If you were assigned to record a summary of class discussion, please post it here. Be sure to note the date of the discussion and the section of the book we discussed. You may also post any ideas you didn't get to share in discussion, or respond to others' blog comments.
14 comments:
Hey everyone! Here’s a summary of our discussion today.
The first question asked regarded why Raskolnikov changed his demeanor after he read the letter his mother sent. Many thought that it had to do with the guilt Raskolnikov felt due to his sister getting married for him and he was just wasting his life away in his six pace small dwelling. He is embarrassed of his laziness and realizing how self-centered he’s become. Raskolnikov also has great turmoil within his mind. He constantly questions what he did, or is about to do, why he did it, and continuously contradicting himself.
Olivia then asked the question about the significance of the color yellow in the novel. It was brought up that in The Great Gatsby yellow was also a prominent color signifying illness and cowardice. For example, his room is yellow and Sonia’s prostitution card is yellow. With Raskolnikov it could mean that he’s hiding from society and doesn’t want to deal with anybody. So how is becoming a prostitute cowardly? She is being ostracized from society or from any future she has. She became a prostitute because she was bullied into it by her father.
There was then lengthy discussion about the character Marmeladov. He was considered a weak character because all he ever did was get drunk yet he displayed great intelligence. He is ashamed to be poor, but he will not stoop to the levels of begging. Yet while he won’t beg on the streets, he has no problem with asking his daughter to sell her body and give the money she gets to him. Marmeladov knows what he’s doing is wrong but he wants the pity. Why did Raskolnikov leave the copper coins for Marmeladov’s family? People are still naturally good, there is still a certain charitable drive in people’s spirit. However when he leaves he regrets his decision and wants the money back, which reinforces the contradictory element of his personality. But back to Marmeladov. Why did he enjoy getting his head pounded to the ground by his wife? He enjoyed being punished for all the atrocious acts he committed on him family. His wife married a man for love, yet he died and ruined the family with his gambling. Now Marmeladov is ruining his family’s life with his drinking. His pain “relieves” his wife’s heart. He could also be afraid of his wife’s eyes. The eyes can unleash all hatred. The eyes penetrate deeper into the soul than physical anguish.
I just wanted to comment on some of the discussion we had on the first few chapters of Crime and Punishment. We did not really ever talk about the brutish pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna. I found her an amazing character in her confidence and ability to read certain people. She rips Raskolnikov off right to his face and she knows that he won't do anything about it. On the other hand she is taking advantage of people in their most vulnerable times and that does not represent a strong character (Perhaps this is why she gets killed later). I think she is one of the more important characters in this story and I will be watching what else she does, that sets Raskolnikov off so much that he kills her.
Hey guys! THe discussion was great, I loved listening to everyone's comments. The following is a list of significant passages we discussed and where to find them.
The first question was based off of Raskolnikov's reaction to his mother's letter. Page 35, near the bottom: "He took up his hat and went out, this time without dread of meeting anyone; he had forgotten his dread."
~This passage started to direct the conversation toward the idea of Raskolnikov's pride versus humility.
The color yellow was addressed next. It is mentioned in Chapers 1 & 3 and could potentially deal with ostracization and cowardice. It was mentioned that the yellow ticket is the "official ticket given to prostitutes."
Marmeladov was addressed next, and the passage that the class continually refered back to was: "poverty is not a vice, that's a true saying. Yet I know too that drunkenness is not a virtue, and that that's even truer. But beggary, honoured sir, beggary is a vice" (10-11). Allison has really good notes on this part of the discussion, so refer back to that and keep the quote in mind. :)
The tendency of Marmeladov to 'flip-flop' his character in response to his drinking was addressed near the end. The first significant passage is at page 23. It is a quote from Marmeladov reading, " 'What a stupid thing I've done,' he thought to himself, 'they have Sonia and I want it myself.' " Also, along the lines of this discussion was how Marmeladov reacts with a sort of masochism, and this section was directed to the section of the book when Marmedadov first returns home.
What's up gang? Allison did a good job summarizing our discussion on Wednesday (10/19). Here are some interesting points we discussed that I thought should be addressed.
“In human nature, our actions aren’t the smartest things we do.” -Paris
We frequently asked about Roskolnikov's mental state and his personal views on human nature. Are individuals inherently good or evil? Both sides of this topic were argued. Paris' comment made me realize that an individual's actions do not identify you as a person.
A great deal of the discussion was focused on how we perceived Roskolnikov's behavior to be "animalistic." On p.10 (note these pages are from the class provided books) portrays Roskolnikov as a beggar and he is not ashamed of it. It is Roskolnikov's actions that seem to identify him to be "animalistic" such as his irrational behavior, selling his wife's prized scarf to obtain money for himself. The discussion concluded that Roskolnikov's behavior is erratic and looked down upon.
Part 1
When I was reading the first section of the book, I was really confused as to why Marmeladov's rant was included in the book. I decided that his importance (at least in the first three chapters) is to serve as a foil to Raskolnikov. Ras's meeting with Marmeladov taught Ras that he should be embarassed about not helping his family through their hardships beacuse Ras sees the pain Marm causes his family by neglecting them. Also, Ras's charity was spurred on by Marm's use of his family's money; even though Ras ended up regretting giving money to Marm's wife, it does not diminish the importance of the initial act. Marm's actions reveal to Ras the faults in his own character and Ras begins to feel the need to change part of who he is during these first three chapters because of Marm.
Several thoughts on our Wednesday 10-29 discussion.
Is it possible that Marmeladov is a wise fool? Last year while reading “Hamlet,” we talked about how Polonius and the gravediggers are wise fools who revealed many truths through comedy. I am wondering if Dostoevsky may have included the scene with Marmeladov drunk in order to allow him to speak using a wise fool that no other method allows him. For me, the device of using a wise fool allows the author to expose and support a rather contested issue. The reader can either ignore the fact by blaming the comment on the drunkenness or stupidity of the wise fool, or seriously consider and search for the meaning in these comments. For example, Marmeladov mentions poverty is not a vice, but beggary is. If the idea of poverty not being a vice is mentioned in a wealthy, capitalistic country, the belief is scoffed at. If beggary is considered a vice, it seems to unfairly attack and condemn those who have no other option other than to beg in order to survive. By having a wise fool mention the idea, Dostoevsky tempers the idea and creates potential for his view to be more widely accepted. I think it will be interesting to see what other roles Marmeladov will play in this novel.
Another point, as suggested in several other blogs, was why Marmeladov goes home and why he says he enjoys his punishment. When I mentioned that the cause may be Marmeladov is trying to maintain his dignity, there were very convincing arguments that he had no dignity to preserve in the first place. It was mentioned how every one in the bar snickered at his current life history and how the whole apartment gathered around to witness and laugh about his punishment. The comparison of my view that he is trying to maintain what little dignity he has can be seen in a historic cultural tradition. In Japan, honor was one of the most important aspects in the tradition of the Samurai. When fighting, a warrior had a long sword as well as a short dagger. Upon defeat, the winner had to allow their opponent commit suicide with the shorter dagger rather than face the dishonor of defeat. While our American culture views this ritual as grotesque and unnecessary, it is a fundamental of Japan’s history. With this in mind, does Marmeladov’s punishment act as his short dagger, with the pain he endures cleansing him of his dishonor as the warrior’s suicide? Another possibility for his mind set might be that he knows his wife takes out her frustration through violence and would rather the violence be directed toward him, the cause of her frustration, rather than the children. On page 22, we get a glimpse of the children and Dostoevsky tells us that Katrina (the mother) had just physically abused one of the children. This could tie into the idea that despite our animalistic qualities as humans in serving our self-interests, the human quality of suffering or sacrificing for others remains, even if in small, unnoticeable amounts. Just as our animalistic nature can take over our actions, this human quality can also conquer the presiding animalistic qualities and bring out a little good in even the worst people. From this thought, it could be reasoned that Raskolnikov had no choice in choosing whether to leave the coppers on the window sill. Instead, his small amount of human compassion created an instinctive action, the cause of which he later had difficulty of logically determining. Some human qualities and actions are beyond logical human reasoning.
Just a few questions.
On page 11, Marmeladov is described as having flat, red hands with black nails. What is the significance of the use of red and black? Why the hands? How does this help reveal Marmeladov’s character?
On page 33, it is revealed that Raskolnikov is a law student. How does this play into his character? In what ways does Raskolnikov resemble a law student/lawyer? In what ways does he not? How might this help him develop the “perfect” crime?
In response to Kevin's question regarding Marmeladov's flat, red hands with black nails:
The colors red and black are typically associated with corruption, violence, and blood. When Dostoevsky describes Marmeladov's hands this way, he has already introduced Marmeladov as a drunk, inane, unambitious man. Marmeladov had not showered for days, so it makes sense that his hands are filthy. I believe the color red represents guilt. We know that Marmeladov has abondoned his family, and he may realize that his selfishness is destroying his family. The black underneath his fingernails could represent Marmeladov's greed and the evil that seems to consume him. I think it is important that Dostoevsky refers to the hands, too. The hands are the body part that commits the crime. In Macbeth, for instance, hands symbolize sin and conscience. In Crime and Punishment, I think hands represent the inevitable shame that comes with treachery.
As for Kevin's second question about Raskolnikov being a law student:
Lawyers are sometimes seen as strict, untrustworthy, and even heartless. Being a law student, Raskolnikov is very logical and indifferent towards others. I think that it discloses Raskolnikov's inability to function in a society with virtually no rules. Poverty and crime are everywhere in Raskolnivkov's world, and he submits to a depressed, isolated lifestyle. Raskolnikov interprets life in St. Petersburg as immutably crooked and is inclined to partake in it. He is an intelligent and rational person, which allows him to commit the perfect murder. But, it may also contributes to the "punishment" he endures after the murder.
Bonjour all. This is my ticket. I know I cheated and used two sentences instead of one but hope you will all forgive the liberties I have taken with the instructions
"The gentleman was a smartly dressed, corpulent, thick set man of about thirty, the picture of health, with red lips and a small moustache. Raskolnikov became furious; he suddenly felt like insulting the fat dandy."
My thoughts on the quote:
It is my belief that Roskolnikov is infuriated by the dandy because the dandy represents his failures. Not because the dandy had ill intent towards the girl. The dandy is Has a job, and thus a completed education, therefore he also has money. To Raskolnikov he actually represents the people that infurate him the most; Luzhin, Svidrigaylov,and even Marmaleadov before he was entranced by vodka. He thus reminds Roskolnikov of his frustrations, his inability to finish his education, his poverty, and his lack of control over his relatives situation. Thus he vents his frustration at the dandy,using his intellect to do so upon, the current representive of those people. He has no moral vindication for doing so. Since after he fails to truly control the situation he becomes apathetic about the entire thing. His apathy is, in my opinion, a defense mechanism. He defends himself saying that a certain percentage of girls must have that fate. So he validates his failure by citing science and statistics. After reading this passage I believe that the source of Raskolnikov's indecision roots from this. When he has made decisions, he has failed. And he fears the failure that may come if he makes the wrong decision. And through this inaction his poor decision making continues. For if he does not make up his mind he cannot make the correct decision from the two options. Thus in this case he turns to apathy, for if he does not care his failure does not matter. And the stakes have risen so high, with his loss of money, and his sisters impending marriage, that he cannot bring himself to feel the pain that is inherent in the failure. This is a problem because he actually cares about the outcome. He hopes that in sidestepping the decision making process the problem will evaporate. However this creates the answer to the problem that he hopes to avoid. This is like Marmeladov's masochism. he does the very thing that he hopes to avoid. I agree with Aubrey in that Marmeladov is a foil to Roskolnikov, except that Roskolnikov has the same essential problem as Marmeladov, that he cannot master his own desire. though he attacks his studies without respit he cannot bring himself to make up his mind on anything for the pain that might result from an errant decision. So his Schizofrenia shall continue until he masters his fear of failure.
I really liked paris’s description of Raskolnikov and his inability to make decisions and how those he has made have led to failure. Could Raskolnikov’s concern over devising the “perfect crime” and actually executing it be his personal redemption for the so many times he has been unable to act or has failed?
This is one of the questions that came up in the group I was in: Does Raskolnikov really want to carry out the murder of an old pawnbroker? Does he have a choice?
Key thoughts and ideas from today’s discussion:
There was a lot of talk about fate and its role in the murder Raskolnikov commits. For example, Raskolnikov just happens to wake up from his depressed sleep at seven, when Alyona is to be home alone. Raskolnikov just happens to find the axe lying around in the caretaker’s shed. Raskolnikov just happens to not be noticed by anyone on his way to Alyona’s apartment. And, there just happens to be an open, empty room for Raskolnikov to hide in from the two men on his way down the stairs after the murder. Much of the murder relied on coincidence and chance. It seemed that Raskolnikov was almost meant to commit the murder. The class agreed, though, that fate did not justify Raskolnikov’s actions. He kills Alyona, which may have been warranted, but he also kills Lizaveta, which is necessary because she is a witness but still undeserved.
The question of whether Raskolnikov wants to be caught was discussed, too. Raskolnikov feels guilty for what he did, and maybe being caught would help to clear his conscience. Raskolnikov was compared to Marmeladov in how they are both drawn to doing wrong things and they both want punishment for it. Paris brought up the idea that Raskolnikov commits the murder because he wants to know that his seemingly corrupt society still has values and will punish him. Throughout the first and second parts of the novel, though, Raskolnikov is quite delusional. He sleeps nonstop and has no motivation to do anything at all.
The class discussion also touched on Raskolnikov’s purpose in committing the murder. Most of us agreed that the murder changes nothing in Raskolnikov’s life. He is just as destructive after the murder as he was before it. Raskolnikov might have felt that the murder would give his life a purpose, but he continues to live an unfulfilled life. Spencer talked about Raskolnikov’s sickness and self-destructive tendencies. Spencer said - and I thought this was a good point – that by murdering, “Raskolnikov is killing his symptoms, not his disease.” Raskolnikov executes the murder so robotically that he appears to not be affected at all: “He pulled the axe quite out, swung it with both arms, scarcely conscious of himself, and almost without effort, almost mechanically, brought the blunt side down on her head. He seemed not to use his own strength in this” (68-69). The class was split on whether Raskolnikov murders out of a sadistic nature or out of necessity.
The discussion ended with some more good questions. I liked this one: Does Raskolnikov rely too much on fate?
During our discussion on the 5th, we talked about Raskolnikov's reasons for the murder, and whether he enjoyed it or not. I initially believed he didn't take pleasure in the murdering of Alyona because he seemed so torn as to whether he should actually go through with it or not. However I read the murder scene again and found that when he killed the old woman, "he positively smiled at himself..." (69). You probably wouldn't smile if you brutally killed someone and didn't enjoy it. But unfortunately for Raskolnikov, his glee quickly diminished and only left him in a more depressed state then before.
I also thought Mr. Sale asked a good question regarding Raskolnikov's possible insanity. I wonder, if tried in a court today would he be able to plea insanity? Did craziness cause the murder or did the murder cause the craziness? I don't think Rodya was the sanest man before the murder, but he claimed "the very thought of it made me feel sick..." (53) His craziness wasn't to the extent to where he had no sense of what he was about to do. He knew. Yes, he knew.
Regarding our discussion on the first half of Part III:
We didn’t talk much about Razumihin and his demeanor when he is around Dounia and Pulcheria. I thought it was interesting to see how different he acts around them. It certainly contradicts what we have seen so far in the novel. I think it has something to do with his pride. We talked about Dounia and whether or not she is driven by pride, but I think the question pertains to Razumihin, too. For example, on page 183, Razumihin wakes up the morning after meeting Dounia and Pulcheria and admits that “he found himself confronted with many new and unlooked-for perplexities.” Perhaps, Razumihin’s “drunken infatuation for Avdotya Romanovna” (178) is actually the beginning of true feelings for Dounia. Razumihin even contemplates whether or not to shave, claiming: “What if they think that I shaved on purpose” (184). Razumihin is met with an unfamiliar dilemma. He is used to being unkempt and seems not to care too much what others think, sort of like Rodya. Suddenly, he finds that he wants to make a good impression on Rodya’s mother and sister, a conflict between Razumihin’s nature and his pride.
I also found it interesting that Dounia wants to invite both Rodya and Razumihin to meet Pyotr Petrovich, when he explicitly orders her not to invite Rodya. I believe this is a blatant attempt by Dounia to assert her authority over Luzhin. At this point in the novel, Rodya thinks that Dounia is marrying only for the money and that Luzhin will have control over her for it. By going against Luzhin’s wishes, Dounia gets rid of some of Rodya’s doubt. By choosing Rodya and Razumihin over Luzhin, Dounia also suggests that maybe she doesn’t love Luzhin after all. This might be a significant step to breaking off the marriage. It will be interesting to see how Luzhin reacts to Dounia’s choice.
Jessica brought up an interesting question at the end of the discussion, as well. She asked: Did Rodya murdered because he is mad or is he mad because he murdered? My answer to this question is yes. I don’t know that I would call Rodya mad, but there is certainly something wrong with him. He seems bipolar in that he swings from moods over happiness to moods of extreme depression in almost no time at all. I think Rodya contemplated the murder so much before he actually committed it that it consumed him, leading to a sort of madness. Once the murder is committed, Rodya becomes obsessed with guilt and confusion, causing more of his madness.
From the discussion earlier this week, I had a few comments I didn't have time to make:
1. I think it's strange that Dounia should feel that it's necessary to marry Petrovich for two reasons. On one hand, now it has become obvious that Petrovich will not want to help Rodya. He has even given Dounia the ultimatum that she must choose between him and Rodya. It is so doubtful that Petrovich will ever deem to give Rodya money for education that Dounia must have realized. On the other hand, Rodya will accept no such help, and he has openly voiced his opinion on the matter to Dounia. Also, Dounia seems to be a very self-sufficient girl, clever, brave, well spoken, and not in the least bit helpless. She is relatively young and very attractive, so she must have the ability to find other suitors. For this reason, I'm confused as to why she is still considering marrying Pytor. Could there be some other reason that has forced her choice?
2. Could the symbolic significance of the pawnbroker's murder be that while women can work, sacrifice, and even die for their families, the women who work, sacrifice, and die for their own self gain is not acceptable? Society is not accepting of a woman’s self-reliance, while self-sacrifice from the women in a family is a given. For overstepping the bounds of societal norms, the pawn broker’s penalty was death. If Alyonna had been a man, would anyone have looked down on her?
Post a Comment