Read Kevin Thompson's short article titled "Review: A Psychological Look at Crime and Punishment." You can find it at
http://www.psychalive.org/review-a-psychological-look-at-crime-and-punishment/
Write your response to Thompson's article. Agree. Disagree. Argue any points made in the article. Add your own perceptive comments to engage your audience into the conversation.
Kevin Thompson opens his article with an anecdote about himself and, before I got much farther than his first paragraph, I assumed that he would relate his mother, whom he describes as having a "bipolar and explosive persona," to Raskolnikov. In class, we have often discussed how there are two sides to Raskolnikov - the side that kills greedy pawnbrokers and deplores the "ordinary" man and the side that subconsciously sympathizes and is drawn to the poor. But Thompson instead related himself to Raskolnikov. Thompson states he thought he would have to "get a hold of - or even eliminate" his feelings to form himself into a somewhat decent person. He compares this to Raskolnikov who is, in a way, desperate to be "extraordinary" and thinks that he will be worthy of this status if he can keep himself composed and seemingly innocent after committing a vulgar murder. Thompson urges the reader to wonder what we lose, or rather what we gain, by suppressing our emotions. For Raskolnikov it is a tortured state of mind that is gained where his split personalities battle along the border of his morals.
ReplyDeleteWhat I genuinely loved about Thompson's article was that he, like I, could not help but sympathize with Raskolnikov. I know that in our class discussions I am often outnumbered by those who see him as nothing but a crazed murderer, but Thompson reveals the deeper psychological yearning that drives Raskolnikov to become the crazed murderer. Although we, through our conversations, believe that we have uncovered some of the psychological motive behind Raskolnikov we rely to heavily on the theme of nihilism to support our brief explanations. The unraveling of nihilism is, obviously, the main topic of the book, but Dostoevsky created characters that we have always seen as realistic and, therefore, there must be more realistic motives behind Raskolnikov's belief in nihilism. What drives him to think that there are "ordinary" and "extraordinary" men? Why does Raskolnikov feel the need to prove himself "extraordinary" when he can never reveal it to someone because it is directly related to his crime? By comparing himself to Raskolnikov, Thompson allowed me to view the character more realistically and wonder if, perhaps, the poverty and oppression of the time lead Raskolnikov to feel a need for something more, something "extraordinary."
My attention was caught when Thompson said that Raskolnikov came to "loathe human nature." Nihilism defines the "extraordinary" man as someone who is above the law and commits illegal acts for the supposed greater good of the people. So, in my mind, Raskolnikov should sympathize with the people he considers "ordinary." Instead, he detests them. I figure that it is because he knows that he is no better than them, and he especially despises those who are of better class or moral than him. His hate for the people he considers above himself is where his love of Sonia stems from. She has, in his mind, committed a sin similar to his in that they have both destroyed a life - hers being her own and his being Alyona Ivanovna's. If it were not for her sense of purity, despite her sins, Raskolnikov would most likely despise her like any other sinner. However, he is drawn to her hope. Therefore, Sonia is a catalyst for the "sort of internal serenity" that Raskolnikov finds in eventual confession. That begs the question whether or not Raskolnikov would have confessed without his interaction and fascination with Sonia. Sonia symbolizes everything that faith is - a hope in a being greater than ones self - while Raskolnikov is the nihilist, believing that some man are, in a way, a living god. It is only fitting that Sonia and her faith were the unraveling of Raskolnikov and his nihilism and that this was the point that Dostoevsky wanted to make - there is a greater being and it is no man.
By comparing himself to Raskolnikov, Thompson helped me to view Raskolnikov as less of a one-dimensional character and more as a human with motives and emotions. It was said in class that Dostoevsky's thinking was beyond that of his time and that it is still used today, but I can see that now in a different way. Dostoevsky created people that embodied ideals that counteracted each other and used the characters to play out his own ideas about faith and nihilism. However, he did not allow this to detract from the realistic qualities of his characters. They are still "ordinary" humans, they just have "extraordinary" beliefs. Thompson's article reveals how someone's personally beliefs can have a direct impact on the way they control their emotions and the repressing them is not the healthiest way, as we see in the character of Raskolnikov.
DeleteAnn, first let me just say wow. This was an excellent blog and your understanding and analysis of the article that we were given to work with seem very detailed and firm. You caught my interest with your first paragraph stating that he compares himself to Raskolnikov because in my blog I felt that he compares his mother first, and that is what I focused on. However, seeing it from your point of view and the convincing way you right, I feel more drawn to your explanation than my own! Sometimes I feel it takes another person's opinions to show you the error in your own, and through this little educational journey I have taken, it seems I am quite right! This is why our blogs are so important because while we may believe that our ideas are correct while we type them in our own heads with no outside input, once we choose to inspect other blogs our opinions can be swayed by the opinions laid before us.
DeleteBack to your blog, I really like how you stated that the subject of nihilism and its role in the novel has led all of our discussions. This is very true, and I think that putting on differently shaded glasses to look at this novel has really broadened all of our opinions, and this is great for us. Your analysis of Sonia and Raskolnikov's relationship was spot on. Her faith truly is what is tearing down Raskolnikov's defense against God and the belief in him. This was a great blog, and as always, your opinion and perspective has widened my view of this subject. Thank you and great job!
Ann,
DeleteYour blog is wonderful this week! I love that you mention that you felt outnumbered by your sympathy for Raskolnikov by the class. I am with you on sympathy. Maybe it is because of our personal experiences that allow us to put ourselves in Raskolnikov's shoes, but I know, though I am still a minor, that something had to happen to Raskolnikov to have his "extraordinary" beliefs. He was not born with the feeling of being a greater man than the next; something had to effect him in a way that made others despise his motives. I just felt bad because I believe people turn to bad to rid of what they know is good. For example, a young drug addict may turn to heroine due to parents divorcing. This person is just trying to find a way to push away the pain, not because they want to hurt others. Therefore, Raskolnikov is pushing away some kind of pain when he kills Alyona. I may be biased on my beliefs due to observing other situations people have been in. I have come to realize that people have motives behind their doings. Also, you mentioned how you thought that Thompson was going to discuss how his mother was like Raskolnikov. That is very interesting. (I do not like to think ahead while reading something; I like to "live in the moment.") However, I can see how you thought that. They way Thompson described his mother almost fit Raskolnikov to a "T." So does that mean that Raskolnikov may have been bipolar on top of his nihilistic views? Who knows anymore! Dostoevsky created a novel that is so diverse to that point of confusing readers. Great blog! I loved commenting on this one for this week!
Kevin Thompson posted a psychological review of “Crime and Punishment” where he explained a few things. First and foremost, he examined the plot of the story followed by his interpretation. In my opinion, Thompson succeed in two different ways, he was able to instill new ideas while he expressed his own ideas that most readers have, but did not want to admit.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the our discussions, I have expressed my dislike for Raskolnikov at a minimum of 5 times each day. However, I have to agree with Thompson, of course his fate concerned me! I was shocked at how in sync my thoughts were with Thompson’s when I read his remark, “I was disturbed to find myself concerned about the main character’s fate.” No one really wants to admit that they are anxious over a criminal and his future, but how can one read that far into his story without developing personalized feelings for him?
Two of Thompson’s remarks also helped me to develop my own new ideas as well. Thompson spoke a lot of Raskolnikov’s hatred of the “ordinary” human race along with human nature, and Raskolnikov’s journey to become a “extra ordinary”. In class, we often brought up the subject of Raskolnikov being “extra ordinary” and being a “chosen one”, and how it appeared to be a struggle for him. It now occurs to me that Raskolnikov was trying to force himself to be “extra ordinary” do to his disgust of the “ordinary” and their ways. He hated them and did not want to be classified with them. His internal struggle became one of his human nature against his “extra ordinary” goals. Due to the fact that he was not actually a chosen one, human nature won.
Although I did like Thompson’s post and I did agree on a lot of his points, there is one specific, seemingly insignificant point he made in which I would like to argue. I do not even know if a “point” is the right word to address it, as it was only a few stubble mentions to the ever popular phrase “I can relate.”
How much can someone really relate to Raskolnikov? How many have lived in a situation such as his? When Thompson said, “I related a lot with the protagonist’s internal struggle,” I was taken aback. Really, Thompson? Are you a mentally unusable person, living alone in poverty, trying to hide that you murdered two ladies and robbed them while at the same time you are seeking to be recognized, facing family problems, and never being aloud to be alone? Raskolnikov is such a complex character, it is hard to believe that anyone could ever relate to him. I understand that Thompson specifically said he could relate to his internal struggle, but I do not see how it is possible when Thompson hasn’t gone through what Raskolnikov has. I hate to be cheesy, but I am a firm believer of the concept that you trey do have to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes” to really understand.
The concept behind the phrase “I can relate” alarms me in more ways than just in relation to Raskolnikov. How much can one person relate to another person? How much can someone understand another individual, especially an individual who is mentally ill and cannot understand their own self.
All in all, I was extremely interested in Thompsons article. I had great expectations before reading it, and I was not let down. My favorite part was that It was conversation sparking. His views were suggested rather than forced, allowing arguments. Thompson also wrote in a way as to not make himself appear to be superior to the reader, as if his goal actually was to create a conversation. I really admire his writing and his opinions, and I enjoyed his article.
Felicia,
DeleteWhat an interesting blog! The beginning of it showed how you took the information that you were given, and this was very interesting and eye opening. However, let's talk about the second part of your blog which is really my favorite part. You spoke about one individual's ability to relate to another. Now, we know that each one of us is in a different situation. To say that we can relate to Raskolnikov would be like me stating that because my parent's are divorced I can relate to someone whose parents abandoned them. While the subjects hold some similarities, there is absolutely no way to truly compare yourself and your situation to someone else' shoes is almost obviously so much worse. However, I feel that the sentiment behind this statement is what the author was really trying for and not the actual literal meaning. I feel like he wanted everyone to think that because his mother and Raskolnikov are similar and that he feels that his emotions are similar that he is able and justified in saying that some of their difficulties are similar and that he can come close to imagining the struggles that Raskolnikov's having. However, I agree that he should not have stated it that way because it seems like an insensitive thing to do. This was a great blog Felicia!
Felicia,
DeleteI have to admit that I felt some triumph when you admitted to caring about Raskolnikov's fate. I always respect your opinions, but you know that we have been at odds about him! At the same time, though, I tried to look at it your way. I'm a person who becomes emotionally invested so easily, but maybe your not. So I tried to imagine what it was like reading Thompson's quote about being surprised to care for Raskolnikov as someone who does not want to be attached to such a deplorable character. I did a terrible job, however, I think that our mutual concern for his fate shows that, no matter whether you like and are rooting for Raskolnikov or not, Dostoevsky created such a relatable, for lack of a better word, character that we all have some hope for. Now let me readdress that word, relatable, since it became a theme towards the end of your blog. No, Thompson could not entirely relate to Raskolnikov, but I think he was speaking on a less literal level than you think. I do not think that Thompson is saying that he understands Raskolnikov, I think he is saying that he, too, has had experience with repressing feelings for the wrong reason. This article analyzes less of the act committed by Raskolnikov and more of his tortured mentality that brought him to commit it and eventually repent. So, while I entirely agree that Thompson could not truly "relate to" Raskolnikov, I think Thompson's point was to show the accuracy of the psychology that Dostoevsky used.
For me, your third paragraph was absolutely spot on! Thompson proposed that Raskolnikov's yearning to be the "extraordinary" man presented through nihilistic beliefs stemmed from his hate for the "ordinary" man, including himself. Did you ever think that Raskolnikov may have hated himself as much as you hate his character? Think about it - he is poor, he has dropped out of school, he cannot support the family that has placed him on a figurative pedestal, and he is surrounded by gross poverty, greed, and filth. Raskolnikov essentially hates life. So what choice does he have than to rise above those who are like him? Since we learned that it would have been pretty much impossible for a poor man like himself to change his social class, he was forced to attempt to better himself in a metaphysical sense. It backfired, obviously, because Dostoevsky wanted the reader to understand how utterly flawed the nihilistic belief system was. Anyway, your blog was very nice this week! You put it perfectly when you said that Thompson's article was a conversation starter.
During the time that our class has spent reading "Crime and Punishment", we have considered each other's opinions, agreed and disagreed, and expounded upon these theories and analyses. However, our broadest source of information and input has been from the experts and friends that Dr. Diiulio has presented to us. Now, we are seeing input from another individual who has read this novel and has chosen to give their look and input in the form of an article. Personally, I thought the article "Review: A Psychological Look at Crime and Punishment" was very interesting and held many excellent, true points. Kevin Thompson shares some of his personal experiences through anecdotes that allow the reader to understand the feelings and revelations that he is presenting. When I read this article, I kept waiting for the complex psychological terminology to appear, but it never did. This was just one man's opinion on the psychological journey that takes place in "Crime and Punishment", and his own psychological revelations as to his own character.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading his comments about his treatment of his mother and how he chose to try to hide all of his own emotions so that he could help to avoid becoming the center of attention, he was trying to avoid becoming like his mother and her "bipolar and explosive persona" that he thought showed her "weakness and immaturity". Raskolnikov's personality is very much like Kevin's mother's. Raskolnikov is a dual character who often switches between two almost completely opposite personality types. He secretly desires to be generous and provide for others who are in need, yet consciously he criticizes himself for doing such things. Along with this, whenever his attitude changes, it is often in an "explosive" way that startles others around him. This juxtaposition between Kevin's mother and Raskolnikov aided Kevin's understanding of this novel.
Personally, I love his final statement in this article. He says, "To me, this novel highlights the importance of accepting and understanding our feelings, and underlines the danger of trying to walk away from them." This is not an aspect of the novel that we had really discussed and it left my head spinning. Now that I had this idea in my head, I went a little crazy and started analyzing everything from this point of view. Raskolnikov spends so much time standing in corners with a stoic face or fighting to keep his emotions in check around his friends and family. Often, doing this creates quite a buildup in any person that eventually leads to an emotionally and physically exhausting explosion of feelings. For Raskolnikov this seems even to be dangerous for him. The feelings that he is holding in are residual feelings that he is hiding from everyone because they would be telltale signs of his instability and murderous characteristics. They would immediately understand that he was the murderer and would be put in jail. For him to explode is dangerous because it could allow for his mind to completely snap due to the nature of the feelings he holds entrapped in himself.
This article really did an excellent job of relating a modern situation to the situation that is put forth in the novel. I was just so astounded by the interesting points that Kevin Thompson displays for the readers of his article. The difference between his article and analysis compared to ours is shown and decided by the life experiences that he has compared to ours. This difference is very interesting and it really shows how any novel can be interpreted by different people dependent on their perspective on life.
Hannah,
DeleteBefore I say anything constructive or conversational in response to your blog let me just get this out of the way - WOW! Every time Raskolnikov stands in the corner we were wondering why it was a pattern. Could this really be the answer? He stands and listens, waiting for the opportune moment and letting his emotions build up, and then he pounces like a feral cat - wild and frighteningly direct. When you mentioned this in your blog, my mind was blown because I had a definite interest in his argumentative mannerisms. Despite the fact that, in both of his most recent accounts with Luzhin, Raskolnikov's method has worked, we know that his silence disturbed by random outbursts - generally pertaining to Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta's murder - has been a cause for concern, and other characters have gone as far as to diagnose it as a symptom of madness.
Getting away from that, I actually really enjoyed your first paragraph because it pointed out something I felt but did not know I felt. Every discussion or revelation we have had that pertains to "Crime and Punishment" has been a result of speaking with other members of our class or learning from Dr. Diiulio and her resources. Now we are presented with what we could consider a relaxed, but accurate, exterior source. It was so interesting to read an opinion that did little but compare Raskolnikov's psychological position to that of the author's and the author's mother. On the topic of the author's mother, I read your comment on my blog before I read your blog and it was a sort of progression for me. In my blog, I touched on how I thought Thompson briefly compared his mother to Raskolnikov before stating that I thought the real comparison was between Raskolnikov and Thompson. Then, in your comment, you suggested that there might have been a deeper parallel drawn between the mother and Raskolnikov. Finally, I read your blog and entirely agreed with the split personality comparison, something that I had hardly mentioned in my own blog. So I really enjoyed reading your blog because it had a different approach to the article without being something that I did not understand. Good job!
Hannah,
DeleteI must admit I too was conscientious when I read the title of the article for this weeks blog. I feared that the terminology would be that of a psychology major explaining the most simple topic in this extreme vocabulary. Now onto the blog in & of itself. Im finding myself enjoying finding out everyone's take on this one article. Your points you bring up regarding his mother and the relation to Razkolnikov's being I find interesting. Simply because in all my aimless pondering of this novel, I never thought of him being bipolar or not wanting to be the center of attention. The idea of being bipolar had never came to my mind, I only imagined him as a bit crazy. His random acts being classified into acts of bipolar depression now making the picture clear. In regards to the quote that you put in your blog("To me, this novel highlights the importance of accepting and understanding our feelings, and underlines the danger of trying to walk away from them.") maybe we should consider this. Don't get me wrong it's a very significant/personal idea to talk about, but it could provide some great insight to the novel.
"Crime and Punishment" is a novel that, in my opinion, anyone can relate to if they try hard enough. It deals with the mental stability of an individual, the result of crime, what Kevin Thompson believes-it "highlights importance of accepting and understanding our feelings-and many more topics that can be picked out from the wonderful text. His first paragraph caught my attention right away. In class, we have talked about how something from the past had to have an affect on Raskolnikov's current state. I knew exactly where Thompson was going from the start. He compared his emotional state to Raskolnikov's. By doing so, Thompson said his mother's bipolar behavior caused him to bottle his emotions up exactly like readers see in Raskolnikov. That made me think about our discussion a few weeks ago. Has Pulcheria pushed Rskolnikov to the brink or sanity? Many people might say yes because she raised and guided him to the person he is in the novel, but I think otherwise. We all have choices, as humans. We do not have to follow what are anyone tell us to do. Raskolnikov may have been poisoned with nihilistic views, but he chose to believe in "ordinary" and "extraordinary" people. People just do not believe in these kinds of things without a reason. His past, maybe even his mother, the loss of his father, or something life-altering, toyed with his way of thinking. The situation reminds me of a cartoon. Raskolnikov was hit on the head by something life-changing, therefore he needed to be hit on the head a second time by something life-changing to make him "normal."
ReplyDeleteThompson did mention that Raskolnikov had an inner "rebuttal to relate to people." I disagree with this view. I strongly feel that Raskolnikov simply could not relate to people. Contrary to Thompson's feelings, I do not think that Raskolnikov refused to relate to others; he could not understand how they could freely express their emotions. The only emotion readers see Raskolnikov express is anger, the only emotion he could ever express. This alienated him from society. Kevin Thompson also had me thinking about the "extraordinary" people. I do not know why this has never popped into my mind until now, but if these "special" people did not have to follow the law they could not have a conscience. Thompson and Dostoevsky clearly point out that Raskolnikov becomes guilty from his conscience and crime. Therefore, it behooved Raskolnikov to admit he killed two innocent women for no legitimate reason to put himself, the officials, and the people of St. Petersburg at ease. This moment of confession opens up a gate that allows him to enter into the real world. Through time, he will finally understand others, even if he struggles with the false truths of nihilism.
I really enjoyed reading about other views on "Crime and Punishment" other than the nihilistic view that we focused on as a class. My favorite point that Thompson mentioned is that Dostoevsky created a story that "highlights the importance of accepting and understanding our feelings." It is something I never thought about. Personally, I do not struggle with my feelings, but I know others do. I never put myself in the shoes of those people, which I try to do with many since that what my career will consist of. Maybe that is why I love "Crime and Punishment" so much. I am able to experience the life of all kinds of people through Dostoevsky's great character development. All I can really say is that the more I think about "Crime and Punishment" the more I come to understand that I have so much to experience from novels, people, and life before I die.
Kaitlin,
DeleteYour blogs never cease to impress me! I found it quite interesting that you said that Thompson was relating his emotional state to Raskolnikov's. When I first read that part of the article, I assumed he was going to make a contrast between his mother and Raskolnikov, but I later deciphered it to be the same as what you thought. I do have to disagree with you on what you said about Pulcheria not pushing him to be the person he became. Yes everyone has the option to choose for themselves, but when they grow up with that kind of an influence, it certainly makes it difficult to not succumb to it. I have the feeling that Raskolnikov may have been trying to avoid being like his mother, but ended up becoming his own kind of monster.
Although I have different views concerning Raskolnikov and his "inner rebuttal to relate to people," I can definitely see where you are coming from. It's possible that he refused to surround himself with others different from himself, which, since he was "extraordinary," meant everyone. He might have figured that if they want to go around being happy, sad, passionate, etc, he was not going to bother trying to have a conversation or friendship. What I really loved about your blog, though, was when you mentioned that "extraordinary people" would not have consciences, yet Raskolnikov felt extremely guilty. I think he retained from admitting to the crimes sooner because he did not want to admit to not being "extraordinary." Wow, does my brain hurt after thinking about all of the twisted ideas Dostoesky created in one single novel. Great blog, Kaitlin!
From the time we started reading Crime and Punishment, my thoughts on Raskolnikov continually went back and forth between pitying him and wanting him to go to prison for his actions. I pitied him for the mental torture he experienced before, during, and after the murders. But, I also automatically looked at it from the law enforcement side, and I personally wanted to handcuff him, read him his Miranda rights, lock him in a cell, and throw away the key. After reading Kevin Thompson's article "Review: A Psychological Look at Crime and Punishment," I found myself having much sympathy for Raskolnikov, a character I have become somewhat attached to. I definitely have to agree with the points Thompson made, especially since they made complete sense to me.
ReplyDeleteIn his short article, Thompson discusses how Raskolnikov's weakness was his inability to relate to other people. For the most part he appears to dislike humans, often criticizing others' struggles despite the fact that he is clearly going through a hard time as well. This ordeal reminded me of the typical plot of many movies and television shows: the popular girl in school teases those who are vulnerable just because she doesn't want to face her own struggles. To me, Raskolnikov was afraid to admit that he was similar to "ordinary" people because he considered himself to be "extraordinary." At some points of the novel, Raskolnikov's behavior made me believe that he wanted to put a wedge between himself and the rest of society, rather than trying to blend in to hide any suspicion of his guilt for committing the double murder. This reminds me of how we talked about Raskolnikov always being in the corner of a room. It was almost as if he wanted to be looking at the whole picture in front of him unravel into a huge mess.
Thompson also mentioned how Raskolnikov, after trying desperately to avoid his feelings, becomes victim of his own emotions. Thompson said that perhaps Dostoesky wanted to close his novel with the reader feeling positive because Raskolnikov reached "some sort of internal serenity." I honestly had to reread that paragraph four time before it made any sense to me. I now feel that Raskolnikov went through the torture of committing such a crime and having to hide it from everyone around him until he thought the moment to be right in order to gain satisfaction. Deep down all he ever wanted was recognition for the crimes and to be put on a pedestal or something, but he knew that after the two women were dead that nothing like that would ever occur. So, he pushed aside all of his feelings. In doing so he caused a huge mental breakdown, most likely the effect Dostoesky presumed would happen to all nihilists. Finally, Raskolnikov had to come face to face with his emotions. This contact provided the chance for Raskolnikov to release all the anger, despair, and guilt that was built up inside of him. I suppose you could call this an "internal serenity" because he is calm and clean of those bubbling emotions. This may be totally wrong from what either Thompson or Dostoesky was thinking, but I just wanted to put my own opinion out there.
As I said before, I have become somewhat attached to Raskolnikov. We all read along with his journey and psychological breakdown, but I feel like we almost participated because Dostoesky was that great of an author. I'm almost disappointed that we have finished reading Crime and Punishment, but I don't think I could ever forget the memory of Raskolnikov stained onto my brain.
Natalie, although I don’t agree with all of your points, I can definitely agree with the constant struggle of going back and forth. I mean one chapter I’m feeling sorry for the anxiety and hardship Raskolnikov is going through and then the next chapter I’m done pitying him and I want nothing more than for him to be locked away forever. Going into your blog, I think it was a great idea to bring in the example of the popular girl just ridiculing other people because she was too afraid to face her own insecurities. It’s kind of sad to think that our society is that shallow. Raskolnikov is exactly like that though. He isolates himself from the society around him unless he is criticizing other people’s way of living (not mentioning the few times he was helpful with Marmeladov’s family and etc). The point you made about Raskolnikov always being in the corner of the room makes a lot of sense to me as well. He was always there and while not in the background constantly, was out of the way and just took everything in. However, to me this is almost like another clue leading to his guilt. I feel like his hiding in the corner lead to more suspicion.
DeleteMaybe it’s just my unfondness of the novel, but as much as I can see where Thompson was coming from when he mentioned Raskolnikov being the victim, I have to disagree overall. It was his own fault for thinking he was above the law. Taking a step back, let’s say he was an “extraordinary being”; he would not have let the guilt destroy him like he did. He would have been able to control his emotions while also being able to put the suspicion on someone else. For certain parts of the novel, however, I can agree that at some points I did feel sorry for the character of Raskolnikov and his emotions. It could not have been an easy task to live with all those built up emotions for as long as he did. Although I don’t feel as strong of an attraction to Raskolnikov as you do, I can agree that I will never be able to get the memory and story of him and “Crime and Punishment” out of my head. I have a feeling we will be referencing it for a very long time. Good work!
Natalie,
DeleteI thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog this week. I believe everyone had that love hate relationship with Razkolnikov, as well as the novel. I also feel like that was one of Dostoevsky's biggest successes in the novel Crime and Punishment. We were raised with justice for ones deeds that was deserved, but we want him to succeed in getting away with it. Because Dostoevsky made us, except Felicia for a time, pity Razkolnikov as an individual. Your points proposed in the second paragraph were well displayed, I must admit. The way you blended the article to your own beliefs was well organized to a point that they seemed, to me at least, to be the same persons opinion. But the one point I must bring to question is the reference of a "typical plot of...the popular girl". After reading it the first time I thought you had gone a little crazy. However, after the fourth to fifth time of reading it over I finally understood it. As the only guy in the class I must admit to that being a definite point I would've never considered. You made it work well to your advantage since it has given me another idea as to how one could view this novel. Your third paragraph was truly different, in a good sense. I too had to retread those points and think about the ideals behind Thompson's fourth paragraph of his article. Since the time that he first he heard Nikolay had confessed to the murders I had a feeling that he wanted the satisfaction of being known as the one who did it. It only made sense that he wanted the acknowledgement of being known as the "extraordinary" man, who killed the greedy/corrupt pawn broker. But the "internal serenity/peace" concept that was proposed, in my opinion to be a bit far fetched. In the end your blog gave me quite a bit to consider, thank you Natalie.
Natalie,
DeleteAs always, your blog was amazing. You have such a way with words. Your entire blog is just so thought out and perfectly aligned. I always look forward to reading everyones blog. Time and time again, yours is one of my favorites!
While I loved your blog, I loved your first paragraph the most. I think our thoughts were pretty in sync in regards to Raskolnikov. I don’t even know if I would have been able to keep the composure you suggested with reading him his rights and cuffing him, I may have lost it a little bit and hit him. But then again, I dont know if I would even be able to do that. I feel so bad for him at the same time that I don’t think I could be able to hit him. He’s already been through enough pain as it is. But then again, He murdered people! He deserves the pain. I don’t know. I feel so back and forth with my emotions for him. It is nice to know that I am not the only one with these thoughts. I think I remember we talked about him before, but I never realized how similar our thoughts really were. Likewise, I also did have an increased amount of sympathy for Raskolnikov upon reading Thompsons post. Raskolnikov sure is quite the character. And once again, I find myself agreeing with you on the face that I have become quite attached to Raskolnikov. At one point, I felt as if we would never finish this novel and I couldn’t wait for it to be over. However now that it is over, I feel a bit off. Almost as if I miss him… Almost.
All in all, this was without a doubt one of your best blogs. Just wait until tuesday, I cannot wait to spend our study hall discussing this! I hope you enjoyed your thanksgiving as well!
Wow; where do I even begin? When we first started reading the novel, I never thought we would come to the end, but here we are now. As many of you know, I am not the biggest fan of “Crime and Punishments”; however, Kevin Thompson made some very relevant points in his psychological look at the novel. Without going into my own personal life growing up, let me just say that I, along with many others I’m sure, can relate to the feeling of wanting to hide a side of a family member or friend that embarrassed us. Kevin Thompson said he “developed a mindset that doomed any sort of emotional display as a contemptible sign of weakness and immaturity”. I strongly believe that Raskolnikov’s character had something happen as a child that caused him to feel the same way. Throughout the novel, he is very alienated from society but yet does nothing to change his distance from those around him. He does not want to display any of his feelings of guilt because those will make others see him as weak or unstable and even possibly tip off the detectives investigating the murders of Alyona Ivanovna and her sister. Because of his fear of being detected, Raskolnikov just hides all of his emotions.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I did not like “Crime and Punishment” I have to completely agree with Thompson’s psychological analysis. Whether or not anyone agrees with me, I think that Raskolnikov and everyone else in the novel turns to things like alcoholism and prostitution as an escape from their poverty and own stressors in their lives. Thompson basically says that these activities were manifested, and in my opinion, they were. There are always other options besides alcohol and selling one’s own body, but they were the fastest solutions that allowed them to escape the complexity and exasperation of their own existences. By taking the reader through Raskolnikov’s “actions, his interactions with other people and his inner monologues and rants” Dostoevsky incorporates the reader in and makes them feel as if they are in the story themselves. However, I myself found this somewhat difficult because like Thompson, Raskolnikov’s “overall mental instability and absurd decision[s]” drove me completely insane while reading the novel. I also often found myself filled with anger because of the back and forth concepts of nihilism.
Kevin Thompson previously mentions the main ideas of nihilism, or ordinary and extraordinary beings. Even though Napoleon was referenced by Raskolnikov throughout the novel, I found myself thinking more about extraordinary beings as people such as Jesus or Noah. In my opinion, if someone is an extraordinary being, they wouldn’t find the need to break the law. Maybe I just have a different perspective on the whole thing because I think anyone that believes they are above the law is wrong. However, putting that opinion aside, Raskolnikov thought he was an extraordinary being. If this was true he would have been able to stand the guilt and would not have allowed himself to be mentally destroyed by just the mere thoughts of his crime. Raskolnikov’s inability to stay composed following his crime should have been proof enough that there are no extraordinary people. Even though I was not very fond of the novel, I often found myself struggling along with Raskolnikov and his mental instability caused by the crime.
As Thompson said, I think it is very easy for any individual to relate to the themes and instances portrayed in “Crime and Punishment”. There are always times when we do not want to be near anyone else, thus we distance ourselves from others around us. Even if the level of alienation is not as severe as Raskolnikov’s, it is almost inevitable because everyone has a breaking point. As much as I am disappointed in Raskolnikov for not thinking the murder through more thoroughly, I am very glad he ended up turning himself in. The fact that he was unable to control his feelings of guilt forces the reader to contemplate their own actions. It also makes them realize that they cannot run from the stress and guilt in their lives because eventually it will take over and fully control their lives like it did to Raskolnikov.
DeleteJessica,
DeleteThis was a very interesting perspective! I really wanted to read yours this week because you were not that into Crime and Punishment. I know in class we discussed the possibility that something had happened in Raskolnikov's childhood to build up such a wall. Perhaps, his father's death was too much for him to handle so he blocked out any and all emotions from slipping out from himself. In his first dream with the mare, the boy turned to his father when there was nothing left for him to do. Maybe that's what Raskolnikov needed but could not have. An intriguing point that you made was when you said that Raskolnikov and others turn to alcoholism and prostitution to escape their poverty and hardships. I can definitely see that with alcoholism, but not so much with prostitution. To me, this escape is only figurative, as drinking alcohol or having sex for a little money is not going to pull someone out of their struggles and poverty. Instead, it will only numb their bodies and emotions until their almost forget their lifestyles or whatever else is going wrong in life.
I really liked how you went fairly deep into the whole "extraordinary being." I have to admit, during all of the reading and discussion, I didn't really pay close attention to who is actually considered extraordinary. You mentioned Jesus and Noah, and that made me think that Raskolnikov didn't have much faith. He turned to Sonia because she was good and was religious. I wonder if he knew deep down that they were truly the "chosen ones" and that he wanted to be like them but went about it in a way that he thought was right but it clearly was not. That was one of the reasons I think I began to like Raskolnikov near the end of the novel. Anyway, this was a great blog, Jessica!
Jessica,
DeleteI just cannot get past the fact that you do not like Crime and Punishment! I understand that you do not like it, but by your words it seems as if you really hate it and I just cannot understand why. Everyone has their own opinions though, so I will not try and force you to love it. Either way, your blog was very well written. You seemed to of put a lot of thought into it!
In your second paragraph, I do agree with you to a point. Most of the characters do turn to things such as prostitution and alcohol and other things to escape their reality. But then again, in reality, most people do. I know I have my own habits to escape my reality. I’m not afraid to admit it either because of the fact that nearly everyone does. I’m not saying that I drink away the pain or sell myself on the streets. Mental illness was also important in Crime and Punishment, so when we talk about alcoholism, it is very important to remember that an alcoholic addiction, or alcoholism, is indeed a mental illness as well. Obviously, people do not typically develop a mental illness on purpose. No one really decides to become mentally ill, or an addict, or in this case dependent on drugs. Due to that, I am not so sure that I would classify intoxication as an escape, especially in this situation.
Despite this, I must congratulate you on your blog this weekend. Again, we all know how much you disliked this novel. You were able to push past your feelings to stay on the topic of the blog and really engage yourself in Thompson’s article. It is hard to think in a Nihilistic manner, as we are obviously not Nihilists, but you made a good attempt! I appreciate how you admitted that you did not fully comprehend the concepts, that is understandable. I personally love to see how other people think and how their
thought process works, and I am very interested in looking further into the Nihilistic beliefs! Again, good job on your blog, it was a pleasant read.
DeleteAll I can possibly say is, "wow", Kevin Thompson nailed it right on the head. I agree with his points a hundred percent. He made his points uncomplicated so the average person could understand his points. Without over complicating anything his points gave a great impact if the reader knew the novel. This only showed us more of the expertise that Dostoevsky displayed while writing this particular novel, "Crime and Punishment". After reading this I felt a little more confident in some of the scenario's I was thinking about regarding Razkolnikov. He also gave me some topics to think about and consider when I look back on this novel. Overall his article did two things; he made his points easy to understand/relatable, and he put his views out there without forcing anything into our preexisting views we formed regarding the novel.
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought he was going to compare his "bipolar" mother to Razkolnikov, because of the split personalities. But instead he used it to introduce his personal relation to Razkolnikov. In doing this it made me make a better connection to Razkolnikov as a person, which increased a belief of him being based off an actual person. Knowing that Dostoevsky interviewed or looked into the criminal mind/psychological background inspired a concept of the characters being based off actual people. This gave me the idea of Dostoevsky using an actual person, who has been through something similar, as inspiration for the character of Razkolnikov. Not only that but the actions and characteristics became more realistic, as compared to just thinking of Razkolnikov as a two dimensional character. Also the idea Thompson brought up about Razkolnikov suffering from his own alienation, was truly amazing. In all honesty I never thought of this topic in my craziest dream of this novel.
I always figured his personality being split in two, as his name suggests, is what tortured him. The way I use to see Razkolnikov as a literal image of an unbalanced yin and yang, either one of the sides taking over for a time. How at some points his yin/good side would take over his person at some points. In discussion we often referred to this side as his default personality, when he would automatically try to do the right thing. After he realized what he was doing his yang/nihilistic side would take back over. I realize that this idea might seem a bit out of the ordinary idea, but it is another way of looking at the character of Razkolnikov. But the way Thompson describes how it was Razkolnikov own personal alienation process from society that tortured him. This idea just makes everything become more prominent of how Razkolnikov behaved throughout the novel. The idea that I originally had of Razkolnikov changed drastically based on his idea he proposed. I thought his simple desire to be left alone was just an effect of the murder he committed, instead it only being a part of his nature.
I must say that when I first read the blog for this week I was truly worried that it was going to be this complex journal of a psychological analysis. However, it was just a simple explanation and how Thompson related to the novel. I find that he was very open in this article not forcing anything into our views. He left his points open to discussion and uncomplicated, which made the article open to interpretation. In the end this article is open to your own view as an individual. Also if you have preexisting views this article isn't forcing the author’s viewpoint onto your own.
Devyn, I have to agree that Thompson’s article brought points from such a complex novel like “Crime and Punishment” down to a level that the average person could understand. I don’t know if the credit should be given to Dostoevsky as much as Thompson but that’s a different topic. I also kind of thought that Kevin Thompson was going to use his entire article to tell of how he related to Raskolnikov because of his mother, however, I was very excited to find out I was wrong. I guess it’s true that the best way to make someone understand something is to set a common ground that they can relate to. Thompson did that perfectly. While using the example of his mother, he related Raskolnikov to the average individual who more than likely has someone in their life that can be embarrassing at times. Unfortunately, his article didn’t make me feel closer to Raskolnikov. The article made me think harder and deeper into the mind of Dostoevsky though. I agree that him looking further into the criminology aspect of life really helped in the development of the novel while also making it seem more realistic to the reader. Thompson mentioned how Raskolnikov was “the victim” of his own alienation, as much as I can see where he got that, I don’t know if he suffered as much from his alienation as he did from the guilt and anxiety he felt after committing the murders.
DeleteI do not agree that it was Raskolnikov’s split personality that “tortured him” as you put it. I think it was his own guilt that made him mentally unstable. He thought he was this extraordinary being that was above the law, yet he did not think far enough into advance to consider the consequences the guilt would force him to feel. Again, I don’t know if Raskolnikov’s desire to be alone was his nature. I do agree to a certain extent that his character is one of those that prefers to be more in the background, but I think he purposely stayed back and alienated himself further after the murder simply because of the emotions that overwhelmed him following committing the crime. I also liked how Thompson did not cram his opinions down our throats. Good work!
Devyn,
DeleteI noticed you and Ann had the same thoughts on reading Thompson's first paragraph about his mother. Again, maybe Raskolnikov is also bipolar? Who knows! I love that you used the yin and yang in your blog! That is something so simple that I never thought about comparing to such a complex book. I especially loved that you mentioned how they are unbalanced with Raskolnikov. It is so true! Raskolnikov is a very unbalanced man, and at different parts of the story he is more good than he is bad. That is quite interesting to me. I love the yin and yang because it really relates to everyone. No one is fully good or fully bad. Raskolnikov just happens to contain more bad or more good depending on the situation. Quite honestly, many people are like that! This may sound unethical, but I do not care for some of the people I am related to. However, I still love them. Why? Most of the time it is because I have to, but I do not see them enough to understand them either. There is one child that I love more than the rest of the family. She is not treated fairly, and I am a person that strongly believes in equality. First of all, this person is adopted and the birth child is older and jealous of this particular child. They sees rhem as a threat. I have no idea why, but it irritates me to the point where I hate this family for the unfair treatment towards this child. During this past summer there was something posted on Facebook that was directed at my mutual grandmother. The cousin that mistreats the adopted cousin told her "Don't get your granny pants in a knot." It fired me up! Therefore, I posted on Facebook "I can't believe some people have the audacity to disrespect their grandmother on Facebook." I did that to defend my grandmother, not to start a war within the family. But I did start this mini war that had already been going on for some time now. Quite frankly, I am happy I did it.
What I am trying to say here is that I can relate to Raskolnikov. I would never kill someone, but I can understand doing something that you thought was better for yourself without thinking about the harm it is causing others. This stupid argument going on in my family just causes stress on my grandmother, even though she is on my side. She should not have to deal with it. I just wanted to stick up for her because my cousin was being a very cruel word that I shall not type. Raskolnikov did not think about the outcomes. He just did what he thought was best. Our yin and yang became unbalanced for brief moments.