Frank argues that the typical western way of viewing Dostoevsky's is through an emphasis on both the psychological and personal aspects in the novel as opposed to the Russian approach which puts a stress on the social and cultural aspects. He does this by going over the some of the events and political scenes from the 1860's. Frank also brings up the fact that instead of writing Crime and Punishment right after being released from imprisonment Dostoevsky wrote many other things instead. He also talks about the issues between old Utopian Socialists and new Nihilists which were occurred between 1863 and 1865, in the years prior to the release of Crime and Punishment. Franks then goes off and says, "All this, I hope, has now placed us in a better position to understand what Dostoevsky was trying to do in Crime and Punishment. His aim, in my view, was to portray the inescapable contradiction of the radical ideology of Russian Nihilism." which he goes on to explain through the rest of the article.
In “The World of Raskolnikov,” Frank criticizes the Western tendency to analyze Dostoevskyan work though a psychological or biographical lens. Furthermore, he argues against the typically Western stance that Raskolnikov is an autobiographical representation of Dostoevsky. Frank instead analyzes Raskolnikov through a historical lens, claiming that Raskolnikov's psychological aspects are “only an instrument or tool used for a thematic purpose that is ultimately moral ethical and ideological in import...” (568). According to the article, then, the role of Raskolnikov's psychological inconsistencies and conflicts to personify the division between Russian Utopian and Nihilist schools of radical thought during the 1860s. Dostoevsky's portrayal of Raskolnikov's conflicted inner thoughts, according to Frank, were Dostoevsky's way of commenting on the social and cultural atmosphere of this formative period in 19th century Russian history.
Frank argues that the typical western way of viewing Dostoevsky's is through an emphasis on both the psychological and personal aspects in the novel as opposed to the Russian approach which puts a stress on the social and cultural aspects. He does this by going over the some of the events and political scenes from the 1860's. Frank also brings up the fact that instead of writing Crime and Punishment right after being released from imprisonment Dostoevsky wrote many other things instead. He also talks about the issues between old Utopian Socialists and new Nihilists which were occurred between 1863 and 1865, in the years prior to the release of Crime and Punishment. Franks then goes off and says, "All this, I hope, has now placed us in a better position to understand what Dostoevsky was trying to do in Crime and Punishment. His aim, in my view, was to portray the inescapable contradiction of the radical ideology of Russian Nihilism." which he goes on to explain through the rest of the article.
ReplyDeleteIn “The World of Raskolnikov,” Frank criticizes the Western tendency to analyze Dostoevskyan work though a psychological or biographical lens. Furthermore, he argues against the typically Western stance that Raskolnikov is an autobiographical representation of Dostoevsky. Frank instead analyzes Raskolnikov through a historical lens, claiming that Raskolnikov's psychological aspects are “only an instrument or tool used for a thematic purpose that is ultimately moral ethical and ideological in import...” (568). According to the article, then, the role of Raskolnikov's psychological inconsistencies and conflicts to personify the division between Russian Utopian and Nihilist schools of radical thought during the 1860s. Dostoevsky's portrayal of Raskolnikov's conflicted inner thoughts, according to Frank, were Dostoevsky's way of commenting on the social and cultural atmosphere of this formative period in 19th century Russian history.
ReplyDelete