Marlow learns more about Kurtz through a russian trader he meets at the station, otherwise known as "Kurtz's last disciple." When he talks about Kurtz, its as if he was talking about God himself, which after a while I found thoroughly annoying, but it was interesting because we also learned more about Kurtz. Kurtz established himself well in the hearts of a native tribe and accompanies them on brutal raids in search of ivory. He also learns that Kurtz directed the attack on his ship in the hopes of making it turn around so that he could stay and carry out his plans. As it turns out, Kurtz is extremely ill when they arrive and Marlow gets to spend a brief, but intimate, moment with Kurtz that night when he follows Kurtz into the jungle and witnesses his depravity and degredation firsthand. He blames Africa for Kurtz's state because he rejected European society and was forced to look into his soul and thus has driven him mad.
While on the steamship back to civilization, Marlow is pretty much left alone with Kurtz and listens to the lectures the Russian praised endlessly and is impressed but also dissappointed. Fearing that the manager is poking through his stuff, Kurtz entrusts Marlow with a bundle of papers for safekeeping. He dies not soon afterwards. Marlow is the only one to hear his last words, "The horror, The horror!" His last words are eloquent and poetic yet vague at the same time. His last words were an enigma, as Kurtz was.
Once back in Brussels, after recovering from his illness, Marlow is left with the responsibilty of distributing of the documents. He learns from a Kurtz's cousin that Kurtz was a great musician, and a journalist colleague of Kurtz's thought his true talent was in politics. Marlow decises that he is best described as a "universal genius." Finally he visits Kurtz's fiancee and supplies her need for a sympathetic ear. Marlow is annoyed at first with her sentimentality, but then he begins to pity her. When she asks to know his last words, Marlow lies to her, hoping not to shatter her illusion of Kurtz.
Marlow's encounters with the people who knew Kurtz makes him question his own memories of Kurtz as everyone seemed to have a different version of him. The reader gets to see how powerful Kurtz's influence over the people in his life was, including Marlow. The most dissappointing thing I found about the end was the fact that Kurtz is never a fully realized individual even after all built-up anticipation for his appearance. I thought it was strange how we didn't spend that much time with Kurtz but yet he left an impression. It was a testament to his character I guess.
Mikaela M.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Review of Heart of Darkness
To be honest, beginning this book scared me a bit because I had heard from other people that it was vague and hard to understand and the language was difficult, etc. But personally I found none of these things wrong with the book. My only problem was that it was BORING. It wasn't so much what the characters were saying or how they were saying it, it's just that I didn't care. When starting this assignment, I had initially started with Crime and Punishment and found it dull so eventually I decided to read Heart of Darkness to save a little time. However, I soon found out that this book droned on and on, much like I thought Crime and Punishment did, but on a much more advanced level. In all fairness the only thing I can say that I liked about the book was that it gave me a new appreciation of Crime and Punishment as a piece of literature. I can honestly say without guilt that this is neither a book that I would pick up on my own nor a book that I would regret not picking up.
Mikaela M.
Mikaela M.
Fog and Women
Reading Heart of Darkness seems to be a tedious process through all the imagery details, and numerous perspectives that are narrated. The book started off with heavy descriptions of the environment, where Conrad especially emphasized the fog. In addition to the imagery he wanted to give readers, I also think he wanted to incorporate a certain mood; eerie, gloomy, as the fog would ultimately distort communication and sight within the characters, as well as readers. I feel as though the use of describing a dark fog is crucial in understanding that there may be a foreshadowing within the book in which characters may get lost not only in their expeditions to the “center of the earth,” but also lost within communication with themselves and the natives they will soon encounter.
Assuming that Heart of Darkness deals with imperialism, violence and negligence with natives, and possibly chauvinist and pompous crew men, I was actually surprised as I read on the see that women had an influential position in society at that time. Though Marlow seems like a capable young man who certainly sets himself apart from other men in that he does not share the same imperialistic views, his aunt helped him get the job at the Company. Despite Marlow’s perspective on women’s roles ultimately being confined to homes enduring oppression, we soon learn that when he visits the Company, he meets several influential women that may be leading the adventurous expeditions. It’s not only Marlow’s aunt that awarded him with the job, but her praises of him seem to continue to reverberate throughout the Company’s journeys. I’m curious to read whether or not Marlow’s views on imperialism will change completely. He still agrees with some views concerning natives and imperialism, but I wonder if these views will disappear completely when he will encounter unbearable violence and oppression on his expedition.
posted by Jennifer J.
Assuming that Heart of Darkness deals with imperialism, violence and negligence with natives, and possibly chauvinist and pompous crew men, I was actually surprised as I read on the see that women had an influential position in society at that time. Though Marlow seems like a capable young man who certainly sets himself apart from other men in that he does not share the same imperialistic views, his aunt helped him get the job at the Company. Despite Marlow’s perspective on women’s roles ultimately being confined to homes enduring oppression, we soon learn that when he visits the Company, he meets several influential women that may be leading the adventurous expeditions. It’s not only Marlow’s aunt that awarded him with the job, but her praises of him seem to continue to reverberate throughout the Company’s journeys. I’m curious to read whether or not Marlow’s views on imperialism will change completely. He still agrees with some views concerning natives and imperialism, but I wonder if these views will disappear completely when he will encounter unbearable violence and oppression on his expedition.
posted by Jennifer J.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Review of the writing style in Heart of Darkness
In the beginning of Heart of Darkness I was so confused. The amount of vivid detail and description of the sails and Nellie and the people mentioned only by profession threw me off. The roundabout way of beginning the novel must have gone on for over a dozen pages. It took me over 30 minutes to read the first twenty pages. But as the book progressed I began to appreciate the detail and feel as if Conrad was speaking directly to me. The details dragged out the beginning and the more boring parts but when it came to describing emotion or feeling or reason for action I could not have asked for a clearer picture of what was going on.
When Conrad switched up the narrators it made me feel as if I were reading in circles. I must admit although multiple narrators is a brilliant and sometime quite rewarding technique in this case it only made Heart of Darkness seem like an even more confusing novel. It was like hearing a story and seeing it from five different points of view yet still feeling like you're missing something. I think although it could help some readers to be given different ways to look at a story, for me it took away the fun of finding my own point of view. Overall I can’t honestly say I enjoyed the book or the premise of it but I can respect it as a piece of literature. Ships, sea stories, fisherman, and water adventure have never been something that caught my attention and if it weren’t for this project I probably never would have picked up the book. Now that I have, I think although it was based on topics which are not of interest to me it wasn’t the worst book I could have read.
posted by Jenny F.
When Conrad switched up the narrators it made me feel as if I were reading in circles. I must admit although multiple narrators is a brilliant and sometime quite rewarding technique in this case it only made Heart of Darkness seem like an even more confusing novel. It was like hearing a story and seeing it from five different points of view yet still feeling like you're missing something. I think although it could help some readers to be given different ways to look at a story, for me it took away the fun of finding my own point of view. Overall I can’t honestly say I enjoyed the book or the premise of it but I can respect it as a piece of literature. Ships, sea stories, fisherman, and water adventure have never been something that caught my attention and if it weren’t for this project I probably never would have picked up the book. Now that I have, I think although it was based on topics which are not of interest to me it wasn’t the worst book I could have read.
posted by Jenny F.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Roles Reversed
Crime and Punishment breaks the rules of most murder novels, as its main character Raskolnikov is a murderer, instead of the detective that is supposed to track him down. I find this idea incredibly interesting as in most novels the protagonist is usually the detective, or someone searching for justice due to the actions of a heartless monster and the actions they take to find it. However in this novel you can truly see what can drive a man to such a horrible act like murder. You can sympathize with Rodya and his hardships, and even try and justify the murder yourself. At certain points I thought to myself that I didn’t want him to get caught, and that he should just get over his conscience, and try to escape from his inevitable punishment.
At the same I felt contempt toward detective Porfiry Petrovich as the motions he made with his eyes had only increased the guilt that Raskolnikov felt toward the murder he committed. With every conversation that the two characters had, I just kept thinking “C’mon Rodya, find a way to get over your guilt, and find some way to prove yourself innocent,” yet at the same time I knew that he should be brought to justice for what he had done. I thought of Petrovich as a man who wanted to just do his job, and get the whole “getting justice” thing over with, however, I did not support him in his search and even hoped that he would fail.
posted by Eddie D.
At the same I felt contempt toward detective Porfiry Petrovich as the motions he made with his eyes had only increased the guilt that Raskolnikov felt toward the murder he committed. With every conversation that the two characters had, I just kept thinking “C’mon Rodya, find a way to get over your guilt, and find some way to prove yourself innocent,” yet at the same time I knew that he should be brought to justice for what he had done. I thought of Petrovich as a man who wanted to just do his job, and get the whole “getting justice” thing over with, however, I did not support him in his search and even hoped that he would fail.
posted by Eddie D.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Raskolnikov's article
In Part three, Rasokolnikov explains an article he wrote two months before he committed the murders. In the article titled “On Crime”, he talks about his theory that there are two separate groups in this world; the ordinary and extraordinary. He believes that the ordinary obey the everyday laws of society and are in a sense mediocre. The extraordinary groups of people in his opinion have the right to commit crimes and get away with it. This is how Rasokolnikov views himself, as part of the extraordinary. In his mind he is above the law and invincible. With this mindset he draws away from society because he feels as if he is better than the rest, better than the city in which he lives in. He continues to push those close to him away, pushing him more into total alienation.
posted by Christina R.
posted by Christina R.
Raskolnikov and his family
In Part four, a very vivid and heartbreaking moment takes place between Raskolnikov and his family. After Dunya ends things with Pyotr Petrovich, the families (including Razumikhin) share a beautiful moment of happiness for once. Razumikhin begins to think about the future, offering Rodya’s mother and sister jobs in the publishing industry. Everyone is excited about this prospect, but this is interrupted by Raskolnikov who suddenly leaves the table. All are confused and hurt by this sudden action. It was like their pink bubble busted and they were miserable again. A mother, sister, friend, abandoned by Raskolnikov.
posted by Christina R.
posted by Christina R.
The Horror!
Heart Of Darkness is definitely one of the most eloquent, meticulous books I have read. Unfortunately, I can’t say that it’s become a favorite. It took me a while to get into the book because of the amount of detail in it, and I sometimes found myself lost. Often times I had to read a passage several times so that I knew exactly what was going on, and so I wouldn’t get lost later on. There were parts where I found myself drawn into the book, and wanted to keep reading. But at the same time, some passages were so drawn out that it became boring. What I did find refreshing and unique was the story within the story. It provides the reader with an entirely new reading experience, in my case.
While there were some things in the book that I didn’t like, I do appreciate what a great work of literature this novel is. It was evident that Conrad put a great amount of effort into writing this novel. Also, this novel touches on a topic that not many do: colonialism and the effects that it can have. It is no mystery that colonialism was a harmful practice. It exploited those who were seen as “natives and savages” by those who were supposedly civilized. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad brings out what the evils of colonialism can do to the oppressors. The company members had been turned into heartless, cruel people who only cared about the money, and not the damage they were doing. Marlow represents that inner struggle. He recognizes the cruelty of the practice, and loathed those who practiced it, yet he had an immense love for the sea and exploration. Kurtz was right in shouting out “The horror!” as his last words, because the effects that colonialism had on both the oppressed and oppressor were horrendous.
There are still a few things that are unclear to me, hopefully we will discuss them further in class.
Posted by Wendy C.
While there were some things in the book that I didn’t like, I do appreciate what a great work of literature this novel is. It was evident that Conrad put a great amount of effort into writing this novel. Also, this novel touches on a topic that not many do: colonialism and the effects that it can have. It is no mystery that colonialism was a harmful practice. It exploited those who were seen as “natives and savages” by those who were supposedly civilized. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad brings out what the evils of colonialism can do to the oppressors. The company members had been turned into heartless, cruel people who only cared about the money, and not the damage they were doing. Marlow represents that inner struggle. He recognizes the cruelty of the practice, and loathed those who practiced it, yet he had an immense love for the sea and exploration. Kurtz was right in shouting out “The horror!” as his last words, because the effects that colonialism had on both the oppressed and oppressor were horrendous.
There are still a few things that are unclear to me, hopefully we will discuss them further in class.
Posted by Wendy C.
The Ending/ Razhumikhin
Crime and Punishment as a whole was a very interesting and complex book, that I enjoyed reading. However I found that the epilogue was a very unnecessary addition to an already amazing story. I liked the cliff hanger ending of the last chapter. I felt like although it left me in suspense, it also left it up to my imagination to fill in the blank. What I did like about the epilogue was the insight it gave about Rodion’s state of mind in the end, he was finally happy. This gave a peaceful conclusion to a chaotic, psychologically thrilling novel.
While all the characters in Crime and Punishment are compelling and dynamic in their own ways, my favorite was Razumikhin. I found him to be an incredibly kind and compassionate person. He brought positivity and comfort to those worried about Rodion’s condition. I was always drawn to his tranquil nature, and always wanting to do what’s right. It was very unfortunate that no matter how much of a friend Razumikhin was to Rodion, Rodion was never a friend back to him. I know it must’ve have hurt him inside, but no matter what Razumikhin never gave up on Rodion. Razumikhin is a good friend in every sense of the word, even stepping in as son and brother to Rodion’s family.
I enjoyed reading Crime and Punishment very much. It has all the elements that an amazing novel should have; suspense, dynamic characters, and a great plot line. Fyodor Dostoevsky has amazing vision.
posted by Christina R.
While all the characters in Crime and Punishment are compelling and dynamic in their own ways, my favorite was Razumikhin. I found him to be an incredibly kind and compassionate person. He brought positivity and comfort to those worried about Rodion’s condition. I was always drawn to his tranquil nature, and always wanting to do what’s right. It was very unfortunate that no matter how much of a friend Razumikhin was to Rodion, Rodion was never a friend back to him. I know it must’ve have hurt him inside, but no matter what Razumikhin never gave up on Rodion. Razumikhin is a good friend in every sense of the word, even stepping in as son and brother to Rodion’s family.
I enjoyed reading Crime and Punishment very much. It has all the elements that an amazing novel should have; suspense, dynamic characters, and a great plot line. Fyodor Dostoevsky has amazing vision.
posted by Christina R.
A Mystery Novel
When I first picked up Crime and Punishment, I was very excited to begin reading it because I had heard several good reviews about it. So far, I have yet to be disappointed. This book is very intriguing, I haven’t been bored with it at all. I’ve never been a fan of mystery/crime novels, and this is the first time that I read a book that involves a murder story, and that has an immense amount of suspense. For a first experience, Crime and Punishment has turned out to be the ideal book.
At the beginning of the novel , the reader is introduced to Raskolnikov, the main character. He seems to be a troubled young man with contemptuous, supercilious behavior. He sees the people around him as inferior, and looks down on them. Even his former friends at the university aren’t to his liking anymore. Raskolnikov is completely anti-social and prefers to remain in the closet that he has for a room. From the very beginning, we learn that Raskolnikov has recently experienced a change. He loathes everyone around him, and what they do, and this hate grows minute by minute. Obviously this has begun to take its toll on him, because he often goes on rants talking to himself on the street. But there is someone that stands out-his landlady. Out of all people, it seems like she is the one that he despises most. The “old crone” as he calls her is known for being odious, and harmful to people around her. Even though he barely knows anything about her and she has never done anything to Raskolnikov.
It seems like his troubled mind has led him to conjure up something in his mind. In the first few chapters of Part I, it is referred to as “that”. Dostoevsky has done a great job of keeping the reader in suspense, leading them to ask “ what is ‘that’ supposed to be?” It goes on like this for some time, Raskolnikov talks about doing a trial, and being inconspicuous. The reader can tell that he is plotting something complicated that takes a grat amount of precison and detail. In time, I realized that he was plotting to murder his landlady. Dostoevsky continues to keep the reader in suspense, one never really knows when he is going to commit the crime, and why he has even gotten it into his head to do this. Later on in Part I, we learn that the landlady is thought of as “meaningless, worthless, wicked, sick old crone, no good to anyone and, on the contrary, harmful to everyone”. It was from that point on that Raskolnikov’s hate for the woman grew. He felt that it was his duty to take her out in order to help out others. I am curious to know how he ever thought that this made sense. If he feels such hatred and disgust at the silly, everyday things that people do, what led him to think that committing a murder made him better?
I am anxious to keep reading this book. It has definitely made a great impression on me, and I can see it getting better. Also, Raskolnikov is very interesting, and I’m eager to keep reading to find out about him.
Posted by Wendy C.
At the beginning of the novel , the reader is introduced to Raskolnikov, the main character. He seems to be a troubled young man with contemptuous, supercilious behavior. He sees the people around him as inferior, and looks down on them. Even his former friends at the university aren’t to his liking anymore. Raskolnikov is completely anti-social and prefers to remain in the closet that he has for a room. From the very beginning, we learn that Raskolnikov has recently experienced a change. He loathes everyone around him, and what they do, and this hate grows minute by minute. Obviously this has begun to take its toll on him, because he often goes on rants talking to himself on the street. But there is someone that stands out-his landlady. Out of all people, it seems like she is the one that he despises most. The “old crone” as he calls her is known for being odious, and harmful to people around her. Even though he barely knows anything about her and she has never done anything to Raskolnikov.
It seems like his troubled mind has led him to conjure up something in his mind. In the first few chapters of Part I, it is referred to as “that”. Dostoevsky has done a great job of keeping the reader in suspense, leading them to ask “ what is ‘that’ supposed to be?” It goes on like this for some time, Raskolnikov talks about doing a trial, and being inconspicuous. The reader can tell that he is plotting something complicated that takes a grat amount of precison and detail. In time, I realized that he was plotting to murder his landlady. Dostoevsky continues to keep the reader in suspense, one never really knows when he is going to commit the crime, and why he has even gotten it into his head to do this. Later on in Part I, we learn that the landlady is thought of as “meaningless, worthless, wicked, sick old crone, no good to anyone and, on the contrary, harmful to everyone”. It was from that point on that Raskolnikov’s hate for the woman grew. He felt that it was his duty to take her out in order to help out others. I am curious to know how he ever thought that this made sense. If he feels such hatred and disgust at the silly, everyday things that people do, what led him to think that committing a murder made him better?
I am anxious to keep reading this book. It has definitely made a great impression on me, and I can see it getting better. Also, Raskolnikov is very interesting, and I’m eager to keep reading to find out about him.
Posted by Wendy C.
A Dynamic Personality
Raskolnikov is without a doubt one of the most interesting characters that I have read about. There are several parts to him, he can be devious, naive, compassionate, intelligent yet careless. As mentioned before, from the very beginning, he sees everyone as inferior, and wishes to not be a part of any social activities. My biggest question is: How did he get here? Was there something in his past that has slowly caused him to be this way, or has he always been like this? Raskolnikov, I would guess, is probably in his early twenties, and is so poor that he wears the same tattered rags everyday and lives in a shoddy closet. He doesn’t even have enough money to attend the university. Could it be that his impoverished state has led him to be bitter and disdainful?
In general, Raskolnikov does not seem like a bad person. Beneath that arrogant exterior is someone who does have feelings. When he meets Marmeladov at the tavern, he sat beside him and was willing to listen to him tell his life story and his troubles. He even accompanied him to his house, seeing how Marmeladov was completely drunk. When Marmeladov arrived home Raskolnikov witnessed how he was beaten by his wife, and how the other people who live in the building ridiculed Marmeladov as he was being dragged by the hair. Raskolnikov was not one of those, he felt sorry for him and left him some money to help out his family. When he received the letter from his mother, he was very affected, and was eager to read it. Apparently, he is close to his family, and cares about them and doesn’t want anything to happened to them. I think that this is why he won’t allow Dunya’s marriage. He refuses to allow his sister to sell herself to some man that she does not even love and have his mother living somewhere alone so that he can have some money in his pocket. Another example of Raskolnikov’s sudden show of humanity is when he calls the police officer to look after the young drunk girl who is wandering the streets exposing herself to the danger of the streets.
What I still don’t understand is how he can suddenly flip his mentality. Moments after leaving Marmeladov’s house, he wonders why he gave them his money. They have their daughter, Sonya, to provide them with money, while he only has himself. Later on, after trying to protect the young girl, he laughs at the policeman and tells him to let her go because it’s of no importance to him anyway. The way that Raskolnikov can change his personality baffles me, yet continues to intrigue me. It’s evident that he’s an unstable person, and no matter how carefully he had planned out the crime, he had many doubts. He had moments when he was so disgusted with himself for even contemplating something like that, and was determined to end it once and for all. Then, something led him to go back. Clearly, committing the crime was not something that was in Raskolnikov’s nature. He was extremely nervous throughout he whole ordeal, and clumsily put himself at risk of being found out several times. His conscience is killing him, and his paranoia got to the point that he grew extremely ill with a fever that led him into several episodes of delirium. During these times we can see Raskolnikov’s guilt. He desperately wants to get rid of the evidence, he doesn’t even wan to keep the money, which is the whole reason why he decided to go through with it anyway. There’s something that is stronger than him that has compelled him to do this.
It could be possible that his childhood has affected him in some way. In Part I, Raskolnikov falls asleep and has a very disturbing dream in which he was a child. He was with his father, and they were walking outside when he sees a rowdy group of drunkards savagely beating a mare because she’s weak and can’t handle the group. The gruesome beating occurred before Raskolnikov’s eyes as a child. He was innocent and helpless , he couldn’t do anything to prevent it. Now, it seems that he is just as innocent, there’re something that compelled him to commit the crime and be just like Mikolka in his dream. Hopefully more events in the story will help uncover more of Raskolnikov’s past and help to determine what led him to where he is.
Posted by Wendy C.
In general, Raskolnikov does not seem like a bad person. Beneath that arrogant exterior is someone who does have feelings. When he meets Marmeladov at the tavern, he sat beside him and was willing to listen to him tell his life story and his troubles. He even accompanied him to his house, seeing how Marmeladov was completely drunk. When Marmeladov arrived home Raskolnikov witnessed how he was beaten by his wife, and how the other people who live in the building ridiculed Marmeladov as he was being dragged by the hair. Raskolnikov was not one of those, he felt sorry for him and left him some money to help out his family. When he received the letter from his mother, he was very affected, and was eager to read it. Apparently, he is close to his family, and cares about them and doesn’t want anything to happened to them. I think that this is why he won’t allow Dunya’s marriage. He refuses to allow his sister to sell herself to some man that she does not even love and have his mother living somewhere alone so that he can have some money in his pocket. Another example of Raskolnikov’s sudden show of humanity is when he calls the police officer to look after the young drunk girl who is wandering the streets exposing herself to the danger of the streets.
What I still don’t understand is how he can suddenly flip his mentality. Moments after leaving Marmeladov’s house, he wonders why he gave them his money. They have their daughter, Sonya, to provide them with money, while he only has himself. Later on, after trying to protect the young girl, he laughs at the policeman and tells him to let her go because it’s of no importance to him anyway. The way that Raskolnikov can change his personality baffles me, yet continues to intrigue me. It’s evident that he’s an unstable person, and no matter how carefully he had planned out the crime, he had many doubts. He had moments when he was so disgusted with himself for even contemplating something like that, and was determined to end it once and for all. Then, something led him to go back. Clearly, committing the crime was not something that was in Raskolnikov’s nature. He was extremely nervous throughout he whole ordeal, and clumsily put himself at risk of being found out several times. His conscience is killing him, and his paranoia got to the point that he grew extremely ill with a fever that led him into several episodes of delirium. During these times we can see Raskolnikov’s guilt. He desperately wants to get rid of the evidence, he doesn’t even wan to keep the money, which is the whole reason why he decided to go through with it anyway. There’s something that is stronger than him that has compelled him to do this.
It could be possible that his childhood has affected him in some way. In Part I, Raskolnikov falls asleep and has a very disturbing dream in which he was a child. He was with his father, and they were walking outside when he sees a rowdy group of drunkards savagely beating a mare because she’s weak and can’t handle the group. The gruesome beating occurred before Raskolnikov’s eyes as a child. He was innocent and helpless , he couldn’t do anything to prevent it. Now, it seems that he is just as innocent, there’re something that compelled him to commit the crime and be just like Mikolka in his dream. Hopefully more events in the story will help uncover more of Raskolnikov’s past and help to determine what led him to where he is.
Posted by Wendy C.
Book Review of Heart of Darkness
I personally felt that Heart of Darkness was a unique story, but not exactly a book I would willingly read on my own. It contained its pros and cons -- the main cons of course being what kept me from enjoying the story. Heart of Darkness wasn't all bad thanks to elements such as imagery, the use of two narrators, and the theme of mystery that serve to give it originality in the way it is written.
Joseph Conrad chose to tell the story through the perspective of two narrators: Marlow (who tells his story) and the anonymous narrator (who listens to Marlow's story, along with three other companions). I felt that this literary device was unique and served to give the story a vast sense of imagery through the shift of the two narrators. We can definitely imagine Marlow telling his story on the boat while the others listen thanks to the shifts between narrators. The use of two narrators however, can also make the story a bit confusing for some to follow through. If one doesn't follow the punctuation thoroughly (ie: the quotation marks that indicate Marlow is speaking), one can lose track of when the main narrator talks -- something that can require reading certain parts more than once.
Imagery was a vital part of the story. Imagery itself is what gives the reader the opportunity to envision the surroundings or setting of the story, as well as the appearance of various people/characters. From the moment you begin reading this story, you will witness a vast amount of imagery which truly helps you picture things as you read; this was something I enjoyed in the story. Unfortunately, there were points in the story that were far too descriptive for their own good -- this is the most thing that irritated me as I read. An example of this would be in part II, where Marlow describes the cannibals who are presumably hungry after going some days without food, and want to literally eat the people who have made a spontaneous clamorous scream during this chapter. Marlow describes these people and their actions for two and a half pages straight, something I found unnecessary. While this part is discrepant from any real imagery found in the book (such as the environmental descriptions in the very beginning of the story), it still contains a sense of imagery and is an example of how overly descriptive this book can be.
The story itself was interesting in its own sense, but the fact that it was too descriptive made me lose any desire to continue reading for long. I found the sense of colonialism interesting, and love how through this book I could actually experience this atrocity through literature. Being able to picture the African workers and envision their cadaverous appearance was also something that interested me near the end of part I. The addition of Kurtz to this story was also a great thing to implement. His enigma and mysterious background add mystery to the story, and motivated me to continue reading. Unfortunately, in part III, Kurtz was finally introduced, but not as I envisioned him. He was gaunt, emaciated, sickly, and not capable of using proper speech at this point. He was also depicted as primitive during this part of the story. This disappointment kept me from reading with interest.
Each aspect of Heart of Darkness contained its pros and cons. Unfortunately, I did not enjoy this story as I had hoped. It was told in a unique way, but in the end, that wasn't enough to allow me to read with pleasure and enjoyment.
posted by Anthony M.
Joseph Conrad chose to tell the story through the perspective of two narrators: Marlow (who tells his story) and the anonymous narrator (who listens to Marlow's story, along with three other companions). I felt that this literary device was unique and served to give the story a vast sense of imagery through the shift of the two narrators. We can definitely imagine Marlow telling his story on the boat while the others listen thanks to the shifts between narrators. The use of two narrators however, can also make the story a bit confusing for some to follow through. If one doesn't follow the punctuation thoroughly (ie: the quotation marks that indicate Marlow is speaking), one can lose track of when the main narrator talks -- something that can require reading certain parts more than once.
Imagery was a vital part of the story. Imagery itself is what gives the reader the opportunity to envision the surroundings or setting of the story, as well as the appearance of various people/characters. From the moment you begin reading this story, you will witness a vast amount of imagery which truly helps you picture things as you read; this was something I enjoyed in the story. Unfortunately, there were points in the story that were far too descriptive for their own good -- this is the most thing that irritated me as I read. An example of this would be in part II, where Marlow describes the cannibals who are presumably hungry after going some days without food, and want to literally eat the people who have made a spontaneous clamorous scream during this chapter. Marlow describes these people and their actions for two and a half pages straight, something I found unnecessary. While this part is discrepant from any real imagery found in the book (such as the environmental descriptions in the very beginning of the story), it still contains a sense of imagery and is an example of how overly descriptive this book can be.
The story itself was interesting in its own sense, but the fact that it was too descriptive made me lose any desire to continue reading for long. I found the sense of colonialism interesting, and love how through this book I could actually experience this atrocity through literature. Being able to picture the African workers and envision their cadaverous appearance was also something that interested me near the end of part I. The addition of Kurtz to this story was also a great thing to implement. His enigma and mysterious background add mystery to the story, and motivated me to continue reading. Unfortunately, in part III, Kurtz was finally introduced, but not as I envisioned him. He was gaunt, emaciated, sickly, and not capable of using proper speech at this point. He was also depicted as primitive during this part of the story. This disappointment kept me from reading with interest.
Each aspect of Heart of Darkness contained its pros and cons. Unfortunately, I did not enjoy this story as I had hoped. It was told in a unique way, but in the end, that wasn't enough to allow me to read with pleasure and enjoyment.
posted by Anthony M.
Marlow Lies
During the end of the story, Marlow goes to see Kurtz's fiancée or intended, who is still mourning over the death of Kurtz even though he died a year prior to this. This woman profoundly loved Kurtz and tells Marlow nothing but positive things about him (apparently not knowing that Kurtz seemingly had affairs or a relationship with an African woman we learn about earlier in the chapter); she knew him as a meritorious man who deserved nothing but admiration. This fiancée also spoke with assurance that Kurtz loved her as much as she loved him. During the conclusion of their conversation, she asks Marlow what Kurtz's last words were: Marlow lies and says that his last words were her name. What I want to know is why exactly Marlow lied about this.
When Kurtz died, Marlow had the privilege of hearing his last words ("The horror! The horror") -- something that Kurtz's fiancée was curious about. I don't understand why he would lie and say that Kurtz's last words were her name. He can very well have lied because of feelings of sympathy and pity that enveloped his soul at this moment, as can be confirmed when he says, "My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pity", but this quote also confirms that feelings of anger dwelled within him -- due to her ignorance -- at this time as well. Instead of further adding to her excessive delusions by saying that Kurtz's last words were her name, why didn't he just tell her the truth? I personally believe that simple pity shouldn't be enough of a reason to lie and continue building a naive person's delusions. Marlow didn't even have to say what Kurtz's last words really were; he could have simply stated that Kurtz didn't have any last words. This way, he could have still lied out of pity, but not continue to strengthen her ignorance about Kurtz (who she felt loved her equally to how much she loved him).
posted by Anthony M.
When Kurtz died, Marlow had the privilege of hearing his last words ("The horror! The horror") -- something that Kurtz's fiancée was curious about. I don't understand why he would lie and say that Kurtz's last words were her name. He can very well have lied because of feelings of sympathy and pity that enveloped his soul at this moment, as can be confirmed when he says, "My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pity", but this quote also confirms that feelings of anger dwelled within him -- due to her ignorance -- at this time as well. Instead of further adding to her excessive delusions by saying that Kurtz's last words were her name, why didn't he just tell her the truth? I personally believe that simple pity shouldn't be enough of a reason to lie and continue building a naive person's delusions. Marlow didn't even have to say what Kurtz's last words really were; he could have simply stated that Kurtz didn't have any last words. This way, he could have still lied out of pity, but not continue to strengthen her ignorance about Kurtz (who she felt loved her equally to how much she loved him).
posted by Anthony M.
The Crime and the Punishment
As the title of the book implies, this story contained a crime and a punishment. The crime committed by Raskolnikov was the stepping stone of the story; Raskolnikov was tormented before committing the said crime (due to ambivalence) and afterwards as well. His final punishment isn't determined until the end, but the reader can easily see that his own torment after committing the crime was indeed his punishment. Upon finishing the story, there are a few things that interested me about the true motive behind the crime, the punishment, and certain changes in Raskolnikov himself.
In chapter VI of part 1, it is revealed that Raskolnikov felt loathing and a deep hatred toward the old woman (Alyona) at first sight. The words he heard from a police officer and student conversing in a bar exacerbated his desires to do away with her: "Hundred, maybe thousands of lives put right; dozens of families saved from destitution, from decay, from ruin, from depravity, from the venereal hospitals--all on her money. Kill her and take her money, so that afterwards with its help you can devote yourself to the service of all mankind and the common cause: what do you think, wouldn't thousands of good deeds make up for one tiny little crime?". From this quote, one can insinuate that this was what influenced Raskolnikov to commit his crime; he apparently wanted to take a benevolent action to help many others, as well as get rid of the "Old Crone" in the process. Unfortunately for Raskolnikov, his anxiety during the crime prevents him from robbing or accomplishing anything besides condemning himself. Later on in chapter V of part 3, it is revealed that Raskolnikov wrote an article "On Crime" which states that there are a certain class of individuals that can go over the law and thus commit a crime; this hints to the fact that Raskolnikov may have thought himself to be this kind of extraordinary individual when he committed his crime. This is later confirmed in chapter IV of part 5: "I...I wanted to dare, and I killed...I just wanted to dare, Sonya, that's the whole reason!" In the end, Raskolnikov didn't kill for a noble reason, but rather, to go over the edge and prove his superiority to other humans; a nihilist's views. He felt that he could prove what he wanted to prove and help many as a side-effect of the crime, as stated in chapter VII of part 6, when Raskolnikov speaks to Dunya. He failed in doing anything extraordinary; punishment and suffer was all he gained.
As for the punishment, Raskolnikov experienced the punishment throughout the story. Just the thought of the crime that enveloped his mind rendered him weak and tormented him from the very beginning of the story -- before even committing the crime. The prevalent fever or illness Raskolnikov experienced during the story could very well have symbolized the emotions that he felt on the inside (the torment he felt from the thought of actually being punished). In chapter VII of part 6, it is revealed that Raskolnikov was almost at the verge of committing suicide and drowning himself, but he didn't -- probably because of fear itself. In chapter VIII of part 6, Raskolnikov finally admits his crime to Ilya Petrovich -- it was probably the view of Sonya that gave him the strength to finally admit what he had done. During the epilogue, many things happen: Dunya and Razumikhin get married, Pulcheria Alexandrovna (Raskolnikov's mom) dies from the torment of not seeing her son, and Raskolnikov gets sentenced to 8 years in prison. Even in prison, Raskolnikov seems unchanged -- he still isolates himself from others (prisoners) and questions what exactly his crime was: "Now, what do they find so hideous in my action?". Sonya visits him almost everyday, and in the end, Raskolnikov finally realizes his love for her. This is finally the point in the story where Raskolnikov seems happy, and this love can very well be what resurrects our protagonist into a new person. The punishment Raskolnikov feared so much can very well be what shall cause him to change "for the better" and seek redemption in the future. In the end, Porfiry was correct when he stated -- in chapter II of part 6 -- that suffering is a great thing (for Raskolnikov). I wonder how different the epilogue of the story would have been if Raskolnikov really decided to commit suicide beforehand.
posted by Anthony M.
In chapter VI of part 1, it is revealed that Raskolnikov felt loathing and a deep hatred toward the old woman (Alyona) at first sight. The words he heard from a police officer and student conversing in a bar exacerbated his desires to do away with her: "Hundred, maybe thousands of lives put right; dozens of families saved from destitution, from decay, from ruin, from depravity, from the venereal hospitals--all on her money. Kill her and take her money, so that afterwards with its help you can devote yourself to the service of all mankind and the common cause: what do you think, wouldn't thousands of good deeds make up for one tiny little crime?". From this quote, one can insinuate that this was what influenced Raskolnikov to commit his crime; he apparently wanted to take a benevolent action to help many others, as well as get rid of the "Old Crone" in the process. Unfortunately for Raskolnikov, his anxiety during the crime prevents him from robbing or accomplishing anything besides condemning himself. Later on in chapter V of part 3, it is revealed that Raskolnikov wrote an article "On Crime" which states that there are a certain class of individuals that can go over the law and thus commit a crime; this hints to the fact that Raskolnikov may have thought himself to be this kind of extraordinary individual when he committed his crime. This is later confirmed in chapter IV of part 5: "I...I wanted to dare, and I killed...I just wanted to dare, Sonya, that's the whole reason!" In the end, Raskolnikov didn't kill for a noble reason, but rather, to go over the edge and prove his superiority to other humans; a nihilist's views. He felt that he could prove what he wanted to prove and help many as a side-effect of the crime, as stated in chapter VII of part 6, when Raskolnikov speaks to Dunya. He failed in doing anything extraordinary; punishment and suffer was all he gained.
As for the punishment, Raskolnikov experienced the punishment throughout the story. Just the thought of the crime that enveloped his mind rendered him weak and tormented him from the very beginning of the story -- before even committing the crime. The prevalent fever or illness Raskolnikov experienced during the story could very well have symbolized the emotions that he felt on the inside (the torment he felt from the thought of actually being punished). In chapter VII of part 6, it is revealed that Raskolnikov was almost at the verge of committing suicide and drowning himself, but he didn't -- probably because of fear itself. In chapter VIII of part 6, Raskolnikov finally admits his crime to Ilya Petrovich -- it was probably the view of Sonya that gave him the strength to finally admit what he had done. During the epilogue, many things happen: Dunya and Razumikhin get married, Pulcheria Alexandrovna (Raskolnikov's mom) dies from the torment of not seeing her son, and Raskolnikov gets sentenced to 8 years in prison. Even in prison, Raskolnikov seems unchanged -- he still isolates himself from others (prisoners) and questions what exactly his crime was: "Now, what do they find so hideous in my action?". Sonya visits him almost everyday, and in the end, Raskolnikov finally realizes his love for her. This is finally the point in the story where Raskolnikov seems happy, and this love can very well be what resurrects our protagonist into a new person. The punishment Raskolnikov feared so much can very well be what shall cause him to change "for the better" and seek redemption in the future. In the end, Porfiry was correct when he stated -- in chapter II of part 6 -- that suffering is a great thing (for Raskolnikov). I wonder how different the epilogue of the story would have been if Raskolnikov really decided to commit suicide beforehand.
posted by Anthony M.
Guilt and Redemption
Towards the end of part two of Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov continues spiraling down a path of unavoidable guilt, impulsive actions, and the desire to seek redemption for his crime through compassion and human affection. When inebriated Marmaledov is trampled by a horse in the streets and passes, Raskolnikov offers the family all the money that he has as consolation for their loss. Contributing to a funeral service and proper burial, I think Raskolnikov had alternative motives for offering the devastated family the money. Aside from helping the destitute and heartbroken family members, at the same time, I think he wanted to ease his own guilt about the murders he previously committed. He believes through offering the family financial consolation, he himself with win redemption from society for the sins he cast upon himself. Although Raskolnikov proves to be a compassionate person, he cannot escape his biggest rival: his impulsive and fickle actions. During the scene at the “Crystal Palace”, Raskolnikov almost tells Zamyotov of his grisly murders. The scene proves that although the police and Porfiry Petrovich are active players in their suspicion against Raskolnikov, his delirious, hasty, and impulsive actions accumulate into a bitter rivalry against himself.
Dostoevsky may have opened readers to a more compelling, and compassionate side of Raskolnikov, but he proves that Raskolnikov has a long journey ahead of him towards winning back redemption. The offering of money to the Marmaledovs serves as a first step towards one of the many good deeds and reflecting upon repentance that Raskolnikov must endure to gain salvation.
posted by Jenn J.
Dostoevsky may have opened readers to a more compelling, and compassionate side of Raskolnikov, but he proves that Raskolnikov has a long journey ahead of him towards winning back redemption. The offering of money to the Marmaledovs serves as a first step towards one of the many good deeds and reflecting upon repentance that Raskolnikov must endure to gain salvation.
posted by Jenn J.
Confession and Rebirth
Through the beginning of part four of Crime and Punishment, the plot was ultimately revealed, and was too suspenseful for me to put off the reading for a couple of more days. I feel as though through the last three parts of the book, the suspense truly unraveled; I’m only disappointed that it took a while to get through it all. The end of part three reveals Raskolnikov’s ideas of embodying a “divine being” and that extraordinary people have the right to be above the law, therefore being just to commit crimes “seemingly” beneficial to mankind. The theme of “superman” comes into play where Raskolnikov views himself to be superior to others, and that extraordinary man that was justified in killing the pawnbroker. Yet with every superman, comes his weakness – kryptonite; in this case Raskolnikov’s kryptonite is his inner battling conflicts with guilt, and his impulses to confess to the crimes. By killing the pawnbroker, Raskolnikov was not seeking financial victories, but was rather seeking to become a divine being, with high self worth and belittling the pawnbroker at the same time. Through the process in which he killed the pawnbroker, Raskolnikov thought that by killing someone with no worth in the world, he would gain worth and appreciation himself. When encountering a chilling nightmare in his sleep, Raskolnikov again revisits the scene where he is about to kill the woman, but instead of crying out for help, she merely laughs at him with disgust. This not only proves his excessive guilt, but more his weakness, confusion, and struggles with valuing himself.
In part five, Raskolnikov finally confesses the murder to Sonya, Marmaledov’s prostituting daughter. The two have previously gotten closer through the death of Marmaledov, and Sonya proves to be a supporting foundation for Raskolnikov’s vulnerable state. After confessing, Sonya reads Raskolnikov the story of Lazarus, one of the most essential stories in Christianity. Lazarus portrays fallen and corrupted humanity about to be redeemed through Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. The illness Jesus makes Lazarus endure, and his resurrection of the illness embodies the significance of Jesus’ resurrection, which restores tainted humanity. This story applies to both Sonya and Raskolnikov; Sonya seeks redemption for prostituting herself, and Raskolnikov from his murders. However both are on the path towards gaining back redemption- although Sonya prostitutes herself, she does it in the hopes of supporting her poor family, and hopefully escaping an impoverished life; Raskolnikov recognizes that he is not superman, or an extraordinary person having the right to commit an unjust crime, but an ordinary human, allowing himself to take a step closer towards redemption. Sonya encourages Raskolnikov to confess, and he agrees, accepting a cross as a symbol of gaining a position back in the humane society that Raskolnikov has so long isolated himself from. Readers can see that Sonya is not only offering Raskolnikov a symbol of Christ and redemption, but also a part of herself; her religion, her pious Christian thoughts on life and salvation, which Raskolnikov views as highly valuable. The last paragraphs of part six were really captivating; just as Raskolnikov enters the police station to confess, he get scared and leaves, but he sees Sonya outside waiting for him. It’s at that moment where he realized Sonya truly loves him, and is the one person who leads him towards replenishing himself of past sins and corruption, and he finally confesses.
Reading the epilogue was sort of a drag, it seemed very repetitive up until the part Raskolnikov breaks down emotionally and cries at Sonya’s feet. I see that as his turning point as a character; through offering himself to society through confession, he endured a painful months long stay in a Siberian prison. Yet through his efforts at truly recognizing his guilt, and wrongdoings as a human, he won back redemption and thus again entered the world of humanity not as a callous, egotistical man, but someone who was able to feel unconditional love and compassion as a man who experienced rebirth.
posted by Jenn Jo
In part five, Raskolnikov finally confesses the murder to Sonya, Marmaledov’s prostituting daughter. The two have previously gotten closer through the death of Marmaledov, and Sonya proves to be a supporting foundation for Raskolnikov’s vulnerable state. After confessing, Sonya reads Raskolnikov the story of Lazarus, one of the most essential stories in Christianity. Lazarus portrays fallen and corrupted humanity about to be redeemed through Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. The illness Jesus makes Lazarus endure, and his resurrection of the illness embodies the significance of Jesus’ resurrection, which restores tainted humanity. This story applies to both Sonya and Raskolnikov; Sonya seeks redemption for prostituting herself, and Raskolnikov from his murders. However both are on the path towards gaining back redemption- although Sonya prostitutes herself, she does it in the hopes of supporting her poor family, and hopefully escaping an impoverished life; Raskolnikov recognizes that he is not superman, or an extraordinary person having the right to commit an unjust crime, but an ordinary human, allowing himself to take a step closer towards redemption. Sonya encourages Raskolnikov to confess, and he agrees, accepting a cross as a symbol of gaining a position back in the humane society that Raskolnikov has so long isolated himself from. Readers can see that Sonya is not only offering Raskolnikov a symbol of Christ and redemption, but also a part of herself; her religion, her pious Christian thoughts on life and salvation, which Raskolnikov views as highly valuable. The last paragraphs of part six were really captivating; just as Raskolnikov enters the police station to confess, he get scared and leaves, but he sees Sonya outside waiting for him. It’s at that moment where he realized Sonya truly loves him, and is the one person who leads him towards replenishing himself of past sins and corruption, and he finally confesses.
Reading the epilogue was sort of a drag, it seemed very repetitive up until the part Raskolnikov breaks down emotionally and cries at Sonya’s feet. I see that as his turning point as a character; through offering himself to society through confession, he endured a painful months long stay in a Siberian prison. Yet through his efforts at truly recognizing his guilt, and wrongdoings as a human, he won back redemption and thus again entered the world of humanity not as a callous, egotistical man, but someone who was able to feel unconditional love and compassion as a man who experienced rebirth.
posted by Jenn Jo
Characters and their Personality Traits
As the I read through “Crime and Punishment” I began to see that each character was very diverse in their lifestyles, and beliefs. I began to see that each character represents a certain personality traits that all humans express. Pyotr Luzhin is a self serving, greedy, and prideful man. He believes that people should be subservient to him. He wants Dunya under his thumb, and knew that even though she was beautiful, she was also poor, and her family was in need of money. He being an egotistical man with money, sought to dominate her. After she finally rejects his proposal however, he decides to frame her for theft. However it doesn’t go over as planned. Luzhin represents over excess of egotism, greed, and hedonism. He has way too much money, and in my opinion is very bored, which is why he seeks to dominate Dunya, and keep the Raskolnikovs under his debt.
Sonya Mermeladova represents faith, optimism, and hope for mankind. Her father’s horrible habits, and her step mother Katrina’s fits of rage sent young Sonya into prostitution. At the same time her friend Lizaveta Ivanovna is brutally killed by Raskolnikov in a panic, after he killed her sister Ayadona. Also both her parents die in unnatural circumstances in short periods of time. Yet all these horrible situations that plague Sonya never seem to sway her conviction in her faith of goodness in mankind, and religion. She proves this by supporting Raskolnikov after his mind starts to slowly disintegrate, even though he is the one who was responsible for killing her friend. Sonya represents optimism and hope in a dark and gritty world, which doesn’t have the ability to support the meek and humble.
However while most characters represent one particular personality trait, interestingly enough I found Raskolnikov to be the best representation of what it’s like to be human. He is a man who constantly struggles with his mistakes, and surroundings, as well as his own conscience, while searching for the right answer to his problems as they constantly evade him. While he seems like a man who is deeply troubled, I personally saw Raskolnikov as a flood of ideals that are never exactly definite. In my personal opinion he is the most dynamic of all the characters, starting off as a man with nihilistic and pessimistic thoughts, which later on turn into megalomaniacal ideals about himself, until finally end of the story he is redeemed, and humbled. The reason why I see Rodion as a the most human character is that all people are dynamic in some way shape or form. Even though he did commit the heinous act of murder, he still could be redeemed of his crime, as everyone has a second chance to make things right.
Also Here’s a note of other characters and traits that I think they represent:
Dunya-Self Sacrifice.
Dmitri-Optimism.
Svidrigailov-Depression and suicide, as opposed to Sonya who is optimism and salvation.
Semyon Marmeladov- Self indulgence, and hopelessness
Pulkheria Raskolnikov- Delusion, yet hopefullness
posted by Eddie D.
Sonya Mermeladova represents faith, optimism, and hope for mankind. Her father’s horrible habits, and her step mother Katrina’s fits of rage sent young Sonya into prostitution. At the same time her friend Lizaveta Ivanovna is brutally killed by Raskolnikov in a panic, after he killed her sister Ayadona. Also both her parents die in unnatural circumstances in short periods of time. Yet all these horrible situations that plague Sonya never seem to sway her conviction in her faith of goodness in mankind, and religion. She proves this by supporting Raskolnikov after his mind starts to slowly disintegrate, even though he is the one who was responsible for killing her friend. Sonya represents optimism and hope in a dark and gritty world, which doesn’t have the ability to support the meek and humble.
However while most characters represent one particular personality trait, interestingly enough I found Raskolnikov to be the best representation of what it’s like to be human. He is a man who constantly struggles with his mistakes, and surroundings, as well as his own conscience, while searching for the right answer to his problems as they constantly evade him. While he seems like a man who is deeply troubled, I personally saw Raskolnikov as a flood of ideals that are never exactly definite. In my personal opinion he is the most dynamic of all the characters, starting off as a man with nihilistic and pessimistic thoughts, which later on turn into megalomaniacal ideals about himself, until finally end of the story he is redeemed, and humbled. The reason why I see Rodion as a the most human character is that all people are dynamic in some way shape or form. Even though he did commit the heinous act of murder, he still could be redeemed of his crime, as everyone has a second chance to make things right.
Also Here’s a note of other characters and traits that I think they represent:
Dunya-Self Sacrifice.
Dmitri-Optimism.
Svidrigailov-Depression and suicide, as opposed to Sonya who is optimism and salvation.
Semyon Marmeladov- Self indulgence, and hopelessness
Pulkheria Raskolnikov- Delusion, yet hopefullness
posted by Eddie D.
Sonya
When Sonya was first introduced in Crime and Punishment, she had a very enigmatic way about her. As I read more, I began to see Sonya as a pious Christian who turned to prostitution as the only solution to rectify her family’s adverse financial state. I see several similarities between Sonya and Dunya in that they both made sacrifices for their families. They obtained degrading jobs in order to earn a living while they simultaneously endured great shame and ostracism. Although both women had strong and selfless attributes, Raskolniknov admired Sonya more than he did his own sister. He defended Sonya at all costs and saw something in her that the average person overlooked. Although he recognized that her occupation was not a glamorous one, he was drawn to the person beneath her rags and dishonorable occupation. Dostoevsky stated, “Of course he understood that Sonya’s position was an accidental social phenomenon, though unfortunately a far from isolated and exceptional one.” Raskolniknov was intrigued by Sonya, for he knew that she had endured years of unbearable torment and anguish. He wondered, “What sustained her? Surely not depravity? All this shame obviously touched her only mechanically; no true depravity, not even a drop of it, had yet penetrated her heart- he could see that; she stood before him in reality…” Raskolniknov was able to discern Sonya’s shameful job as a prostitute from her true character that she buried beneath the surface. He believed that her actual character had been unscathed by her disgraceful job.
Sonya’s lack of self-esteem is evident throughout Part IV. She felt ashamed of her job and viewed herself as a sinner. Dostoevsky livened up the plot by making an interesting connection between Sonya and Lizaveta. Before Lizaveta was brutally murdered, she and Sonya would read and discuss portions of the Bible together. Although Raskolniknov could see that reading from the Bible caused her great anguish, he insisted that Sonya read to him the story of Lazarus. Sonya’s deep religious faith played an essential role in her life. The words in the verses had a deep meaning to her because she believed that a miracle would occur one day and alter her life for the better. Once Sonya regained her composure, Raskolniknov asked her to accompany him in his attempt to escape from town. By this point, he had already broken ties with his family and had left his friend Razumikhin in charge of his mother and sister. Raskolniknov’s reasoning to have Sonya come along was that she had already destroyed her own life and would be better off in Raskolniknov’s company since they were headed on the same descending path. He stated, “You can’t endure it, and if you remain alone, you’ll lose your mind, like me. You’re nearly crazy already; so we must go together on the same path.” I am very interested to see how the relationship between Raskolniknov and Sonya will develop over the next two hundred pages. Will Sonya persuade Raskolnikov to find religion? If so, will his new found faith fuel his confession?
posted by Leslie P.
Sonya’s lack of self-esteem is evident throughout Part IV. She felt ashamed of her job and viewed herself as a sinner. Dostoevsky livened up the plot by making an interesting connection between Sonya and Lizaveta. Before Lizaveta was brutally murdered, she and Sonya would read and discuss portions of the Bible together. Although Raskolniknov could see that reading from the Bible caused her great anguish, he insisted that Sonya read to him the story of Lazarus. Sonya’s deep religious faith played an essential role in her life. The words in the verses had a deep meaning to her because she believed that a miracle would occur one day and alter her life for the better. Once Sonya regained her composure, Raskolniknov asked her to accompany him in his attempt to escape from town. By this point, he had already broken ties with his family and had left his friend Razumikhin in charge of his mother and sister. Raskolniknov’s reasoning to have Sonya come along was that she had already destroyed her own life and would be better off in Raskolniknov’s company since they were headed on the same descending path. He stated, “You can’t endure it, and if you remain alone, you’ll lose your mind, like me. You’re nearly crazy already; so we must go together on the same path.” I am very interested to see how the relationship between Raskolniknov and Sonya will develop over the next two hundred pages. Will Sonya persuade Raskolnikov to find religion? If so, will his new found faith fuel his confession?
posted by Leslie P.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Kurtz
Kurtz plays a crucial role in Heart of Darkness. He became the whole reason why Marlow continued on his journey down the Congo. Throughout his trip, he had heard remarkable things about Kurtz. According to others , Kurtz is a brilliant man, with multiple talents. Marlow tried to make it seem like he is not at all interested in Kurtz, but as the story progresses, we see that this is not the case, and that he is truly fascinated by him. However, once Marlow, the pilgrims, and the manager reach Kurtz after barely surviving an attack, Kurtz is nowhere near what Marlow expected.
Based on what the other characters in the story said, I pictured Kurtz as a very outspoken, strong, and domineering man. The person that they found, however, was not what I ( or Marlow for that matter) had in mind. He was sick and feeble, the years and diseases had finally begun to take its toll on him. The only person there who really seems to be amazed by Kurtz is the Russian trader. He had devoted his entire life to Kurtz, and credits him for opening up his mind. The other members of the company seem to look at him with disdain. They do not find him amazing or remarkable at all. To them, he is someone who once was “remarkable”, but is now someone with “unsound methods” who has done nothing but harm the company’s business. Once again, Marlow appears to not have much of an interest in Kurtz. But in time, he develops an intimacy with Kurtz, so much that Kurtz trusts Marlow with some papers that will protect his legacy. But exactly what legacy was that? Could the papers contain detailed accounts of his adventures? Or did he want to be remembered for “all he had to say”? His cousin says he’s a musician, another says he’s a writer. Marlow says “ I had taken him for a painter who wrote for the papers, or else for a journalist who could paint.” His lack of knowledge about Kurtz’s profession does not seem to affect Marlow’s opinion of him. To him, he is still a remarkable man.
The way I see it, Kurtz represented one of the extremes of the effects on colonialism. On one side were the company members, who were into keeping up appearances. They held their heads up high amongst the natives, and did not give them any importance. Their only concern was to get what they needed. On the other hand, there was Kurtz, who vehemently rejects their rules of conduct. He shares a camaraderie with the natives ( who look up to him as if he were a god) and even has an African mistress. Marlow seems to be stuck somewhere in the middle. He is not in favor of the rules of the company, but he still can’t completely let go of everything he’s known and take Kurtz’s side.
Posted by Wendy C.
Based on what the other characters in the story said, I pictured Kurtz as a very outspoken, strong, and domineering man. The person that they found, however, was not what I ( or Marlow for that matter) had in mind. He was sick and feeble, the years and diseases had finally begun to take its toll on him. The only person there who really seems to be amazed by Kurtz is the Russian trader. He had devoted his entire life to Kurtz, and credits him for opening up his mind. The other members of the company seem to look at him with disdain. They do not find him amazing or remarkable at all. To them, he is someone who once was “remarkable”, but is now someone with “unsound methods” who has done nothing but harm the company’s business. Once again, Marlow appears to not have much of an interest in Kurtz. But in time, he develops an intimacy with Kurtz, so much that Kurtz trusts Marlow with some papers that will protect his legacy. But exactly what legacy was that? Could the papers contain detailed accounts of his adventures? Or did he want to be remembered for “all he had to say”? His cousin says he’s a musician, another says he’s a writer. Marlow says “ I had taken him for a painter who wrote for the papers, or else for a journalist who could paint.” His lack of knowledge about Kurtz’s profession does not seem to affect Marlow’s opinion of him. To him, he is still a remarkable man.
The way I see it, Kurtz represented one of the extremes of the effects on colonialism. On one side were the company members, who were into keeping up appearances. They held their heads up high amongst the natives, and did not give them any importance. Their only concern was to get what they needed. On the other hand, there was Kurtz, who vehemently rejects their rules of conduct. He shares a camaraderie with the natives ( who look up to him as if he were a god) and even has an African mistress. Marlow seems to be stuck somewhere in the middle. He is not in favor of the rules of the company, but he still can’t completely let go of everything he’s known and take Kurtz’s side.
Posted by Wendy C.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Thoughts on Raskolnikov's Past
What I personally find most interesting in this story is actually the protagonist himself (Raskolnikov) and the unique characteristics he bestows. When one begins to read the story, the narrator introduces the reader to a mysterious anti-social man who isolates himself from others and is apparently formulating a plan of murder; he is later revealed to be named "Raskolnikov". As the story progresses, Raskolnikov's mental conditions are exacerbated due to delirium from a fever, ambivalence derived from the thought of committing a crime or not, and pressure from the thought of being discovered to be the one who killed Alyona Ivanovna. Now, my question is: Was Raskolnikov always like this? Besides contempt derived from the crime he is "destined" to commit, Raskolnikov is introduced to naturally be the way he is: feeling tension and anger towards humanity, being anti-social, looking down on others, and being lackadaisical -- in respect to the fact that he doesn't even bother to get a job of any kind. There are however elements in the story that point out that he was not always this way.
In chapter III of part I, Raskolnikov's mom (Pulcheria) says in her letter, "Remember, my dear, in your childhood, when your father was alive, how you prattled out your prayers sitting on my knee, and how happy we all were then!" This quote gives a vague but interesting hint that Raskolnikov lived a happy life with his father during childhood. Perhaps it was the absence of his father that changed him and gave him a new view on things, or perhaps it was the things he witnessed as a child that blend in with his vitriolic personality and scorn towards society. Later on in chapter V, Raskolnikov has a dream about his childhood, where he witnessed a group of sadistic peasants beating an old horse to death. Judging from the moment he had the dream (before committing the crime and still filled with ambivalence), it can easily reflect on his own inner views of the crime, or rather, what his conscience is telling him. He obviously thought of the crime being committed in this dream as odious, which can represent exactly how he feels about the crime he is going to commit. In the dream, he is depicted as an innocent child, which can represent his actual innocence in reality; he is not evil. Since the dream itself is a reminiscence of Raskolnikov's past, the reader can clearly see Raskolnikov as a caring child back then. As I mentioned before, it is possible that the things he witnessed as a child are what developed his scorn and tension towards society. It is also interesting to note that Raskolnikov's father was present in this dream.
In chapter IV of part I, it is revealed that during his time in the university, Raskolnikov didn't have any friends and considered all his peers inferior to himself. The only person he was social with during this time was Razumikhin. In chapter V of part III, we learn about an article dealing with crime -- written by Raskolnikov some time after leaving the university. From this article, we learn that he feels that there are people that go above the law and can commit crime. Judging from the time this article was made and the time he was still in the university, we can assume that Raskolnikov has had the view on humanity that he has during the beginning of the story even before contemplating on whether or not to commit a crime -- thus his ambivalence isn't the source to his apparent way of being.
Raskolnikov in general is not a bad guy, as can be seen when he gives money to Marmeladov's family (twice), and how he reacts upon reading his mother's letter. He seems to have accumulated feelings of contempt, scorn, tension, and hatred toward humanity as he grew. It would be interesting learning more about Raskolnikov's past and see what the main source of his change was. Perhaps later in the story there will be some more hints dealing with his past to help clarify this.
Anthony M.
In chapter III of part I, Raskolnikov's mom (Pulcheria) says in her letter, "Remember, my dear, in your childhood, when your father was alive, how you prattled out your prayers sitting on my knee, and how happy we all were then!" This quote gives a vague but interesting hint that Raskolnikov lived a happy life with his father during childhood. Perhaps it was the absence of his father that changed him and gave him a new view on things, or perhaps it was the things he witnessed as a child that blend in with his vitriolic personality and scorn towards society. Later on in chapter V, Raskolnikov has a dream about his childhood, where he witnessed a group of sadistic peasants beating an old horse to death. Judging from the moment he had the dream (before committing the crime and still filled with ambivalence), it can easily reflect on his own inner views of the crime, or rather, what his conscience is telling him. He obviously thought of the crime being committed in this dream as odious, which can represent exactly how he feels about the crime he is going to commit. In the dream, he is depicted as an innocent child, which can represent his actual innocence in reality; he is not evil. Since the dream itself is a reminiscence of Raskolnikov's past, the reader can clearly see Raskolnikov as a caring child back then. As I mentioned before, it is possible that the things he witnessed as a child are what developed his scorn and tension towards society. It is also interesting to note that Raskolnikov's father was present in this dream.
In chapter IV of part I, it is revealed that during his time in the university, Raskolnikov didn't have any friends and considered all his peers inferior to himself. The only person he was social with during this time was Razumikhin. In chapter V of part III, we learn about an article dealing with crime -- written by Raskolnikov some time after leaving the university. From this article, we learn that he feels that there are people that go above the law and can commit crime. Judging from the time this article was made and the time he was still in the university, we can assume that Raskolnikov has had the view on humanity that he has during the beginning of the story even before contemplating on whether or not to commit a crime -- thus his ambivalence isn't the source to his apparent way of being.
Raskolnikov in general is not a bad guy, as can be seen when he gives money to Marmeladov's family (twice), and how he reacts upon reading his mother's letter. He seems to have accumulated feelings of contempt, scorn, tension, and hatred toward humanity as he grew. It would be interesting learning more about Raskolnikov's past and see what the main source of his change was. Perhaps later in the story there will be some more hints dealing with his past to help clarify this.
Anthony M.
Why are they there?
The conversation between Marlow and the hooked nose man has me utterly confused. First they were discussed Europe and influential people, which led to the description of Mr. Kurtz. Then there was a long monologue with rhetorical questions and a mentioning of people on Mars. Next the point of view shifted back to the narrator and the boat where Marlow is telling his tale. The point of view changed back to Marlow where he was back at his broken steamer. The hooked nose man, whose purpose in the story and job is altogether is a mystery, was still with him. Being near the broken steamer brought a paragraph about Marlow’s need for rivets. Lastly, the hooked nose man spoke about a hippopotamus having a “charmed life” before leaving Marlow alone. The novel jumped through to many points that I am not even certain that it was Marlow talking the entire time. Can someone please clarify that part for me?
Overall, I don’t understand why anyone is in Africa. Are they there for ivory or for slave labor? It doesn’t seem like any work is being done. Marlow keeps meeting random people however he never explains what exactly that person’s purpose is there. The only character I’m looking forward to meeting is Mr. Kurtz. He is the only person who has a solid introduction and has a presence within the community.
The only group that had a clear reason to be in Africa is the Eldorado Exploring Expedition. However, the motive was greed based with a total lack of common decency and morality. They were an invasion of thieves bent on sacking the land for all its worth.
by Kayla H.
Overall, I don’t understand why anyone is in Africa. Are they there for ivory or for slave labor? It doesn’t seem like any work is being done. Marlow keeps meeting random people however he never explains what exactly that person’s purpose is there. The only character I’m looking forward to meeting is Mr. Kurtz. He is the only person who has a solid introduction and has a presence within the community.
The only group that had a clear reason to be in Africa is the Eldorado Exploring Expedition. However, the motive was greed based with a total lack of common decency and morality. They were an invasion of thieves bent on sacking the land for all its worth.
by Kayla H.
Raskolnikov
First off I must say that Crime and Punishment is a much easier book to read and comprehend than Heart of Darkness. The main character is a young man named Raskonikov, and I find him to be a very interesting, but troubled man. I think that he is tormented by his own thoughts making him a prisoner to himself. This self torture grows worse after he brutally murders the old woman and her sister. All he can think about after the crime is about the crime. He worries whether or not he will get caught and becomes extremely paranoid. This paranoia causes him to become a delirious and sick man, constantly being plagued by his thoughts. Everyone around him knows about the crime, but little do they know he was the one to commit it. The visit from his mother and sister should prove to be a very interesting one.
Christina R.
Christina R.
The Finale
Wow! This book was unbelievable. I have never read a book that’s been this confusing, vague and boring. The first few pages didn’t grab my attention but I decided to try and give it a chance to get better. Unfortunately this was not the case and it seemed like the more I read the worse it got. It seemed like the book just dragged on forever. I didn’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. I didn’t like how the narrator was a mystery and sometimes it was Marlow narrating. It just confused me more. I also didn’t like the time period it was based on. The whole book in its entirety, the dialogue, setting, characters, and story line everything were horrendous. The only thing I did like was the Russian trader's character but not even he could have saved the book. Towards the end I found myself wanting to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn over and over again rather than reading this book again.
Grace O
Grace O
The Russian Trader
Out of all the characters in his book I think the Russian trader was my favorite character. He is described as a young man and a devoted follower of Mr. Kurtz. Whenever he speaks of Kurtz he describes him almost as a god. His devotion to Kurtz is so grand that he “nursed [him] through two illnesses” and although Kurtz once threatened to kill him for a little piece of ivory the Russian still stood firmly by him. This incident I think made the Russian's devotion stronger. “And it was true, too. I gave him the ivory. What did I care! But I didn’t clear out. No, no. I couldn’t leave him.” He almost sounds like he is obsessed with Kurtz which I found very funny because Kurtz is not a nice guy.
Grace O.
Grace O.
Past = Future
In the beginning of Chapter II Marlow says, “The mind of a man is capable of anything- because everything is in it, all the past as well as the future.” I found this very interesting because it connected to the a lot of things, for example, the saying “history repeats itself” and the question of the Bible. If we know our past is it a preview of what our future will be like? Or are we more likely to change it? Then there is also the question of the Bible. Was it really written by God or was it written by man based on events of the past? I guess it also all depends on what you believe in.
Grace O.
Grace O.
The Protagonist: Marlow
When Heart of Darkness begins we are introduced to the main character, Marlow, a sailor onboard the Nellie along with other crew members. So far the four men and the narrator are not named beside their professions and they remain a mystery. When Marlow begins to reminisce about the trip he took to Congo, Africa, as young man he becomes the narrator of the story.
As he tells the story he says, “They were dying slowly- it was clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation.” He recounts how the Africans were treated by the whites. I though that this observation made Marlow different from the other members because he doesn’t view Africans as savages or harmful beings like the rest. Instead he is a little more sympathetic towards them and says “I stood horror struck”, like a true protagonist.
Grace O.
As he tells the story he says, “They were dying slowly- it was clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation.” He recounts how the Africans were treated by the whites. I though that this observation made Marlow different from the other members because he doesn’t view Africans as savages or harmful beings like the rest. Instead he is a little more sympathetic towards them and says “I stood horror struck”, like a true protagonist.
Grace O.
Two Emotionally-Torn Characters
After finishing up Crime and Punishment I saw Rodion as a weak man, who while he was smarter than his victim as well as incredibly sophisticated, (compared to the people he was around), he was plagued by inner conflict, and inaction. For example, while Rodion extremely disliked the idea that his sister was going to get married, he cannot truly bring himself to stop the wedding. He battles with the what ifs of his actions, and never truly comes to a conclusion of his liking. The mental condition that Radion faces reminds me of another tragic character. A certain Prince of Denmark that was faced with the dreadful task of murdering his uncle. Both characters wonder whether or not their actions will truly make them happy. Instead both are caught in a emotional cross fire between their pride and their own specific happiness.
For example, while Hamlet wanted to avenge his father’s death at the hands of his conspiring brother, Hamlet himself did not really feel comfortable with the decision of killing his uncle. However Rodion is faced with a situation that he doesn’t care for. His sister is getting married to a man who, while very financially stable is just not right for her in Rodion’s mind. Yet while Rodion believes this is wrong, he cannot do anything to stop it from happening. Another similarity between the two are that both are well educated young men, and they both believe that they are smarter than their victims (i.e.: The pawn shop lady for Radion, and King Claudius for Hamlet) Yet by the time they complete the deed, something goes horribly wrong.
posted by Eddie D.
For example, while Hamlet wanted to avenge his father’s death at the hands of his conspiring brother, Hamlet himself did not really feel comfortable with the decision of killing his uncle. However Rodion is faced with a situation that he doesn’t care for. His sister is getting married to a man who, while very financially stable is just not right for her in Rodion’s mind. Yet while Rodion believes this is wrong, he cannot do anything to stop it from happening. Another similarity between the two are that both are well educated young men, and they both believe that they are smarter than their victims (i.e.: The pawn shop lady for Radion, and King Claudius for Hamlet) Yet by the time they complete the deed, something goes horribly wrong.
posted by Eddie D.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Crime
When I first picked up Crime and Punishment, I predicted that the book would be broken into two equal parts: the first describing the lengthy procedure the protagonist would go through to plan out and execute the crime, and the second describing the harsh consequences he would face after committing the act. Now that I have read Parts I and II, I realize that the punishment part is much more in-depth than the process by which Raskolniknov commits the murder. The crime has a profound effect on Raskolniknov physically and mentally; he is paralyzed by his fear of being caught at times, yet so neurotic that he puts himself into situations where he could easily be discovered. Although his actual punishment has not yet been defined, the emotional struggle he is left to deal with causes his mental and physical state to deteriorate.
In Part I, Raskolniknov battles with his decision to end Alyona Ivanovna the pawnbroker’s life. But he seems to justify his decision by focusing on her loathsome qualities. He stated in Chapter VI of Part I: “Having located the old woman, who, from very first glance, before he knew anything in particular about her, filled him with insurmountable loathing… A strange idea was hatching in his head, like a chicken from an egg, and occupied him very much.” Raskolniknov’s very first impression of the woman was one filled with hatred and contempt. The next several pages were filled with suspense as I eagerly read on to see how Raskolniknov would get up the courage to execute the crime. He appeared to empathize with Alyona’s sister Lizaveta and felt sorry that Alyona controlled her life and money. However, he did not think twice about killing the sister after she witnessed the crime scene in the apartment. Although Raskolniknov may justify the first murder by listing Alyona’s wretched qualities, the act of killing Lizaveta was for purely selfish reasons; to make sure he wouldn’t get caught. What I also find ironic is how Raskolniknov’s attitude toward criminals before the crime changed so much from after he executed the murder. Before the dastardly deed was perpetrated, Raskolniknov scoffed at criminals for not covering their tracks and for being easily detected by the police. He stated, “…the criminal himself, almost any criminal, experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason, which, on the contrary, are replaced by a phenomenal childish thoughtlessness, just as the moment when reason and prudence are most necessary.” Raskolniknov is somewhat of a hypocrite because he did not carry out the crime like a skilled masterminded would have. In fact, he barely escaped the crime scene unnoticed and put himself in risky positions where he could have been accused of committing the murder.
Raskolniknov’s conscience seems to be the main antagonist in the story so far. I think that Raskolniknov subconsciously desires to be caught so he can put an end to his pain and suffering. Will Raskolniknov’s conscience win and cause him to confess, or will another character beat him to it?
posted by Leslie P.
In Part I, Raskolniknov battles with his decision to end Alyona Ivanovna the pawnbroker’s life. But he seems to justify his decision by focusing on her loathsome qualities. He stated in Chapter VI of Part I: “Having located the old woman, who, from very first glance, before he knew anything in particular about her, filled him with insurmountable loathing… A strange idea was hatching in his head, like a chicken from an egg, and occupied him very much.” Raskolniknov’s very first impression of the woman was one filled with hatred and contempt. The next several pages were filled with suspense as I eagerly read on to see how Raskolniknov would get up the courage to execute the crime. He appeared to empathize with Alyona’s sister Lizaveta and felt sorry that Alyona controlled her life and money. However, he did not think twice about killing the sister after she witnessed the crime scene in the apartment. Although Raskolniknov may justify the first murder by listing Alyona’s wretched qualities, the act of killing Lizaveta was for purely selfish reasons; to make sure he wouldn’t get caught. What I also find ironic is how Raskolniknov’s attitude toward criminals before the crime changed so much from after he executed the murder. Before the dastardly deed was perpetrated, Raskolniknov scoffed at criminals for not covering their tracks and for being easily detected by the police. He stated, “…the criminal himself, almost any criminal, experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason, which, on the contrary, are replaced by a phenomenal childish thoughtlessness, just as the moment when reason and prudence are most necessary.” Raskolniknov is somewhat of a hypocrite because he did not carry out the crime like a skilled masterminded would have. In fact, he barely escaped the crime scene unnoticed and put himself in risky positions where he could have been accused of committing the murder.
Raskolniknov’s conscience seems to be the main antagonist in the story so far. I think that Raskolniknov subconsciously desires to be caught so he can put an end to his pain and suffering. Will Raskolniknov’s conscience win and cause him to confess, or will another character beat him to it?
posted by Leslie P.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Critique of Heart of Darkness
Overall I unfortunately did not appreciate this book. I thought it was a good book but not one that I would ever pick up on my own and read. I thought the language was worded very tricky and I often thought that I was missing something even though I reread the same lines several times. I thought reading this book as a class would have been better to get a better picture and overview of the book however I just found myself constantly lost. The details were a bit over the top especially in the beginning. I tried to imagine it in my mind as best I could which is usually my favorite thing in a book however in this book I found it too hard to do with constant changes and excessive details. The book was also kind of depressing to me in the way it mentioned death and gloom all the time. The Heart of Darkness represented two different things to me. At first darkness was portrayed as exploration, discovery and finding the unknown. Yet in the end I found it more encompassing death, gloom and the evils of violence and greed.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Heart of Darkness and The Catcher in the Rye
So far Heart of Darkness has reminded me somewhat of The Catcher in the Rye. It could be because I read it before Heart of Darkness but I also see that it’s very detailed and sort of gloomy like The Catcher in the Rye. Throughout the whole book Holden is depressed by his surroundings and constant mishaps happening around him and tells the reader about his experiences through many details and depressing narration much like in the Heart of Darkness when Marlow speaks of people who have died like Fresleven when he says “he was whacked mercilessly while a big crowd of his people watched….. the grass growing through his ribs was tall enough to hide his bones . . . They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies they were criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom”. Also Holden only had one thing that made him happy and kept him going which was his kid sister Phoebe. Marlow’s person that makes him happy is Kurtz. They both somewhat idolize these people in their lives and center their world around them.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
