Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Crime and Punishment - Final Day
I agree with #4. I believe Crime and Punishment is not merely a look into a specific historical period, a certain type of society, or a study of a distinct character; rather, this novel embraces a variety of theories that carry universal regard. One of the "conflict of ideas" that appear in the book is nihilism versus Christianity/altruism. Although these ideas can be interpreted differently within the novel, the overall conclusion I absorbed was that nihilism, or to believe in nothing and share no loyalties, makes life seemingly futile: "And if in eight years he would be thirty-two and could still begin a new life, what difference did it make? What did he have to live for? What could he look forward to? What was he after?" (515). Living an existence of purpose, humility, and love makes those in the novel who embody these qualities more creditable, such as Marmeladov, Razu, and Sonia. At the end, it at least seems that Rasky's revelation (upon kissing Sonia's feet) has drawn him to the same conclusion: "Love resurrected them; the heart of one contained infinite sources of life for the heart of the other" (521). The overarching theory of existentialism, or the existential crisis, is a key factor in the book, and Dostoyevsky shows how it impacts men in all times and places. Each character has a different perspective on what is the point of life, and this idea is intensely questioned in the landscape of a crime and its repercussions. To Rasky, there is little point in a life unless you are helping the greater good; he compares this idea to other time periods by comparing his crime to the heroic actions of Napoleon (although citing that Nap succeeded while he failed). To Sonia, life is only as full as the amount of faith and love you bring to it, which is evident in her response to Rasky: "What would I be without God?" The characters and plot of the novel are simply vehicles (or symbols) in which to analyze the universal ideas of morality, repentance, existence, etc., rather than just convey their effect on a certain historical period or a specific individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with #2. On the very first day of class we established Crime and Punishment as a thought book about actions and their consequences. Each of the characters holds a religious sin that they embody and while they each have their individual sins, not one character is singularly pure. Along with this, schisms play a large role in representing the distinctions between the good and the evil in this text, each character is schismed to reflect the evils and virtues that they possess, but the evils are more overly portrayed throughout the novel. Before reading the novel, Ms. Siegel presented us with three main questions to consider as we read the book: Can evil means justify honorable ends? Who among us is not a criminal? Why do we want to impose our will on the natural order? Each of these questions is rooted in the evils of this time period including, thievery, prostitution, murder, gossip, sadism, and gambling. Each of the characters portrays one or more of these evils, for instance, Raskolinikov is obviously the murderer, and Sonia is a prostitute. But while addressing these different evils, Dostoyevsky describes each of these characters as redeemable. Because of these multiple intrudes of evil sins and crimes, it seems clear that he meant to write on the evils that were affecting his time period.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with number one: the novel is a political pamphlet written to attack the progressive ideology of the time. The progressive ideology was seen in movements like the abolitionist movement, women's suffrage, child labor, conservation of parks etc. But there were a variety of progressivists. There was the group that feared a concentration of power and urged limiting and dispersion of wealth and authority (they were anti-monopoly). There was also a belief that individuals were not autonomous but part of a society - the welfare of a single person is dependent on the welfare of the society. There was also a deep faith in knowledge - applying to society the principles of natural and social sciences (these definitions come from my AP US text book). So, in context with Crime and Punishment. First, the women in this book are portrayed negatively: Katerina as a mad lady; Sonia a prostitute; Dunya an easily confused woman. Dunya is portrayed this way by 1) her belief that Luzhin is a good man and 2) following Sviggy into his abandoned apartment. Granted, she does all of these things to help her family (like Sonia) but this is not portrayed positively by Dostoyevsky. Then, with Sonia, it's Raskol's love that will redeem her: "he knew the infinite love with which he would redeem her suffering" - he's HER savior (521). Then, the antimonopoly concept - Raskol originally kills the woman because of the conversation he overhears with the two men, discussing what good all that wealth could be if dispersed amongst the population. Raskol than murders the woman, which is the beginning of his transgression - a direct commentary on progressivism (also we discussed in class this whole concept of capitalism). The next progressivist idea is this social cohesion concept - with the individual's welfare dependent on that of the majority. This is a theory Dostoyevsky toys with in his many -isms: ubermensch etc. It appears that Dostoyevsky is countering the progressivist idea, saying that one man can better his welfare without this social cohesion (i.e. Napoleon). And the faith in Knowledge can be seen with Raskol and Razu both dropping out of University - neither of them had any faith in these institutions. And the concept of modernized government playing a role in stabilizing society is refuted by Dostoyevsky: Petrovich just makes a mess of things and the government has a lack of control over the entire situation - Raskol turning himself in, when he may well have gotten away the entire scenario.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Judy's thorough argument for #4, considering it's the theory I most agreed with as well. After reading the 4 different theories for the ending of the novel, I most agreed with #4 as well because for me (as Judy aptly stated), the novel encapsulates various theories of philosophy effectively through the mediums of character and plot. What truly resonated for me in this theory is "the novel is symbolic, and portrays the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself; not historical, individual man, but man in all times and places." After I read this, I knew it fit perfectly in justifying the ending of the novel, which I think is what Dostoyevsky wanted for his readers. Because Dostoyevsky made the novel universal not in terms of specific events or characters, but in terms of "the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself," he succeeds in truly captivating an audience that can come from all different societies. Anyone with a knowledge of nihilism, existentialism, rational humanism- all the philosophies we talked about- can read this book and can relate to the characters in different ways. For example, some of us may have understood Rasky and his motives for committing the murders from the very beginning of the novel, which lead them to sympathize for Rasky at the end. Others may just perceive Rasky (Luzhin, Sviggy, etc) to be contemptuous and wayward characters from the very beginning to the end who deserve no sympathy whatsoever. Thus, because we, as the readers, can "measure the relative merits of the ideas, rather than portray their effect upon individual people," we acquire a far more profound understanding for not just the novel, but also, and more importantly, for the philosophical ideas and theories that Dostoyevsky pervades the novel with. And, because Dostoyevsky exemplifies all the different philosophies in some way, shape, or form, we effectively see and understand the relative merits of the ideas, making them universal and applicable to all different plots, characters, events, etc. The acquirement of this knowledge, in the end, is what I believe to be the most important benefit of reading Crime and Punishment.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the fourth statement. I would definitely agree that C & P is not a realistic story. This is mostly due to the fact that most of the occurrences, most importantly the murder, were all a series of coincidental events with luck in Raskolnikov's favor because he encountered almost no obstacles while committing the crime. Additionally, the ending of the novel itself is not really realistic in that Raskolnikov does not truly get the punishment he deserves, and does not really suffer from drastic consequences after it is revealed that he is guilty of murder. In reality, I feel that if one were to commit such a cruel ac, they would most likely suffer alienation from their family and feel more remorse for their actions. Raskolnikov remained close with his sister Dunia, and never really loses touch with any of his other close friends. Additionally, he simply thought of his actions as erroneous instead of admitting that he committed a sin. I also agree that the novel "portrays the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself". Throughout the novel, we see a variety of philosophies such as Christianity, nihilism, fatalism, utilitarianism, and several others. Each is represented by a specific character who embodies each philosophy. These philosophies often clash throughout the interactions of these characters, who each believe their philosophy is the one that will lead to discovering truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with #4 as well. I believe that one of the most accurate parts of this theory regarding the meaning of Crime and Punishment is that is it not supposed to be realistic, but rather a symbolic story of an individual and the people around him. The consistent incorporation of coincidence supports this idea that the novel is supposed to be unrealistic – it is a hyperbolic tale of a man who committed the luckiest crime in the world and had to wrestle with various philosophical views before he could determine whether the life he wants to leave includes being able to live with the guilt and sin of killing two people. The fact that so many philosophical views are portrayed throughout this novel – with specific invidudals representing entire schools of thought such as Luzshin and capitalism and Sonia and Christianity – it is evident that this novel is illustrating the “conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself.” Raskolnikov is psychologically torn (schismed) between various philosophical beliefs – he is unsure of how he should be living his life, which is why the majority of the novel focuses on the “punishment” aspect of his crime. He must reconcile the different ways of seeing life – Does it have purpose? Is there a God? Are there strict moral codes? – by determining the “relative merits of the ideas” and then punish himself accordingly. Lastly, this interpretation of Crime and Punishment astutely points out that this novel portrays a “universal” man – this is evident by the countless monologues that Dostoyevsky includes and uses to interject – because he is ultimately making a comment the way people should evaluate and live their lives in general.
ReplyDeleteI have to go with number one. I think that Crime and Punishment is a highly political text, and I don't think anyone could really argue with that. The strongest evidence for its existence as a political pamphlet that attacks the progressive ideology of the time is Raskolnikov's theory's failure. The entire text is based on this theory - it is the motivation for the two murders he committed. However, by the end of the novel, Raskolnikov and the other characters all admit that the theory is a failure. Clearly, Dostoyevsky is commenting on any type of political radicalism that existed during this time period: it is destined to fail. And for that radicalism that does succeed, it is not strong enough to propel any type of major change in society, as is acutely stated in the epilogue. Raskolnikov dreams of a society in which "the pure and the chosen, predestined to begin a new race of men and a new life, to renew and purify the earth; but...not seen anywhere by anybody, and nobody heard their voices or their words" (519). This dream represents a blatant attack on progressive political change; Dostoyevsky basically calls those efforts to enact change futile and worthless because they will go unnoticed by the "normal" people of a society. Crime and Punishment must first and foremost be examined in this political context.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with #4. I think that although some of the actions in the novel are realistic- a man going crazy over a crime, a drunkard using up all his families money- there are too many overwhelming aspects of the novel that make the story a piece of pure fiction. I am sure that no man in today's society could get away with the same murder that Rasky did nor do it think that in "real" society would an murder happen out of pure luck. Instead this novel is Dostoyevsky creating "the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself". He is presenting an essentially "perfect" world were characters can play out the different meaning of philosophies like Christianity, fatalism, nihilism, capitalism, and many others. The novel is a larger symbol of the conflict within man, a conflict of deciding what to believe (i.e. philosophies), how to live, and how to justify and repent for their actions. Since C+P is mainly focused on the punishment aspect of Rasky but in the larger sense the punishment of man when they commit a crime it forces the readers to question how they would act if faced with the same situation. Would they atone for their sins, which they suffer, or would they justify their actions. Finally, I believe this novel is saying that all people are faced with the decisions on how to live their life and thus we must choose, some ways are better than others it seems. With the ending of the book, when Rasky discovers that love will save him, Dostoevsky comments that something must save us.
ReplyDeleteWell I don't think it's fair to agree with just one theory because each of the theories can be related to the novel. However, if I had to pick, I would agree with #3 because after committing the murder, Rasky is tormented by his doubts, fears and thoughts. The majority of the novel deals with how Rasky's behavior and mind deteriorates after the murder. He seems to think everyone is out to get him and becomes very paranoid. Even before the murder, Dostoevsky shows us Rasky's mindset. In the beginning, Rasky seems to convince himself the murder is OK since the pawnbroker was a miserable and greedy old woman. Rasky also had several dreams that could suggest a psychological view. His dreams give the reader the sense that he is mentally unstable. In his horse dream, we can see that Rasky is disturbed by the idea of murder, but in the end, he still goes through with it. Also, the whole murder investigation is a psychological study itself. There was even a section in the novel where Porfiry tells Rasky about his psychological methods on finding the murderer. By doing this, Porfiry is simultaneously playing mindgames with Rasky. As for how realistic this novel is, I think it contains a very reasonable portrayal of society and people. First of all, anyone in Rasky’s position during that time period would have either done the same thing or died. As we can see, Rasky chose the former and Marvelodov chose the latter. Second, the way Rasky reacted after the murder is very believable. I’m sure that any murderer, unless the person is truly crazy, would have felt the guilt of killing sooner or later in his life. Overall, I think Dosteovesky really wanted to portray the mindset and behavior of a murderer, and I think he did it perfectly.
ReplyDeleteI most agree with idea #3. Dostoyevsky often writes Rodia’s thoughts out in their natural, realistic, jumbled sense. I can pretty clearly follow his train of thought from beginning to end and understand how, for example, his attention shifts from one thought to another. In a novel that deals with crime, the psychological effects of deciding whether or not to commit it and those of the fear or guilt afterwards must come into consideration, and I think Dostoyevsky centralized the novel on those psychological effects. The impoverished Rodia seeks money but also what he believes is justice by killing the old pawnbroker, thereby realizing his own theories. Dostoyevsky follows Rodia’s thoughts and reveals that he had failed in realizing his theory because although he succeeded in robbing her, he suffered fear of discovery afterwards, fear that should not exist if he had done the right thing, if he had been the super man that he was supposed to be. The turbulent society in Russia at the time, with so many conflicting ideologies and large gaps in social structure, is also presented in Crime and Punishment through the view of different characters. Luzhin, Svidrigailov, and Porfiry, for example, all have different philosophies and go about solving problems in their own ways.
ReplyDeleteI was originally thinking that I agreed with number four, but I realized that I was far from agreeing with that after I read it more in depth. I actually think that I've adopted my own take to this novel, though do correct me if you think it does go with a number.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this novel, I see a bit of this "Choose your own adventure" sort of thing. There is Rasky, Sviggy, and Dunia who all are struck with the same predicament at one point. Rasky kills the two ladies, Sviggy kills his wife and such, and Dunia has to decide on whether or not to "defend" herself by killing Sviggy. They all branch off into their own scenarios despite this situation and so Sviggy ends up being nihilistic and trying to replace evil with good (giving out money and such). Rasky is falling under the same path, but Sonia redirects him towards the path of confession and repentence. Dunia just chooses not to walk down the road of murder. Each of these characters share a different fate because of that one CHOICE. That's what I think this novel is about. Choice. Every character in the book is faced with a choice that he will regret or praise himself for by the end of their journey. Luzhin regrets, Marky gets run over and flies up to heaven, and so on.
I support my statement with when Rasky gets sick in his prison. It might sound cheesey and stupid (which is the way i role), but I thought of Prince Zuko from Avatar being sick because he was caught at his crossroads, forced to make a choice. I think there is further support by the last paragraph of the book: "This is the beginning of a NEW story... REBIRTH... TRANSITION... new reality" (522). I feel like this supports the concept of choice and it refutes some of these statements. Why would there be more to this story, a new beginning if this is a social documentary, or a psychological study, or the idea of conflict of different ideas?
If you have any ideas or refutations, please feel free to state them, though be prepared for some hot debatin'
I have come up with my own theory as to the meaning of Crime and Punishment. Specifically, C+P vindicates Rasky’s “Übermensch Theory”. Rasky’s theory states that a few “extraordinary men” are permitted to break moral law in order to bring a greater overall justice to the world. This is true for all human advancement throughout history. No one has changed the world for the better by staying in the confines of the status quo. Only by pushing the limits of our existence can we hope to find new areas of knowledge and understanding. It is why we have amendments in the Constitution, why we have a constitution in the first place. Without the Übermenschs(?) who were our Founding Fathers, we would have never gone beyond the law and revolted to bring a greater justice to the world, the United States. HOWEVER, before all of you prepare to strike me down for suggesting the validity of this theory, there is one crucial aspect of the theory that Rasky glossed over which, in turn, was the reason for Rasky’s failure and downfall. What Rasky failed to mention in his theory was how an Übermensch is formed and what constituted a true Übermensch. From reading C+P, we see that the answer to this question is the following:
ReplyDelete1. An Übermensch is formed when an individual finds stagnation in the world and seeks to break this stagnation by going beyond moral law.
2. An Übermensch must already have power that can break the stagnation. He or she cannot take the power and then use it to break stagnation.
These conditions are discovered by analyzing the relationship between Rasky and Jesus in the context of C+P. Rasky is a failed Übermensch because while he finds stagnation, in this case the inescapable poverty of Russia, he fails the second condition. He attempts to take the power by killing Ivanovna and taking her money to give to the people in order to break the stagnation of poverty. Jesus, however, is a true Übermensch. He sees the stagnation of the world (in his case, the world is trapped in sin) and he already has the power to eliminate the stagnation (he’s basically God, he has all the power he needs). The definition of an Übermensch applies to all great individuals who broke moral law to bring a greater justice and to those who failed to bring justice. The Founding Fathers were already rich landowners and the revolution would have completely failed had they not already had power in the form of money and connections with the French (an ally that was crucial in beating back the British). Ghandi was a well-to-do lawyer and would have failed to bring independence to India had he not had high up contacts that were able to organize a peaceful revolution. The Nazis failed to bring a greater justice to Germany because they took their power (from the Jews and from invading other countries). I have no doubt that none of you will agree with me on this theory and I await your critiques with open arms.
Corbin, you might say something that has little to do with my theory, but I welcome your argument happily because you await my critique with open arms. The problem I see with the Ubermensch theory is that it doesn't explain the epilogue. Everything is fine and dandy by what I see, and you can clearly support the theory with text from the book. The problem though, is if the theory can support the text in the book, which I think it narrowly fails to do because of the epilogue. The last chapter shows Raskolnikov cracking under pressure and ultimately being this failed Ubermensch, sure. After that though, we have an epilogue where the kid learns to love and he's given what? A second chance with Sonia, which I find to be a little random based on your theory.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about it, my post is exactly like that of the matrix. The idea of a choice vs fate, and stuffs... But yeah, mine is more choice orientated, none of that Morpheus crap here
ReplyDeleteWhile Corbin and Cedric do have some intriguing theories of their own, I have to agree most with #3 from our sheet. Among other reasons, it's hard to not think of this book as at least somewhat, if not highly, psychological when the quote from Nietzsche on the back of the book says: "[Dostoyevsky] is the only psychologist I have anything to learn from." Yet, when I stopped to think about it a little more, I could see where Nietzsche--and the statement from our sheet, for that matter--was coming from. Through the character of Raskolnikov, we learn much about behavior and mental processes, particularly that of the poverty stricken in late 19th century St Petersburg. For example, one recurring concept in the text is how environment affects the characters' behavior. Razumikhin describes this: “It’s always the ‘influence of the environment’ with them…If society were constructed normally, therefore, all crimes would disappear at once because there would be nothing to protect against” (264). While Razu may be exaggerating a bit, for any of us who have studied psychology, we know exactly what he’s talking about: situationism, or the principle that external factors affect our behavior. Through famous experiments such as the Stanley Milgram’s, we have seen how such factors can enable anything from conformity to blind obedience. Considering this principle, Rasky’s obsession with the ubermensch theory makes a little more sense. Deep in poverty, he must at times feel powerless. Beyond philosophical reasons, it is no wonder he feels he must rise against societal norms; the harsh reality of society, in which he can barely survive, has only left with him with frustration. Thus, psychology does have an important role in this text.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this role is even more evident through the structure of the text itself. As we mentioned in class today, the bulk of the novel is not the crime, but the punishment—namely, how Rasky behaves after committing murder. Through Rasky, we see the mental trauma that guilt can cause. Rasky becomes paranoid and irritable. He is constantly concerned about what the police know. Yet, he seems to want to confess from practically the beginning; he makes frequent trips to the police station, talks to detectives about the crime any chance he gets, etc. While Rasky claims to think that the crime is just, it’s hard to believe he truly thinks so when he is so incredibly obsessed with the consequences of his actions. Overall, Rasky’s behavior and thoughts, which dominate the text, indicate that the novel, at least on some level, is a psychological study; it examines an intense environment and how an individual, a product of this environment, reacts to this situation and, more importantly, reflects on his actions.
Cedric, I actually agree with what Corbin said, I had a similar idea as a theory. You see while it may seem like he failed and somehow magically had a "random happy ending" as Cedric said, does he really have a happy ending? he lost 8 years of his life, and while reading the novel it might not seem much, eight years are still a lot, and are forever taken away from him life. Once he leaves the jail, he is still in the impoverished position that he was in when he first entered Siberia. More so, Rasky never states that he feels remorse for his actions, if i do recall, he sees himself as an Übermensch because he compares himself to great generals and such who killed thousands to save more ( I'm sorry i cant find the page and its making me stressed out). While he didn't save anyone, he sees no fault in his actions, just love that he never embraced(Sonia). Once he leaves the jail, although it was 8 years, I see him as a man who never entered it in the first place, because i feel like he didn't even truly repent for his actions. He is a failed Übermensch and is unable to perceive it. Once he re-enters society, he will feel like he has felt the wrath of justice, to what cost? Just a few years of his life. And say him and Sonia get married, he is still poor, and will want to provide for her. He will see the crime of killing as easily done, and with past experience he will finally be able to accomplish it with more ease. He will see money as a reasonable reason for killing and will undoubtedly submit to the act. He is a failed Übermensch because although he thinks he will now be doing good, he is back to the situation he first started from, where it was him, the pawnbroker and his need for money. He will once again fail at killing and will return to jail. In this novel, the author explores the experience of a man who failed, and will never be able to repent for his actions, nor see the fault in them.
ReplyDeleteMarie Louise, once again. It clearly says at the end of the paragraph, this is the beginning of a NEW story. My problem with the ubermensch theory isn't that it doesn't work in context with the story, but that the story isn't complete if it's written for this purpose. There is absolutely zero point in the epilogue. If anything, it undermines the notion of ubermensch. You're assuming when saying he will return to jail, it is not said here. Based on what we read, we see that he has been reborn. He was alive, he died, and he was reborn in prison (hence the new testament which is a symbol of mercy). I agree that the ubermensch is a heavy idea in this book, but it's not the overarching thesis of this novel because the epilogue just doesn't fit the theory.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go ahead and agree with the majority of the people here and say that I think number four is the most representative of this book. In no way is this novel realistic; everything occurs way too perfectly and there is no way the sort of coincidences that appeared in this book and the pure luck that Rasky recieved would have really happened. This is why theory three does not fit. To contradict theory two, we have to think about the evils that were committed in this novel: murder, prostitution, alcoholism, gambling, these evils still exist today so in no way are these the problems of the times. Finally, to refute argument one, this text is not really based on politics or the progressive ideal, it is spending more time connecting the times with these ideas of Napoleon and such. The timeless nature of Rasky's actions are shown through his justification. He compares his crimes to those that Napoleon commited in his quest to conquer the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that the multiple philosophies point of view that many of the people mentioned above is very much apparent in that there are a variety of different philosophies introduced and that it is up to the reader to decide which is the best.
Finally, I take this "battlefield of man" in the context of crime itself. I think that the question we were asked about ranking the seven crimes in order and then giving reasoning behind your ranking ties perfectly into this final theory. We see the seven crimes that we assessed on the first day dispersed throughout the novel. Also, we can view the consequences or punishments that each of the characters received for their actions. In that regard, Dostoyevsky gave each of the characters the punishment they deserved for their crime. Unlike many people who classified murder as the worst crime in class, we see that Dostoyevsky kills off the alcoholic and the thief. Therefore, I think this novel causes people to reassess their rankings of these timeless crimes and in each case evaluate the circumstances and the repurcussions of their actions before coming to a conclusion.
Dam, The Flamin Lamps is turning up the heat on this debate. Although I do agree with the Lamp's theory of choice, I tend to have a very scientific influence in my thought and as a result, I can break down the book into the age old debate between Nature vs Nurture (number 3 on the sheet). Rasky and all his decisions are clearly a product of his specific environment. This can be clearly seen from the first page (and thus the most important words of the novel) where the author, D, describes how Rasky's environment as closeted and stifling. So from this aspect, C and P believes that psychologically, people are heavily influenced by their nurture or environment.
ReplyDeleteIts Flamin LAMS benjy, Flaming Lams... And I don't thin you really agreed to my concept of choice, because based on what you wrote, you're arguing that they were in a way predestined to do the things they did
ReplyDeleteI think that the book's point is a combination of 3 and four. Before I get into them, I think that the first two are too obvious to be entirely true. I forget exactly who says it in the last 40 or so pages of the novel, but someone points out that the obvious ideas of social class and environment could not have caused Rasky's actions.
ReplyDeleteI know that I am doing exactly what Ms. Siegel told us not to and am sitting on the fence but bear with me.
I think that the novel is a *realistic psychological* study that is symbolic and portrays the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself; not historical, individual man, but man in all times and places.
The book is meant to be realistic, and we are meant to be able to imagine all of these events happening either to ourselves or to easily conjured images of real people. It is psychological in nature rather than symbolic because most things (obviously excluding the coincidences) are very plausible *because of* the way people think rather than the positions they are in. The story could have been nearly the same in any time or place because the social stratification and relationships between the characters are really nothing too special.
Also: "I love lamp" -Brick
I'm going to have to agree with the majority here and choose number 4 as the most viable option. The reason we reread Crime and Punishment is because it is so universal. Every time you open the book you can find new meaning within the pages and truly read it a different way. Crime and Punishment is symbolic of the wars man fights each day, regardless if you are a Russian murderer or an American student. Everyday we are challenged with the concept of morality and consequences, and we all must struggle to live life and grow. What I think Dostoevsky is trying to convey through his novel is that NO ONE can coast through life. We all must work hard and have our own version of a struggle to fully appreciate all of the "gifts" life gives us. To appreciate love and knowledge and truth, we first have to understand hate and ignorance and lies. If life were easy, no one would appreciate it. (That's why sometimes the wealthiest/luckiest people are the most miserable right..) If Rasky could have committed the murder, stolen the money, and lived life guilt free, he would never have formulated the friendships he did and found the love he found (whether familial, romantic, or friendships). Crime and Punishment is a symbol of man's struggle to find the meaning of life...
ReplyDeleteFinally, although this really has nothing to do with the assigned blog, I forget when she said it, as much as I make fun of Haley, I thought what she said in class today or the other day was interesting. I think it pretty much went along the lines of "life sucked but as long as we have people to share it with its fine." I do not think that is truly what Dostoevsky was trying to say, but it was close. I think through suffering, we come to appreciate how fragile, but important a human life is. Even one human life can not be taken, because they have so much meaning and importance. I think through Crime and Punishment, it is apparent that not necessarily "love saves us all," but that we must appreciate each other and "love thy neighbor," because at the end of the day we are all people just trying to live life and find our own meaning and whatever.. ok I'm done because at this point this means absolutely nothing and I'm sure the only person reading this is Ms. Siegel so yeah. great book
I definitely agree with #4. I felt that although the novel incorporated the struggle between good and evil, or what was right an wrong through the actions of sundry characters, I thought Dostoyevsky proved time and time again that this book is "the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself." From the beginning, we see Raskolnikov struggle with what he is willing to do or sacrifice for the good of others or the betterment of society; however, although his intentions were good, i think over time he was able to see the error in his way and realize the loneliness and isolation that come with a nihilistic lifestyle. Raskolnikov realizes the salvation he can enjoy with the love he feels for Sonia, "...and until then how much unbearable pain, what infinite happiness! He knew that he was born again. He felt himself completely renewed in his very being" (521). I think this quote is critical to understanding Dostoyevaky's intentions with this text. It proves that Raskolnikov was able to be "reborn" into this new being and this new state of mind, after having suffered through a morality struggle for some time, and find happiness through his love for Sonia. The concepts and ideas that Dostoyevsky discusses are significant for their "relative merit" because he wants his readers to understand them for what they are worth and how their use is universal. The conclusion that Rasky came to was not a simple one to reach, but the suffering he endured to reach his salvation is something that can be experienced by anyone, at any time.
ReplyDelete