They say past authors in Russia would get paid by the number of words sometimes instead of by overall message. This would indubitably explain the slow start I experienced reading Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. The book appears to feed every sense of thought Raskolnikov, the main character, generates so that even if the book s in 3rd person, one actually gets almost a 2nd person impression on the novel. (When you’re in the story, thinking) Its then that I realized that the mind of a murderer is not far off in paranoia as that of a schizophrenic, as throughout part one Rasko would feel constantly pale and ill for his action. Now I’m the book’s debut leaves me with only one question, that I crave to find the answer to by reading more; exactly what purpose does it serve to him to murder two sisters in their own home. The book’s previous chapters however have given me an idea.
My first impression of Rasko just from reading his responses to the drunk man in the tavern and a few other parts give off the idea that he his completely against conforming to whatever society pursues. Also he seems to be haunted by a very bad past. Whatever he did in the university, studying law, has scarred his confidence to achieve, as the book explains he doesn’t even want to talk to the only friend he made there, and dropped out. Following this, Raskolnikov seems to highly dislike the relationship he has with his mother, and his sister Dunya. The selfless family he has in his eyes is sacrificing their happiness in hopes for his successful career (Don’t wish to spoil how). A witty yet vastly pessimistic action, I saw his negative response as a cue that our Rasko has very little trust in outsiders, and hates to be aided.
Secondly, a few parts of the book actually had me questioning the title itself, Crime and Punishment. For instance, Rasko in a couple parts shows signs of desire to punish the fiendish individuals he meets. Firstly there is the part where he recognizes the condition of a young girl to have been tricked in to drinking and then raped. Also, when alerting the policeman, another man is at the scene lurking like a hungry predator, seeking out the weakened prey. It started to get me thinking (before the murder took place of course) for some people, maybe it’s a crime to live, and they should be punished, severely. Next would be in Rasko’s dream when he flashbacks to a memory in his childhood of an old drunk beating his horse finally to death. I caught his reaction to be the same as I expected in the murder, with him attempting to throw fists at the fiend. Questions arose, like, if you had a chance to kill Bin Laden, would you do it without hesitating? Or maybe if you had a chance to kill the man you had just discovered to abuse a friendly neighbor of yours, how would you react? Its funny actually how the murder finally turns out, and how even if you think there is righteousness in the action you commit, the following one may shift the tide back to you being the criminal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fred, I find all of your questions the same as what I had asked myself while reading the first part of the book. The way crime and punishment really stands out in the book in different ways, and how he acted towards all the people who cared for him. But I must say, I did not think of Raskolnikov as a schizophrenic, although thinking of him this way helps me put his paranoia in a better perspective.
ReplyDeleteBut, I have to say that as Raskolnikovs family begins to show up more as the book goes on, you will realize that his mother and sister do not think any less of him, or at least that's what I got out of the book. I also felt that the reason for Raskolnikov killing the two sisters was so he could get the money and make his family proud of him again, so he could be the "man" once again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen you asked the question about Bin Laden, you got me thinking about when murdering someone is acceptable. I came to the conclusion that it is all right to kill someone if you absolutely know that there existence would cause harm to others. However, I don’t think we know for sure that Alyona Ivanova was a bad person. She may have been old and stingy, but did we get see the whole truth with this lady? For all we know, she could have done something beneficial for society and kept it a secret. And since we don’t know her entire background, killing her and Lizaveta was a mistake in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFred, I have to say that in my opinion your analysis of this novel is right on. I never even thought of how his past might have scarred him(as you mentioned, perhaps at the univeristy stydying law.) I have already finished the book and that right now really has me thinking about the whole story line and how that could have possibly afftected his present behavior. I also did not understand at all his purpose for killing these 2 women- however as i read on it became apparent that as Angela points out, he did it to get the money, and "feel" maybe like a man now- and like he was useful. Further more, I like that you questioned wether or not we would kill Bin laden or not if we had the chance. This I have to admit even had me thinking twice about the answer. Although he is bad, who are we to kill someone- is taht really what we were out on this earth to do? Although he is harmful to people's safety, i definitely feel that other methods would be more appropriate. I strongly believe that no one has the right to kill anyone no matter what.
ReplyDeleteFred, I would like to start by saying I felt the same way as you when I began to read Crime & Punishment. This book is obviously very well known and dare I say, “famous”. I have found myself crawling ever so slowly through this dragging story. Yet, you do bring up quite a few good points in your blog. Now, like Ebenezer I too believe it is right to kill someone (such as Bin Laden) if you know that them being alive poses a threat to you and the people you love around you. My feelings towards this all resort back to this past Spring when terrorist attempted to bomb two temples within three blocks of my home. I felt then that those men deserved to die because it was my life or theirs, and I will obviously choose my continuing existence over them. I also agree with Ebenezer when he says that murdering Ivanova and Lizaveta was a mistake. While the consequences of Raskolnikov’s actions have not yet been unveiled, I am afraid they will be pretty severe. Angela, you mention how killing the two sisters and taking their money made Rasko more of a “man”. I have to disagree with you. While it may be the stereotype that men are supposed to “bring home the bacon” and support their families, I do not feel that is Raskolnikov’s purpose for committing the heinous crime of homicide.
ReplyDeletegreat comments guys, glad you shared your opinions
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and your point about murdering someone. If you ask people if they had a chance to kill Bin Laden, most people would answer yes. That is where I feel that things in life are not always black and white. There are things that people know are morally wrong but does that stop people from doing them? No. In Raskolnikov situation, what was his motive for killing Ivanova and Lizaveta? Foe money? I dont belive that is a very good reason.
ReplyDeleteLike Katherine said, I like how you pointed out his past when he was studying in school. What triggered Raskolnikov to become so dark and violent? In the novel, Catcher In The Rye, what triggered Holden was the death of his older brother. What triggered Raskolnikov to become the way we saw him?