Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Purpose of the Novel
I'm shocked that no one has posted anything here yet. So I guess I'll get it going. Of the four possible choices I definitely agree with number four (4) the most. I don't think this novel is very realistic. All the details about the murder are just too coincidental/perfect for it to be possible. Especially that he never actually gets caught even though everyone is on to him. I agree that this novel is symbolic of "man" in general. It captures the essence of man on a number of levels. Firstly, we have the progression of ideas that has occurred throughout time as it relates to the perspective on life. All of the philosophies that we studied in class that arise in the text have at one point been considered realistic possibilities and considered as fact. Overall, in the way that these ideas are introduced they are not necessarily judged but rather explained. These explanations are conveyed through character dialogue and action and serve to weigh their pros and cons rather than to show their effects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Mike. Out of the four theories, I found the fourth to have the most merit. I think that although parts of the novel are unrealistic, the psychological problems Raskolnikov experiences were somewhat realistic and symbolic of what is going on around him. After committing such a serious murder, it is understandable that we see him suffer both mentally and physically. His physical condition represents the suffering that not only he experiences, but that Dunya, his mother, Katherine's family, and Sonia experience as well. Additionally, the book definitely portrays ideas on "the battlefield of man himself." Raskolnikov struggles with his actions and the resulting consequences that play out based on his actions. The last line of this theory, "the goal is to meausre te relative merits of the ideas, rather than to portray their effect upon individual people," directly parallels Raskolnikov's article and the ubermenche theory. Because extraodinary people are superior to the ordinary, they are able to kill simply because they have the power to do so. However, the effect that these actions have on individual people is ignored. Raskolnikov views himself as one of these extraordinary people, and this is shown through the murders he commits. Ultimately, his actions have negative effects on his family and the people closest to him.
ReplyDeleteMike I agree with your selection. At first, I was tempted to choose number three; but, I would not say that C&P is founded on the aspects of the "time and place" of its setting. So, I chose number four, which specifically addresses the novel's significance for men of all times and places.
ReplyDeleteWhile I would not necessarily dismiss the novel's potential to be realistic, I absolutely agree with the claims made regarding philosophy in the novel; namely the "conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself." And it is this battlefield within man that forms the basis for the novel. As Raskolnikov's name suggests, the characters are all divided by the difficult decisions they are forced to make. Let's look at how this battlefield within the man is significant.
At first, one might think that the actual murder committed by Raskolnikov is most significant; however, it is really that fact that Raskolnikov is able to commit murder that is paramount. This contrasts with his inability to kill himself--based on other moral grounds.
To the contrary, Dunia is unable to commit murder--as her point-blank revolver shots conveniently miss. And Svidrigailov is able to commit suicide, unlike Raskolnikov.
The point here is that it is not the acts of violence that may, at first, seem to occur on the interpersonal battlefield; rather it is the decisions leading to those acts, which occur on the intrapersonal level, that are most significant to the text.
Through an examination of these decisions--the focus on the character's thoughts--Dostoyevsky balances the merits of the many philosophies that are found in C&P. This can only be achieved on an intrapersonal level, hence, the "battlefield of man himself."
I, too, agree with the fourth theory the most. First, I believe that the novel is not realistic; as mike said, in order for Raskolnikov to be successful with the murders, a whole bunch of things had to go perfectly right. I also agree with the fourth theory because I think it is very "symbolic of the conflict of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself... in all times and places." Without a doubt, many people in the world experience what Raskolnikov had to go through as a result of this murder - although the circumstances might differ and not be as dramatic. For example, as Josh mentioned in class one day, a student who cheats on a test experiences the same feeling of guilt that Raskolnikov experiences. Additionally, many people experience an inner conflict between what they believe in and how they act on their beliefs. For instance, someone may believe that prejudice is extremely awful, yet still partake in small acts of prejudice. In the novel, Sonia is a perfect representation of this "battlefield." While she strongly believes in God, she sells herself for money - something not respected in the Christian religion. Finally, I agree with the fourth theory because I think Crime and Punishment "measure[s] the relative merits of the ideas, rather than [portrays] their effect upon individual people." Raskolnikov's ubermensch theory is described in many scenes of the book, but readers don't see the effects of this idea play out in the book because Raskolnikov says that the theory is not successful. Furthermore, as Mike said, many other ideas such as existentialism and nihilism are discussed in the novel as well.
ReplyDeleteCrime and Punishment is undoubtedly a novel that examines the mind of its main character, Raskolnikov, but I think that the book also serves to show the effects of Russia's political structure on individuals. This novel would not be what it was if not for the historical and social backdrop of Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Therefore, I think that Crime and Punishment is very much a psychological study.
ReplyDeleteWhen we first meet Raskolnikov, he is a poor, struggling student. He can barely afford food, he can't pay his rent, and his apartment is the size of a closet. Since he is so unhappy with his life, it's easy to see why he is tempted by this notion that essentially, it's not him, it's the rest of the world that's flawed. The deceptive pawnbroker is a very specific character, and one that would really most likely be found in this time and place - right as Russia is grappling with the end of serfdom and an emerging into a new economic system. Therefore, I think Raskolnikov's idea that he is extraordinary (and predestined to save the world through this murder) stems directly from his analysis of the world he is living in. This fits both aspects of the description of a "psychological study;" it is a very internal story, and it is also deeply rooted in a societal context.
I agree with Mike and Austin. I think that the fourth viewpoint concerning C&P is the most accurate. I think the novel itself is not that realistic, because it is so full of coincidence - especially with regard to the circumstances surrounding the murder (Lizaveta being out of the house, an ax being in a serendipitous place, etc) - and Raskolnikov is not portrayed realistically, with his constant physical sickness due to guilt, and his wishy-washy behavior. I think, rather, the novel, and specifically Roskolnikov's life, is a microcosm of universal human experiences that everyone can relate to on some level. In addition, the novel allows the author to explore the merits and negative aspects of several philosophies by using the characters as experiments to uncover the pitfalls of certain ideologies. For example, the ubermench theory, popularized later on by the Nazis, is basically proven inviable because the reader sees Roskolnikov's egocentrism and pride that allow him to think that he is a sort of "superman", above humanity, that makes him an exception to the law and the mores of society. This thinking allows him to commit the murder, as the reader sees, but he is guilt-ridden because of it and this ubermench theory is subjective and can't be applied to everyone because there is no objective measure of who is "exceptional". In addition, the nihilistic point of view is explored, as is the Christian viewpoint, with the nihilism basically rendered a hopeless view of humanity and ultimately not a good life philosophy because man, as Roskolnikov shows, cannot be happy without hope. Whereas the Christian view allows for redemption and Roskolnikov's rebirth, as Lazarus does, at the end of the novel. Therefore, I think C&P is the landscape on which the author explores the positives and negatives of various philosophies, and Roskolnikov's experience is one that transcends time.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is option 4, I believe what makes the book the book is the examination of the effect the murders have on roskolnikov and the people around him, and in doing so, provide or "disprovide" merits to the ideas. The book is viewed in two ways, there are the lovers(russel) and the haters, but the argument is always the same, was roskolnikov just? and in answering the question, we provde merit to the concept written about in Roskolnikovs article. The novel could have taken place in any time period in any country and the arguments we have would have been exactly the same, people are poor everywhere, people are drunk everywhere, if the book took place in australia the book would still be about whether or not there is merit to the murder of a few to save thousands, that is why it no doubt HAS to be number four
ReplyDeleteI think justin makes an error when he says it has to be four. Clearly these are all possibilities for the books purpose and function. However, if i were forced to choose i would say I agree with Emily. Out of the four theories on the novel, the one that seems most accurate is in number three. I did this looking at it in a similar way as Emily did. This book is about the characters and each of their conflicts, more specifically Raskolnikov. Furthermore, i agree with this statement because it says that it is a realistic novel, a statement that other theories dont' include, or even refute in the case of number four. Although many of us may not be able to directly relate to this novel, doesnt mean it isnt realistic, we dont experience Darfur, but it exists... In addition this novel as emily said is also a statement on that time and history as well as the society. Furthermore the amount of literary support such as the split within the text and the vacillation of ideas and notions, as well as the ellipsis, split sides of the axe, and the other dualities within the text, such as Dunia and Sonia, all point to Raskolnikocs split mind and psychological struggle. All that and just gut feeling point to three for me.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with all who support the fourth theory, not because it's wrong or anything, but because I think it is derived from the first theory.
ReplyDeleteFor all those who took AP Euro in previous years or know about the mid-19th century b/c of research for other classes, the mid-19th century is a period when all of the philosophies like nihilism, utilitarianism, and capitalism came to be (existentialism is way ahead of its time in the novel). So as a result of absolutism in Russia Dostoyevsky is trying to warn against the progressive ideology of its time.
I also agree with choice four (however, I guess this means I agree with choice one because four is derived from it?...). Anyway, I feel as though throughout the novel I was continuously impressed by Dostoyevsky's ability to create such a complex character (Raskolnikov). As C&P progresses, the reader gradually begins to understand or make his own assumptions about Raskol. Because Dostoyevsky gives the reader the opportunity to weigh "the conflicts of different ideas on the battlefield of man himself" by creating such a controversial and intricate character, it is clear that the goal is for each reader to form his own opinion. Dostoyevsky's role is to simply give the reader the tools to make these conclusions. In the end, each reader has inevitably "measured the relative merits of the ideas" and formed their final opinions regarding the crime and the punishment of Raskolnikov.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Russell and Emily that this is a realistic novel, and most importantly a psychological study. I don't really see how people think this is an unrealistic novel (except for a few things ex. the ghost). For the most part, C&P is meant to mimic realistic situations so that it can show realistic psychological battles. I think the "punishment" of Crime and Punishment is more about the mental punishment as Raskolnikov's crimes than Raskolnikov's willingness at the end to confess and go off to Siberia.
ReplyDeleteAs for capturing the workings of a specific period of history and a specific type of society on the minds of the characters, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what life in the St. Petersburg slums, and the lengths people were forced to go to to survive. There is a great deal of sympathy for the impoverished characters, and in some ways this sympathy justifies their desperate actions.
I agree with Sarah, and think that #3 is the most true. I disagree with #4 mostly because I think this novel is very realistic, just maybe not realistic right now. I think in the late 1800s, this would have been very true, especially due to very different values. For example, religious values were much stronger back then, and for that reason, people ultimately put religious ideals over all sort of other societal values. At many times, people feared the church, and religion as a whole. So I think that Raskolnikov may have not confessed, either consciously or subconsciously because of his fear of a society that values religion a lot more than he did. He committed one of the worst religious transgressions- murder- and he was clearly afraid of admitting it. Also, I don't think Dostoyevsky would have introduced characters like Sonia if he did not want to emphasize the role of religion in society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree with Austin in that I think C&P is very much founded in a specific time and place. We have to remember that this was czarist Russia, and even under Alexander II, Russia was not as advanced as it is today. His emancipation of the serfs may have had a deeper impact on the Russian psyche at the time, meaning that the minds of Russians were more free to "wander," and explore new ideas. That is why I think so many movements, most notably, the nihilists arose. And I think Raskolnikov is very much a product of that time. I think he was a nihilist, especially because he acted like a poor wandering soul with no purpose in life. Also, Russia under Alexander II was definitely more liberal in the sense that people were free-er in their thoughts and actions. People from all social classes could think highly of themselves, like Raskolnikov could think of himself as a hero. Yet religion was still prominent. So I think Dostoyevsky resolves this dilemma in Raskolnikov's thoughts relating to his Crime and (possible) punishment. Raskolnikov did not have many inhibitions to committing the crime, but he had a lot of trouble confessing, because of fear of punishment.
to amend to what I said, Raskolnikov had no purpose in life other than "saving the world" through any means, aka challenging authority, and societal norms. Much like the nihilists.
ReplyDeleteI was really torn, but I agreed with number 4 with a few reservations. I don't think that the entire novel is unrealistic; the only unrealistic events for me were the coincidences that led Raskolnikov to commit murder. Everything following the killings seems like reasonable reactions from the characters. However, since the majority of the book is a result of those unrealistic situations, I decided to label the book as unrealistic and I agreed with number 4 the most.
ReplyDeleteI think Austin had a really great point by bringing up the "battlefields within men" and citing Raskolnikov and others. It's clear that the psychological struggles of the characters in this book are essential to events in the plot.
I think that it is option 3 and that C&P is a realistic novel as well as a psychological study. I agree a lot with what Sarah said about how the situations are realistic and the internal battles that Raskolnikov has are also realistic. In C&P we also get a good view at the lower class in Russia at this time, how they lived, and their various problems. The fact that in each character we can trace virtues and sins also adds to the realism of the novel. I dont think that the sole purpose of the book is to figure out whether Raskolnikov was just in his actions. To me, clearly he was not, no matter how much he tries to justify himself. I think the point of the novel is more about how people deal with their actions, which is a psychological study. Marmeladov drinks away his sins, Sonya turns to religion, Sviggy gives away almost all of his worth, and Raskolnikov deals with the murders internally. I think that the fact that Raskolnikov's murder did not go exactly to plan, and that he has trouble facing up to and realizing the horrible acts he committed also make the book realistic, and just because Raskolnikov is a murderer doesnt mean he can cope with murder.
ReplyDelete=( i just wrote my whole thing and then had to sign in and it didnt work and now its gone. so here it goes again...
ReplyDeletei think hannah and sarah both make strong arguments for opposing theories and make me torn. i havent decided yet (ill post again when i have) but as of now i just cant really say that c&p is unrealistic. coincidences happen all the time. and even if we think its too outlandish to actually happen, i definitely dont think that it was intended to be unrealistic. i think we're supposed to relate to it in some way. and raskys thoughts are very relatable - we all vacillate on certain things, and in reading his thoughts i felt like i knew him - a real person, not just some poorly crafted character. we are meant to believe the story, and decide from there what theory we subscribe to- whether it be nihlism existentialism or what have you
brb
I am also a believer that the book is most akin to option four. I think that in the context of when Dostoyevsky wrote the work, one where he was going through a continuous cycle of poverty, he wrote the story as a greater story underlying the misgivings of mankind. I found that the real punishment of the story was the guilt that Rask had to live with instead of a prison sentence and I think that this idea of burdening secrets is somewhat evident in many people. I don't think this story is realistic in the least because I feel as if people knew that he was a murderer. I'm quite sure that at some point in real life someone would have slipped and began asking other people about their thoughts on the manner. Something the characters never really do. I also agree with a previous speaker here that the story isn't just about what Dostoy shows us but we sees within the character of Rasky. This is what makes it less realistic, because our opinions are completely altered by our assumptions and feelings.
ReplyDeleteokay i wanted to play devils advocate and pick something different, but even though emily made some solid points i have to go with option 4. even though i do think we're meant to believe the facts of the story in order to come up with our own philosophies, i definitley think that the characters are symbolic. its not important who they are, but what they represent, based on their choices/actions. also, it def accomplishes the goal of measuring the relative mertis of the ideas - through the article as well as the discussion of many other arising questions about coincidence and meaning of life and faith and predestination and more!
ReplyDeletejust so options one and two arent totally left out...
i think option one is wrong bc i dont think dost. is attacking anyone or any ideology. instead, he wants the reader to decide for himself
i disagree w option two bc i dont think the evils described are specific to the time. alcoholism, murder, prostitution, etc, are universal and dont pertain to a specific time period or location. also, i odnt think he is necessarily anitprogressive, but then again im not entirely sure what that means
I have to go with number 4. i don't remember who said that this book was realistic and therefore could not be 4, but i'm gonna take 'not realistic' to mean unusual. therefore i can agree with 4 bc i read the events in the novel as uncommon, and coincidences, but still possible. i think the 'conflict of different ideas' is really the largest point of the book, and the reason we are focusing so much on all of these philosophies. 4 says we do not examine the ideas' effect upon indv. people which is totally true bc it would be too hard to determine the effects; Rask experiences too many of them. Instead, as 4 states, we 'measure the relative merit' because as Rask thinks each one through, we get to consider and rationalize with him.
ReplyDeleteCrime and Punishment is obviously deeply psychological and philosophical, so I'm tempted to go with those. But for the sake of not being on the fence, I find it hard to imagine that Dostoyevsky didn't write with political purpose. He wrote it in 1866, just 5 years after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. I'm not sure he ever explicitly criticizes some policies, regimes, etc, but there's a definite conflict between modernity and old ways showed here. Dostoyevsky frequently describes the abject conditions of the (former) peasants that contrast with the lives of educated intellectuals and civil servants. The modern techniques of Porfiry and the Russian judicial system still contrast with the primitiveness of Raskolnikov's crime and the subsequent exile in Serbia. I think Doystoyevsky is criticizing the state of Russia. Even with all the modern reforms, he seems to suggest, there's still an abundance of crime - prostitution, murder, etc - and poverty.
ReplyDeleteOut of the four choices, I agree mostly with the third. What appealed to me most about the third choice is that it says Crime and Punishment is a realistic novel. Haley and a few others mentioned before that C&P is unrealistic because of the element of coincidence throughout the novel. Though someone said that Raskolnikov committed the perfect murder, i do not agree with this. If it were a perfect murder, the pawnbroker's sister would not have entered the apartment and led Raskolnikov to commit two murders. Though in a way it seemed as if Raskolnikov had some of Harry Potter's felix felicis, I think the element of luck is a realistic one. To me what makes this a realistic story is the way Raskolnikov deals with his guilt. The split in is his mind makes for a truly captivating psychological study. The third option mentions that C&P captures the workings of a specific type of society on Raskolnikov's mind. The type of society the third option refers to is the poverty stricken society of St.Petersburg. The only part of the third option that made me slightly weary of picking it is that it talks about a specific period of history and type of society because I feel like the psychological study of Raskolnikov could be applied to numerous time periods and types of societies. I think Raskolnikov's struggles embody the innate struggles of human beings in general. I think that while option 3 is the most fitting out of the 4 options, it would be better suited to a text like Dubliners, which deals with a specific period of history and a specific type of society.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the fourth theory that Crime ad Punishment is symbolic of universal human emotions and experiences. While the political and social commentary on the time period is important, I don’t think it’s the focus and intent of the novel. I think the focal point is the fact that many people can relate to Raskolnikov’s feelings of guilt and pride and the theories presented. The book discusses “conflicts of different ideas” like existentialism, human rationalism and nihilism vs altruism. People can relate to these struggles and may somewhat identify with Raskolnikov. Readers can “measure the relative merits of the ideas, rather than portray their effect upon individual people” and judge the qualities and pitfalls of the ideologies for themselves. The characters and events that occur in the novel are platforms for Dostoyevsky to analyze and critique universal themes of morality, purpose of life and repentance.
ReplyDelete