As part two of Crime and Punishment comes to an end, Raskolnikov still cannot forget his doing. He continues walking down the path of unavoidable guilt. He wishes to redeem himself through the act of compassion and human affection. When Raskolnikov finds Marmaledov in the streets after getting run over by a carriage, Raskolnikov carries Marmaledov home, where he dies. To further alleviate his growing guilt, Raskolnikov gives Marmaledov’s family the 20 rubles he received from his mother. Other than helping out a devastated family, he wanted to ease his guilt by committing good deeds, believing that these kinds of acts can help him forget his sins. On the 1st impression, Raskolnikov was a cold-hearted person; however, as the book progresses, readers see that his biggest obstacle is his capricious behavior. When he almost confesses his crimes to Zamyotov through impulsive action shows that Raskolnikov has yet to overcome himself.
Dostoevsky shows us the compassionate side of Raskolnikov and helping Marmaledov’s family is the first step towards redemption.
posted by John I.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Raskolnikov's Relationships
Raskolnikov was a poor student in college and did not have many friends. One of his few circles of friends is RAZ, who is still attending college. Razumikhin is described as a warm and outgoing person. Readers soon find out that Raskolnikov could not attend the university anymore because of his impoverished state.
In the first few chapters of the book, Raskolnikov is giving money away as if he were rich; he gives Marmaledov’s family some money out of pity for them, three kopecks to Natasya for bringing him tea soup, and a letter from his mother, and twenty kopecks to the policemen after encountering a teenage girl that was getting harassed by a man. Raskolnikov is the type that usually watches his money very closely but he gives money to people he deems needy. This shows Raskolnikov isn’t really a cold-hearted person. After reading the letter, I learned that Raskolnikov mother seems to care more for his well-being then her own daughter, Dunya. She’s even willing to sacrifice Dunya to ensure deems needy happiness. Even though Dunya doesn’t mind sacrificing her future by being engaged to someone she hardly knows. I can’t wait to find out how this engagement unfolds. Will Raskolnikov's family and Razumikhin be his downfall?
posted by John I.
In the first few chapters of the book, Raskolnikov is giving money away as if he were rich; he gives Marmaledov’s family some money out of pity for them, three kopecks to Natasya for bringing him tea soup, and a letter from his mother, and twenty kopecks to the policemen after encountering a teenage girl that was getting harassed by a man. Raskolnikov is the type that usually watches his money very closely but he gives money to people he deems needy. This shows Raskolnikov isn’t really a cold-hearted person. After reading the letter, I learned that Raskolnikov mother seems to care more for his well-being then her own daughter, Dunya. She’s even willing to sacrifice Dunya to ensure deems needy happiness. Even though Dunya doesn’t mind sacrificing her future by being engaged to someone she hardly knows. I can’t wait to find out how this engagement unfolds. Will Raskolnikov's family and Razumikhin be his downfall?
posted by John I.
Predictions
Upon reaching the midway point of the novel, I have some predictions of how the story will continue. First, to recap the main points of what has happened: Raskolnikov has killed not only the feeble pawnbroker, but also her sister. Thoroughly shocked by his unexpected second murder, he narrowly escapes without being seen. The next day Raskolnikov is summoned to the police station, not for murder charges, but for being in debt to his landlady. However, at the station, he meets some people who get suspicious of him. After leaving the station, he wanders to his old friend Razumikhin’s house. He doesn’t stay long but enough to get Razumikhin interested in Raskolnikov’s life again… By now, the mere mention of the murders of the pawnbroker and her sister cause Raskolnikov to be agitated, or at most, faint. At the Porfiry’s house, Raskolnikov’s nervousness about the murder case is evident making him a suspect in Porfiry’s and Zamyotov’s eyes.
Based on the information presented so far, I believe that Dunya isn’t going to marry Luzhin. Razumikhin, although trying to deny his feelings for her, is going to interfere in the relationship. Within days of meeting her, he has already tried to get the doctor to fall in love with the landlady to eliminate him as competition. Also, I don’t think that Svidrigailov is completely out of the novel yet. Too much time was spent on that story to leave him wallowing in self pity back home. Whether or not a man vies for Dunya’s hand, Raskolnikov is obsessed with exposing Luzhin as a fraud and stopping the wedding himself.
Raskolnikov and Razumikhin seem to have gotten closer from the time they first met again. I think if there is anyone that Raskolnikov might confess to it’s him. In the second half of the novel, Raskolnikov is going to be overcome by guilt and the suspicion everyone has towards him. If he doesn’t trust Razumikhin, he might go insane having to keep the secret. This may be the start of his descent into paranoia, hallucinations, overanalyzing details and most of all, distrust of everyone.
posted by Kayla H.
Based on the information presented so far, I believe that Dunya isn’t going to marry Luzhin. Razumikhin, although trying to deny his feelings for her, is going to interfere in the relationship. Within days of meeting her, he has already tried to get the doctor to fall in love with the landlady to eliminate him as competition. Also, I don’t think that Svidrigailov is completely out of the novel yet. Too much time was spent on that story to leave him wallowing in self pity back home. Whether or not a man vies for Dunya’s hand, Raskolnikov is obsessed with exposing Luzhin as a fraud and stopping the wedding himself.
Raskolnikov and Razumikhin seem to have gotten closer from the time they first met again. I think if there is anyone that Raskolnikov might confess to it’s him. In the second half of the novel, Raskolnikov is going to be overcome by guilt and the suspicion everyone has towards him. If he doesn’t trust Razumikhin, he might go insane having to keep the secret. This may be the start of his descent into paranoia, hallucinations, overanalyzing details and most of all, distrust of everyone.
posted by Kayla H.
Concluding Heart of Darkness
In essence, the conclusion to Heart Of Darkness was this:
Marlow went back to Europe, and is again overcome with the feeling that he cannot relate to those around him. He gives Kurtz’ report to the “The Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs,” and the letters to Kurtz’ “intended” (fiancé?). He meets her a full year after Kurtz’ passing, and she is still in mourning. He dutifully delivers the letters and portrait, and he accidentally blurted out that he was with Kurtz during his final moments. She asks what his last words were, and he said they were her name, rather than tell her the disturbingly vague declaration that he actually made. She was satisfied with his answer, however, saying that it was something that he would say. She remembered him as a great man, but Marlow didn’t tell her the frail man that he had been reduced to. He felt disgusted with himself for lying, but failed to stop himself.Throughout the novel, you get to know the evil that is masked by civilization. The nameless narrator on board the Nellie continues narrating and speaks of the tide and the overcast, and how it lead into “…the heart of an immense darkness.”I was pleased with the ending, but I thought that it could have been better. I sort of felt robbed of a plot, since the entire story was a story being told by a nameless character, but I was satisfied with the significance of it all.
posted by Devon V
Marlow went back to Europe, and is again overcome with the feeling that he cannot relate to those around him. He gives Kurtz’ report to the “The Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs,” and the letters to Kurtz’ “intended” (fiancé?). He meets her a full year after Kurtz’ passing, and she is still in mourning. He dutifully delivers the letters and portrait, and he accidentally blurted out that he was with Kurtz during his final moments. She asks what his last words were, and he said they were her name, rather than tell her the disturbingly vague declaration that he actually made. She was satisfied with his answer, however, saying that it was something that he would say. She remembered him as a great man, but Marlow didn’t tell her the frail man that he had been reduced to. He felt disgusted with himself for lying, but failed to stop himself.Throughout the novel, you get to know the evil that is masked by civilization. The nameless narrator on board the Nellie continues narrating and speaks of the tide and the overcast, and how it lead into “…the heart of an immense darkness.”I was pleased with the ending, but I thought that it could have been better. I sort of felt robbed of a plot, since the entire story was a story being told by a nameless character, but I was satisfied with the significance of it all.
posted by Devon V
The Taming of the Wild Side
In the “Heart of Darkness”, Joseph Conrad explores two extremes of the human soul, which are barbarianism and civilization. Barbarianism is represented by Kurtz, who rejects the rules of conducting ivory trade, and has his own methods to get what he wants. Which in turn causes him to become a sort of wild man, when compared to the rest of the ivory traders. Civilization is represented by the ivory traders, who hold their heads up high, follow the moral code that Kurtz strongly rejects, and don’t give second thought to the natives, whose resources they are abusing.
Throughout the novel these two extremes are battling with each other, until finally Kurtz’s dramatic death brings the conflict to a close. As Kurtz represented barbarianism, then his death would also bring about the oblivion of that extreme. During a time when imperialism was trying to teach the natives civilization and Christianity, civilization began to spread to the farthest reaches of the world. So it is only reasonable to say that Kurtz’s long fight against illness would represent the savage nature of the human soul slowly dying away, and with Kurtz’s death came the oblivion of this one extreme. With Kurtz’s death, the ivory traders continued to handle their business without any intervention from him.
posted be Eddie D.
Throughout the novel these two extremes are battling with each other, until finally Kurtz’s dramatic death brings the conflict to a close. As Kurtz represented barbarianism, then his death would also bring about the oblivion of that extreme. During a time when imperialism was trying to teach the natives civilization and Christianity, civilization began to spread to the farthest reaches of the world. So it is only reasonable to say that Kurtz’s long fight against illness would represent the savage nature of the human soul slowly dying away, and with Kurtz’s death came the oblivion of this one extreme. With Kurtz’s death, the ivory traders continued to handle their business without any intervention from him.
posted be Eddie D.
Final Thoughts on Heart of Darkness
After reading “Heart of Darkness” I found myself utterly frustrated with the writing style that Joseph Conrad used to get his message across. Sometimes when trying to find the underlying message of the story, I would find myself incredibly lost and needed to read back in-order to find out what exactly I missed. However while I found the writing incredibly complex, I thought that the story, and the message of “heart of darkness” were very deep, and thoughtful.
For example I saw the book as more of a “stop abusing the natives of Africa” book, instead of a racist one. Yes the way that the natives were portrayed in the story made them look idiotic, but at the time the book was written, that’s what people thought of them as.
Rather by showing the natives as innocent pawns of imperialism, it raises a sort of sympathy for the natives in the reader.
I also saw “Heart of Darkness” as a very anti-imperialism novel. It shows the ivory traders who represent the spreading ideal of civilization, as snobby, condescending men who abuse the natives to get what they want, yet they don’t give them a second thought afterwards. This shows that while civilization is regarded as an orderly, and maybe even advanced ideal, the fact is that during the time Conrad wrote his novel, civilization had become more of a plague for the African natives, rather than a helpful resource for them.
Also the ending of the book showed that Conrad believed that with the growth of civilization, came the death of barbarianism. Kurtz who is the representation of the savage “dark” part of the soul is always at conflict with the ivory traders, and especially the ship captain who plans to bring about Kurtz’s downfall. As the traders journey deeper and deeper into the jungle, Kurtz gets weaker and soon enough he has no way of fighting his illness, and dies. This proves that as civilization began to spread farther into Africa, the freedom and chaos of barbarianism began to shrivel away.
posted by Eddie D.
For example I saw the book as more of a “stop abusing the natives of Africa” book, instead of a racist one. Yes the way that the natives were portrayed in the story made them look idiotic, but at the time the book was written, that’s what people thought of them as.
Rather by showing the natives as innocent pawns of imperialism, it raises a sort of sympathy for the natives in the reader.
I also saw “Heart of Darkness” as a very anti-imperialism novel. It shows the ivory traders who represent the spreading ideal of civilization, as snobby, condescending men who abuse the natives to get what they want, yet they don’t give them a second thought afterwards. This shows that while civilization is regarded as an orderly, and maybe even advanced ideal, the fact is that during the time Conrad wrote his novel, civilization had become more of a plague for the African natives, rather than a helpful resource for them.
Also the ending of the book showed that Conrad believed that with the growth of civilization, came the death of barbarianism. Kurtz who is the representation of the savage “dark” part of the soul is always at conflict with the ivory traders, and especially the ship captain who plans to bring about Kurtz’s downfall. As the traders journey deeper and deeper into the jungle, Kurtz gets weaker and soon enough he has no way of fighting his illness, and dies. This proves that as civilization began to spread farther into Africa, the freedom and chaos of barbarianism began to shrivel away.
posted by Eddie D.
Conscience as Adversary
At the beginning of Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky doesn’t mention the protagonist’s name, making the novel more intense. As we continue reading, we discover that the character's name is Raskolnikov, an isolated young man who is full of scorn and contempt. We soon find out that most of the novel takes place in Raskolnikov’s mind, how he’s contemplating a crime in his head. He is debating to himself whether or not he should commit the crime. He makes his decision by focusing on Alyona Ivanovna’s loathsome qualities. Chapter VI of part I shows how Raskolnikov first develops the idea of killing the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna. Raskolnikov develops a strong hatred and contempt the first time he sees her. As I continue reading eagerly, I wonder how Raskolnikov can possibly muster the courage to commit the crime. The way Raskolnikov executes the crime is not like an experienced mastermind, in fact, he almost gets caught in the act.
I believe Raskolnikov's conscience is his main adversary in this novel. The way he commits the crime seems as if he wants to get caught. I can’t wait to see how Raskolnikov will receive his punishment.
posted by John I.
I believe Raskolnikov's conscience is his main adversary in this novel. The way he commits the crime seems as if he wants to get caught. I can’t wait to see how Raskolnikov will receive his punishment.
posted by John I.
Intentions
Joseph Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness” explores certain aspects of the human soul by using characters such as Kurtz, and the ivory traders to represent this. Two specific aspects are the free, yet savage extreme of barbarianism which is represented by Kurtz, and the moral yet condescending civilization which is represented by the ivory traders. Kurtz’s years in the Congo had led him to ignore the moral conduct that had been followed by the ivory traders that have come down to the Congo to do business. He has taken a liberty to show off his advanced technology in order to make the natives believe that he is one of their charismatic demigod. Kurtz represents the freedom of savagery because he follows his own methods to get what he wants. He has long since rejected what was considered normal business practices, and as a result has turned into a representation of what imperialism sought to control.
The ivory traders on the other hand follow the code of conduct very strictly. They focus on making money, and look down at the natives who they are oppressing. They think of Kurtz as a man who once was capable of great things, yet as his health began to fail him he became nothing more then a unimpressive has-been. The traders represent the “light of civilization” as opposed to the “Darkness of Savagery” that Kurtz represents.
These two extremes exist in the human soul, and Conrad’s intention was to explore the two them in-depth. The freedom that savagery and barbarianism represent also comes with the loss of control of impulses. However on the other side of the spectrum, the rules and moral conducts that keep civilization under control, gives a false sense of advancement, and superiority. Marlow, who is caught in the middle of these two conflicting forces represents the average person who within this internal battle is waging.
posted by Eddie D.
The ivory traders on the other hand follow the code of conduct very strictly. They focus on making money, and look down at the natives who they are oppressing. They think of Kurtz as a man who once was capable of great things, yet as his health began to fail him he became nothing more then a unimpressive has-been. The traders represent the “light of civilization” as opposed to the “Darkness of Savagery” that Kurtz represents.
These two extremes exist in the human soul, and Conrad’s intention was to explore the two them in-depth. The freedom that savagery and barbarianism represent also comes with the loss of control of impulses. However on the other side of the spectrum, the rules and moral conducts that keep civilization under control, gives a false sense of advancement, and superiority. Marlow, who is caught in the middle of these two conflicting forces represents the average person who within this internal battle is waging.
posted by Eddie D.
Irony
I found this book to be quite hilarious. So many people died in vain. I believed Dunya was right in accusing Svid of killing his wife. Svid felt sort of obligated to his wife after she bailed him out of jail. He also probably wanted her to be dead before she and Dunya realized he was the bad one because he loved Dunya over his wife, and Dunya didn't want anything to do with him. However, after her death Svid did the same thing to Dunya as his wife did to him which was make him feel obligated to be with her. First he tried to bribe Dunya and then he tried to blackmail her and when that failed he killed himself for not only being a horrible person for falling in love with someone other than his wife but for also becoming the person he secretly hated. Meanwhile Rask finally realized he had done something wrong and contemplated suicide. However after hearing that Svid had killed himself he thought he couldn't do it because he was better than Svid and therefore could not degrade himself by doing the same thing Svid had done. In the end Rask feels sad and confesses but still feels right in a way. He feels that if he had killed Alyona only and gotten away with it he would've been justified but since he killed an innocent person (Lizaveta) he has to be redeemed. So in the end he kills Alyona for his "heroism" to be recognized and applauded because he was the only one with enough guts to finally kill Alyona. Yet he was actually condemned for what he had done.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Role Reversals
In Part Three of Heart of Darkness, a very confusing and contradictory moment takes place while Marlow is traveling to see Kurtz. The roles of cannibal and pilgrim seemed to be reversed creating a strange atmosphere. The pilgrims aboard the ship are rough men, and the “cannibals” are quiet and behaved. This switching of stereotypes leads one to believe which group really needs the civilizing. Another stranger scene is when Marlow’s helmsman gets struck by an arrow during the attack of the ship. Marlow watches him die and instead of showing any emotion to this loss, he takes his socks and shoes off because of the blood. I can really see underlying darkness laid out in the story.
posted by Christina R.
posted by Christina R.
The Tormented Criminal
I now realize that even though Rask stole some jewelry and things from Alyona that it wasn't only greed that led Rask to kill the woman. I thought that Rask was driven by greed because he was going to kill her for money but now I see he was driven by greed and madness. His Plans were so intricate that it revealed how sick he really was. He didn't even think about getting caught or repercussions until after the fact. He did take some jewelry but no money which shows he really did think he was doing the world a favor by killing Alyona, and by taking her jewelry he was doing himself a favor as well. However, now he feels guilty and he didn't just kill Alyona he killed Lizaveta too. He didn't want to kill Lizaveta but in order to really save himself from getting caught he had to. Throughout the rest of the book though he feels remorse but also tries to validate her death almost like he had a split personality. He's tormented but also feels it was the right thing to do and he still feels sort of like a hero because he rid the world of such a vile person. On the contrary however he can't tell anyone he did the crime so he's tormented by the fact that he can't get recognition for his "heroism" either.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Reaching out to Marlow
Heart of Darkness is very vague, yet full of detailed wordy paragraphs. One part that had me scratching my head is the moment before Kurtz dies. Kurtz suddenly yells out in a pained voice, “The Horror, The horror”! I wasn’t quite sure what it meant, but it sounded so profound that I felt there had to be some meaning in it. It dawned on me that Kurtz was reaching out to Marlow in his last moments and “the horror!” , fit perfectly with that. The horror of colonization! , the horror of death.
posted by Christina R.
posted by Christina R.
Greed vs. Madness
While reading Crime And Punishment I've kept the thoughts of Edgar Allen Poe in the back of my mind. I'm still trying to make a connection between the two. Right now I'm up to the part of the book where Rask is going to kill Alyona Ivanovna. I think since overhearing the officer and student's conversation at the other table next to him, Rask's decision to kill Alyona is based more on greed than anything else. He is also using the theories that he is killing someone horrible as validation. I think he's really killing her just to get all her money and because she was evil and mean to him in the beginning so this would be the perfect payback. In " A tell Tale Heart" however the character was driven by madness because after he killed the man due to his own craziness, he didn't steal from him and he felt remorse. I think Rask is going to be different though and steal the woman's money and not feel any remorse because he will trick himself into believing it was the right thing to do.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Long-Term Effects
In the beginning of Heart of Darkness , Marlow is examined by a doctor who studies a man’s head before travels to study the effects of the head afterwards. Well the effects are more internal then physical. Marlow returns to the Brussels a different person. Sure he survives his illness, but he barely survived the experience, a darkness that will remain with him.
I felt that although Heart of Darkness was a great story, it was a little dull at times. Some things were very difficult to comprehend at first glance. And at times I found myself zoning out while reading, which caused me to have to reread passages. It took me some time to read Heart of Darkness because of the wordiness of Conrad’s writing style. However one thing I was able to feel through the book was the always present darkness. There’s a couple of the things I’m still fuzzy on, but I’m looking forward to discussing all of it in class.
posted by Christina R.
I felt that although Heart of Darkness was a great story, it was a little dull at times. Some things were very difficult to comprehend at first glance. And at times I found myself zoning out while reading, which caused me to have to reread passages. It took me some time to read Heart of Darkness because of the wordiness of Conrad’s writing style. However one thing I was able to feel through the book was the always present darkness. There’s a couple of the things I’m still fuzzy on, but I’m looking forward to discussing all of it in class.
posted by Christina R.
Pre-Reading for Crime and Punishment
The back of the book says the book is a murder story narrated by the murder. My first thoughts are that the book is going to be similar to Edgar Allen Poe's " A Tell Tale Heart". In which case the narrator will be jumpy, eager and will act guilty and suspicious. I think Raskolnikov will end up ratting himself out in the end as well. However, no book ever turns out the way you think it will. I think the end will also have a shocking twist and it would have all been some weird trick just like in the book Bodega Dreams by Ernesto Quinonez. Since at the end no one knew the truth besides one person. Does anyone else share these feelings?
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Christianity in Crime and Punishment
While reading Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, I noticed that Christianity plays quite a role in the actual novel. Of course murder, revenge, prostitution, as well as other themes pertaining to this novel aren’t exactly reflections of typical Christian beliefs. There were however many instances where faith, suffering and redemption were present. These occasions show that the underlying theme of Crime and Punishment is one of Christianity. The references to Lazarus, New Jerusalem and the constant presence of suffering prove that the novel has biblical meaning. One prime example was before Rodion’s confession, his visit to Sonya towards the end of my reading. Sonya gives Rodion a cross, a symbol of Jesus' sacrifice for the sins of humanity. After receiving the cross Rodion tells Sonya that he isn’t with sin and that he isn’t one of the best examples really of Christianity. Yet in reality the cross didn’t symbolize redemption or his new profound faith, no it more or less signified the first steps to his rebirth. Sonya bestowing Rodion with the cross symbolized her role as the Christ like figure in Crime and Punishment, enforcing that although Rodion stepped away from the word of God, he became God’s son once more and thanks so Sonya, gained salvation. By kissing the ground before his confession, Rodion placed an exclamation mark on the theory of his rebirth, since by doing so he showed humility and acceptance to his fate.
posted by Oscar P.
posted by Oscar P.
Ubermensch
"One death, and a thousand lives in exchange--it's simple arithmetic." -Raskolnikov
Raskolnikov, throughout the course of three months, had created a collection of his own thoughts on crime and punishment in an article entitled "On Crime." Porfiry, who is investigating a murder and feels Rodion is perhaps the culprit, has discovered this, read the piece, and tells Raskolnikov that he is very interested in learning about his ideas. Porfiry sparks a conversation with Raskolnikov on his ideology, primarily however to find out more about Raskolnikov's possible involvement in the crime and Rodion discusses his philosophy of man, Ubermensch.
Ubermensch is the belief held by Rodion that the human race is divided into two classes. The "ordinary" and the "extraordinary". The ordinary's vocation is to be obsequious to that of the "extraordinary", since based on Ubermensch they are riffraff. The "extraordinary" are much more above the normal man. They have the ability to transgress frivolous laws since they are the salvation, the future. Rodion tells of Newton, Mahomet, Napoleon, all being "extraordinary." According to Rodion under Ubermensch, Newtown if needed could've used the "ordinary" as genuine pigs to test his theories of gravity. "The first class of people preserve world, the second move the world and lead it to its goal." Despite the obvious superiority that the extraordinary people are afforded, Raskolnikov maintains that both classes have an equal right to exist. However without the "extraordinary" without their adeptness and moral responsibility to overstep the bounds of society at certain times, the world would have never progressed to where it is currently. The most brutal of men would still be standing on empty field trying to find new ways of attaining nourishment. If one had not transgressed traditional ideologies and made an innovation then, the human race would still pertain to that very same brute, on that very same field. Without innovation and efforts to survive, the human race as we know it would be dead, we live in an ever changing world and were going to need those "extraordinary" men to help us move along with the times, help us adapt to all the changes, no matter the situation. The fact is that Rodion's theory is somewhat correct. There are different people each of whom make earth shattering changes and others who just wait for their time to come, occupying space really. I feel that Rodion based this ideology on the benefit of mankind, although he did phrase it a very disturbing fashion and often times it seemed to serve as an excuse to defend his killings, whether for the benefit of mankind. The quote "the ends justify the means" comes to mind, as long is it's beneficial to the human race then everything will be forgiven, that to me is the heart, the true intentions if you will of Ubermensch.
The pawnbroker Rodion murdered under Ubermensch is somewhat justifiable. The wealthy pawnbroker, truth be known, was sadistic as well as crude, somewhat evil. Under Ubermensch an "extraordinary" is morally obligated to remove the "louse" for the overall benefit of humanity. Rodion taking her wealth for his own benefits is also justifiable since being that he is an "extraordinary" his goal is ultimately to help humanity, thus if he uses the money for his education to aid him in his very goal in the long run it would serve to be beneficial. The ideology as Porfiry had mentioned has base, it is Rodion who must carry it out on a morally correct fashion and not use it as justifiable reason to commit murder on just about anyone.
posted by Oscar P.
Raskolnikov, throughout the course of three months, had created a collection of his own thoughts on crime and punishment in an article entitled "On Crime." Porfiry, who is investigating a murder and feels Rodion is perhaps the culprit, has discovered this, read the piece, and tells Raskolnikov that he is very interested in learning about his ideas. Porfiry sparks a conversation with Raskolnikov on his ideology, primarily however to find out more about Raskolnikov's possible involvement in the crime and Rodion discusses his philosophy of man, Ubermensch.
Ubermensch is the belief held by Rodion that the human race is divided into two classes. The "ordinary" and the "extraordinary". The ordinary's vocation is to be obsequious to that of the "extraordinary", since based on Ubermensch they are riffraff. The "extraordinary" are much more above the normal man. They have the ability to transgress frivolous laws since they are the salvation, the future. Rodion tells of Newton, Mahomet, Napoleon, all being "extraordinary." According to Rodion under Ubermensch, Newtown if needed could've used the "ordinary" as genuine pigs to test his theories of gravity. "The first class of people preserve world, the second move the world and lead it to its goal." Despite the obvious superiority that the extraordinary people are afforded, Raskolnikov maintains that both classes have an equal right to exist. However without the "extraordinary" without their adeptness and moral responsibility to overstep the bounds of society at certain times, the world would have never progressed to where it is currently. The most brutal of men would still be standing on empty field trying to find new ways of attaining nourishment. If one had not transgressed traditional ideologies and made an innovation then, the human race would still pertain to that very same brute, on that very same field. Without innovation and efforts to survive, the human race as we know it would be dead, we live in an ever changing world and were going to need those "extraordinary" men to help us move along with the times, help us adapt to all the changes, no matter the situation. The fact is that Rodion's theory is somewhat correct. There are different people each of whom make earth shattering changes and others who just wait for their time to come, occupying space really. I feel that Rodion based this ideology on the benefit of mankind, although he did phrase it a very disturbing fashion and often times it seemed to serve as an excuse to defend his killings, whether for the benefit of mankind. The quote "the ends justify the means" comes to mind, as long is it's beneficial to the human race then everything will be forgiven, that to me is the heart, the true intentions if you will of Ubermensch.
The pawnbroker Rodion murdered under Ubermensch is somewhat justifiable. The wealthy pawnbroker, truth be known, was sadistic as well as crude, somewhat evil. Under Ubermensch an "extraordinary" is morally obligated to remove the "louse" for the overall benefit of humanity. Rodion taking her wealth for his own benefits is also justifiable since being that he is an "extraordinary" his goal is ultimately to help humanity, thus if he uses the money for his education to aid him in his very goal in the long run it would serve to be beneficial. The ideology as Porfiry had mentioned has base, it is Rodion who must carry it out on a morally correct fashion and not use it as justifiable reason to commit murder on just about anyone.
posted by Oscar P.
Shades of Rodion: Sonya, Porfiry & Arkady
Rodion himself harbors dual personalities and both are very easily distinguishable by their traits (in my opinion). One can presume that Dostoevsky, to serve as a better understanding on how distinct each personality is, established three characters each with separate mirror images of Rodion. Two of these characters are truly incomparable and in my opinion incredibly similar to Doctor Jekyll and Hyde from The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde written by the legendary Robert Louis Stevenson, as well as an additional character which to me is the perfect blend, having the best attributes of each.
One is Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov, the epitome of purity and innocence, the compassionate and awfully humble love interest of our main protagonist, the seemingly bi-polar Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov. Sonya throughout the novel represents the softer side of Rodion, the humane, charitable, very meek and sensitive Rodion who throughout the entire novel, one tends to see, makes quick rare appearances. Sonya's role was to help Rodion recover that amiable side to him, since she is somewhat his conscience. Many times throughout the novel she is thought to be "the suffering of all humanity" yet through all of her trials and tribulations she still maintains this glimmer of hope, that incredible faith, something which you can feel that Rodion still has. Yet in reality she was more or less Rodion's confidant or muse, since she didn’t try and reform Rodion though action and blatant advice, she inspires him to change, she was someone he could trust with his feelings. Little by little she broke down that wall and forced him to drop all those shields he had and bring forth that softer side of Rodion, similar to Sonya herself, the meek very weak Rodion as well as other feeble human emotions he so desperately wants to avoid all together.
Arkady Skidrigailov is the apathetic very cold self-willed intellectual, someone who feels no remorse, no compassion, a real sinner in all definitions of the word. Arkady represents in my opinion the reflection of who Rodion has become as well as his future if he continuous this path of self destruction. Inevitably because of his lack of compassion and his scandalous very impious behavior, past as well as present, he cannot attain the love of one named Dunya, sister of Rodion, whom he has become so attached to. Though both were so incomparable to begin with in terms of their definition of morality. Realizing Dunya will probably never return his affection the coward takes his life, since he wasn't too keen on the idea of being alone with his wife’s passing and all, even though he was already making advances to Dunya while married to her and denied it when caught. Yet again he is the reflection of what’s to become of Rodion.
Porfiry Petrovitch is a criminal investigator who I believe serves as the reflection of the perfect mesh of Rodion's two personalities. Porfiry's purpose was to bring Rodion to equilibrium of the compassionate, strong willed and clear minded intellectual. Porfiry sees immense potential in Rodion, He feels if Rodion would just hone in his potential for something beneficial instead of ignorant and without morality he would bring great success to Russia. Though one knows that although being compassionate as well as charitable are good qualities, one still needs a self-willed very detached attribute to one self to succeed in this cut throat world as well as survive, but one must be able to know when to turn on the switch. In reality we all have duel personalities, which is what Dostoevsky was trying to convey through Rodion.
posted by Oscar P.
One is Sonya Semyonovna Marmeladov, the epitome of purity and innocence, the compassionate and awfully humble love interest of our main protagonist, the seemingly bi-polar Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov. Sonya throughout the novel represents the softer side of Rodion, the humane, charitable, very meek and sensitive Rodion who throughout the entire novel, one tends to see, makes quick rare appearances. Sonya's role was to help Rodion recover that amiable side to him, since she is somewhat his conscience. Many times throughout the novel she is thought to be "the suffering of all humanity" yet through all of her trials and tribulations she still maintains this glimmer of hope, that incredible faith, something which you can feel that Rodion still has. Yet in reality she was more or less Rodion's confidant or muse, since she didn’t try and reform Rodion though action and blatant advice, she inspires him to change, she was someone he could trust with his feelings. Little by little she broke down that wall and forced him to drop all those shields he had and bring forth that softer side of Rodion, similar to Sonya herself, the meek very weak Rodion as well as other feeble human emotions he so desperately wants to avoid all together.
Arkady Skidrigailov is the apathetic very cold self-willed intellectual, someone who feels no remorse, no compassion, a real sinner in all definitions of the word. Arkady represents in my opinion the reflection of who Rodion has become as well as his future if he continuous this path of self destruction. Inevitably because of his lack of compassion and his scandalous very impious behavior, past as well as present, he cannot attain the love of one named Dunya, sister of Rodion, whom he has become so attached to. Though both were so incomparable to begin with in terms of their definition of morality. Realizing Dunya will probably never return his affection the coward takes his life, since he wasn't too keen on the idea of being alone with his wife’s passing and all, even though he was already making advances to Dunya while married to her and denied it when caught. Yet again he is the reflection of what’s to become of Rodion.
Porfiry Petrovitch is a criminal investigator who I believe serves as the reflection of the perfect mesh of Rodion's two personalities. Porfiry's purpose was to bring Rodion to equilibrium of the compassionate, strong willed and clear minded intellectual. Porfiry sees immense potential in Rodion, He feels if Rodion would just hone in his potential for something beneficial instead of ignorant and without morality he would bring great success to Russia. Though one knows that although being compassionate as well as charitable are good qualities, one still needs a self-willed very detached attribute to one self to succeed in this cut throat world as well as survive, but one must be able to know when to turn on the switch. In reality we all have duel personalities, which is what Dostoevsky was trying to convey through Rodion.
posted by Oscar P.
The Punishment, and the Justification for murder
In the epilogue of “Crime and Punishment” Radion Ramanovich Raskolnikov confesses to his crime of killing the old pawnbroker and her sister. However this is not the punishment that is referred to in the title of the story. Rather it is his strong feeling of guilt, lack of conviction, and ultimately the realization that he is a scoundrel, and not one of the few extraordinary men that he thought himself to be. In the beginning of the novel, Raskolnikov has a theory that in a world full of ordinary people, there are an extraordinary few who rise up, and achieve greatness. Therefore they are able to go against the moral code that affects the ordinary due to their impending destiny. Raskolnikov uses this as one of his justifications for murdering the pawnbroker. He thought that because he himself is one of the few extraordinary, then he can get through feeling guilty for his actions. He also believed that by killing the pawnbroker there would be one less evil in the world, and he was in fact committing a crime for the common good. However by the end of the novel, Raskolnikov realizes that he, not the pawnbroker, is the true evil and that he is not one of the extraordinary people that he once thought he was. Once he was able to accept this ego bruiser and confess to his crime, then his mental rehabilitation could begin.
posted by Eddie D.
posted by Eddie D.
Raskolnikov
Before I delved into the actual story, I read the Translator’s Note on page xx, and saw what the name Raskolnikov meant: in a nutshell, the root-word means “split,” and the name itself means “reason, mind, intelligence,” and “to fawn or flatter in an eager, fidgety, tail-wagging manner,” so I anticipated to see two contrasting sides of him. However, when I started reading, Raskolnikov’s mentality didn’t seem too peculiar right away, so I was very curious about what would finally push him over the edge into the morals and mind-set of a killer. He seemed to have a normal temper and personality (aside from him being very tense and anxious when around people, and usually avoiding contact altogether). Once Raskolnikov began talking to Marmeladov in the bar (or vice versa), he seemed fine. But soon after the encounter with Marmeladov’s spouse, he was overcome with an unsettlingly caustic attitude walking home and reached a bizarre epiphany (at the very end of II in Part 1): After saying “Man gets accustomed to everything, the scoundrel!” followed by, “But if that’s a lie…if man in fact is not a scoundrel—in general, that is, the whole human race—then the rest is all mere prejudice, instilled fear, and there are no barriers, and that’s just how it should be!…” I wasn’t completely sure what to make of it, what are your opinions of it? I read a little farther and saw that prejudice could possibly become a reoccurring theme in the story.
posted by Devon V.
posted by Devon V.
Language in C&P
When I first started reading Crime and Punishment I had to keep in mind that this is a translated piece of literature. It was originally written in Russian but was then converted to Standard English. Another unique item about the novel is that the story is over a century year old. I kept this these facts close in mind because there were some phrases and wording that seemed out of place. Almost like a detective, I searched for clues in the text after an unusual idiom.
One example is “And today I went to see Sonya and I asked her for the hair of the dog!” It was a peculiar phrase that made sounded like a rural remedy for an illness. Instead of staying stuck on that line, I underlined it and continued reading. A few sentences later Marmeladov said, “This very bottle was bought on her money, sir,” which indicated to me that the hair of the dog was money for liquor. However I was only partly correct; a passerby informed me that the hair of the dog was liquor for a hangover. This quote really stood out to me because I’m not sure that it’s a saying here in America but it seemed like a common catchphrase in Russia. Granted I don’t know how to speak Russian, it’s nice to know I know one small thing that was common then (or now).
Another quote I enjoyed when the part of a conversation between Raskolnikov and Nastasya. When asked what work Raskolnikov does, he answered “I think.” Although Nastasya laughed in his face at the prospect of that being work, I think I was a cleverly given response. Most people value tangible items, like chopping wood into firewood, rather the thoughts about spiritual and deeper meanings in life. When I read that line it reminded me of a more famous quote “I think therefore I am.” Raskolnikov’s answer seemed profound even though he was trying to avoid the topic of his inexistent job. I think that Raskolnikov’s thoughts prove that he is alive, which is good enough to make a difference.
posted by Kayla H.
One example is “And today I went to see Sonya and I asked her for the hair of the dog!” It was a peculiar phrase that made sounded like a rural remedy for an illness. Instead of staying stuck on that line, I underlined it and continued reading. A few sentences later Marmeladov said, “This very bottle was bought on her money, sir,” which indicated to me that the hair of the dog was money for liquor. However I was only partly correct; a passerby informed me that the hair of the dog was liquor for a hangover. This quote really stood out to me because I’m not sure that it’s a saying here in America but it seemed like a common catchphrase in Russia. Granted I don’t know how to speak Russian, it’s nice to know I know one small thing that was common then (or now).
Another quote I enjoyed when the part of a conversation between Raskolnikov and Nastasya. When asked what work Raskolnikov does, he answered “I think.” Although Nastasya laughed in his face at the prospect of that being work, I think I was a cleverly given response. Most people value tangible items, like chopping wood into firewood, rather the thoughts about spiritual and deeper meanings in life. When I read that line it reminded me of a more famous quote “I think therefore I am.” Raskolnikov’s answer seemed profound even though he was trying to avoid the topic of his inexistent job. I think that Raskolnikov’s thoughts prove that he is alive, which is good enough to make a difference.
posted by Kayla H.
Porfiry Messes with Raskolnikov's Head
Further into Crime and Punishment, we see the arrival of Raskolnikov's mother and sister in part three. Raskolnikov treats them with disdain and immediately makes his dislike of Dunya's fiancee, Pyotr Pertrovich Luzhin, known and causes a row between the three of them. It is here that Razumikhin begins to act as Raskolnikov's replacement, advising and protecting Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunya. Later in part four, more of Luzhin and Dunya's characters are revealed when Raskolnikov exposes Luzhin's intentions to cause a fight between him and his family and to have them in his complete power through promised financial help. The reader begins to be exposed to the vulgarity of Luzhin' character and to Dunya's pride, bravery, and most of all, her temper. She breaks off her engagement with Luzhin, but Dostoevsky leaves us with the impression that, unfortunately, we may see him again.
At the beginning of part four, we are introduced to another character, Svidrigailov, Dunya's former employer and pursuer, appears in Raskolnikov's apartment apparently waiting for him. Raskolnikov judges him as possibly mad and a danger both to him and Dunya. It is obvious that he is still in love with Dunya and has the intention to try to pursue her, but he tries to convey to Raskolnikov that he is no threat and even wished to leave her with ten thousand rubles.
My favorite part of the novel so far is Raskolnikov's interrogation by Porfiry Petrovich near the end of part four. The intellectual reasoning that Porfiry discusses with him with a touch of mockery shakes Raskolnikov up so much that he is on the verge of confessing before he is saved by a disruption. Perhaps it bothered him so much because he was witnessing his view of himself as an "extraordinary" individual beginning to crack as Pofiry was able to mess with his head.
Mikaela M.
At the beginning of part four, we are introduced to another character, Svidrigailov, Dunya's former employer and pursuer, appears in Raskolnikov's apartment apparently waiting for him. Raskolnikov judges him as possibly mad and a danger both to him and Dunya. It is obvious that he is still in love with Dunya and has the intention to try to pursue her, but he tries to convey to Raskolnikov that he is no threat and even wished to leave her with ten thousand rubles.
My favorite part of the novel so far is Raskolnikov's interrogation by Porfiry Petrovich near the end of part four. The intellectual reasoning that Porfiry discusses with him with a touch of mockery shakes Raskolnikov up so much that he is on the verge of confessing before he is saved by a disruption. Perhaps it bothered him so much because he was witnessing his view of himself as an "extraordinary" individual beginning to crack as Pofiry was able to mess with his head.
Mikaela M.
Fascination of the Dying
This description of Kurtz’s death is disturbing in many ways. In the final moments before his passing, Kurtz goes through moments of uncomfortable pain that causes Marlow to ask “Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge?”. However this led me to wonder what happened during Kurtz’s life that truly made him feel all these emotions of pride, anger, shame, and despair? How had the experiences in the Congo affected his past to the point that looking back on it would cause him to scream out his infamous last words “The Horror!, The Horror!” Had it been his ultimate downward spiral into disease and his eventual death that caused him to scream out these chilling final words? Or was it something else? Something darker and even more corrupt then his methods of ivory collection, and his relationship with the natives? Were there moments that had affected Kurtz in such a way that we could only dream of what happened, and how he was able to live through them? Who knows? However what I know for certain is that with a man like Kurtz, who is filled with Megalomaniacal ideals, yet is utterly lacking in substance, any sort of set back, would certainly drive him over the metaphorical deep end.
posted by Eddie D.
posted by Eddie D.
The Blur Clears
Luckily, in the home stretch, the novel is becoming more comprehensible. During Marlow’s travel to meet the mysterious Mr. Kurtz, the rapid ping-pong style of writing has considerably slowed down. Instead of a plot structure that bounced from endless monologue to unusual commentary, it stayed linear for the most part. It only broke when Marlow described his sadness at the prospect of never meeting Mr. Kurtz. However, Conrad’s signature swift and combined phrasing is ever present. It was not uncommon for me to reread whole paragraphs because, even now, I am not used to his unique style. Another adjustment in his writing style was there was no switching of point of view that was found before. Marlow kept the speaking in the first person while telling his tale.
Conrad probably changed his writing style to suit the quickening of the plot. The plot thickens as the reader discovered that Mr. Kurtz may not have been killed in the quick but deadly attack by the natives. The enigma that is Mr. Kurtz is unraveling with every person Marlow encounters. Like Marlow’s steamer, the reader is slowly but surely reaching the climax of the novel.
The direct writing style Marlow is now using to describe his journey is a welcome change from his past depictions. All the details to scenery and people were tainted as if Conrad wanted to place the reader in the area, but with opaque glasses to blur the view. Conrad no longer seems to be leading the reader through the fog and is now presenting the facts as they first came to Marlow. I am excited to watch what happens next.
Kayla H.
Conrad probably changed his writing style to suit the quickening of the plot. The plot thickens as the reader discovered that Mr. Kurtz may not have been killed in the quick but deadly attack by the natives. The enigma that is Mr. Kurtz is unraveling with every person Marlow encounters. Like Marlow’s steamer, the reader is slowly but surely reaching the climax of the novel.
The direct writing style Marlow is now using to describe his journey is a welcome change from his past depictions. All the details to scenery and people were tainted as if Conrad wanted to place the reader in the area, but with opaque glasses to blur the view. Conrad no longer seems to be leading the reader through the fog and is now presenting the facts as they first came to Marlow. I am excited to watch what happens next.
Kayla H.
Sonya's Role
Luzhin is at it again in part five when he decides to set Sonya up by planting a 100 ruble note on her and confronting her with it in public during the memorial dinner, all in order to get Dunya back. He turns up at the dinner and accuses Sonya, which sends Katerina Ivanovna into a frenzy and she immediately insists on proving Sonya's innocence by turning out her pockets and the note falls out. Luzhin "generously" agrees not to press charges but to his horror, his plans start to unravel when Lebezyatnikov, whom Luzhin used as a witness, comes forward and says that he saw Luzhin put the note in Sonya's pocket. Raskolnikov then comes forward and further exposes him by saying that he wanted to sully his relations with his mother and sister by embarassing him with his associations with Sonya. He tries to maintain his innocence but soon sees that the cause is lost and leaves. This event takes away any doubt the reader may have about Luzhin's character and solidifies him as one of the novel's villians, albeit a clumsy one.
In part five we also see Raskolnikov's inner discovery as too why he murdered the pawnbroker during his confession to Sonya, the only person throughout the novel with whom he has the most intimate relationship with. His motives are bit vague, but he wanted to somehow become "extraordinary", like Napoleon, and that it was somehow justified and his right to kill because he transcended the moral rules that the rest of society has to follow. He also confessed that he was detached from society and believed in his superiority to others. This is a major development in Raskolnikov's character as he begins the path towards resolving his torment and as he realizes that he isn't the superman he fancied himself and begins his return to join the rest of hummanity, even though it may not be a pleasant reunion because he still maintains some of his resolve that people are despicable.
posted by Mikaela M.
In part five we also see Raskolnikov's inner discovery as too why he murdered the pawnbroker during his confession to Sonya, the only person throughout the novel with whom he has the most intimate relationship with. His motives are bit vague, but he wanted to somehow become "extraordinary", like Napoleon, and that it was somehow justified and his right to kill because he transcended the moral rules that the rest of society has to follow. He also confessed that he was detached from society and believed in his superiority to others. This is a major development in Raskolnikov's character as he begins the path towards resolving his torment and as he realizes that he isn't the superman he fancied himself and begins his return to join the rest of hummanity, even though it may not be a pleasant reunion because he still maintains some of his resolve that people are despicable.
posted by Mikaela M.
Major Themes in C&P
Crime and Punishment was full of themes and motifs. Svidrigailov’s committing suicide symbolized the underlying theme that man truly needs companionship to survive. He tried to live his life self-sufficiently, but realized toward the end of the story that Dunya was the key ingredient to his happiness. Once she told him that she could never love him, he was forced to let her out of his captivity. This led him to eventually commit suicide. I think Dostoevsky’s main point here is that each and every person has the same underlying composition. Men may commit sinful transgressions over their lifetime, but in the end, they all need the same things; love and compassion. A man’s coldhearted exterior can be torn down by another companion or a glimmer of hope at companionship. Raskolnikov, too, was drastically transformed by companionship. As he developed feelings for Sonya, he eventually opened up his heart and confessed to his loved ones. Their interactions illuminated a new path to Raskolnikov filled with possible redemption, salvation, and healing. The gold cross Sonya gave him also helped illuminate this path.
Raskolnikov’s conversation with his mother in Part VI was truly heart-felt. He expressed his true love and devotion to her by stating: “I’ve come to assure you that I have always loved you, and I’m glad we’re alone now…I’ve come to tell you straight out that although you will be unhappy, you must know all the same that your son loves you right now more than himself, and whatever you may have thought about me being cruel and not loving you, it’s all untrue. I’ll never cease to love you…” The mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna was put through such turbulence and anxiety since the moment she arrived out of the kindness of her heart to visit her son. Raskolnikov owed her an apology from the very beginning of the story, and I was glad to see that he got up the courage to do so. The mother had a deep understanding of her son; she knew from the moment she saw him that he was experiencing anguish and torment inside and waited for him until he was ready to address her. Although it caused her great pain, she backed away from her son’s life and without questioning him too much, allowed him to execute the necessary actions in the story. The lack of information she had regarding her son’s true whereabouts however, eventually drove her to an irrecoverable state of insanity. Although I do not know if she had a history of illness, it is evident that Raskolnikov’s madness and erratic behavior rubbed off on his mother. Moreover, Raskolnikov was incredibly fortunate to have such understanding relatives and friends. His mother and sister only wanted the best for him and stood by his side even when he was acting in a delirious state. Razhumkhin also played a paramount role in Raskolnikov’s life. He assuaged the pains and fears of Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunya by assuming the role of son/brother, while acting in Raskolnikov’s best interest at the same time. Although Raskolnikov never showed much gratitude toward Razhumkhin, the family appreciated his kindness and efforts very much. This gratitude, along with Dunya’s love were enough to keep him going throughout the novel.
Several selfless characters stood by this murderer’s side the whole time and believed in him until the very end. Characters like Dunya and Sonya tried to steer Raskolnikov in the right direction by persuading him to confess to the police. But just when I thought he had turned over a new leaf and felt guilty about the crime he committed, Raskolnikov surprised me by uttering the next several sentences: “Crime? What crime? I killed a vile, pernicious louse, a little old money-lending crone who was of no use to anyone, to kill whom is worth forty sins forgiven, who sucked the life-sap from the poor- is that a crime? I'm not thinking of it, nor am I thinking of washing it away. And why is everyone jabbing at me from all sides: ‘Crime! Crime!’ Only now do I see clearly all the absurdity of my faintheartedness, now that I’ve already decided to go to this needless shame!” Raskolnikov seemed to be defending his callous crime by denouncing the victim’s character. But what about poor Lizaveta? None of his excuses could ever justify the murder of Lizaveta. However, Raskolniknov eventually came to realize that he was the true scoundrel. He experienced revolutionary changes in jail in Siberia. I was worried that Sonya would fall ill at the end or give up on Raskolnikov all together, but she remained loyal to him until the very last page of the epilogue.
The epilogue was important in that it tied together all of the loose strings in Raskolnikov’s life, but it left few aspects up to the reader’s imagination. Nonetheless, I was a captivated audience for the entire duration of the novel. After accompanying Raskolnikov on his journey for over 550 pages, I was incredibly pleased to witness his extraordinary rebirth and metamorphosis.
posted by Leslie P.
Raskolnikov’s conversation with his mother in Part VI was truly heart-felt. He expressed his true love and devotion to her by stating: “I’ve come to assure you that I have always loved you, and I’m glad we’re alone now…I’ve come to tell you straight out that although you will be unhappy, you must know all the same that your son loves you right now more than himself, and whatever you may have thought about me being cruel and not loving you, it’s all untrue. I’ll never cease to love you…” The mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna was put through such turbulence and anxiety since the moment she arrived out of the kindness of her heart to visit her son. Raskolnikov owed her an apology from the very beginning of the story, and I was glad to see that he got up the courage to do so. The mother had a deep understanding of her son; she knew from the moment she saw him that he was experiencing anguish and torment inside and waited for him until he was ready to address her. Although it caused her great pain, she backed away from her son’s life and without questioning him too much, allowed him to execute the necessary actions in the story. The lack of information she had regarding her son’s true whereabouts however, eventually drove her to an irrecoverable state of insanity. Although I do not know if she had a history of illness, it is evident that Raskolnikov’s madness and erratic behavior rubbed off on his mother. Moreover, Raskolnikov was incredibly fortunate to have such understanding relatives and friends. His mother and sister only wanted the best for him and stood by his side even when he was acting in a delirious state. Razhumkhin also played a paramount role in Raskolnikov’s life. He assuaged the pains and fears of Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunya by assuming the role of son/brother, while acting in Raskolnikov’s best interest at the same time. Although Raskolnikov never showed much gratitude toward Razhumkhin, the family appreciated his kindness and efforts very much. This gratitude, along with Dunya’s love were enough to keep him going throughout the novel.
Several selfless characters stood by this murderer’s side the whole time and believed in him until the very end. Characters like Dunya and Sonya tried to steer Raskolnikov in the right direction by persuading him to confess to the police. But just when I thought he had turned over a new leaf and felt guilty about the crime he committed, Raskolnikov surprised me by uttering the next several sentences: “Crime? What crime? I killed a vile, pernicious louse, a little old money-lending crone who was of no use to anyone, to kill whom is worth forty sins forgiven, who sucked the life-sap from the poor- is that a crime? I'm not thinking of it, nor am I thinking of washing it away. And why is everyone jabbing at me from all sides: ‘Crime! Crime!’ Only now do I see clearly all the absurdity of my faintheartedness, now that I’ve already decided to go to this needless shame!” Raskolnikov seemed to be defending his callous crime by denouncing the victim’s character. But what about poor Lizaveta? None of his excuses could ever justify the murder of Lizaveta. However, Raskolniknov eventually came to realize that he was the true scoundrel. He experienced revolutionary changes in jail in Siberia. I was worried that Sonya would fall ill at the end or give up on Raskolnikov all together, but she remained loyal to him until the very last page of the epilogue.
The epilogue was important in that it tied together all of the loose strings in Raskolnikov’s life, but it left few aspects up to the reader’s imagination. Nonetheless, I was a captivated audience for the entire duration of the novel. After accompanying Raskolnikov on his journey for over 550 pages, I was incredibly pleased to witness his extraordinary rebirth and metamorphosis.
posted by Leslie P.
Puzzling Elements of Heart of Darkness
It is often said that “if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all,” however there is no other way to critique a book like this. To be as blunt as possible, I disliked this book. There was nothing coherent except for the simple plot: Marlow goes on a trip to Africa, where he hears of the enigmatic Mr. Kurtz. From then on, Marlow’s plan of action is to find Mr. Kurtz. Finally reaching him, Marlow discovers that he is ill and doesn’t have much longer to live. Although Mr. Kurtz is bedridden and barely speaking, he is able to gain the respect and admiration of Marlow before he dies. Marlow lives on to speak of the many epiphanies he had during his journey.
While I understand that the novel is suppose to tie in moving and insightful words about human nature and the soul, the novel seemed too muddled to really to bring these points to light. These profound topics were too spontaneous to be fully comprehensible. It seemed as if every conversation led to an intangible epiphany about the soul, death, and human nature.
The novel unfolded in a way that Marlow’s character came off as an egotistical man who thought highly only of himself and Mr. Kurtz, a man he barely knew. I don’t understand what was so special about a man who manipulated tribes into doing his bidding? He was ill from the moment that Marlow met him, which meant he was not even in the right state of mind to give any worldly advice. The few times he did speak sounded like conversations he was having within a dream; makes sense to him but to no one else. The only redeeming quality I can take from Mr. Kurtz is that he was a leadership presence that makes you want to follow him. However, the Russian’s stories, like how Mr. Kurtz held him at gun point for some ivory, shows that Mr. Kurtz is an unstable man with a lust that overrules his common sense. In addition, when Marlow went back home, he kept meeting people that told him anecdotes about Kurtz in which he couldn’t decipher fact from fiction. This immense respect for a man he doesn’t know is baffling as well and unlikely. The novel as a whole didn’t make sense.
posted by Kayla H.
While I understand that the novel is suppose to tie in moving and insightful words about human nature and the soul, the novel seemed too muddled to really to bring these points to light. These profound topics were too spontaneous to be fully comprehensible. It seemed as if every conversation led to an intangible epiphany about the soul, death, and human nature.
The novel unfolded in a way that Marlow’s character came off as an egotistical man who thought highly only of himself and Mr. Kurtz, a man he barely knew. I don’t understand what was so special about a man who manipulated tribes into doing his bidding? He was ill from the moment that Marlow met him, which meant he was not even in the right state of mind to give any worldly advice. The few times he did speak sounded like conversations he was having within a dream; makes sense to him but to no one else. The only redeeming quality I can take from Mr. Kurtz is that he was a leadership presence that makes you want to follow him. However, the Russian’s stories, like how Mr. Kurtz held him at gun point for some ivory, shows that Mr. Kurtz is an unstable man with a lust that overrules his common sense. In addition, when Marlow went back home, he kept meeting people that told him anecdotes about Kurtz in which he couldn’t decipher fact from fiction. This immense respect for a man he doesn’t know is baffling as well and unlikely. The novel as a whole didn’t make sense.
posted by Kayla H.
Kinship?
When Marlow began his story, you could tell that he was critical of imperialism, but not because of what it does to the native people but to the Europeans. Marlow says that participation in imperial enterprises degrades Europeans by removing them from the civilized European society and tempts them into violent behavior because of the hostility and lawlessness of the environment. Marlow also suggests that the mission of “civilizing” and “enlightening” native peoples is misguided, not because he believes that they have a valid civilization and culture already, but because they are so savage that the project is overwhelming and hopeless. Marlow is horrified when he witnesses the violent maltreatment of the natives at the stations, and he argues that a kinship exists between black Africans and Europeans, but also states that this kinship is “ugly” and horrifying, and that the kinship is extremely distant. So Marlow's own attitudes are diffcult to define. Upon visiting the Company's station, Marlow witnesses the brutality and ineffieciency of the sation. He is so deeply troubled by the grove of death in the station that he offers a dying man a few pieces of biscuit.The grove shows the true evils of colonialism which are dehuminization and death.
I also realized that the buzz circulating around Kurtz is very Gatsby-esque. Marlow begins to be fascinated by the mystery of Kurtz and the idealogical descriptions of him. It isn't long before Marlow finds himself very much looking forward to seeing this remarkable man without a face.
posted by Mikaela M.
I also realized that the buzz circulating around Kurtz is very Gatsby-esque. Marlow begins to be fascinated by the mystery of Kurtz and the idealogical descriptions of him. It isn't long before Marlow finds himself very much looking forward to seeing this remarkable man without a face.
posted by Mikaela M.
Greed and Storytelling
I was surprised in chapter 2 to see Marlow's distinction between the native cannibals and the white pilgrims. He regarded the natives with admiration at their ability to maintain such a level of restraint while very likely being hungry and surrounded by a dozen men. As compared to the "pilgrims" who are greedy and are completely self-interested, he realized how "unwholesome" they were in character.
One of the few stylistic things I've come to appreciate about the novel was how it captured the reality of storytelling. At first it was confusing, but then I realized that Conrad was mimicking the actualities of dialogue which includes pauses in speech, interruptions by other people, the person going off on tangents, etc. But unfortunately that doesnt make me enjoy the book any better.
posted by Mikaela M.
One of the few stylistic things I've come to appreciate about the novel was how it captured the reality of storytelling. At first it was confusing, but then I realized that Conrad was mimicking the actualities of dialogue which includes pauses in speech, interruptions by other people, the person going off on tangents, etc. But unfortunately that doesnt make me enjoy the book any better.
posted by Mikaela M.
A "Savage"
When Marlow got hired as a laborer on a French Steamer, the story began getting more intriguing. They docked first on an island inhabited by indigenous people, and the other people on the steamer keep speaking (very highly) of a man named Mr. Kurtz, an agent in charge of an important trading post. Soon he hears disgruntled others talking about him as well, and Marlow grows anxious to meet him. There are many close-calls with natives on the way to finally connect with Mr. Kurtz, and Marlow is growing exceedingly anxious to meet him, despite this. I can see that he has already gotten a crucial role in Heart Of Darkness, even though he wasn’t necessarily in the story for a long amount of time. He is chiefly the reason why Marlow continues the journey, and a mere interest in Kurtz quickly develops into an immense fixation. After he, the manager, and others finally reach Kurtz after surviving an attack, they come to find that Kurtz is feeble (more of a burden than helpful regarding the business that he’s in), ill, and basically at death’s door: nothing like he was thought up to be. I’m sure everyone had the same revelation of dissatisfaction when they read through this part. Only Marlow and the Russian trader seem to hold any interest in him anymore, and eventually Marlow and Kurtz form a bond. I found it odd because the bond was so strong, strong enough in-fact, that he would leave his papers [and legacy] behind with Marlow. I’m curious to know what everyone thought of Kurtz. I personally thought that he was a malicious man, who exploited the “savages,” and became much like a savage himself.
His last words were “The horror! The horror!”That is where I had left off, and what had me thinking for a while. I think that maybe it could have been the horror of what he had been reduced to, but I doubt that it would be that simple. “The horror!” is so ambiguous that it could mean most anything. Just like Marlow described the horizon as an enigma early on in the book, the last words of Kurtz were mysterious and paradoxical as well, and I think that the remark itself left more a legacy than his letters and papers ever would.
posted by Devon V
His last words were “The horror! The horror!”That is where I had left off, and what had me thinking for a while. I think that maybe it could have been the horror of what he had been reduced to, but I doubt that it would be that simple. “The horror!” is so ambiguous that it could mean most anything. Just like Marlow described the horizon as an enigma early on in the book, the last words of Kurtz were mysterious and paradoxical as well, and I think that the remark itself left more a legacy than his letters and papers ever would.
posted by Devon V
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
