With all the twists and turns that went on during the beginning and middle phases of the C&P, one would expect a similar outcome with the ending scenes in the novel. The plot unfortunately was relatively normal, predictable, and very straight-forward. Honestly speaking, the ending was so bland, that it felt like I was eating a dry piece of lettuce. Dostoevsky could have easily added some flavor to the end stages if he made Raskolnikov flee to the outskirts of Russia. Alternatively, I would have preferred he committed suicide; because at least the readers could look ahead to the reactions from all the other minor characters. Just imagining the emotional outcry from individuals like Sonya and Dmitri Prokofych would undeniably be more appealing. Instead, the author does everything in his power to make the finale as uninteresting as possible. This is accomplished when Raskolnikov admits his crime at the police station, confesses to the judicial courts, and lives the rest of his life in jail. Maybe someone change the storyline so that it deviates from the conventional finish.
This novel however is unquestionably fascinating in a sense that it’s realistic and applicable to science. Throughout the novel, the author was able to pinpoint the exact state of mind of typical murderers and incorporate them into our protagonist. According to James Fallon (Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California), many psychopathic individuals exhibit a high risk gene which can cause abnormal behavior. During the adolescent years, the gene is usually expressed when the individual has experiences some type of traumatic event. Oddly enough Dostoevsky wrote about Raskolnikov’s childhood episode on page 56; where he witnessed Mikolka kill a small horse. Mr. Fallon also points out that psychopathic killers sometimes have preexisting conditions that contribute to their violent behavior. This is strange as well because Dostoevsky made it clear on the first page that Raskolnikov “had been in an irritable and tense state, resembling hypochondria.” Perhaps Dostoevsky’s literary work is more than a source of captivation, but rather a basis of education.
All in all, C&P is a great novel for any season. The aesthetic aspects were limited which allowed me to focus on many concepts within the book. I learned about the struggles of family life and the emotional investments some characters have to one another. In addition, I took note of how powerful friendship can be with scenes between Razumikhin and Raskolnikov. Svidrigailov and Sonechka demonstrated to me that love can be detrimental or pain-staking over time. But the overall concept that I take most from this book is the force of consequence. Looking at all the things that Raskolnikov had to go through .has prompted me to watch my actions vigilantly; so that one day I won’t end up like him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ebenezer, I agree with you about the ending. I really wish Dostoevsky could have made the ending a little more interesting and thrown in a twist such as Raskolnikov killing himself. He did already take two lives, why not take one more? Although this may just be my own personal bias because I really did not enjoy the anything about the book, especially Raskolnikov.
ReplyDeleteIt's also very interesting how you connected the book to science. I never would have thought to relate it to psychology. Murderers are complicated to figure out and you certainly seemed to figured out Raskolnikov's reasoning.
On another note, I still cannot understand why exactly you enjoyed the book. You say you learned about so many things such as friendship, love and consequence, but did you not know about these before? You can learn about all of these through your own personal experiences, if you have not already. You learned about the struggles of family life? All families go through certain struggles of their own, just not as extreme as others. Do you not know love? Do you not feel love for your best friends and family? Do you not know consequence? Have you never done anything you regret that backfired in the end? Do you honestly think you would have ended up like Raskolnikov if you hadn't read this book? I feel like all of these concepts you say you have learned by reading this book are ones that you should have already known.
Dude I totally agree with your anaylsis of the ending. To me it was full of contradicitons and left nothing up for you imagination essentially dumbing down the book to a point where it was ruined. And your suicide idea is awesome. I mean I did like the bond that Sonya and Raskolnikov developed, but the way Dostoevsky closed up the final pages saying that she was using her ways as a prostitute to get Raskolnikov better treatment, and then decided she'd wait for him to get out and that he loved her etc... there was nothing to look forward to. No happiness (I think I spelled that right) existed in the part that was supposed to be happy. However, I do disagree with the idea that this was a good read. This was anyhting but a good read because I walked away from it with nothing more then when I started. The highlights for me were Sonya and Raskolnikov's love and the description used in the murder scene of Lizaveta and her sister. Other then that the book to me was flawed. It seemed like Dostoevsky had a great concept he wanted to convey, but he himself got confused trying to convey it.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I'm going to have to disagree with you all on this one. I actually do believe that although the ending was a "happy" one, that did not make it any less interesting or suspenseful. Must an ending always have to end in tragedy in order for us to be satisfied? I think that Dostoevsky proved to us otherwise.I also feel that he surprised us all throughout the novel, thus making the ending in my eyes not quite as predictable as you're all making it seem. One notable scene which truly touched me, and was so unexpected, was when Raskolkinov and Sonya were together and they looked at each other and began to cry. You all mean to tell me that was expected or the least bit predictable? For someone of Raskolkinov's character to just outright cry- and in front of a woman? That truly struck me as a surprise, and was also so beautiful and intimate to me. After that part, i said "wow, he really is human."
ReplyDeleteThroughout the entire novel Raskolnikov displayed an intense variety of emotions, even if they wasn't all sane, so that's not what killed the book for me. I actually found his character very interesting! The thing that got me about the book is HOW it was written, not what Dostoevsky was writing about. I feel that if Dostoevsky used better language (which could also be the translators' faults...) or wrote it from a different point of view, the story would have been much more exciting.
ReplyDeleteEbenezer, I tend to disagree with you when you questioned if the story should be used as a basis of education, rather than captivation. Dostoevsky should have written a textbook on psychoanalysis if that were the case, because it would have been much more informative and straightforward, rather than trying to teach us through the experiences of such a complicated character like Raskolnikov.