Whenever I’m reading a work of literature, I try to disregard the visual and aesthetic qualities of the book; simply because it distracts me away from the author’s fundamental message. Fortunately, Dostoevsky managed to keep this novel’s imagery and other sensitive aspects to a convenient minimum, while illustrating concepts (such as crime) through his own characters. In one instance, Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that “…at the moment of [a] crime a sort of failure of will and reason… are replaced by a phenomenal, childish thoughtlessness…” In my opinion, this is a valid point on so many levels and very logical with regards to the real world. When I hear of my friends committing an illegal and immoral act, such as stealing, I understand the mindset of these individuals even more. I know that they aren’t thinking so much about the consequences, but rather about the fun opportunities that may derive from the crime.
To better shape the persona of his characters, Dostoevsky also established varying points of view to argue on the same idea or theme. On page 151, Pyotr Petrovich demonstrated a really good point about crime using economic parameters. He basically argued that although the lower and upper classes are distinctly different, they still share a relationship of increased criminal activity. To me, I get the feeling that crime is not just an action associated with the poor and needy, but also with the wealthy and greedy. After recognizing Petrovich’s point, things started to make sense every time I watch the evening news. As we all know, Bernard Madoff was a prominent investment banker and a well-known financier until he was caught swindling thousands of people in a ponzi scheme. Because of Petrovich’s argument, this particular crime wasn’t a shocker to me at all; since I am to expect all crimes from several types of people. Overall, the logical explanations from these two characters have greatly changed my perspective in the real world. Have there been any concepts throughout the novel that have influenced your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I must say Pyotr Petrovich's words made just as much sense to me. when you think about it, poor people commit crimes because well they are poor and struggling to survive and as a result are driven into desperation. Everyone knows how desperation can change a person. A good example of that is "lord of the Flies" and how all of the kids, or most of them turn into savages to try and stay alive. In the case of rich people, they tend to be given more responsibilites and freedoms because that's what their money can buy them. However I think you and I both know that the more freedom your given the greater the temptation is to bend the rules because freedom tends to feed your ego in a negative way sometimes. The more trust your given the easier it is to decieve someone just as Raskolnikov has done for most of the book.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read you're first paragraph, I made an immediate connection to it. I feel the exact same way when I am reading, but I have to disagree.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Dostoevsky did not keep imagery to a minimum. I think if anything, he had too much imagery.
In regards to the quote, in addition to your scenario, I think it also relates to the scene after Raskolnikov kills the two women. It's similar to when he's play tricks with himself and acting childish about what he had just done. Also, I think you made a good point when you mention how crime and social classes intertwine. I had never thought of it that way before. You helped me better understand why he describes the differences between the classes.