Sophie mentioned how the characters in "Crime and Punishment" merit more sympathy than the past characters of Dostoevsky's works. In particular, Sophie mentioned how Rashkolnikov sympathy towards other makes him more sympathetic. Throughout the first part, Rashkolnikov sympathizes with the victims, and has a lack of sympathy for the murderers. I think this is an interesting point, and definitely worth paying attention to with the evolution of the Rashkolnikov's character throughout the novel. In Part II, Rashkolnikov seeks to be treated almost as if he is the victim, as he wanders through the street, and gets whipped by the carriage, again bringing in the example of the horse, which we discussed demonstrated as the helpless victim. I think the translation of Rashkolnikov's as "schism" demonstrates his contrasting nature and desire of being the victim and the murderer. As the story progresses, Rashkolnikov, in my opinion, seems to lose my sympathy as Dostoevsky mercilessly captures all aspects of Rashkolnikov and takes you inside his mind. Now instead of sympathizing with him, as a reader, I feel I am more undergoing a psychological study of a suffering murderer.
Sophie’s presentation created a lens to read the rest of the novel through: innocent victims. The first victim is the horse in Raskolnikov’s dream. In the dream Raskolnikov attempts to stop the drunken peasants from killing the horse, but being a small child, he is unable to stop them. The second victim is Lizaveta, who Sophie described as similar to the horse, in the sense that Lizaveta was helpless to stop her older sister, Alena, from beating her. Raskolnikov subconsciously sees Lizaveta as the horse, and also sees the people forced to pawn valuable items to Alena as innocent victims of circumstance as well. Raskolnikov’s actions lead to Lizaveta’s death, making him just as culpable in her death as the horse’s owner in the dream. As Natalie mentioned, we see that Raskolnikov is struck by a cabman’s whip. Raskolnikov then begins to stand-in for the horse. Raskolnikov is, after all, an innocent victim of crippling poverty. Raskolnikov’s actions after being struck by the cabman’s whip shift away from helping innocent victims, and seem more about Raskolnikov helping himself. This then begs another question: If Raskolnikov’s actions are now focused on his own benefit, are his actions justified under utilitarian philosophy? We also see Razumikhin enter the story as someone aiming to help Raskolnikov as an innocent victim of illness. Razumikhin’s approach does not involve violence, but seems more focused on charity. Raskolnikov’s approach, at least in his mind, seems more focused on freeing innocent victims, whereas Razumikhin’s seems more focused on assisting victims until they are self-sufficient again. I think that the differences between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin’s approaches should be looked at carefully in the upcoming chapters.
I really enjoyed Kaitlyn’s discussion of Raskolnikov’s split from society, and how he is becoming increasingly more isolated. This split from society is perhaps one of Rodya’s most significant schisms because it allows us to see that it is Raskolnikov, and not society, that is punishing him. I’d like to further discuss this split we see with Raskolnikov, both from society, and within himself, because I think it may be Dostoevsky’s more successful attempt at the “serious idea” he first had when writing the Double. I think the “serious idea” of creating a double is successful with Raskolnikov where it failed with Mr. Golyadkin in part because Raskolnikov can have a split with more than just himself. Because Mr. Golyadkin had a physical double, the split was only seen between the two Mr. Golyadkins. With Crime and Punishment, however, Dostoevsky can illustrate more than Rodya’s split with himself; he can show his split from society as well, as Katilyn suggested. The fact that Dostoevsky comes back to this “serious idea” of a double in subsequent writings, after its failure in the Double, means that we should pay special attention to it, because it was something Dostoevsky was clearly serious about.
Sydney's presentation, which highlighted Raskolnikov's personality development and pointed to the apparent schism in his personality, was compelling. Raskolnikov had been spiraling further and further away from his old self, creating a different, “new” self...or rather, a discombobulated and fragmented version of himself. Much like Golyadkin in The Double, Raskolnikov finds himself wandering aimlessly and ends these wanderings by “coming to himself.” As Sydney pointed out, the “good” part of the Raskolnikov seems to have manifested in the form of Razumikhin, who comforts and provides support to Roskolnikov's mother and sister. Alex pointed out the undercurrent of Christianity throughout the novel, specifically the role of Raskolnikov as a Christ-like figure. Then, if Razumikhin has taken on some of the characteristics of Raskolnikov, is he a Christ-like figure as well? On page 187, Raskolnikov's mother tells Razumikhin that “I look on you as our special Providence, and so I am convinced that you know everything.” Here we see the worlds of Christianity and reason collide, shortly after Razumikhin's speech about truth on page 171. I think the roles of truth and reason will be something to look out for as the novel progresses.
I found Alex’s discussion of Raskolnikov as a potential Christ figure in conjunction with Sydney’s discussion of Raskolnikov’s split personality very intriguing. If we look at Raskolnikov as a sort of perverse Christ, who has a darker, apathetic, and even criminal side that contrasts his compassionate, forgiving, and loving side, we can view his actions as paralleling and contrasting Christ’s in interesting ways. Most notably, while Christ sacrifices himself for the good of mankind, Raskolnikov sacrifices Alena Ivanovna using the same reasoning. What’s more, Raskolnikov makes not one sacrifice, but two including both Alena and Lizaveta (possibly three, if Lizaveta was indeed pregnant). In this way, we may see the manifestation of the “split” in Raskolnikov. That is, his actions are opposed to his supposed intentions, and even the victims of his crime represent the opposition of good to evil (Alena to Lizaveta), perhaps representing his opposing personalities. Therefore, we may understand Raskolnikov as a complicated character who although has Christ-like intentions at times, and even performs acts of charity and selflessness, also fails as a Christ character due to the darker side of his “split” personality. In addition, Justin has observed that the setting of St. Petersburg often reflects Raskolnikov’s inner turmoil and confusion. If we think about this in relation to Raskolnikov’s personality as a failing Christ, we may understand this as a critique of St. Petersburg. That is, perhaps Dostoevsky is suggesting that acting as a sort of Christ is not possible or at least extremely difficult in St. Petersburg. Perhaps good intentions cannot be successfully carried out when one is living an impoverished life in the toxic, industrial city, in which one’s own survival is opposed to giving of oneself or delivering charity to others. This opposition of Christian morals to survival within the city may be a potential cause of the confusion and “split” in Raskolnikov. As Natalie observed in Monday’s class: Raskolnikov’s conscience may be what is destroying him. This makes sense if it is that his environment (the city) will not allow for Raskolnikov to act according to his conscience.
I didn't make very clear above, that the interesting part about Christ's versus Raskolnikov's sacrifices are that while Christ sacrifices himself, Raskolnikov sees it fit to sacrifice another (not himself). An interesting departure from the Christ story, I think!
I thought Melanie's discussion about Raskolnikov being between two worlds, on the "threshold" so to speak, was a very interesting idea. Raskolnikov's odd comment "You sound as though you are burying me" (264) seems to support the idea that he is metaphorically dying in some way. His running out of the room, and unspoken confession to Razumikhin shows that he has reached a new point of transgression. Earlier, Svidrigaylov's mentions of ghosts brings about the spiritual idea of crossing over. Perhaps Raskolnikov is officially cutting off ties with all of the "ordinary people" in his life, and in turn crossing into a new world. Clearly, during his discussion with Sonya, it is made clear that he does in fact see himself as an extraordinary individual- remarking on their impressive ability to "step over the barrier" (278). The question is where he plans to take Sonya. In Part V, I anticipate seeing where this new "extraordinary" path will take him. Brad discussed the dynamics between Porfiry and Raskolnikov. I found the tone Porfiry uses, of "dreadful familiarity" (225), particularly interesting. When I was reading, I thought it was interesting to note how he always makes Raskolnikov sit on the sofa-- which feels oddly intimate to Raskolnikov, since his sofa is his bed. The amiable tone throughout their interactions is unbearable for Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov's attempts to uphold this tone are extremely unnatural, and he constantly second guesses himself. Brad's mention of his "Women!" (213) comment is a great example of his inability to act as an "ordinary" human.
Sophie mentioned how the characters in "Crime and Punishment" merit more sympathy than the past characters of Dostoevsky's works. In particular, Sophie mentioned how Rashkolnikov sympathy towards other makes him more sympathetic. Throughout the first part, Rashkolnikov sympathizes with the victims, and has a lack of sympathy for the murderers. I think this is an interesting point, and definitely worth paying attention to with the evolution of the Rashkolnikov's character throughout the novel. In Part II, Rashkolnikov seeks to be treated almost as if he is the victim, as he wanders through the street, and gets whipped by the carriage, again bringing in the example of the horse, which we discussed demonstrated as the helpless victim. I think the translation of Rashkolnikov's as "schism" demonstrates his contrasting nature and desire of being the victim and the murderer. As the story progresses, Rashkolnikov, in my opinion, seems to lose my sympathy as Dostoevsky mercilessly captures all aspects of Rashkolnikov and takes you inside his mind. Now instead of sympathizing with him, as a reader, I feel I am more undergoing a psychological study of a suffering murderer.
ReplyDeleteSophie’s presentation created a lens to read the rest of the novel through: innocent victims. The first victim is the horse in Raskolnikov’s dream. In the dream Raskolnikov attempts to stop the drunken peasants from killing the horse, but being a small child, he is unable to stop them. The second victim is Lizaveta, who Sophie described as similar to the horse, in the sense that Lizaveta was helpless to stop her older sister, Alena, from beating her. Raskolnikov subconsciously sees Lizaveta as the horse, and also sees the people forced to pawn valuable items to Alena as innocent victims of circumstance as well. Raskolnikov’s actions lead to Lizaveta’s death, making him just as culpable in her death as the horse’s owner in the dream.
ReplyDeleteAs Natalie mentioned, we see that Raskolnikov is struck by a cabman’s whip. Raskolnikov then begins to stand-in for the horse. Raskolnikov is, after all, an innocent victim of crippling poverty. Raskolnikov’s actions after being struck by the cabman’s whip shift away from helping innocent victims, and seem more about Raskolnikov helping himself. This then begs another question: If Raskolnikov’s actions are now focused on his own benefit, are his actions justified under utilitarian philosophy?
We also see Razumikhin enter the story as someone aiming to help Raskolnikov as an innocent victim of illness. Razumikhin’s approach does not involve violence, but seems more focused on charity. Raskolnikov’s approach, at least in his mind, seems more focused on freeing innocent victims, whereas Razumikhin’s seems more focused on assisting victims until they are self-sufficient again. I think that the differences between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin’s approaches should be looked at carefully in the upcoming chapters.
I really enjoyed Kaitlyn’s discussion of Raskolnikov’s split from society, and how he is becoming increasingly more isolated. This split from society is perhaps one of Rodya’s most significant schisms because it allows us to see that it is Raskolnikov, and not society, that is punishing him. I’d like to further discuss this split we see with Raskolnikov, both from society, and within himself, because I think it may be Dostoevsky’s more successful attempt at the “serious idea” he first had when writing the Double. I think the “serious idea” of creating a double is successful with Raskolnikov where it failed with Mr. Golyadkin in part because Raskolnikov can have a split with more than just himself. Because Mr. Golyadkin had a physical double, the split was only seen between the two Mr. Golyadkins. With Crime and Punishment, however, Dostoevsky can illustrate more than Rodya’s split with himself; he can show his split from society as well, as Katilyn suggested. The fact that Dostoevsky comes back to this “serious idea” of a double in subsequent writings, after its failure in the Double, means that we should pay special attention to it, because it was something Dostoevsky was clearly serious about.
ReplyDeleteSydney's presentation, which highlighted Raskolnikov's personality development and pointed to the apparent schism in his personality, was compelling. Raskolnikov had been spiraling further and further away from his old self, creating a different, “new” self...or rather, a discombobulated and fragmented version of himself. Much like Golyadkin in The Double, Raskolnikov finds himself wandering aimlessly and ends these wanderings by “coming to himself.” As Sydney pointed out, the “good” part of the Raskolnikov seems to have manifested in the form of Razumikhin, who comforts and provides support to Roskolnikov's mother and sister.
ReplyDeleteAlex pointed out the undercurrent of Christianity throughout the novel, specifically the role of Raskolnikov as a Christ-like figure. Then, if Razumikhin has taken on some of the characteristics of Raskolnikov, is he a Christ-like figure as well? On page 187, Raskolnikov's mother tells Razumikhin that “I look on you as our special Providence, and so I am convinced that you know everything.” Here we see the worlds of Christianity and reason collide, shortly after Razumikhin's speech about truth on page 171. I think the roles of truth and reason will be something to look out for as the novel progresses.
I found Alex’s discussion of Raskolnikov as a potential Christ figure in conjunction with Sydney’s discussion of Raskolnikov’s split personality very intriguing. If we look at Raskolnikov as a sort of perverse Christ, who has a darker, apathetic, and even criminal side that contrasts his compassionate, forgiving, and loving side, we can view his actions as paralleling and contrasting Christ’s in interesting ways. Most notably, while Christ sacrifices himself for the good of mankind, Raskolnikov sacrifices Alena Ivanovna using the same reasoning. What’s more, Raskolnikov makes not one sacrifice, but two including both Alena and Lizaveta (possibly three, if Lizaveta was indeed pregnant). In this way, we may see the manifestation of the “split” in Raskolnikov. That is, his actions are opposed to his supposed intentions, and even the victims of his crime represent the opposition of good to evil (Alena to Lizaveta), perhaps representing his opposing personalities. Therefore, we may understand Raskolnikov as a complicated character who although has Christ-like intentions at times, and even performs acts of charity and selflessness, also fails as a Christ character due to the darker side of his “split” personality.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Justin has observed that the setting of St. Petersburg often reflects Raskolnikov’s inner turmoil and confusion. If we think about this in relation to Raskolnikov’s personality as a failing Christ, we may understand this as a critique of St. Petersburg. That is, perhaps Dostoevsky is suggesting that acting as a sort of Christ is not possible or at least extremely difficult in St. Petersburg. Perhaps good intentions cannot be successfully carried out when one is living an impoverished life in the toxic, industrial city, in which one’s own survival is opposed to giving of oneself or delivering charity to others. This opposition of Christian morals to survival within the city may be a potential cause of the confusion and “split” in Raskolnikov. As Natalie observed in Monday’s class: Raskolnikov’s conscience may be what is destroying him. This makes sense if it is that his environment (the city) will not allow for Raskolnikov to act according to his conscience.
I didn't make very clear above, that the interesting part about Christ's versus Raskolnikov's sacrifices are that while Christ sacrifices himself, Raskolnikov sees it fit to sacrifice another (not himself). An interesting departure from the Christ story, I think!
ReplyDeleteI thought Melanie's discussion about Raskolnikov being between two worlds, on the "threshold" so to speak, was a very interesting idea. Raskolnikov's odd comment "You sound as though you are burying me" (264) seems to support the idea that he is metaphorically dying in some way. His running out of the room, and unspoken confession to Razumikhin shows that he has reached a new point of transgression. Earlier, Svidrigaylov's mentions of ghosts brings about the spiritual idea of crossing over. Perhaps Raskolnikov is officially cutting off ties with all of the "ordinary people" in his life, and in turn crossing into a new world. Clearly, during his discussion with Sonya, it is made clear that he does in fact see himself as an extraordinary individual- remarking on their impressive ability to "step over the barrier" (278). The question is where he plans to take Sonya. In Part V, I anticipate seeing where this new "extraordinary" path will take him.
ReplyDeleteBrad discussed the dynamics between Porfiry and Raskolnikov. I found the tone Porfiry uses, of "dreadful familiarity" (225), particularly interesting. When I was reading, I thought it was interesting to note how he always makes Raskolnikov sit on the sofa-- which feels oddly intimate to Raskolnikov, since his sofa is his bed. The amiable tone throughout their interactions is unbearable for Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov's attempts to uphold this tone are extremely unnatural, and he constantly second guesses himself. Brad's mention of his "Women!" (213) comment is a great example of his inability to act as an "ordinary" human.