Hopefully by now you've started the novel and have read Part One. If not, um, I would STRONGLY suggest you start. This is not one of those teen beach novels you can fly through. It's too dense. So if you start today you need to average 20 pages a day just to finish it for the first day of school without doing the writing part.
But to help you out with comprehension as we get closer to the first day of school each week until then I'll be posting some questions that I think might help you with making sense of the novel. I would like (hint, hint) you to respond to these questions via the comment link at the end of this post. You can respond to any or all of them. And if someone responds to the question you were going to, post anyway. Multiple viewpoints is the key to our development as a class this year.
So here are the questions from Part One to consider:
1) Why do you think Raskolnikov hates himself so? His self-loathing is so constant during the entirety of Part One that it must be important. What are your thoughts?
2) At the end of the second section of Part One he says "But if that's a lie ... if man in fact is not a scoundrel -- in general, that is, the whole human race -- then the rest is all mere prejudice, instilled fear, and there are no barriers, and that's just how it should be!" What does this quote mean? I'm wrestling with it myself. Before he makes this comment he's beating himself up for leaving some money on the windowsill of Marmeladov. He seems to be making a point about whether man is inherently good or not. What is your take?
3) Looking at section 2 and 3 of Part One there seems to be some connections between Raskolnikov's situation and that of Marmeladov's life. What types of parallels do you see? Make a list. The fact that Dostoyevsky has Marmeladov tell his back story for 10 pages must have some reasoning. (For example, both men seem loathe to accept help from others. Raskolnikov gives the money from his mother away, and Marmeladov takes the money his daughter made and squanders it on a five-day drinking binge.)
4) What are your thoughts about what his dream about being a boy and watching the beating of the cart horse might symbolize? (This is basically what I ask you to think about in question 10 in the writing response but I'm curious to see what initial thoughts you have. Don't be afraid to say whatever comes to your head.)
... more questions to come.
13 comments:
4. Well, to start, I think the beating of the horse obviously represents the murder of Alyona Ivanovna. Raskolnikov is represented by both, the drunk owner of the horse, and the little boy who protests the beating. The drunk horse guy (I forget his name ): ) shows us how ruthless and malicious Rodya is capable of acting. Rodya, as represented by the child, shows that he still has some bits of virtue left in him, and that he knows that the murder would be incredibly senseless and wrong. These two characters show the struggle Rodya has within himself on whether he wants to go through with the murder. Yes, he does realize how cruel and needless the murder would be (the young boy), but yet at the same time he wants to get rid of Alyona simply because he thinks she's better of dead than alive and he's mind has been warped by the effects of constant poverty (drunken horse man). And after perusing the Wikipedia article on Crime and Punishment, it makes sense that Raskolnikov would essentially mean "split".
:D
TJ ... interesting analysis. Thank you for being brave enough to post your thoughts. I especially like your comment about having a sense of virtue left in him despite the horrific act he commits because that ties in with one of the central themes of this novel.
Also I'm glad to see you found that the name 'Raskolnikov' means split because that's a little hint that Dostoyevsky throws us in understanding his character.
Depending on where you are in the novel there are subplots throughout of his sister's upcoming marriage, his intertwining with Marmeladov's family, his interactive with the police ... but as I told Chris Slone earlier this summer ... the key element of this novel is how Rodya deals with his predicament internally. Asking yourself WHY does he feel like he does? WHY does he seem to constantly get ill, sick, blackout when pressure is upon him? What do his actions say about him? Because essentially he is 'split' on whether he can stay silent on the crime and 'split' on how he should react to those around him.
In any event, that was an excellent comment, TJ ... now let's see if others are willing to put their 2 cents out there on that question or any of the others.
Mr. P
I've been yelled at for not leaving anything thus far, so I might as well throw my ideas out there. Part One was awhile ago for me, though, so I'm not too fresh on all of these topics.
1) Raskolnikov is just all around a very confusing person for me. It definitely seems like he has a split personality, though we all have our inner battles to deal with. Growing up in such poverty may be one of the reasons for him hating himself. Insecurity and instability both probably have something to do with his past and his poverty. I think his lack of a father also plays a role because without that influence in his life, he becomes even more unstable.
4) I agree with TJ on his thoughts about this beating forshadowing the murder of Ivanovna, but also, I think it's meant to symbolize the innocence of the victim, yet the fierceness of the murderer. In both of these situations, the murders were not justified and completely uncalled for. The victims just got in the way, and these acts were thought to be justified. The beating of the horse foreshadows the future violence in part one. I'm still thinking of what it may symbolize. Maybe that many victims are innocent?
Yea! More excellent insight into the novel. This warms my English teacher heart. Having seen just two people respond, I am delighted to see the breadth of thought which is running through you guys. These are some great analyses and I enjoy reading them.
To your response on number one, Ms. Brandt, I think it's great you are making connections between his current situation and his past. Later in the novel we will be given even more of his back story once his mother and sister arrive in St. Petersburg. But I would ask you to look again at the idea that poverty is the reason for his self-loathing. It would seem that he is offered help by various individuals; his mother, sister, and Razkumhin to name a few. And yet at every turn he seems to wallow in his poverty. He blatantly gives money away, and the trinkets he collected from the murder are now buried under a rock. It seems he wants nothing to do with money and in fact seems to embrace his poverty.
Anyone else have thoughts?
As to your response on number four, I totally agree with your thought that the "acts were justified," but to a point. The reason he commits the murder in the first place is because he thinks he is doing the populace a favor by taking out a mean person who hoards money. Remember he overhears the people at the tavern talk about the fact it would be okay to take out someone like that because you could save lots more people with the money. So he acts based on that 'moral' ground. However, the murder actually seems to be cold and calculated and no thought about trying to use it to help others out. And afterwards he wants to throw all the trinkets in the river. So he seems to go against that thought pattern.
In any event I love that you guys are wrestling with these ideas. I can't impress upon you enough that the more questions you ask yourself and try to deduce the better you will be, not just with this novel, but with anything you read.
Keep up the good comments!
Okay, I understand all that. I'm just really confused about how Raskolnikov thinks that he's helping the poor by hiding the riches gained from the pawnbroker under that rock. I know that he wanted to get rid of the evidence, but to me it seems strange that he wanted to kill her in order to distribute her wealth, yet that doesn't come from her death. Thoughts?
In reference to the whole poverty thing, it seems to me that the reason he doesn't want any help is because he just enjoys being miserable. Paradoxical? I think so. It's like he's been in this mentality of being this way for some time, and now he just doesn't want to get out of it and he just dwells upon all of his flaws. Also, being a self conscious teen, I know from experience that it's a lot easier to find things you hate about yourself, compared to things you like. Another reason he might "wallow in his poverty" is so that he can justify his own horrible actions to himself. Like, he doesn't want to hold himself accountable for the way he is, so he could use his lifestyle as an excuse, you know? I don't know, I'm just guessing. I mean, I know people that, for some reason, act depressed without justification, simply because they want to. So it's not a far jump in my mind that one wants to be miserable just because he can.
And to Anna's comment, I think the whole "spreading the wealth" thing is yet again, just another excuse. From what I've read so far, it seems that Dostoevsky wanted to showcase how much society has deteriorated. Every chapter, there's some mention of this. Whether it be drunks in the street, the cop that conned Rodya by taking his money and saying he was going to help that girl who was going to be taken advantage of, Zametov taking bribes, and what not. I just think that this murder was just another example of how much or society has been deteriorating....yet again, I haven't read too far into when things are being explained, so I'm guessing my views are going to change as I read.
Well, Teege, it seems like this is our discussion board. Oh, and Parsons of course. But i don't mind. It helps me try to get something out of what I'm reading. =). Thanks for the imput, Teege. I agree with you. It seems like he definitely enjoys being miserable and tries to stay as isolated from society as possible. I don't know how far you've gotten, but as I'm reading in part four, it seems as if he's kind of incriminating himself at this point. I'm not sure if this is his intention, but it seems as though he's giving in to his guilt now. Some people just live and thrive on always having problems. Perhaps Raskolnikov is one of these types of individuals.
Haha. We're just over achievers. :)
Anyway, even in Part Two he's incriminating himself. Dost thou recall when he's in the Palais de Cristal where he has that conversation with Zametov? The one when he told him his perfect plan of execution for the murder....which he actually committed. I can understand feeling guilty and turning yourself in, but not just playing with the whole situation. Almost turning yourself in, and then not....Crazy foo. :/
Alright, so apparently this is just our little secret clubhouse right now but hopefully others will get their super secret decoder rings out and figure out the path to this lost land.
I feel like too many comments have gone by that I've wanted to respond to. "Teege" I think you're right on about his want to be miserable. It's almost like his own personal punishment. This may be giving too much away too fast to others (but they obviously aren't reading this anyway) ... but this book centers around the theme of religion and redemption. Raskolnikov is a sinner who needs to find redemption. I think he struggles with that because he wants to confess to people all the time about what he's done because he feels guilty but he can never fully commit to going all the way.
Later on his mind games with Porfiry really show that. He likes finding someone with the same intellect that he feels he has, but he also feels the strain of hiding his guilt and at the idea that innocent people are suffering because of what he's done.
The other main issue you have to deal with (if you haven't gotten to it yet) is that Porfiry makes mention of an article Raskolnikov published when he was a student. That article, and its subject matter, helps explain why Raskolnikov feels like he could kill the pawnbroker without facing any retribution but there is some irony in there.
I'll hold off on going into too much detail now in case you haven't gotten there but think about that a little.
My plan is to post some questions about Part 2 later today or tomorrow. Maybe we can continue our chat then.
2. I think he is saying that humans a naturally good people but that the way society is in his time (and today) makes the most simple gestures of kindness seem unnecessary and an act of stupidity on the doers part because i would be effort and means taken away from the doer. But then I think that he is fighting himself on which on to believe in because hes not quite sure theory truly works better. But in this quote what through me off was "there are no barriers" because prior to that, like the "instilled fear" part was referring to the society`s way but then I think he just switched on the barriers part, talking about how if the people didn't listen to the society then they would have no barriers on all the acts of good that they could do. But i could be wrong.
3. One major similarity between the two characters is that they both think a lot, mainly psychology, but never really live by what they claim. For example like what you said on how Marmeladov takes that money even though he preaches on how he doesnt want these people to feel bad for him or whatever and how he doesnt deserve it, but honestly he expects it. And as for Raskolnikov he talks to himself in his head about what he believes but then his physical being does something that contradicts himself. For example when says he has spent all of this time planing out the murder and how he knows that the only reason people get caught is because they get scared and how he wont, but then after all is happening, he does freak out and even after he almost admits it a billion times. This is the best example but it was the first thing that came to mind but he does things like this alot.
4. I believe that this was supposed to show his true innocence as a person in a way. Like how he doesn't feel that it was right to beat and kill the horse because it didn't do anything wrong to anybody. But that was just who his inner person was before he moved away from home, the person his mother and sister knows him as. But now when the story began his mind is corrupt and as if there is layers covering his own original mind to where now he thinks the way of a murderer and tries to justify the killing that he does. Not really focusing on the old lady, but the younger (innocent) one. Make sense or no?
Alex ... great insight. I'm glad you felt compelled to write. I think you're right, Raskolnikov is definitely fighting himself on what to do. Throughout the novel he has these "should I/shouldn't I" moments about confessing to the crime.
I think there's more to the similarities between Roskolnikov and Marmeladov, but you are right on in giving one of the examples between them, and you were the only one to attempt that one. Great work.
Keep up the reading and thoughts.
Post a Comment