It was so… simplistic. Nothing to ponder over, nothing to satisfy my nicotine for excitement, and nevertheless a bashfully uninteresting way to meet the back of the cover. Throughout the whole novel, I spent my time thinking up the themes Dostoevsky concealed in the diction, and was actually quite satisfied with what I could make out of it. However for the ending, alls I have left is a bit of criticism in how he organized the last chapters. Firstly, it was very sad to see the outcome of the entire Marmadelov family. To me they played the most interesting role in the story, apart from the supposed suspense on what Raskolnikov would do. Katerina and Sonya’s story is the most pitiful to me in the sense that the daughter has been through so much, and her stepmother didn’t exactly have a Rockefeller lifestyle either. However it pains me more to see such good people finish unkindly when the murderer himself got off with jail time.
Now here’s what I would have done personally to improve the ending. For one, make every single point expressed in the epilogue appear before Part 6’s conclusion. Personally I think if the epilogue’s points in Sonya and Rasko’s affection for each other finally being confirmed, and maybe, not to sound like a pain lover, have Raskolnikov’s mother pass away before it could have probably made the book conclude on a more pitiful note, as by having more twinge knotted into the climax would have given me a somewhat pitiful opinion on what Raskolnikov went through. Why did he have to confess at that moment, through disappointment of his sister? There’s no moral, everything is canceled out and wasted in my opinion judging by how the book ended. Also why put this whole Christian thing with Lazarus, its hypocritical considering the worst sin biblically is committed, and it contains a dialogue between a prostitute and a murderer. To add to this, in a way one can say they live happily ever after, thanks to what the epilogue explains. In about a decade Raskolnikov will free with Sonya and they’ll leave the outskirts of Siberia to return to Petersburg .
On a brighter note, I suppose I can say Dostoevsky leaves the novel with a sense that all actions are worthy of renewal? Other than this, I would love someone to express some points of reason for the ending. Tha
Showing posts with label Fred. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Summer reading Assigment: Crime and Punishment Journal #2-- Fred
Midway through the novel, it’s compulsory to say that whatever Dostoevsky managed to accomplish by displaying the mind and sufferings of a paranoid killer in 500 pages appeals quite petite to me. Obviously, responding to my comment on Ms. Tramantano’s post, I find this novel particularly far from being considered “great.” Yet with the same bit of optimism I used to start Streetcar, the abdomen of this novel is a little lest confusing than the beginning, shedding light to many characters like Dunya, her fiancé Luzhin and Razuhmikin that I had only read in Razko’s dreadful monotone. I like how Dunya’s personality affirms what his mother’s letter had described about her being self-less, intelligent, and a firm personality. So far, she has to be my favorite character of the novel, how her brilliant idea to test Luzhin by bringing Rasko surely solidifies that she’s a much wittier and aspiring character than her beloved brother. I’m ALMOST interested in discovering how it turns out between her and her fiancé, considering Razuhmikin’s attraction to her.
Next, I’ve seen in certain posts on the blog, people seem to marginalize Marmadelov’s role in the story, concerning his death in Sonya’s arms. Thinking again back to the title, Crime and Punishment, in a sense I see this particular subplot as equivalent to a “control” in an experiment. To elaborate, Raskolnikov’s murder of the pawnbroker and her sister have throughout the middle of the novel caused him indeed a lot of pain and paranoia, which I consider in a sense, self-punishment. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but perhaps Dostoevsky’s point in having Marmadelov pass away right in that scene, and have his wife mourn and insult him simultaneously was to contrast both ends of the spectrum, and also to signify the relationship between choices and consequences. Crimes are choices; punishments are the consequence of those choices. Marmadelov dies in sorrow for his drinking and partial neglect of his family; a wrong choice he made. His punishment is natural death. Raskolnikov chose to kill for his own personal gain, and I suppose whatever external punishment, I’ll learn later in the story.
Probably the most eye opening thing to me at the book’s midpoint was when Raskolnikov wrote an article about some superhumans being able to defy normal crime for the greater good. I get the feeling he’s trying to a murderous correspondent to Robin Hood, but to expand I in a sense saw a bit of OJ Simpson in Rasko’s defense to the detective. Back last year, OJ Simpson wrote of very controversial book called “If I did It”, referring to his accusations of killing Nicole Brown and that other dude that he is notorious for. Ironic, he killed two people and published a book about it just as Raskolnikov killed the two women and is trying to defend it with an article. I suppose what I mean is that whatever murder does to a person, and Dostoevsky does well to catch this, it stays with them permanently like some kind of parasite that will never leave. Just my two cents, forgive me but I still think this book is dreadful.
Next, I’ve seen in certain posts on the blog, people seem to marginalize Marmadelov’s role in the story, concerning his death in Sonya’s arms. Thinking again back to the title, Crime and Punishment, in a sense I see this particular subplot as equivalent to a “control” in an experiment. To elaborate, Raskolnikov’s murder of the pawnbroker and her sister have throughout the middle of the novel caused him indeed a lot of pain and paranoia, which I consider in a sense, self-punishment. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but perhaps Dostoevsky’s point in having Marmadelov pass away right in that scene, and have his wife mourn and insult him simultaneously was to contrast both ends of the spectrum, and also to signify the relationship between choices and consequences. Crimes are choices; punishments are the consequence of those choices. Marmadelov dies in sorrow for his drinking and partial neglect of his family; a wrong choice he made. His punishment is natural death. Raskolnikov chose to kill for his own personal gain, and I suppose whatever external punishment, I’ll learn later in the story.
Probably the most eye opening thing to me at the book’s midpoint was when Raskolnikov wrote an article about some superhumans being able to defy normal crime for the greater good. I get the feeling he’s trying to a murderous correspondent to Robin Hood, but to expand I in a sense saw a bit of OJ Simpson in Rasko’s defense to the detective. Back last year, OJ Simpson wrote of very controversial book called “If I did It”, referring to his accusations of killing Nicole Brown and that other dude that he is notorious for. Ironic, he killed two people and published a book about it just as Raskolnikov killed the two women and is trying to defend it with an article. I suppose what I mean is that whatever murder does to a person, and Dostoevsky does well to catch this, it stays with them permanently like some kind of parasite that will never leave. Just my two cents, forgive me but I still think this book is dreadful.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Summer Reading Assignment Journal #1: Crime and Punishment--Fred
They say past authors in Russia would get paid by the number of words sometimes instead of by overall message. This would indubitably explain the slow start I experienced reading Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. The book appears to feed every sense of thought Raskolnikov, the main character, generates so that even if the book s in 3rd person, one actually gets almost a 2nd person impression on the novel. (When you’re in the story, thinking) Its then that I realized that the mind of a murderer is not far off in paranoia as that of a schizophrenic, as throughout part one Rasko would feel constantly pale and ill for his action. Now I’m the book’s debut leaves me with only one question, that I crave to find the answer to by reading more; exactly what purpose does it serve to him to murder two sisters in their own home. The book’s previous chapters however have given me an idea.
My first impression of Rasko just from reading his responses to the drunk man in the tavern and a few other parts give off the idea that he his completely against conforming to whatever society pursues. Also he seems to be haunted by a very bad past. Whatever he did in the university, studying law, has scarred his confidence to achieve, as the book explains he doesn’t even want to talk to the only friend he made there, and dropped out. Following this, Raskolnikov seems to highly dislike the relationship he has with his mother, and his sister Dunya. The selfless family he has in his eyes is sacrificing their happiness in hopes for his successful career (Don’t wish to spoil how). A witty yet vastly pessimistic action, I saw his negative response as a cue that our Rasko has very little trust in outsiders, and hates to be aided.
Secondly, a few parts of the book actually had me questioning the title itself, Crime and Punishment. For instance, Rasko in a couple parts shows signs of desire to punish the fiendish individuals he meets. Firstly there is the part where he recognizes the condition of a young girl to have been tricked in to drinking and then raped. Also, when alerting the policeman, another man is at the scene lurking like a hungry predator, seeking out the weakened prey. It started to get me thinking (before the murder took place of course) for some people, maybe it’s a crime to live, and they should be punished, severely. Next would be in Rasko’s dream when he flashbacks to a memory in his childhood of an old drunk beating his horse finally to death. I caught his reaction to be the same as I expected in the murder, with him attempting to throw fists at the fiend. Questions arose, like, if you had a chance to kill Bin Laden, would you do it without hesitating? Or maybe if you had a chance to kill the man you had just discovered to abuse a friendly neighbor of yours, how would you react? Its funny actually how the murder finally turns out, and how even if you think there is righteousness in the action you commit, the following one may shift the tide back to you being the criminal.
My first impression of Rasko just from reading his responses to the drunk man in the tavern and a few other parts give off the idea that he his completely against conforming to whatever society pursues. Also he seems to be haunted by a very bad past. Whatever he did in the university, studying law, has scarred his confidence to achieve, as the book explains he doesn’t even want to talk to the only friend he made there, and dropped out. Following this, Raskolnikov seems to highly dislike the relationship he has with his mother, and his sister Dunya. The selfless family he has in his eyes is sacrificing their happiness in hopes for his successful career (Don’t wish to spoil how). A witty yet vastly pessimistic action, I saw his negative response as a cue that our Rasko has very little trust in outsiders, and hates to be aided.
Secondly, a few parts of the book actually had me questioning the title itself, Crime and Punishment. For instance, Rasko in a couple parts shows signs of desire to punish the fiendish individuals he meets. Firstly there is the part where he recognizes the condition of a young girl to have been tricked in to drinking and then raped. Also, when alerting the policeman, another man is at the scene lurking like a hungry predator, seeking out the weakened prey. It started to get me thinking (before the murder took place of course) for some people, maybe it’s a crime to live, and they should be punished, severely. Next would be in Rasko’s dream when he flashbacks to a memory in his childhood of an old drunk beating his horse finally to death. I caught his reaction to be the same as I expected in the murder, with him attempting to throw fists at the fiend. Questions arose, like, if you had a chance to kill Bin Laden, would you do it without hesitating? Or maybe if you had a chance to kill the man you had just discovered to abuse a friendly neighbor of yours, how would you react? Its funny actually how the murder finally turns out, and how even if you think there is righteousness in the action you commit, the following one may shift the tide back to you being the criminal.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Summer Reading Assignment: A Streetcar Named Desire Journal #3--Fred
The final pages of Williams’ play would leave me as bluntly bewildered as ever. The late scenes of Streetcar show a lot of literary class, but I’m forced to criticize its most standard elements. At the last page of the book, I still am not 100% sure who the protagonist and the antagonist is because every character in the story either did something reckless that canceled the gallant air, or simply didn’t step to my expectations of a good character. It was like a trivia game show to see who is the most chivalrous, and everyone lost. However I still caught other sheds of brilliance in the novel. For one I love how after Mitch discovers the dirt on Blanche, in the final conversation he has with her, he quotes “I don’t think I have ever seen you in the light.”(Page 110) Now this is not only fact, but the quote holds a metaphor too. He proceeds to turn on every light in the room discovering the lost years Blanche was trying to hide from him, but notice also its only when the light is on that Blanche finally confesses all her intimacies, and the real reason she’s in New Orleans. Its remarkable how Williams’ can personify (I think that’s the term) light as being some sort of emotion parallel to honesty. Now our time already makes us used to terms saying coming to light is confessing, but Tennessee Williams basically keeps a consistent chain between Blanche trying to hide her age with Blanche telling Mitch all these pompous lies to make him fall for her. Did anyone else catch that, because I might just be really slow on analysis?
Now with all this repulsive information revealed about Blanche by scene 10, naturally from that point I was forced to accept Stanley as the triumphant protagonist, helping out his good friend Mitch. Right? Wrong! In that same scene where I locked in my final answer, Williams’ turns the roof upside and has Stanley do the unthinkable to Blanche. He rapes his son’s aunt; my assumed protagonist would now be a definite antagonist. Personally that’s all I could think about when the book ended, and all that mattered to me. Blanche could be considered a tragic hero I suppose, but what’s a hero that spends the whole play being full of lies. Nevertheless, A Streetcar named Desire is meant to be a romance, a genre that I’m not quite used to reading. So there is any point that I’m missing from the story, it’d be great if someone could contribute and enlighten me.
Now with all this repulsive information revealed about Blanche by scene 10, naturally from that point I was forced to accept Stanley as the triumphant protagonist, helping out his good friend Mitch. Right? Wrong! In that same scene where I locked in my final answer, Williams’ turns the roof upside and has Stanley do the unthinkable to Blanche. He rapes his son’s aunt; my assumed protagonist would now be a definite antagonist. Personally that’s all I could think about when the book ended, and all that mattered to me. Blanche could be considered a tragic hero I suppose, but what’s a hero that spends the whole play being full of lies. Nevertheless, A Streetcar named Desire is meant to be a romance, a genre that I’m not quite used to reading. So there is any point that I’m missing from the story, it’d be great if someone could contribute and enlighten me.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Summer Reading assignment: Journal #2: A Streetcar Named Desire-- Fred
In my opinion, provocation becomes the one of the central themes Tennessee Williams tries to shed light through different points of view in the heart of the play. By the end of the 6th scene, a well fit package of provocative behavior has passed, whether it is to start a row, manipulate, or even just to discover how truthful one character is to another. Firstly, throughout the whole poker scene, this is the theme, as Stella, in keenness to keep his sister conscious that she has no lost the pompous lifestyle Belle Reve acquainted them too, provokes Stanley into a chaotic rage. But just as a soothing tune calms a raging beast, Williams displays the conquest love has over all other emotions, as the New Orleans couple re-embrace as the whole poker row had never happened. Reading this may give you the impression that “Streetcar” is just a basic romance, but on the contrary it expresses how limited peace and love are do the human species, and how some people like Blanche search for love in other forms of metamorphosis like money, posture, and upbringing, but its only the real geniuses that recognize true love in simple people.
This summer in Europe, an Irish friend of mine passed on a quote to me that their president Mary McAleese had stated in speech: “This child who talks about scattering the seeds of peace over our land has told us…. to renew and recommit ourselves no matter how much provocation…. hurt… bitterness or anger. ” Quite a bit of similarity between this quote and a couple of the themes William’s expresses in his play. Once again the idea that peace and love prevail over provocation and sullenness, but also the stress McAleese gives into “to renew and recommit.” Blanche’s shadowy past says that she once loved a young boy, and in this novel she seems to fall for Stanley’s co-worker Mitch. I couldn’t help but admire the diction the author uses in scenes with Blanche and Mitch. It seemed to express that Blanche was making an attempt to fashion a whole new side of her, despite the somber past Stanley is trying to dig out of her. Whatever happened with Belle Reve and the death of this “young boy,” Blanche sees Mitch as her escape ride from it, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out, assuming I don’t already know the ending. However after plunging into this story for the second time, by scene seven it is still not clear who is the protagonist or antagonist. Perhaps this is the special skill Tennessee Williams is trying to create with this play, because in my honest opinion it can go anyway with who has good intentions, who are faking, and what’s going to happen. Otherwise can this be a book that doesn’t follow that mainstream plot data?
This summer in Europe, an Irish friend of mine passed on a quote to me that their president Mary McAleese had stated in speech: “This child who talks about scattering the seeds of peace over our land has told us…. to renew and recommit ourselves no matter how much provocation…. hurt… bitterness or anger. ” Quite a bit of similarity between this quote and a couple of the themes William’s expresses in his play. Once again the idea that peace and love prevail over provocation and sullenness, but also the stress McAleese gives into “to renew and recommit.” Blanche’s shadowy past says that she once loved a young boy, and in this novel she seems to fall for Stanley’s co-worker Mitch. I couldn’t help but admire the diction the author uses in scenes with Blanche and Mitch. It seemed to express that Blanche was making an attempt to fashion a whole new side of her, despite the somber past Stanley is trying to dig out of her. Whatever happened with Belle Reve and the death of this “young boy,” Blanche sees Mitch as her escape ride from it, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out, assuming I don’t already know the ending. However after plunging into this story for the second time, by scene seven it is still not clear who is the protagonist or antagonist. Perhaps this is the special skill Tennessee Williams is trying to create with this play, because in my honest opinion it can go anyway with who has good intentions, who are faking, and what’s going to happen. Otherwise can this be a book that doesn’t follow that mainstream plot data?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Summer Reading assignment: Journal #1 A Streetcar Named Desire -- Fred
As I launched into Tennessee William’s A Streetcar Named Desire for the second time, a shade of reluctance followed as I remembered it not being one of my preferences, in 11th grade English. However, blinding this with a bit of optimism, quite a few of my original opinions on the play soon spaced out as the pages turned through the first two scenes. For one, I took notice in how at the very beginning of the play, the New Orleans setting and the small dialogue between Stella and Stanley gives a jubilant tone to the book, as the couple seem happy going bowling together. Yet the minute Blanche Dubois is introduced, my whole impression of the New Orleans scenery is given another angle, as Blanche’s manner gives the Kowalski residence a cluttered, almost disgusting description, comparing it to horror poet, Edgar Allen Poe on page 20. Poe’s poem The Raven describes, an “ebony bird” in a gruesome situation but still remains, which I couldn’t help but run this parallel to Blanche’s attitude and acceptance of her sister’s room.
As her pestering behavior continued to grasp my attention, Blanche’s character in these scenes also made me realize that she most likely will be the center of whatever conflict this novel has in store. Like on page 26, she begins to attack her sister with guilt on abandonment of their home in Mississippi. (Belle Reve) This was conceivably my favorite part of the first two scenes because in humor, it reminded me of the song Put the Blame on Me- by Akon. I have no idea why, but perhaps due to the New Orleans setting’s famous link to my style music, notably Lil Wayne and Akon. Nevertheless as this guilt trip seems to corner Stella, another detail this book notified me with was that Stanley foils Blanche completely. Stanley’s rough, unsophisticated, yet sharp behavior is exactly the opposite of what I make of Blanche this early in the play. Generally, if I had not already read the book, I would be inclined to make a prediction that Blanche eventually falls for Stanley by the end, since everyone knows, opposites attract. I also enjoyed Stanley’s reference to the Napoleonic Code, a premature Marxist idea that everything that belongs to the wife also becomes the burden of the husband, including the little conflicts Blanche has dragged with her to New Orleans.. It showed me he is a man that is always on the lookout for conmen or fake people and is not likely to get dragged into whatever Blanche is hiding. However, this early in the play I still question who exactly is the protagonist, as well as the antagonist of this play, as Williams fails to make that clear this early on. Also I can’t seem to obtain any legitimacy on this young boy Blanche seems to talk about having once loved. Was she truly married?
As her pestering behavior continued to grasp my attention, Blanche’s character in these scenes also made me realize that she most likely will be the center of whatever conflict this novel has in store. Like on page 26, she begins to attack her sister with guilt on abandonment of their home in Mississippi. (Belle Reve) This was conceivably my favorite part of the first two scenes because in humor, it reminded me of the song Put the Blame on Me- by Akon. I have no idea why, but perhaps due to the New Orleans setting’s famous link to my style music, notably Lil Wayne and Akon. Nevertheless as this guilt trip seems to corner Stella, another detail this book notified me with was that Stanley foils Blanche completely. Stanley’s rough, unsophisticated, yet sharp behavior is exactly the opposite of what I make of Blanche this early in the play. Generally, if I had not already read the book, I would be inclined to make a prediction that Blanche eventually falls for Stanley by the end, since everyone knows, opposites attract. I also enjoyed Stanley’s reference to the Napoleonic Code, a premature Marxist idea that everything that belongs to the wife also becomes the burden of the husband, including the little conflicts Blanche has dragged with her to New Orleans.. It showed me he is a man that is always on the lookout for conmen or fake people and is not likely to get dragged into whatever Blanche is hiding. However, this early in the play I still question who exactly is the protagonist, as well as the antagonist of this play, as Williams fails to make that clear this early on. Also I can’t seem to obtain any legitimacy on this young boy Blanche seems to talk about having once loved. Was she truly married?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
