So hopefully people have gotten their books and have started reading by now. If you haven't, um, well, okay. Enjoy your next few weeks holed up with a great Russian author.
In any event, I've included a few questions from Part Two of the novel that I think may help with your thought process while reading. Again, feel free to expound upon any or all of the questions below.
1) What does Raskolnikov gain from getting rid of the stolen goods from the pawnbroker? By the end of Part Two we know he didn't steal that much money based on what the police found in her apartment, so why does he hang on to the trinkets that are only of minimal value anyway?
2) Why is Raskolnikov so against Pyotr Luzhin from the beginning he meets him? What is he so leery about? He hardly knows anything about the man, why is he not good enough for Raskolnikov's sister?
3) In the sixth section of Part Two (pg. 158 in my version), Raskolnikov gives a long quote, "a man condemned to death ... if he had to live somewhere high up on a cliffside, on a narrow ledge ... with the ocean, eternal darkness, eternal solitude ... and had to stay like that, on a square foot of space, an entire lifetime ... it would be better to live so than to die right now! To live, no matter how -- only to live! Man is a scoundrel!" Besides seeing that reoccurring reference to man being a scoundrel (like the question in part one that I asked about) it seems Raskolnikov really values life and that survival is key. And yet in his conversation with Zamyotov in the sixth section he basically confesses to the murder. WHY would he do such a thing? What could he possibly gain by acting like this?
**And just as a special aside, pay attention to all of those religious type clues. At some points I feel the novel is very blatant about them. Also, this section seemed pretty big on making metaphorical references to the exterior not being equal to the interior. Seems like a person's character cannot be defined by their outward appearance or behavior. Perhaps that's important to knowing what Dostoyevsky is trying to say with this novel?**
7 comments:
1. I believe that the reason for him keeping them is because it was his effort. Like because in the book he kept gaining money in random ways to where it requires either a little work or none at all and he either doesn't except it or throws it away. Like the money that he got from his mom, the money that his best friend offered him for translating, and the lady in the street who felt sorry for him. But i think he has this weird attachment to it because proved that he could do it and get the "deed" done.I don't really how to explain.
well said. I hadn't even considered that, but you could be right on the mark with that. Ownership and him being in charge of things seems important to him. Great insight!
2. In your previous post, we discussed how Raskolnikov seems to be attatched to his poverty in some respects. I think that since Luzhin threatens his poverty, he automatically turns against him and the idea of his life. I don't know if that makes sense, but it just seems like he would be against any heaven-sent answer to his family's problems. If he would want anyone to solve his family's problems, he would want to do it himself.
Anna -- I think I agree with most of what you say. The last sentence bothers me slightly except the word 'if' because although he appears to hate accepting charity, at no point does he ever show any ambition at wanting to be the savior for the family. He would rather them suffer right along with him it would seem. He doesn't want Dunya marrying Luzhin but he also doesn't seem to have alternatives to how the family would survive.
BTW, I like your phrase 'heaven-sent' ... whether you realize it or not that's very prophetic. We've already seen lots of allusions to the Bible, people being seen as saviors, and a whole cast of sinners. Hmm ... where will it go from here.
1. I don't think he really gained anything from disposing of the goods. I mean, he still freaks out about them, so it's not like it eased his mind about someone linking the pledges to him. Even in Part Three, there's a section (I forget where it is exactly) where he feels around the hole in the wall where he originally put them because he thought he might've left something there. And then he freaks about maybe he dropped something along the way that might turn up unexpectedly. I think it's fairly obvious he didn't kill her for the pledges anyway. After reading the part about the article he wrote, it just seems like he killed her because he thought he was that "extraordinary" person that is above morality and law.
2. I think the reason he's so against Luzhin is because of why Dounia wants to marry him. Dounia wants to be well off so that she can help raise her family out of poverty. And I think that Rodya doesn't want her to marry him not because he wants her to marry for love, but because he just doesn't want her help, and it's because of his pride that he doesn't feel like he needs help. I mean, it's not like he cares whether or not his family is in poverty. All he cares about is himself, and like I said above it may be due to him thinking he's above everyone else.
3. I think he acted like that kinda so he could laugh at Zametov. Like, he pulled off the perfect murder, and now he's going to brag about it, and still not get caught. Yet again, I think it's a pride thing. How could he go by and not let people know? It's like his drive for life is making him do stupid things so that he can get a rush out of it. Naww'mean?
DING DING DING! Teege, you nailed it! What a fabulous comment. Of course you know I'll be disappointed if you're not talking this much in class now right?
But your comment on #1 is absolutely dead-on in my opinion. Because I'm putting in these comments one part at a time I'm having to hold back some information in my comments so as not to give away some things in the future.
However, since you brought it up, Yes, the article he wrote is a HUGE point in this novel. I don't want to delve too much into it yet, but that's where he seemed to get this idea that he was somehow larger than life, and was of the ability to get away with anything he wanted. I'll write more on this in a few days, but great analysis Mr. Beard.
Your insight on #2 gets backed up in their discussions somewhat in Part 3. He makes several comments about how much he dreads his family and doesn't care about them. But at the same time there seems to be a bond between brother and sister. She seems to be his antithesis in some ways and can read between the lines of his statements when others can't.
And #3 sort of ties in with number one. It all centers around the article he wrote and his idea that he is somehow a GREAT man who has no authority over him. Hmm ... what could EVER go wrong with someone thinking they were above everybody else.
But keep in mind, while the plot is fun to follow, the murder, his sister's impending marriage, Razumikhin's crush on Dunya, etc., the main facet is why Raskolnikov acts as he does. This is a psychological novel about how humans view themselves and how they perceive the world. His meetings with Porfiry in future parts will illuminate that further I think.
Very impressive work TJ. Let's hope that your classmates, even if they aren't posting to the site, are reading your comments (and Alex's and Anna's as well).
Post a Comment