the novel, Raskolnikov realizes that he, not the pawnbroker, is the true evil and that he is not one of the extraordinary people that he once thought he was. Once he was able to accept this ego bruiser and confess to his crime, then his mental rehabilitation could begin.
posted by Eddie D.

Raskolnikov

Before I delved into the actual story, I read the Translator’s Note on page xx, and saw what the name Raskolnikov meant: in a nutshell, the root-word means “split,” and the name itself means “reason, mind, intelligence,” and “to fawn or flatter in an eager, fidgety, tail-wagging manner,” so I anticipated to see two contrasting sides of him. However, when I started reading, Raskolnikov’s mentality didn’t seem too peculiar right away, so I was very curious about what would finally push him over the edge into the morals and mind-set of a killer. He seemed to have a normal temper and personality (aside from him being very tense and anxious when around people, and usually avoiding contact altogether). Once Raskolnikov began talking to Marmeladov in the bar (or vice versa), he seemed fine. But soon after the encounter with Marmeladov’s spouse, he was overcome with an unsettlingly caustic attitude walking home and reached a bizarre epiphany (at the very end of II in Part 1): After saying “Man gets accustomed to everything, the scoundrel!” followed by, “But if that’s a lie…if man in fact is not a scoundrel—in general, that is, the whole human race—then the rest is all mere prejudice, instilled fear, and there are no barriers, and that’s just how it should be!…” I wasn’t completely sure what to make of it, what are your opinions of it? I read a little farther and saw that prejudice could possibly become a reoccurring theme in the story.
posted by Devon V.

Language in C&P

When I first started reading Crime and Punishment I had to keep in mind that this is a translated piece of literature. It was originally written in Russian but was then converted to Standard English. Another unique item about the novel is that the story is over a century year old. I kept this these facts close in mind because there were some phrases and wording that seemed out of place. Almost like a detective, I searched for clues in the text after an unusual idiom.
One example is “And today I went to see Sonya and I asked her for the hair of the dog!” It was a peculiar phrase that made sounded like a rural remedy for an illness. Instead of staying stuck on that line, I underlined it and continued reading. A few sentences later Marmeladov said, “This very bottle was bought on her money, sir,” which indicated to me that the hair of the dog was money for liquor. However I was only partly correct; a passerby informed me that the hair of the dog was liquor for a hangover. This quote really stood out to me because I’m not sure that it’s a saying here in America but it seemed like a common catchphrase in Russia. Granted I don’t know how to speak Russian, it’s nice to know I know one small thing that was common then (or now).
Another quote I enjoyed when the part of a conversation between Raskolnikov and Nastasya. When asked what work Raskolnikov does, he answered “I think.” Although Nastasya laughed in his face at the prospect of that being work, I think I was a cleverly given response. Most people value tangible items, like chopping wood into firewood, rather the thoughts about spiritual and deeper meanings in life. When I read that line it reminded me of a more famous quote “I think therefore I am.” Raskolnikov’s answer seemed profound even though he was trying to avoid the topic of his inexistent job. I think that Raskolnikov’s thoughts prove that he is alive, which is good enough to make a difference.
posted by Kayla H.

Porfiry Messes with Raskolnikov's Head

Further into Crime and Punishment, we see the arrival of Raskolnikov's mother and sister in part three. Raskolnikov treats them with disdain and immediately makes his dislike of Dunya's fiancee, Pyotr Pertrovich Luzhin, known and causes a row between the three of them. It is here that Razumikhin begins to act as Raskolnikov's replacement, advising and protecting Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunya. Later in part four, more of Luzhin and Dunya's characters are revealed when Raskolnikov exposes Luzhin's intentions to cause a fight between him and his family and to have them in his complete power through promised financial help. The reader begins to be exposed to the vulgarity of Luzhin' character and to Dunya's pride, bravery, and most of all, her temper. She breaks off her engagement with Luzhin, but Dostoevsky leaves us with the impression that, unfortunately, we may see him again.
At the beginning of part four, we are introduced to another character, Svidrigailov, Dunya's former employer and pursuer, appears in Raskolnikov's apartment apparently waiting for him. Raskolnikov judges him as possibly mad and a danger both to him and Dunya. It is obvious that he is still in love with Dunya and has the intention to try to pursue her, but he tries to convey to Raskolnikov that he is no threat and even wished to leave her with ten thousand rubles.
My favorite part of the novel so far is Raskolnikov's interrogation by Porfiry Petrovich near the end of part four. The intellectual reasoning that Porfiry discusses with him with a touch of mockery shakes Raskolnikov up so much that he is on the verge of confessing before he is saved by a disruption. Perhaps it bothered him so much because he was witnessing his view of himself as an "extraordinary" individual beginning to crack as Pofiry was able to mess with his head.
Mikaela M.

Fascination of the Dying

This description of Kurtz’s death is disturbing in many ways. In the final moments before his passing, Kurtz goes through moments of uncomfortable pain that causes Marlow to ask “Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge?”. However this led me to wonder what happened during Kurtz’s life that truly made him feel all these emotions of pride, anger, shame, and despair? How had the experiences in the Congo affected his past to the point that looking back on it would cause him to scream out his infamous last words “The Horror!, The Horror!” Had it been his ultimate downward spiral into disease and his eventual death that caused him to scream out these chilling final words? Or was it something else? Something darker and even more corrupt then his methods of ivory collection, and his relationship with the natives? Were there moments that had affected Kurtz in such a way that we could only dream of what happened, and how he was able to live through them? Who knows? However what I know for certain is that with a man like Kurtz, who is filled with Megalomaniacal ideals, yet is utterly lacking in substance, any sort of set back, would certainly drive him over the metaphorical deep end.
posted by Eddie D.

The Blur Clears

Luckily, in the home stretch, the novel is becoming more comprehensible. During Marlow’s travel to meet the mysterious Mr. Kurtz, the rapid ping-pong style of writing has considerably slowed down. Instead of a plot structure that bounced from endless monologue to unusual commentary, it stayed linear for the most part. It only broke when Marlow described his sadness at the prospect of never meeting Mr. Kurtz. However, Conrad’s signature swift and combined phrasing is ever present. It was not uncommon for me to reread whole paragraphs because, even now, I am not used to his unique style. Another adjustment in his writing style was there was no switching of point of view that was found before. Marlow kept the speaking in the first person while telling his tale.
Conrad probably changed his writing style to suit the quickening of the plot. The plot thickens as the reader discovered that Mr. Kurtz may not have been killed in the quick but deadly attack by the natives. The enigma that is Mr. Kurtz is unraveling with every person Marlow encounters. Like Marlow’s steamer, the reader is slowly but surely reaching the climax of the novel.
The direct writing style Marlow is now using to describe his journey is a welcome change from his past depictions. All the details to scenery and people were tainted as if Conrad wanted to place the reader in the area, but with opaque glasses to blur the view. Conrad no longer seems to be leading the reader through the fog and is now presenting the facts as they first came to Marlow. I am excited to watch what happens next.
Kayla H.

Sonya's Role

Luzhin is at it again in part five when he decides to set Sonya up by planting a 100 ruble note on her and confronting her with it in public during the memorial dinner, all in order to get Dunya back. He turns up at the dinner and accuses Sonya, which sends Katerina Ivanovna into a frenzy and she immediately insists on proving Sonya's innocence by turning out her pockets and the note falls out. Luzhin "generously" agrees not to press charges but to his horror, his plans start to unravel when Lebezyatnikov, whom Luzhin used as a witness, comes forward and says that he saw Luzhin put the note in Sonya's pocket. Raskolnikov then comes forward and further exposes him by saying that he wanted to sully his relations with his mother and sister by embarassing him with his associations with Sonya. He tries to maintain his innocence but soon sees that the cause is lost and leaves. This event takes away any doubt the reader may have about Luzhin's character and solidifies him as one of the novel's villians, albeit a clumsy one.
In part five we also see Raskolnikov's inner discovery as too why he murdered the pawnbroker during his confession to Sonya, the only person throughout the novel with whom he has the most intimate relationship with. His motives are bit vague, but he wanted to somehow become "extraordinary", like Napoleon, and that it was somehow justified and his right to kill because he transcended the moral rules that the rest of society has to follow. He also confessed that he was detached from society and believed in his superiority to others. This is a major development in Raskolnikov's character as he begins the path towards resolving his torment and as he realizes that he isn't the superman he fancied himself and begins his return to join the rest of hummanity, even though it may not be a pleasant reunion because he still maintains some of his resolve that people are despicable.
posted by Mikaela M.

Major Themes in C&P

Crime and Punishment was full of themes and motifs. Svidrigailov’s committing suicide symbolized the underlying theme that man truly needs companionship to survive. He tried to live his life self-sufficiently, but realized toward the end of the story that Dunya was the key ingredient to his happiness. Once she told him that she could never love him, he was forced to let her out of his captivity. This led him to eventually commit suicide. I think Dostoevsky’s main point here is that each and every person has the same underlying composition. Men may commit sinful transgressions over their lifetime, but in the end, they all need the same things; love and compassion. A man’s coldhearted exterior can be torn down by another companion or a glimmer of hope at companionship. Raskolnikov, too, was drastically transformed by companionship. As he developed feelings for Sonya, he eventually opened up his heart and confessed to his loved ones. Their interactions illuminated a new path to Raskolnikov filled with possible redemption, salvation, and healing. The gold cross Sonya gave him also helped illuminate this path.
Raskolnikov’s conversation with his mother in Part VI was truly heart-felt. He expressed his true love and devotion to her by stating: “I’ve come to assure you that I have always loved you, and I’m glad we’re alone now…I’ve come to tell you straight out that although you will be unhappy, you must know all the same that your son loves you right now more than himself, and whatever you may have thought about me being cruel and not loving you, it’s all untrue. I’ll never cease to love you…” The mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna was put through such turbulence and anxiety since the moment she arrived out of the kindness of her heart to visit her son. Raskolnikov owed her an apology from the very beginning of the story, and I was glad to see that he got up the courage to do so. The mother had a deep understanding of her son; she knew from the moment she saw him that he was experiencing anguish and torment inside and waited for him until he was ready to address her. Although it caused her great pain, she backed away from her son’s life and without questioning him too much, allowed him to execute the necessary actions in the story. The lack of information she had regarding her son’s true whereabouts however, eventually drove her to an irrecoverable state of insanity. Although I do not know if she had a history of illness, it is evident that Raskolnikov’s madness and erratic behavior rubbed off on his mother. Moreover, Raskolnikov was incredibly fortunate to have such understanding relatives and friends. His mother and sister only wanted the best for him and stood by his side even when he was acting in a delirious state. Razhumkhin also played a paramount role in Raskolnikov’s life. He assuaged the pains and fears of Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunya by assuming the role of son/brother, while acting in Raskolnikov’s best interest at the same time. Although Raskolnikov never showed much gratitude toward Razhumkhin, the family appreciated his kindness and efforts very much. This gratitude, along with Dunya’s love were enough to keep him going throughout the novel.
Several selfless characters stood by this murderer’s side the whole time and believed in him until the very end. Characters like Dunya and Sonya tried to steer Raskolnikov in the right direction by persuading him to confess to the police. But just when I thought he had turned over a new leaf and felt guilty about the crime he committed, Raskolnikov surprised me by uttering the next several sentences: “Crime? What crime? I killed a vile, pernicious louse, a little old money-lending crone who was of no use to anyone, to kill whom is worth forty sins forgiven, who sucked the life-sap from the poor- is that a crime? I'm not thinking of it, nor am I thinking of washing it away. And why is everyone jabbing at me from all sides: ‘Crime! Crime!’ Only now do I see clearly all the absurdity of my faintheartedness, now that I’ve already decided to go to this needless shame!” Raskolnikov seemed to be defending his callous crime by denouncing the victim’s character. But what about poor Lizaveta? None of his excuses could ever justify the murder of Lizaveta. However, Raskolniknov eventually came to realize that he was the true scoundrel. He experienced revolutionary changes in jail in Siberia. I was worried that Sonya would fall ill at the end or give up on Raskolnikov all together, but she remained loyal to him until the very last page of the epilogue.
The epilogue was important in that it tied together all of the loose strings in Raskolnikov’s life, but it left few aspects up to the reader’s imagination. Nonetheless, I was a captivated audience for the entire duration of the novel. After accompanying Raskolnikov on his journey for over 550 pages, I was incredibly pleased to witness his extraordinary rebirth and metamorphosis.
posted by Leslie P.

Puzzling Elements of Heart of Darkness

It is often said that “if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” however there is no other way to critique a book like this. To be as blunt as possible, I disliked this book. There was nothing coherent except for the simple plot: Marlow goes on a trip to Africa, where he hears of the enigmatic Mr. Kurtz. From then on, Marlow’s plan of action is to find Mr. Kurtz. Finally reaching him, Marlow discovers that he is ill and doesn’t have much longer to live. Although Mr. Kurtz is bedridden and barely speaking, he is able to gain the respect and admiration of Marlow before he dies. Marlow lives on to speak of the many epiphanies he had during his journey.
While I understand that the novel is suppose to tie in moving and insightful words about human nature and the soul, the novel seemed too muddled to really to bring these points to light. These profound topics were too spontaneous to be fully comprehensible. It seemed as if every conversation led to an intangible epiphany about the soul, death, and human nature.
The novel unfolded in a way that Marlow’s character came off as an egotistical man who thought highly only of himself and Mr. Kurtz, a man he barely knew. I don’t understand what was so special about a man who manipulated tribes into doing his bidding? He was ill from the moment that Marlow met him, which meant he was not even in the right state of mind to give any worldly advice. The few times he did speak sounded like conversations he was having within a dream; makes sense to him but to no one else. The only redeeming quality I can take from Mr. Kurtz is that he was a leadership presence that makes you want to follow him. However, the Russian’s stories, like how Mr. Kurtz held him at gun point for some ivory, shows that Mr. Kurtz is an unstable man with a lust that overrules his common sense. In addition, when Marlow went back home, he kept meeting people that told him anecdotes about Kurtz in which he couldn’t decipher fact from fiction. This immense respect for a man he doesn’t know is baffling as well and unlikely. The novel as a whole didn’t make sense.
posted by Kayla H.

Kinship?

When Marlow began his story, you could tell that he was critical of imperialism, but not because of what it does to the native people but to the Europeans. Marlow says that participation in imperial enterprises degrades Europeans by removing them from the civilized European society and tempts them into violent behavior because of the hostility and lawlessness of the environment. Marlow also suggests that the mission of “civilizing” and “enlightening” native peoples is misguided, not because he believes that they have a valid civilization and culture already, but because they are so savage that the project is overwhelming and hopeless. Marlow is horrified when he witnesses the violent maltreatment of the natives at the stations, and he argues that a kinship exists between black Africans and Europeans, but also states that this kinship is “ugly” and horrifying, and that the kinship is extremely distant. So Marlow's own attitudes are diffcult to define. Upon visiting the Company's station, Marlow witnesses the brutality and ineffieciency of the sation. He is so deeply troubled by the grove of death in the station that he offers a dying man a few pieces of biscuit.The grove shows the true evils of colonialism which are dehuminization and death.
I also realized that the buzz circulating around Kurtz is very Gatsby-esque. Marlow begins to be fascinated by the mystery of Kurtz and the idealogical descriptions of him. It isn't long before Marlow finds himself very much looking forward to seeing this remarkable man without a face.
posted by Mikaela M.

Greed and Storytelling

I was surprised in chapter 2 to see Marlow's distinction between the native cannibals and the white pilgrims. He regarded the natives with admiration at their ability to maintain such a level of restraint while very likely being hungry and surrounded by a dozen men. As compared to the "pilgrims" who are greedy and are completely self-interested, he realized how "unwholesome" they were in character.
One of the few stylistic things I've come to appreciate about the novel was how it captured the reality of storytelling. At first it was confusing, but then I realized that Conrad was mimicking the actualities of dialogue which includes pauses in speech, interruptions by other people, the person going off on tangents, etc. But unfortunately that doesnt make me enjoy the book any better.
posted by Mikaela M.

A "Savage"

When Marlow got hired as a laborer on a French Steamer, the story began getting more intriguing. They docked first on an island inhabited by indigenous people, and the other people on the steamer keep speaking (very highly) of a man named Mr. Kurtz, an agent in charge of an important trading post. Soon he hears disgruntled others talking about him as well, and Marlow grows anxious to meet him. There are many close-calls with natives on the way to finally connect with Mr. Kurtz, and Marlow is growing exceedingly anxious to meet him, despite this. I can see that he has already gotten a crucial role in Heart Of Darkness, even though he wasn’t necessarily in the story for a long amount of time. He is chiefly the reason why Marlow continues the journey, and a mere interest in Kurtz quickly develops into an immense fixation. After he, the manager, and others finally reach Kurtz after surviving an attack, they come to find that Kurtz is feeble (more of a burden than helpful regarding the business that he’s in), ill, and basically at death’s door: nothing like he was thought up to be. I’m sure everyone had the same revelation of dissatisfaction when they read through this part. Only Marlow and the Russian trader seem to hold any interest in him anymore, and eventually Marlow and Kurtz form a bond. I found it odd because the bond was so strong, strong enough in-fact, that he would leave his papers [and legacy] behind with Marlow. I’m curious to know what everyone thought of Kurtz. I personally thought that he was a malicious man, who exploited the “savages,” and became much like a savage himself.
His last words were “The horror! The horror!”That is where I had left off, and what had me thinking for a while. I think that maybe it could have been the horror of what he had been reduced to, but I doubt that it would be that simple. “The horror!” is so ambiguous that it could mean most anything. Just like Marlow described the horizon as an enigma early on in the book, the last words of Kurtz were mysterious and paradoxical as well, and I think that the remark itself left more a legacy than his letters and papers ever would.
posted by Devon V