Here's my paragraph: The third dream that Raskolnikov has truly symbolizes his inability to deal with his crime. This dream takes place after he sees his mother and sister for the first time in many years, and perhaps they are catalysts in his having the dream. Dunya and Raskolnikov's mother always show unwavering love for him, despite how he acts towards them, and at this point, they are oblivious to his criminal status. When Raskolnikov revisits his crime in his dream, he reaches the house of the old woman, once again, passively, as he just happens to follow a random tradesman who leads him there. Once he reaches the old woman's apartment, he only hesitates slightly before continuing, barely acknowledging that he might have fright, and mechanically, he strikes her down. Amazingly, she does not move, and instead, the old woman begins to laugh softly: “the little old crone was sitting there laughing—simply dissolving in soft, inaudible laughter, trying her best not to let him hear” (277). This laughter seems like contempt to Raskolnikov. In response, he beats the old woman even more, in a rage, hacking at her. Where as when Mikolka beat the horse, there was encouragement, when Raskolnikov beats the woman, and “he began hitting the old woman on the head with all his strength, but at every blow of the axe the laughing and whispering from the bedroom grew stronger and louder, and the little crone heaved all over with laughter” (277). His victim, someone he had thought he had taken control over, like Mikolka had taken control over his horse, refuses to submit to him, and instead, laughs at him, in a way, belittling his crime. In converse with the crowd in the first dream egging on and congratulating Mikolka, the crowd in this dream increase the volume of the laughter. This dream represents an important moment in Raskolnikov's growth and path towards his last dream, and the denouement of his character, because of the reaction of the crowd. Raskolnikov's crime diminishes greatly in his eye, revealing the contempt and disinterest of the public, whose confirmation of his badness he so desired.
One of my weaker paragraphs - I appreciate the feedback, friends!
Some characters explicitly link physical cleanliness to nobility, respect, and status; for those individuals, the decency of one’s appearance is demonstrative of one’s social standing. Dostoevsky shows this clearly in the case of Katerina Ivanovna, Marmaledov’s wife, who is said to hail from a noble family. Katerina has expressed her nostalgia for her childhood, in which she lived in comfort and wealth under the care of a respected father. Now reduced to poverty, she clings to her past by maintaining a clean household. Katerina, who is consumptive, poor, and overworked, “could not bear uncleanliness [and] preferred to wear herself out at night and beyond her strength, while everyone was asleep…rather than see dirt in the house” (Dostoevsky 179). Here, despite her exhaustion and illness, Katerina forces herself to do her family’s laundry and clean the house rather than rest for her health. Physical cleanliness requires physical payment; those with the financial resources may maintain an unsoiled home, and Katerina can no longer afford to easily keep her family clean. She desperately attempts to maintain a semblance of decency to the point where she cannot “bear uncleanliness” or the thought of relinquishing that appearance of respect by letting her home become soiled. Ironically, as she struggles to maintain the appearance of high status, she becomes increasingly haggard and weak. Katerina’s behavior implies that there is a connection between her desire to advertise her past nobility and her need to clean. This is later supported when Marmaledov is run over; when he is transported to his home, Katerina “[bustled] around the sick man, giving him water, wiping the sweat and blood from his head” (184). While she cleans Marmaledov’s wounds, she claims that the family would save money if he died. Although Katerina displays a deep contempt for the destitution in which her husband has trapped the family, she still cleans the wounds. As previously shown, Katerina hates to see any sign of dirtiness, and despite all the wrong Marmaledov has inflicted, Katerina still tries to maintain appearances of dignity by cleaning him—the cleansing is a sign of respect. Katerina Ivanovna’s obsession with appearances renders cleanliness as particularly important to her.
Dostoevsky first associates alcohol with irrational action in order to make the reader believe alcohol is the reason for such irrationality; however, he shifts to illustrate that people use alcohol as an explanation for actions that seem unnatural to them even though irrationality is incorporated into human nature and should be accepted as such.
And here is my second body paragraph which I feel is probably my weakest one.
After establishing the connection between alcohol and irrationality, Dostoevsky begins to illustrate how society and the individuals that represent it use alcohol to explain irrational behavior since they are unable to comprehend how such ideas and actions could occur without an external influence. While sitting in a pub, Raskolnikov begins talking to a drunk named Marmaledov. Marmaledov tells his life story and as the other patrons of the bar listen they “[begin] to snigger” (13) and do so throughout his tale. At one point, Marmaledov describes the reason he drinks saying, “It is not joy I seek, but sorrow … I drink, for I wish doubly to suffer!” (16). He continues and describes his belief that God will forgive the retched. He describes God saying, “I receive them, my wise and my reasonable ones, forasmuch as not one of them considered himself worthy of this thing …’” (23). After hearing this the patrons of the bar scoff at him sarcastically, crying out, “Nice reasoning!” and “A real official!” (23). By the partons’ “laughter” and “snickering,” along with their sarcastic comments, Dostoevsky makes it clear that the patrons, representative of the greater society, view Marmaledov and his philosophies as a joke. Marmaledov wishes “doubly to suffer” and believes that God will “receive [him] as [he] [did not] consider himself worthy.” These views go against rationality. The rational conclusion about humans is that they want to avoid suffering and pain and live lives filled with happiness and joy, yet Marmaledov speaks of a desire to suffer and, for much of his story, how he does suffer. The rational conclusion would also state that God would never accept the sinners like Marmaledov since God’s decision to do so confuses “the wise and reasonable ones.” Marmaledov accepts irrationality and this acceptance is ingrained in his lifestyle and his beliefs, yet society laughs at his opinions taking them to be nothing more than the ramblings of a drunk. They can only comprehend his ideas and actions as a result of the alcohol he drinks, and whether or not these ideas and actions are relevant to human nature, society refuses to acknowledge due the alcohol they are associated with.
My essay is on eating in Crime and Punishment, and its connection to Dostoyevsky's examination of rationality vs irrationality in the text. Here's my first body paragraph:
Dostoyevsky first uses the motif of eating to serve as a mechanism to illustrate society's expectations of rational action leading to empowerment. Nastasya, the cook in Raskolnikov's apartment building, sees Raskolnikov sleeping for abnormally long amounts of time after he has murdered Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, and tells him, "'You'd better go out, at least ... you'd at least have some wind blowing on you. Are you going to eat, or what?'" (Dostoyevsky 67). In this passage, Nastasya equates the idea of action being empowering, telling Raskolnikov that he'd "'better go out'" in order to cure his sickness, with the idea that eating is likewise an empowering, rational action, as she asks him if he's "'going to eat, or what?'" In defining eating as an empowering action, Dostoyevsky meets the reader's expectation that eating is "good," as it is often a positively connoted act, and thus establishes eating, and thereby rational action, as potentially empowering early on in the text.
Interesting blog, it reminds me of Fyodor Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment , quote "Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary." I tried to write a blog about it, hope you also like it in https://stenote.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-interview-with-fyodor.html.
Here's my paragraph:
ReplyDeleteThe third dream that Raskolnikov has truly symbolizes his inability to deal with his crime. This dream takes place after he sees his mother and sister for the first time in many years, and perhaps they are catalysts in his having the dream. Dunya and Raskolnikov's mother always show unwavering love for him, despite how he acts towards them, and at this point, they are oblivious to his criminal status. When Raskolnikov revisits his crime in his dream, he reaches the house of the old woman, once again, passively, as he just happens to follow a random tradesman who leads him there. Once he reaches the old woman's apartment, he only hesitates slightly before continuing, barely acknowledging that he might have fright, and mechanically, he strikes her down. Amazingly, she does not move, and instead, the old woman begins to laugh softly: “the little old crone was sitting there laughing—simply dissolving in soft, inaudible laughter, trying her best not to let him hear” (277). This laughter seems like contempt to Raskolnikov. In response, he beats the old woman even more, in a rage, hacking at her. Where as when Mikolka beat the horse, there was encouragement, when Raskolnikov beats the woman, and “he began hitting the old woman on the head with all his strength, but at every blow of the axe the laughing and whispering from the bedroom grew stronger and louder, and the little crone heaved all over with laughter” (277). His victim, someone he had thought he had taken control over, like Mikolka had taken control over his horse, refuses to submit to him, and instead, laughs at him, in a way, belittling his crime. In converse with the crowd in the first dream egging on and congratulating Mikolka, the crowd in this dream increase the volume of the laughter. This dream represents an important moment in Raskolnikov's growth and path towards his last dream, and the denouement of his character, because of the reaction of the crowd. Raskolnikov's crime diminishes greatly in his eye, revealing the contempt and disinterest of the public, whose confirmation of his badness he so desired.
One of my weaker paragraphs - I appreciate the feedback, friends!
ReplyDeleteSome characters explicitly link physical cleanliness to nobility, respect, and status; for those individuals, the decency of one’s appearance is demonstrative of one’s social standing. Dostoevsky shows this clearly in the case of Katerina Ivanovna, Marmaledov’s wife, who is said to hail from a noble family. Katerina has expressed her nostalgia for her childhood, in which she lived in comfort and wealth under the care of a respected father. Now reduced to poverty, she clings to her past by maintaining a clean household. Katerina, who is consumptive, poor, and overworked, “could not bear uncleanliness [and] preferred to wear herself out at night and beyond her strength, while everyone was asleep…rather than see dirt in the house” (Dostoevsky 179). Here, despite her exhaustion and illness, Katerina forces herself to do her family’s laundry and clean the house rather than rest for her health. Physical cleanliness requires physical payment; those with the financial resources may maintain an unsoiled home, and Katerina can no longer afford to easily keep her family clean. She desperately attempts to maintain a semblance of decency to the point where she cannot “bear uncleanliness” or the thought of relinquishing that appearance of respect by letting her home become soiled. Ironically, as she struggles to maintain the appearance of high status, she becomes increasingly haggard and weak. Katerina’s behavior implies that there is a connection between her desire to advertise her past nobility and her need to clean. This is later supported when Marmaledov is run over; when he is transported to his home, Katerina “[bustled] around the sick man, giving him water, wiping the sweat and blood from his head” (184). While she cleans Marmaledov’s wounds, she claims that the family would save money if he died. Although Katerina displays a deep contempt for the destitution in which her husband has trapped the family, she still cleans the wounds. As previously shown, Katerina hates to see any sign of dirtiness, and despite all the wrong Marmaledov has inflicted, Katerina still tries to maintain appearances of dignity by cleaning him—the cleansing is a sign of respect. Katerina Ivanovna’s obsession with appearances renders cleanliness as particularly important to her.
This the thesis for my essay
ReplyDeleteDostoevsky first associates alcohol with irrational action in order to make the reader believe alcohol is the reason for such irrationality; however, he shifts to illustrate that people use alcohol as an explanation for actions that seem unnatural to them even though irrationality is incorporated into human nature and should be accepted as such.
And here is my second body paragraph which I feel is probably my weakest
one.
After establishing the connection between alcohol and irrationality, Dostoevsky begins to illustrate how society and the individuals that represent it use alcohol to explain irrational behavior since they are unable to comprehend how such ideas and actions could occur without an external influence. While sitting in a pub, Raskolnikov begins talking to a drunk named Marmaledov. Marmaledov tells his life story and as the other patrons of the bar listen they “[begin] to snigger” (13) and do so throughout his tale. At one point, Marmaledov describes the reason he drinks saying, “It is not joy I seek, but sorrow … I drink, for I wish doubly to suffer!” (16). He continues and describes his belief that God will forgive the retched. He describes God saying, “I receive them, my wise and my reasonable ones, forasmuch as not one of them considered himself worthy of this thing …’” (23). After hearing this the patrons of the bar scoff at him sarcastically, crying out, “Nice reasoning!” and “A real official!” (23). By the partons’ “laughter” and “snickering,” along with their sarcastic comments, Dostoevsky makes it clear that the patrons, representative of the greater society, view Marmaledov and his philosophies as a joke. Marmaledov wishes “doubly to suffer” and believes that God will “receive [him] as [he] [did not] consider himself worthy.” These views go against rationality. The rational conclusion about humans is that they want to avoid suffering and pain and live lives filled with happiness and joy, yet Marmaledov speaks of a desire to suffer and, for much of his story, how he does suffer. The rational conclusion would also state that God would never accept the sinners like Marmaledov since God’s decision to do so confuses “the wise and reasonable ones.” Marmaledov accepts irrationality and this acceptance is ingrained in his lifestyle and his beliefs, yet society laughs at his opinions taking them to be nothing more than the ramblings of a drunk. They can only comprehend his ideas and actions as a result of the alcohol he drinks, and whether or not these ideas and actions are relevant to human nature, society refuses to acknowledge due the alcohol they are associated with.
My essay is on eating in Crime and Punishment, and its connection to Dostoyevsky's examination of rationality vs irrationality in the text. Here's my first body paragraph:
ReplyDeleteDostoyevsky first uses the motif of eating to serve as a mechanism to illustrate society's expectations of rational action leading to empowerment. Nastasya, the cook in Raskolnikov's apartment building, sees Raskolnikov sleeping for abnormally long amounts of time after he has murdered Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, and tells him, "'You'd better go out, at least ... you'd at least have some wind blowing on you. Are you going to eat, or what?'" (Dostoyevsky 67). In this passage, Nastasya equates the idea of action being empowering, telling Raskolnikov that he'd "'better go out'" in order to cure his sickness, with the idea that eating is likewise an empowering, rational action, as she asks him if he's "'going to eat, or what?'" In defining eating as an empowering action, Dostoyevsky meets the reader's expectation that eating is "good," as it is often a positively connoted act, and thus establishes eating, and thereby rational action, as potentially empowering early on in the text.
Interesting blog, it reminds me of Fyodor Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment , quote "Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary."
ReplyDeleteI tried to write a blog about it, hope you also like it in https://stenote.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-interview-with-fyodor.html.