Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Book Club: Philosophy

If you can't do the time, you shouldn't do the crime...

33 Comments:

At 10:39 PM, Blogger Danny said...

So, In reading this book, I can't help but find Raskolnikov to be a very interesting character from the start. First of all, I think that the "overstrained irritable condition, verging on hypocondria" (5) that he suffers from is meant to be a symbol of how he feels superior to everyone around him. I know hypocondria is a condition where a person has excessive concern for their own health, and I think this relates to Raskolnikov because he seems to only be concerned with himself and commiting a murder to prove his superiority. What I find to be ironic however, is that Raskolnikov does not appear to need to be this way. From the information we are provided so far, he is "exceptionally handsome" (6) and "well-built", so I see no reason why he needs to worry about proving his superiority to others, when he can easily be defined as more superior physically. Perhaps he wants to show the world that he is also mentally superior? Could it be that Raskolnikov may have some sort of mental disfunction that is causing this? I think this is the only real he could possibly consider killing anybody, as this plan seems completely irrational.

 
At 11:12 PM, Blogger Danny said...

First of all, to remention my idea of a possible mental disability earlier, it seems very awkward that Raskolnikov only speaks to himself, and has not eaten in several days. From what I am understanding from the book so far, Raskolnikov is a very, very intelligent man and he seems to display characteristics that I find to be very similar to geniuses like Einstein. I know many people mention how Einstein talked to himself and that it is the sign of a genius and I am also pretty sure that Einstein must have gotten so lost in his thoughts that he must have gone long periods of time without eating as well...so just a connection I thought I should make. Perhaps Raskolnikov isn't mentally disabled, just a genius.

Moving along... in terms of author's technique, I find it interesting that Dostoevsky puts all of Raskolnikov's thoughts in quotation marks, emphasizing that Raskolnikov really is conversing with himself rather than just thinking thoughts, displaying a very complex and reasoning mind. I also find it very interesting to note how Raskolnikov finds it “disgusting” and “loathsome” that his heart his filled with such “filthy” (11) desires. As we know from reading the back of the book, and the title, Raskolnikov will commit his murder, and will be punished for it, so I find it interesting to be able to see into his mind and see his remorse for the murder before it even happens.

 
At 11:39 PM, Blogger Danny said...

Personally, I found the nightmare Raskolnikov has in chapter five to be quite interesting (as depressing as it is). As Raskolnikov dreams about all of the drunk peasants killing that poor mare, I think it is clear that this event really happened at a point in his younger life, and that he was "beside himself" (59) when he watched it happen. This nightmare seems to stand out as significantly important, because I remember from reading Shot in the Heart last year, that most serial killers have very significant encounters with violence during their childhood, which leads them to have internal anger and want to hurt others later in their lives. This also seems to be th case with our protagonist. Also interesting to note is that Raskolnikov takes the dream to be a sign of what the murder he was planning to commit would be like. I found this to be very interesting because it allows the reader to move into the mind of a premeditating murderer, and see what sort of doubts and emotional responsesthey have before commiting their crime. I don't find it to be completely suprising that Raskolnikov is having doubts about killing the pawnbroker, but I do find it interesting to see that even his murder is rooted deeply in his past.

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger cgene said...

In response to Danny's first comment, I believe that Raskolnikov commits the murder in order to show that because he is superior to those around him, he CAN do it. He wants to show that he is so far beyond those around him that he can do what he wishes, and it is in this reasoning that he separates himself from the community, in his own head.

 
At 12:43 AM, Blogger cgene said...

Also I wanted to bring to attention another character, who in my mind, parallels Raskolnikov (from here on, Ill refer to him as Rask, too much to type.). This person would be the pawnbroker. She seems to be presented as opposite Rask in many ways. First,their clothing, he dresses in rags because he is poor, while she is just lazy, and cares not. He is poor, and knows not of business(as we can see from his credit history), while Alyona is sly, her eyes are described, as being filled with malice. Through her eyes she is shown to be perceptive to things that Rask is not. Physically, she is old and ugly, while he is young and handsome. Maybe others could point other interesting relationships between characters?

 
At 7:36 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Upon reading through Part One, The topic that the author, Dostoyevsky emphasizes in this part is the contrast between the protagonist Raskolnikov, from the cruel figures he is exposed to. The story introduces several scenarios of a brutal character abusing a helpless victim, wherein Raskolnikov is powerless to save them in result of the corruption and overpowering vice that controls the men.
In each situation, he approaches numerous figures of cruelty and injustice. For example Alyona Ivanovna, Marmelodov, the “dandy” gentleman and the constable as well as the scene in which Mikolka, responsible in his brutal beating of the horse.

To one reader, the dream in Raskolnikov regresses to the past and witnesses the brutal beating of the horse in one’s opinion stands as a metaphor towards the theme that questions the reader “What would someone do in the face of injustice and cruelty?”. The brutal imagery and dialogue that was in the scene plays as the microcosmic representation of any other actions of malice.

 
At 7:37 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Hello again,

When Raskolnikov has killed Alyona Ivanovna, the reader assumes that the protagonist weighs this crime against Alyona’s avaricious character in order to justify the murder. However, the impulsive choice of Raskonikov to kill Lisaveta afterwards now cancels out his motive to kill Alyona, thus making his motive and their deaths, in vain. His decision to kill kill such a person as Lisaveta, has created a new vision of the protagonist. His actions makes him just as vile and deviant as those figres of vice and hatred.

What is the purpose of having Raskolnikov committing such brutal atrocities mean for the protagonist’s role in this society. I have some implications, I’ll regress to them later.

‘Bye

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Well, before one can assume that Raskolnikov is suffering through some mental dysfunction to him, we should have the premise in mind that this is a narrative that emulates the mind of a man that suddenly is urged to kill. Dostoyevsky uses technique as to log the th process of a man's motivation to kill as well as to depict that dream in chapter 5.

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Ms. Clapp said...

Time to start round two of your discussion...

 
At 4:43 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Something I thought interssting and worth mentioning for this second hald of the book is that... we are pretty far into the book, two thirds as of now, and Raskolnikov has yet to actually be caught. I find it interesteing that the very first part of the book, (chapter I) seems to pertain entirely to the murder and Raskolnikov's question to do it or not. After he does kill the pawnbroker and her sister, I feel as though without actually being caught (yet) Raskolnikov still is being punished. He suspects that everyone around him knows he killed the two women and begins to suffer from fits and faints. I think that in this way, without actually being caught, Raskolnikov is being punished for his acts already.

Something I found quite interesting was that Raskolnikov constantly tries to rationlize with himself that everything will be okay. After the man who calls him a "murderer" and threatens to tell on him begins to sympathize with him and admits he won't tell, Raskolnikov begins to feel safe, which I feel is a deep mistake, because the detective is still very much suspecting him.

 
At 4:58 AM, Blogger keVien said...

I think Raskolnikov is interesting in that he himself is battling out the ethics centered around the value of one's life: was Raskolnikov justified in killing the old woman as he feverishly reasoned it out to be or is there much more to a person's life than anyone can put their hand on? It seems that this appears to be utilitarian in philosophy, the whole weighing of the value of life; how much value exactly does a human life hold? And is it contained merely in whether one is benefiting others or not (the old woman was not, Raskilnikov noted) or whether one is degrading those around oneself or not (Raskilnikov again determines that the old woman is in fact taking the money and hording it until death, whereupon it shall be "wasted" on a convent). So if there is a person who is simply living for no other reason than to live, than to horde money, and to degrade her sister, then is she fit to die? She is, in the utilitarian line of thought, fit to die, she deserves it, because she's not only not doing any good but she's also taking others down with her. Which means that Raskilnikov's thinking was correct--however we see that this is not all there is to it. In making Raskilnikov quite feverish and tormented by this murder, it's evident that the author suggests differently...

Also to tag along to what bond_smoka said, there's also the unfortunate killing of Lizaveta, who is the the old woman's, Aliona, younger sister. One of Raskilnikov's former justifications in killing Aliona was that she was degrading her sister; and, well, so much for that. Raskilnikov's rather ruthless screw-up (I remember he just caught her aghast, and said nothing and just walked up to her and smashed her with the axe as well) goes completely against Raskilnikov's former ideals, etc. of the value of one's life. She was murdered so that Raskilnikov's hide is in-tact and so that he may live on. Would have Aliona's death been justified had he not killed Lizaveta?--it seems that the author leaves that question for us to decide.

 
At 5:00 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Something I don't quite understand as of right now is the significance of Zunhinh and Dunya's marriage that appears at though it will never really happen after he offends her and her family. I do not understand that purpose of it to the story of Raskolnikov and his after murder life. I would assume that now that Zunhinh deeply hates Raskolnikov for making his sister hate the man that Zunhinh will now probably find evidence against him, which would easily send him to jail, for everyone seems to suspect Raskolnikov anyway.

I have found this section of the book very difficult due to the challenging names, and how they sometimes vary. Does anyone have an easy way to refer to which character is which? I often have to reread certain events because the names are so similar.

 
At 5:06 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Responding to Kevin's post, I understand your comment on Raskolnikov determining that Alyona was worth killing in order to stop her from exploting others, however if I remember correctly, in the discussion we said that he would kill her and most likely take all of the money she had and give it to some cause, be it the poor or whatever, to make up for her exploting of others, however he does not do this at all. After he kills Alyona, he takes trinkets that she has bought, and then he ends up killing her sister when she happens to find the dead body. I feel as though because of this, not taking the money represents that Raskolnikov was not killing her for this reason. I beleive he had convinced himself that this was the reason because Raskolnikov tends to want to rationlize everything to himself, however I feel as though this is not the case or else he would have handled the after-murder a little differently in my opinion.

 
At 5:13 AM, Blogger keVien said...

I'd like to bring a specific part of Part Two into light where Raskilnikov returns to the murder scene, but finds it changed:

"He walked, looking at the ground; suddenly someone seemed to whisper in his ear. He lifted his head and saw that he was standing at the gate of the house... An explicable prompting drew him on. He went into the house, passed through the gateway, then into the first entrance on the right, and began mounting the familiar staircase to the fourth floor... 'That wasn't how it was then,' he thought... He was perplexed to find the door of the apartment wide open... It, too, was being done up; there were workmen in it. This seemed to amaze him; he somehow thought he would find everything as he left it, even perhaps the corpses in the same place on the floor. And now, bare walls, no furniture; it seemed strange." (165)

Raskilnikov's reaction to the renovations is interesting. I put a post-it that said "I know this feeling... of being displaced, forgotten" and I think that that is exactly what Raskilnikov is facing now. He finds it strange that his mark is gone, that her death was so commonplace and not an epic tragedy, that in effect he might just get away with it the way he had planned; yet there still seems to be something wrong, something that doesn't work out. Raskilnikov's conscience tells him so. Evidently the author torments Raskilnikov to say that his philosophies are dead wrong. A more heartless and calculating killer would delight in this, wouldn't even dare show up at the house twice in the first place. But Raskilnikov is the idealist-killer, and he is troubled by something that's missing in his logic.

 
At 5:25 AM, Blogger Danny said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5:27 AM, Blogger Danny said...

I don't know, I guess I am just the type of person who beleives that any sort of killing ins'treally justified, because upon reading the passage you selected, I felt as though Raskolnikov was then realizing how uneccesary the murder was. I feel as though he hated Alyona at the time at which he killed her, but he did not have any real reasoning to. You said it was because of her exploiting others, but to be honest she really only buys from people that come to her first, so she only exploits those who seek to be exploited. Personally I feel as though Rakolnikov returns to see if his murder made an impact on anyone because he feels he is better than others, and wants to show them this. After things change and he realizes they have not changed in the way he wanted them to, he doesn't feel superior the way that he thought he would after the murder.

 
At 5:27 AM, Blogger Danny said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 5:28 AM, Blogger keVien said...

Ah, right, and instead Raskilnikov buries the money under some rock. It's symbolic (by him going against his original plan, the plan that you're referring to discussed by that righteous youth on page 66) that Raskilnikov instead worries about escaping and looking after his own instead of returning his dividends for the public's welfare. Raskilnikov's actions as opposed to his ideals are monstrous and changed; it makes him no more than some common deranged murderer.

Though at the same time, by the end of Part Two, Raskilnikov doesn't seem all that bad when he takes the responsibility of transporting Marmeledov to Katerina Ivanovna's house and gives all his money to the Ivanovnas. This kind act is more along the lines of Raskilnikov's true intent (it seems a theme is the faulty translation of ideals onto reality...) and Raskilnikov appears to be rewarded with the attention of Sonia. Life seems to be good for our wayward idealist.

P.S.: I flip to the beginning of the book to find the names. I just remember characters by their actions, and flip to the beginning to see which one matches the description. I haven't found an easier way though.

 
At 5:36 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Kevin, I like your idea of ideals not becoming realities, I think that that may be more along the lines of what the author is trying to get across here. I completely agree that Raskolnikov is not meant to be portrayed as a monstrous killer, but I beleive he is meant to represent someone who feels that no matter what they do, they are justified in doing it, and through this, I feel we are supposed to dislike Raskolnikov because of that arrogance. After he gives money to the Ivanovna's for example, he tries to feel redeemedthat he did something caring after killing the two women, which in my opinion can never really be redeemed. I do really like your view on the book, and I think that it is really interesting, however I guess Raskolnikov just seems a bit too self-deceiving to me.

 
At 5:41 AM, Blogger keVien said...

Right, Danny, I agree with you that Raskilnikov is realizing that his murder was bad, that although he thought he was doing things for the initial good, they are now terribly, terribly wrong and his ethical conscience berates him so. We see a contrast between what cgene referred to as the "in his head" murder, and what bond_smoka pointed out as the real murder where he kills Lizaveta as well.

But to whether Aliona deserved her death or not, I think this a very interesting question. I think what the young man on page 66 and what Dostoevsky is trying to make is this in simplified terms: Would you ever kill a human being? And our response is, "Well, you know, I guess there's this case where if the guy/gal really deserved it..." and he takes that line of thought and grows it into the character of Raskolnikov. Here we have Aliona who both does nothing for others and in fact takes from others (you say they seek to be exploited, which is true. I agree about that) and is justified in continuing her life. She also beats and keeps her sister in perpetual terror. She also is mistrusting, terribly mean, just a bad unpleasant character that goodness would probably never see the light again in her heart. Does that negativity, her faults in actions, make her liable to death? Does it revoke her right to live? And, bringing this out, is death row justified? Then would that mean Raskolnikov is justified?

 
At 7:34 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Well… In my opinion on the progress of the story Part II has introduced the paranoia an it’s toll on Raskolnikov, It seem his state of being correlates to his mental state and the aftermath of his crime begins to have him become depraved and reluctant to have any food, commodity, or people in general around him to the point that he become less of the picture of a human being or individual in society.

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Hi,guys. To bring something up for disscussion is the symbolism of him throwing money that he had beengiven by the elderly lady in Chapter 6, Part 2, the irony of the fact that he has been given the same amount of copecks after he had lost them to the cop, the assertion I can get frrom this is that Raskolnikov seeks to hae hs motive feel justified to the very last feeling of hae including the officer. More on this later guy

 
At 12:39 AM, Blogger keVien said...

yo, yo, yo

I'd like to take a look at Sonia and how she stood throughout the book as a symbol of persevering faith for the salvation of Raskolnikov's sins. I thought it was interesting that an idealist, almost atheist, would turn to religion to help mend his soul. Indeed, such a sin needs that kind of repentance if one still has compassion for others, but it's interesting that someone who is so decidedly "rationale" in his thinking would end up turning to God.

The author seems to be casting a doubt to his general line of philosophy, that it is somehow sinful to that degree, not addressing some vital, precious moral or piece of logic. It seems that Dostoevsky doesn't want any truck with utilitarians at all. And I understand why: it's kind of ridiculous to say that one is so unworthy as to deserve death; one because if one believes in any smallest bit of Christianity, there's that belief that one is always forgiven, and can always be saved (like our Raskilnikov), and two, the fallacy of false authority: who says that one person can say this or that person dies?

Since I'm taking this into the abstract tract, I'd like to ask some general philosophical questions as the group of philosophy to the group of philosophy to reflect. One is: We have seen the individual slideshows of a contemporary philosopher David Eggers, have rifled through tons of philosophers like Socrates, Hume, Plato, and have now just finished this. What, if anything, can we conclude about our paper? What, if there is anything, strings together these three books from almost completely different eras? Personally, I'm having trouble seeing a coherent statement that ties in all the novels we've read thus far.



P.S.: One of my favorite parts of this book, which just made me laugh out loud at the thought of it, was this part on page 256: "Damn them! I understand how annoying it is, but if I were you, Rodia, I would laugh at them, or better still, spit in their ugly faces, and spit a dozen times in all directions." I dunno, I just find that image funny; a sprinkler of disgusted Rodia spitting a dozen times in each direction.

 
At 12:49 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Hey guys, well now that we've finished this book, and reading Kevin's post about relating our philosophy books...as I tried to think of a relation, I sort of brought Raskolnikov's story back to Jane Eyre a bit. I feel that perhaps Raskolnikov's murder can be paralleled to what we see as Jane's passion, which is represented mostly through Rochester. I feel that in this case however, Raskolnikov chooses almost an opposing fate in that he seeks refuge in religion, while Jane follows her passion. Obviously the two characters are very differen,t and I am not tryingto equivocate them, but I think their situations are slightly similar. I also noticed that both of them have a desire to express their power over their own lives, and in the case of Raskolnikov, his power over others' lives as well, which is interesting...

Trying to relate the book to our others, I would have to say that being completely new to the subject of philosophy (before starting this book club group) I have to say that my general concensus on the topic is that it deals with perceiving the world, and something I think makes philosophy so special is that itis so broa in its meaning. In the case of this book, we get one specific example of a fictional characters philosophy. In Sophie's world, we got a view of actual history and philosophy, while in the Egger's book, he wrote about his philosophy and what it meant to him, and I feel as though this is somewhat how we can relate them. We have the history (sophie), the reflection (eggers),and actually living it (raskolnikov).

A question I have about the story however is that Raskolnikov ends up being too embarrased to wanting to confess in public. Does anyone else find that fear to be a bit strange, considering the other consequences that he may face?

 
At 1:24 AM, Blogger keVien said...

One bit I found most compelling about this book is Raskilnikov's thinking that goes pretty much along the lines of Nietzsche (he's the philosopher who believed that all humans can be pretty much "supermen" and achieve everything, if they willed it enough.). Here's the passage:

"I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake, for myself alone! I didn't want to lie about it even to myself. It wasn't to help my mother I did the murder--that's nonsense--I didn't do the murder to gain wealth and power and to become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I just did it; I did the murder for myself, for myself alone, and whether I became a benefactor to others, or spent my life like a spider catching men in my web ans sucking the life out of men, I couldn't have cared at that moment... I wanted to find out then and there whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether I can overstep barriers or not, whether I dare bend down to pick up or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right..." (398)

(And before that Raskilnikov talks about being Napoleon, and wondering what Napoleon would have done.)

The interesting part is at the end, when Raskilnikov vents that he wanted to claim his superiority over others by doing this heroic act that set him apart from others. He refers to "picking it up" as well, which I shall quote:

"You see, I kept asking myself then: why am I so stupid that if others are stupid--and I know they are--I still won't be any wiser? Afterwards I understood that that would never happen, that people won't change and that nobody can alter it and that it's not worth wasting effort over it. Yes that's true. That's the law of their nature, Sonia... that's true!... And I know now, Sonia, that whoever is strong in mind and spirit will have power over them... A person has to be blind not to see it!" (396-397)

So basically, Raskilnikov here is saying that few people have the ability and right to be superior than others. He is defining explicitly the value of a person's life according to the scale of what he later comments on the usefulness of that person. (He words it this way; a genius must "kill" the mediocre, conforming past in order to usher in the new future. Someone like Copernicus has to "murder" our misconceptions and ignorance in order to usher true understanding.) Raskilnikov, in his statements above, defends his definition of that old woman Aliona to be insignificant. And thus, being insignificant, it leads that one who is more significant has the ability to kill the insignificant. Sound like WWII, much?

Anyways, what interested me was it struck a chord with me. Definitely, I thought myself to be unusually gifted when I was in elementary school and some of middle school. A lofty level of conceit I held between me and everyone else, which gave myself privileges and made myself not pretentious but was more of a silent consolation. Come high school, (I'll simplify this in one example for time's sake) I suddenly found out after reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that I was a mere blip, a mere trifle in the numbing grand scale of the universe. I could kind of glimpse where Raskilnikov was coming from.

Though Raskilnikov bring's up a point about Albert Einstein and those intellectual geniuses that brought about much change. He gives the case: if Albert Einstein needs to kill some people to get his genius across, to move the progress of civilization, would a life or two be worth it? This novel says no, but I'm more interested in seeing what you guys would say.

 
At 1:48 AM, Blogger Danny said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1:49 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Personally, I agree with the book and say that I also feel that killing lives is not worth the attempt to display ingeniousness. To further your point Kevin about how the story really is emphasizing that Raskolnikov did not do the right thing, I feel that the fact that almost every character that finds out about Raskolnikov's murder ends up pitying him and that is why none of them turn him in. I find this idea a bit interesting because Raskolnikov commits the murder in an attempt to display his superiority over others, however little by little, he is becoming subjugated to the will of others as they find out about his act. Granted, he does confess his murder to many of these characters which I see as a symbolic action displaying that in attempting to express power over the pawnbroker, he must therefore become less to the people who love him.

Another thing I would like to point out is that, despite having all of these characters knowing about the murder, it is strongly emphasized that Raskolnikov must confess to the murder. I feel as though this is supposed to represent how he created his own punishment in committing the murder, whether that be with his paranoia, his having to confess to all of his loved ones, and then finally needing to confess to the world the crime he comitted. It seems as though the only person really punishing Raskolnikov is Raskolnikov himself. Any other thoughts on this?

 
At 2:08 AM, Blogger keVien said...

To respond to Danny, the scene where Raskilnikov bows down to kiss the ground and to announce to the public that "i am a murderer" was to fulfill Sonia's wish for Raskilnikov to earn his own redemption.

I personally think that he's just still the proud, vain Raskilnikov showing when he did not go through with the whole promise. That isn't to negate the pure feeling of repentance he had two seconds before he changed his mind. The book said he got a surge of tears and just buckled to the ground; that almost seems like his heart's floodgates broke out and he was truly repentant. But then the crowd around him was kind of drunk and sarcastic and mean, offering crude comments, and that re-hardened Raskilnikov's heart. It shows that he's still not humble, and that he still has pride.

To respond to Danny's other post, I thought that Raskilnikov had two characters within him, and Dostoevsky sought to contrast this as the main plot device that develops Raskilnikov's character. What I mean is that had Raskilnikov been just a completely utilitarian murderer, he would have just done the deed and would have gotten away with it, like a smooth, heartless murderer. However, Dostoevsky also implants in this proud Raskilnikov (he kinda is like Rochester) a conscience that antagonizes his utilitarian mode of thought, saying "hey, isn't a human life worth more than that? are you sure what you did was right?" Truly, it is Raskilnikov's conscience which torments him. He is inflicting his own psychological pain. The compassion in him which donates the money to the Marmeledovs and even gives five kopecks to this random beggar mother before he kisses the ground lives, and that part of Raskilnikov is what makes this murderer into a book.

But as I was reading the end, I had a question in mind as Raskilnikov flew into Sonia's patient and loving arms: Does he deserve it?

 
At 2:30 AM, Blogger Danny said...

Well Kevin, in my opinion I feel as though Raskolnikov does not deserve it because of his actions, however I think the Dostoevsky feels different. Not only does Raskolnikov's own confession create a mood of pity for him, but I also feel that the way in which he seems to find love in Sonia is meant to represent that he should be forgiven.

Through Sonia's actions to Raskolnikov's confession, I feel that Sonia is meant to represent how the author wishes us to view him with some form of love and pity. When Sonia realizes Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker and her sister she sinks "helplessly on the bed with her face in the pillows" and looks "into his face" to "catch some last hope" however after she realizes "there was no doubt remaining", she immediately exclaims "What have you done--what have you done to yourself?" (390-391). This moment represents that Sonia first wishes that the murder isn't true, but after realizing it does, she does not become worried that she is in the prescence of a murderer, but rather worries for what will become of Raskolnikov. Sonia's love becomes evident when she sits "down beside him, her shoulder almost touching his" and then later exclaims "I will follow you, I will follow you everywhere." (391). This exclamation on Sonia's part seems to bring forth the idea that Sonia can look past Raskolnikov's murder "error" and the audience should attempt to as well.

Something else I would like to touch upon briefly is, what do you feel Dostoevsky is trying to say about Raskolnikov, his superiority complex, and religion? It is apparant that Raskolnikov beleives there is "no God at all" (307), however in the end of the book he finds religion, and so in this way, does religion and Sonia's love erase his murder? What significance does God play throughout?

 
At 7:33 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

Well during the sessions in which we covered the mind process of Raskolnikov, the remainder of the novel gives or reveals the true punishment of his crime to be his own conscience. One reader can note the restraint that Raskolnikov exercises from the contents of the chest, and through people, charity as well as sleep and nourishment. One line I found relevant to the topic at hand is in the second page of the epilogue, when the court was lenient in their judgment towards Raskolnikov when “the sentence however was more merciful…partly because the criminal had not tried to justify himself” (435) ¬ but rather shown a desire to “exaggerate his guilt”(435). From the point after Raskolnikov has committed double homicide, this was exactly the case. Dostoyvevsky attempts to create the unique paradigm of a killer, an antihero if you will. The audience either has the logos and pathos effect on their examination of this character. In addition, the narrative of the protagonist mind was to have the reader analyze the mind of a guilty killer.

 
At 7:47 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

From what one can gather from the whole experience of the novel is the tell-tale heart narrative that Dostoyevsky illustrates a character as Raskolnikov to convey a message of how his dismissive society permiates or flows through the protagonist, a poverty-stricken student hardly getting and money to pay rent of feed one self unless he is selling his close sentimental possessions. Dostoyevsky's choice to have this protagonist as a learned man, oly can be the paradigm of the destitude. More on this later.

 
At 7:50 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

What else was interessting was the scene wherein Sonia gives Raskolnikov a cross to go with him as he confesses to him. This struck a chord for me as to be that allusio to "having a cross to bear" kind of resonance as well as compare the character of Raskolnikov to parallel the christ figure.

 
At 7:50 AM, Blogger bond_smoka said...

What else was interessting was the scene wherein Sonia gives Raskolnikov a cross to go with him as he confesses to him. This struck a chord for me as to be that allusio to "having a cross to bear" kind of resonance as well as compare the character of Raskolnikov to parallel the christ figure.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home