Don't you love it when you finally figure something out? When the light comes on and suddenly you understand? Eureka! Hopefully, some of that is beginning to happen with Crime and Punishment. Hopefully, the pages of dense text that you dutifully trudged through over the summer are beginning to open before your eyes, revealing what they may have formerly concealed.
And have you noticed that each time you pick up the book, each time you engage in discussion, each time you read a piece of criticism or hear a classmate report on their own, that your own understanding grows? During our discussion today, I almost felt the tiny folds of my cerebellum expanding, making room for new ideas and justifying them among the old.
So, what is it that you are beginning to understand about the novel? What are your epiphanies, your ah-ha! moments, what light have you seen? Please respond with specific references to the class discussion, arguments presented, textual evidence, your own opinions, etc. I'll do the same, that is, after I finish grading those last 10 college essays. (Yup, I'm still working on those...)
As always, I wait with great anticipation...
And have you noticed that each time you pick up the book, each time you engage in discussion, each time you read a piece of criticism or hear a classmate report on their own, that your own understanding grows? During our discussion today, I almost felt the tiny folds of my cerebellum expanding, making room for new ideas and justifying them among the old.
So, what is it that you are beginning to understand about the novel? What are your epiphanies, your ah-ha! moments, what light have you seen? Please respond with specific references to the class discussion, arguments presented, textual evidence, your own opinions, etc. I'll do the same, that is, after I finish grading those last 10 college essays. (Yup, I'm still working on those...)
As always, I wait with great anticipation...
Oh, and don't forget your first name, last initial, and period number!
72 comments:
Multiple aspects of the novel revealed themselves to me during our Socratic discussion; however, the most prominent was the significance of Lizaveta. I had never given her much thought. It was easy to simply dismiss her death as a necessary action following Raskolnikov’s crime. In reality, the character of Lizaveta symbolizes Raskolnikov’s innocence, his compassionate side. When he brutally murders Lizaveta so his crime will not be discovered, he is in turn murdering that part of his soul. This is made obvious by the fact that he never mentions Lizaveta’s death in reference to the murder. Although it is possible to justify the murder of “a louse” in society, there is absolutely no justification of the killing of her innocent sister. I found this aspect of the novel especially intriguing. What appears as such an insignificant incident on the outside is actually a key portion of the story.
Michelle Jenkins
Period 4
One aspect of our in class discussion that stayed with me afterward was Raskolnikov's motivation. Of course, he was fueled by desire for "excitement," wanting to prove his Extraordinary Man theory, and possible monetary gain, but what made him crave all of these things in the first place?
In the epilogue, it reveals that Raskolnikov was not inherently evil. He cared for a dying friend and saved two children from a burning fire in his earlier years as a student; clearly there was compassion under all that pain. So something must have changed to make him go so crazy, for lack of a better word.
I read a very interesting criticism by Peter Lowe called Prufrock in St. Petersburg: The presence of Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment in T.S. Eliot's 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock'. The essay proposes that both men act (or don't act) according to the influence of their environment. Prufrock is discouraged by the hollow 1920s life he lives and Raskolnikov is stifled by a crime-ridden city in a state of moral decay.
The point was brought up in class that if Raskolnikov didn't kill the pawnbroker, he ultimately would have turned in violence towards someone else. Taking into consideration Lowe's idea about Raskolnikov's environment, I completely agree. The city took its toll on Raskolnikov. He fell into idleness, mental "claustrophobia" and ultimately cemented his belief in the fateful theory of the extraordinary man (Lowe 4). Had he lived somewhere else, he certainly would not have even conceived of acting the way he did.
The discussions in class opened my eyes to this reasoning. I know some people were less than convinced that environment could excuse murder, but that's not what I'm proposing. Of course it doesn't excuse something so odious as murder, but it shows the method for the madness -- adding just another layer to Dostoevsky's psychological masterpiece.
--Hannah Pruitt
Period 4
The Socratic discussion broadened my view of Crime and Punishment by showing the many levels of symbolism in the novel. For example, the foils of Svidrigailov and Sonya represent good and evil influences on Raskolnikov's actions or, in some opinions, projections of good and evil within Raskolnikov. The dualistic nature of the novel ties into a large part of the first day of discussion concerning Raskolnikov's split personalities. Whether Raskolnikov has two or three personalities remains debatable, but most of the class seems to agree to that ultimately his compassion wins out when he confesses and falls in love with Sonya, thereby undergoing a religious and moral conversion. What I also found interesting was that the spirits of the dead seemed to act through those still living. The summons to the police station the day after the murder strikes as more than merely coincidental and possibly symbolizes Aliona's "retribution from the grave" (Peace 4). Likewise, the gun that Dunya tries to shoot Svidrigailov with was from Martha, and at the end, Svidrigailov commits suicide using that very gun, perhaps symbolizing Martha's retribution. Stepping back from Crime and Punishment allowed me to see the greater significance of the details and symbolism, revealing the thematic complexities in the novel.
Linh Tran Do
Period 4
After listening to my classmates comment on the complexities of Crime and Punishment, and more importantly Raskolnikov, I especially learned how numerous Raskolnikov's motives were for killing the pawnbroker and then her sister. In addition I learned that each character in the novel reflects Raskolnikov in some way, whether it be Sonya representing Raskolnikovs newly found religious beliefs or Razumikhin reflecting Raskolnikovs compassionate side. Another comment made by someone in our class that caused me to reconsider my opinions of the novel was how God simply intended Raskolnikov to escape from the murder scene so that he could learn from his mistakes through his own doing. This theory is even preached today and is believed to be one of the best ways to learn to make better choices.
steven n., per. 4
This week’s Socratic discussion over Crime and Punishment introduced many new ideas and views of Crime and Punishment I had never considered before, as well as simpler critical analyses that I had previously overlooked. First of all, I do believe that Raskolnikov is a “product of his environment” as we discussed. His emotional and physical conditions are a reflection of his setting. Raskolnikov’s internal and psychological struggles deal within the crammed city, the first time he feels some sense of peace and relief is out in the desolate land of Siberia. Second, the characters that surround Raskolnikov have a pivotal impact on his split personality. Marmeladov introduces self-sacrifice and suffering (obviously two traits that impact the story heavily) Sonya introduces the traits of love and service. These two characters each parallel one personality of Raskolnikov.
-John W.
Period 4
After hearing my classmates responses to their criticism and how they felt personally about Crime and Punishment, I was able to understand different aspects that I had never thought about before. One point that stuck out to me was the theme of dying in the novel. Not dying with the sense of the murder, but the death of Rask's own soul when he split the woman in two. Also with the theme of yellow that is found throughout the beginning of the book, signifying decay, such as the decaying sanity of Rask, his guilt creeping around him and engulfing him, and the death of his soul. His "split personalities" being split into thirds also impacted me. Another comment that stood out to me was the fact that Rask is portraying himself to be such a good person that he committed this murder for the sake of humanity, and Sonya is considered a bad person because of her prostitution when she is the most God-like figure in the entire book, with her compassion and selflessness. Lastly, I enjoyed the argument of whether or not Rask would have killed if the pawn broker would not have been in the plot, and would agree that his need to help humanity and prove he was Napoleon-like would have driven him to kill regardless.
Amy Holland Period 4
During the discussion we held in class over the two day there was one word I heard repeated constantly: split. Whether it’s Raskolnikov’s split personality, his split from society or the one swift blow with which he split open Lizaveta’s brow. This certainly isn’t a word featured in the text of the book, only in the analysis of the novel. My articled focused exclusively on the blow to Lizaveta that served to split Raskolnikov from society. This murder was the real crime in the novel and the only punishment was the guilt resulted from this act. Raskolnikov went with the intentions of killing a “louse” to prove that he was a Napoleonic figure, but upon killing innocent and defenseless Lizaveta he destroyed himself.
Emma Clark Period 5
During the Socratic discussion, I realized that Raskolnikov's crime was an act of selfishness. His justifications for his crime was all irrational. His one and true motive for the crime was to gain excitment and prove himself worthy.
Based on "Dostoevsky's CRIME AND PUNISHMENT" by Thomas R. Beyer, Jr., The single chop that killed Lizaveta killed Raskolnikov's rational side. It was "moral guilt" that caused Raskolnikov to accept his crime.
The Socratic discussion allowed me to see the religious side to the story. I knew that Sonya represents religious side to the story. When Linh Tran Do pointed out the motif of the number three, I started looking at the book in a new light.
Dianjun Z. Period 4
Our Socratic discussion in class as well as reading my criticism has really shed new light on Crime and Punishment for me. In fourth period we really concentrated a lot on the duality of Raskolnikov throughout the novel and what these two sides may have been, and if eventually one side won. Something that I didn't have an opportunity to say about this is that in my criticism, the author related this issue of a prideful need for power that Raskolnikov experiences stems from a threatened masculinity. The criticism's reason for Raskolnikov's murderous side was that he felt that he needed to prove his power and strength which had dulled because he was constantly being surrounded by women. These women, such as his mother and Dunia, doted on him and were always helping him, for example after he fainted.
I also really appreciated our class discussion over how much it is possible to justify the murder of "the louse". Different peoples opinions all made sense so I think its really more a matter of making people think. The novel is meant to provoke thought on such difficult topics as the value of a person's life, where principle meets reality, and the urge of humans to make themselves superior.
I feel like I understand the novel as a whole much better after these discussions, and that I can really see the deeper meaning behind the plot and characters.
Annie Scavone
Period 4
During our discussion of Crime and Punishment, several thoughts about the book were revealed to me. The first was Raskolnikov's split personality. This topic was touched upon many times, and my critic Richard Peace discussed it in his article "Motive and Symbol: 'Crime and Punishment.'" In it, he suggests that Raskolnikov is split between an aggressive side and meek side. Both sides are represented by other characters in the book (Luzhin and Svidrigaylov representing the aggressive side, and Dunya and Sonya representing the meek side). While Raskolnikov tries to abandon his meek side, he can’t get rid of part of himself so easily. Another thread of the discussion I liked revolved around the justification behind murder. Some people felt the murder of the pawnbroker was slightly justified, since she made no real contribution to society, while others felt murder was wrong no matter the circumstance. Everyone agreed that the killing of Lizaveta could not be justified, and someone raised an interesting point that when Raskolnikov killed Lizaveta, he killed a part of himself. This discussion raised many interesting points and opened my mind to new points that I hadn’t considered.
Seth Johnson
period 4
I discovered new and interesting ideas about the novel by reading the two criticisms I found, but the discussion we had in class introduced me to a myriad of unique ways to interpret the novel.
First of all, I loved the discussion about whether Raskolnikov would have still killed someone even if Alyona was not in the picture. I loved it because I had never even thought to address this question, and both sides can be seen. Yes, Raskolnikov despised the old woman, but he was also wanting to do something drastic and powerful. So which came first? After careful thinking, I concluded that he would have killed anyone because his real motive was not to kill Alyona but to test himself.
Second, I really enjoyed the discussion about religion and the religious symbols present throughout the novel. My criticism discussed religion, but the class brought the discussion to a whole new level, and I was able to understand the full extent to which religion is used to create meaning. The religious symbols include the three windows in Sonya's room (father, son, and holy ghost), which represent Sonya's faith. Porfiry is also compared to Christ because instead of convicting and attacking Raskolnikov, he tries to persuade him to do it himself and save himself. The discussion about religion also made me start thinking about when Raskolnikov became a Christian. Asking Sonya to give him the book of gospels but keeping it under his pillow and never opening it shows that he is becoming interested. Therefore, I don't believe he became a Christian until after prison.
I really enjoyed our discussion, and I believe it was time very well spent because I learned a lot and it opened my eyes to new reasonings and ways of looking at the novel.
Sara R.
Period 4
After our two days of Socratic discussions, my own personal perspective on the novel has been taken to greater heights of understanding. Take the case of Raskolnikov’s nature. It’s plainly obvious that there are two sides to him – a dualist aspect explored throughout Dostoevsky’s novel. Dostoevsky essentially attacks man’s rationality through Raskolnikov. He exposes the dualistic nature of Raskolnikov, in which his make-up runs contrary to his rationalism. This make-up undermines it according to Peace. Raskolnikov is split into “two opposing characters inside him that succeed one another by turns.” In his mind he earnestly believes that he is “extraordinary,” but mistakes the fact that a part doesn’t constitute the whole, in which as a whole, he is ordinary. He forgets a human is made up of not only the head (rational killing), but also the heart (altruistic side) and that is his failure. It’s interesting to hear that Raskolnikov’s premeditated murder cannot possibly be equated to Napoleon’s feat, thus a logical fallacy incurs. The mere fact that he had to prove himself shows that he secretly had doubts, about his being a Napoleonic man and this alone shows that he was not entitled to commit the crime. However, a third side to Raskolnikov had been brought up. In fact, it can be argued that Raskolnikov is split into a murderer, onlooker, and an altruist. Ultimately, the overall consensus was that Raskolnikov wanted to confess in the end and it was only a matter of time.
Another point I found interesting was that my critic Daniel Deneau suggests that almost every character represents a facet of Raskolnikov’s tormented psyche. For example Porfiry Petrovich uses roundabout tactics to approach and imply an accusation. On the other hand, the unnamed artisan accuses him outright. It can be argued that the artisan is Porfiry’s alater ego. In their respective descriptions and characterization, the similarity of the two to an “old peasant woman” is a recurring likeness. Seemingly, Dostoevsky intended this uncanny link to further explore his Raskolnikov’s character. These characters surround Raskolnikov like mirrors reflecting and distorting the aspects of his own dilemma further deepening the significance of Crime and Punishment.
Matthew Tran
Period 4
During our Socratic discussion I picked up a lot of new ideas and heard some interesting opinions about the novel. An interesting thought that i picked up is the idea of Rasklinaknov's split personality, which was one of the main focuses of our discussion. I think he has a human side which shows when he wants to be with people and in the crowded areas. I also think that he has a kind of scientific or mechanical side. He gets his theory from this side and it shows when he craves solitude and to be away from everyone. I also believe that the epilogue works in this novel. I believe it simply shows that the struggle of the two sides inside Rasklinakov is ongoing. One side thinks he is still innocent and the other knows that he needs redemption. I also thought the idea that all other characters are reflections of Raskalnikov was interesting. They show different scenarios of his personality playing out.
Keith Tura
Per 5
As the discussion persisted I noticed how Dostoevsky portrayed the split in Raskolnikov from the conflict between his compassionate self and his hateful side. Dostoevsky also illustrates this through the characters surrounding Raskolnikov. Stating the obvious, Sonia represents Raskolnikov's compassion and sympathy towards others at the cost of himself whilst Svidrigailov embodies Raskolnikov's detestable side which longs to do as it wants.
Through the Socratic discussion I also realized that Dostoevsky portrayed his own views on life, philosophy and ideology through Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky hints at his own past when Raskolnikov gives all his money to the Marmeladovs and Rask.'s feels a " sensation [which] might be compared to that of a man condemned to death who has quite unexpectedly been pardoned".
Also the murder story somewhat parallels Dostoevsky's youth as an embracer of new/failed ideas.
Caleb A. per4
The Most interesting idea that I heard in the sixth period socratic discussion was the idea of rationalization. Initially we discussed to death the motivation for the crime without every really looking at what Raskolnikov was discussing in his own head. The idea that he was trying to formulate an argument about all the people that he would help if he would just murder one person, shows that fundamentally he knew that the murder of the pawnbroker was wrong on a level deeper than just civil but moral. This is most evidently shown when Raskolnikov asks himself if the one sin would be wiped out by thousands of good deads that he could accomplish after the murder itself. The question itself shows the doubt that Raskolnikov has and helps prove that he is not sure in his own theory of the extra-ordinary man, and therefore he must be trying to rational the murder throughout the rest of the novel.
Kyle Geiser
P6
While disscussing guilt in class, I payed special attention to the psychological approach that Dostoyevski used to describe Raskolnikov's conscious.
Given Raskolnikov's self explanation stating he himself is "not guilty" he emplies that he must feel guilty in order to state that he should not feel guilty for the murder of Lizaveta and the pawn broker. Further more he seems to only show feelings of remorse towards Lizaveta, who he accidentally killed rather that feeling guilty for purposly killing the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov emotionally prepaired himself for killing the pawnbroker. He prepaired his every step and calculated the loss and how it would effect the comunity. However, Raskolnikov feels guilty because he did not emotionally prepare himself for the death and killing of Lizaveta.
Kayla Moody
Period 6
I felt that the most interesting topic we discussed during our class discussion was Dostoyevsky's description of Sonia as an equal sinner to Raskolnikov during the confession scene. I was very surprised by this description because I always viewed Sonia as a self sacrificing daughter and sister. I couldnt believe that Dostoyevsky would put angelic Sonia on the same moral plane as Raskolnikov. However, through our discussion I realized that the reason Dostoyevsky qualifies Sonia as a sinner like Raskolnikov was because Dostoyevsky views her as "party responsible for the death of Katerina Ivanovna and the degredation of her children". Though the discussion, it became clear that Dostoyevsky believes that the most heignous crimes are committed against children because of the way he describes not only the Marmeladov children but the description of the kids on the street. It is because of Sonia's "submissiveness" that she is unable to stand up to Luzhin and therefore lets him continue committing "vile deeds".
Hannah D. Period 6
During the discussion in English over Crime and Punishment, we talked about the split personality of Raskolnikov. When I read the book I saw this split prevalent throughout the novel, yet I never analyzed which side was dominant. We argued on whether or not Raskolnikov was able to morally save himself after his crime or if he fell and never rose again. Also I never analyzed if Raskolnikov was actually sorry for the crime and what motivated his surrender. The three aspects of the motive- the need of money, the idea of the “extraordinary man”, and the need of suffering were shown to manifest in the characters of Luzhin, Svidrigailov, and Sonya. The motive of murder for money was present in Luzhin, the logical character. Svidrigailov, the character representing the senses, is shown in the motive of the “extraordinary man”. Lastly, the motive of suffering is shown in Sonya, the symbolic character of spirit and emotion. This pattern of triples stands for the trinity and is further explored in Raskolnikov’s dream of the horse being killed. I did not realize that this dream is a foreshadowing of the crime and even his redemption. Raskolnikov is shown in the horse as the victim, the killer as the criminal, and the boy as the innocent witness.
Also, we discussed the other types of crimes in Crime and Punishment. My critic claimed that the most selfish, cold-hearted crime in the novel is when Luzhin puts the money in Sonya’s pocket. We discussed this topic and I came to realize that this crime is the most selfish crime in the novel, as it is motivated solely by Luzhin’s wants. His crime is done to harm Sonya, and bring no good to anyone. On the other hand Raskolnikov murders a pawn broker, but at least he is hoping to rid society of this louse. This realization that maybe Luzhin, not Raskolnikov, is the worst moral character in the novel was interesting.
Christine Thorne-Thomsen
Period 4
Throughout the discussions in class many aspects of the novel were revealed to me that i had missed when reading it. The one i found the most interesting was the splitting up of Raskolnikov character into three parts. While i was reading i understood that he had many different personalities but i never actually took the time to sit down and evaluate each individual side of his personality. Knowing each side of his personality really helped me understand the novel overall. Another point that stood out to me was the connection between the roots of Raskolnikovs name to "splitting" and how he murdered Lizaveta. Before reading that article i mainly focused on the murder of Alyona as the main and most important part but after i realised that the murder of Lizaveta is just as important or maybe even more important in Crime and Punishment.
Katie Russell
period. 5
When I first read the novel, I was concentrating mainly on the pshycological approach. Thus, I missed out on another major part of the novel- the aspect of split personalities. I know think that the aspect of split personalities is essential to the book, and furthermore, the epilogue ( where they continue to be played out). My criticism was more specifically about Rodya's motives to murder, but know I see how it can be conected to the split personalities deal- he is also struggling with identity issues. He knows he is as much as a louse as the pawnbroker, but his pride makes him think by doing society a good deed he can become a "superman". I found it very interesting when somebody in class brought up how the characters in Rodya's dream of the horse represent characters in the story, and the discussion on whether Rodya (Raskolnikov) felt bad about killing Lizaveta.
-Keara Brown, period 5
Getting the pleasure of hearing many different opinions on multiple aspects of "Crime and Punishment" really helped me interpret the novel in several new ways. My critic described Sonya as "the embodiment of Raskolnikov's conscience", however there were certain critics that argued the opposite perspective. This astounded me, because I had always viewed Sonya as a positive influence on Raskolnikov and an essential person needed in helping him achieve "rebirth".
Blake Plaster
Period 6
There were many things that I learned during our discussion over the past two days. Although there were topics that I had acknowledged or figured out,there were also topics that I had not given much thought to or had not figured out.
We first started out the discussion with the idea of Raskolnikov's split personalities. First Sammy started out with his criticism which stated that through Raskolnikov's dream, Dostoyevsky presents three split personalities represented by the boy, father, and person who kills the horse. After that many ideas such as Raskolnikov being a "fallen angel" and Raskolnikov having fighting personalities rather than split personalities were presented. After that we pretty much beat up the topic of split personalities, having talked about it for pretty much the whole period. Then you presented the question: Did Raskolnikov kill the pawnbroker because of who she was or would he have killed someone else to "benefit" society? During our discussion, we heard both sides through the opinions of the class. Then the idea that the characters were archetypes was presented. Sonia as redemption and salvation, Raskolnikov has the fallen hero.
Then you presented the idea of how psychology played a role in the novel. We discussed this to a point and we started to stray from that idea a little bit and by the end of the discussion, there were many separate comments that didnt seem to follow a straight line of discussion (which isn't a bad thing neccessarily).
esther jung p. 5
During our class discussion on Crime and Punishment many of my fellow students comments really made me think about the novel in a new way. One specific comment I remember regarded Raskolinkov's personality being split three ways as opposed to two. Before hearing this from one of my classmates, I had always believed that Raskolnikov only had two sides: good and evil. However after being introduced to this new idea, it seems that there are indeed three personalities because breaking it down into just good and evil is too simple for this complex novel.
Another topic that I found interesting was Raskolnikov's true motivation for the crime. And more specifically would Raskolnikov had killed even if the character of Alonya had not existed. This debate was very enlightening because it helped understand that Raskolnikov's crime was just a test of his "superman" theory and an attempt to prove to himself that he was worth something. I really enjoyed our socratic discussion and believed that it was helpful in helping me wrap my mind around the novel
Brandon Chandler
Period 4
A few things struck me after our Socratic discussion in class. I took the liberty of re-reading key turning points in the novel and some of it doesn't add up.
We discussed Raskolnikov's motive to kill ad nauseam, yet in the discussion of Raskolnikov's article with Porfiry he makes the fatal error of contradicting his own ideals:
"The first category are always the masters of the present, yet the second are the lords of the future. The first preserve the world and increase and multiply; the second move the world and guide it to its goal. Both have an absolutely equal right to exist. In short, for me all men have completely equivalent rights..."
That passage doesn't really make sense. He argues the egality of rights and yet he forsakes the pawnbroker's right to live? We're not even discussing Lizaveta as her death was a but consequence set forth by the initial act-- the original sin as they say. The motive in my opinion is not that he thought he was extraordinary but simply of a loss of morals; the decay of humanity. Psychologically, Leo Tolstoy argues that "[c]onciousness limits what can take place." His living conditions, appearance, and overall demeanour was already at the brink of being inhuman, his sanity and therefore his "conciousness" should have been suspected for bias. A deterioration of values simply unhinged his inhibitions and twisted his logic to provide a reason to kill. This very fact of being susceptible to human frailty was the main culprit.
As a parting thought, I loved the ending. My reason was that even though it offered some resolution, it offers us no finality, hinting that his road doesn't end there. That in of itself gave the novel a timelessness to it as life truly has no happy endings, only moments of grace.
-Anne Gagui
Period 6
During class, we discussed the three distinct personalities displayed by Raskolnikov throughout the novel. While I noticed Raskolnikov's contradicting character when I initially read the novel, I never stopped to analyze it further or to discover the three splits in his personality. I also never made the connection that someone in class pointed out, that each character in Raskolnikov's dream of beating and murdering a horse represented one of the sides of his personality. The peasant beating the horse represented the murderer in Raskolnikov, while the little boy represented the moral side of his personality, which causes him to torment himself over the murders he commits both before and after committing the murder, and finally the boy's father who is only an onlooker and wants no part in anything. In the novel Raskolnikov is the murderer, but he wants to be just an onlooker and not care about what he did, but with Sonya's influence, he is convinced to turn himself in.
Danielle Curran
period 6
I thought this was pretty interesting but I didn't have the opportunity to squeeze it in.
"The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
There will be time,
there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create
The author of one of my critical essays compares Prufrock's and Raskolnikov's important decisions to be readmitted into society. In the excerpt above, Prufrock is deliberating on whether or not he should enter a tea party(thus be forced to interact with society). This calls for Prufrock to murder his old "face" and create another for his admittance back into society. In a literal sense, Raskolnikov needs to murder the pawnbroker to create his new "superior" social being.
The class discussion helped bring into light the many accurate and contrasting viewpoints on Crime and Punishment. What was once fact is now a little more ambiguous than I thought.
Alex B.
Period 6th
Through the course of the Socratic discussion, the idea was brought up that Raskolnikov was driven to commit the murders because he was so consumed by ‘self-love.’ However, I had to argue that his motives were quite the opposite. Raskolnikov was disgusted with how he currently was living, and was blinded by the idea of being “superhuman.” However, someone noted that Raskolnikov’s idea of a “superhuman” is someone who can commit a murder and get away with it. Furthermore, commit a murder and not be affected by it. Certainly a flawed sense of morals. But I think that just because he was striving towards being superhuman doesn’t make the murders justifiable—it simply clarifies his motives. Though readers see that he was wrong, Raskolnikov believes that he was not morally flawed in his decision to murder the pawn broker. I thought, to an extent, that knowing that Raskolnikov believed himself to be right made him more identifiable. He was not simply some faceless monster—he thought his actions were sanctioned and right.
Brittany Schuller
Period 6
I must say that I enjoyed Crime and Punishment just as much as I did the Scarlet Letter, if you remember my feelings about that.... But yes, our Socratic discussion helped immensely. Before it, Sonia never really seemed like that important of a character to me, but now I see that she, in a way, acted as Raskolnikov's savior. Another aspect that I had never looked at that thoroughly was the whole 'superman' concept. Before the discussion I simply accepted it as fact, but now I'm looking at it as an opinion. Raskolnikov just can't be a 'superman' model because he feels guilt and is constantly conflicted. If he was a 'superman' than I would believe that he wouldn't feel the confliction within.
--Devon Kotch, Period 4
The most enriching part of our socratic discussion was hearing why people interpretted the novel differently. Our class kept coming back to the question of whether or not the epilogue fit in with the rest of the novel, and how people responded to the epilogue seemed to correspond with their views on other topics. The students who thought that Raskolnikov subconsciously wanted to get caught and, also viewed the novel as a tragedy, seemed to voice the strongest opposition to the epilogue. Those who believed that the murders were more about Lizaveta than Raskolnikov proving his superiority were typically the ones who thought the epilogue fit. We spent a lot of time trying to quantify Raskolnikov's multiple personalities, and also discussing the difference between a reason for killing and a motive for killing.
Ryan Charnov
Period 5
One of the things I always enjoy when discussing novels with my peers is hearing the many different sides/opinions to certain topics. One key point that I remember was the question of Raskolnikov's religious views, or lack thereof. I remember reading the novel and focusing on a couple of main ideas, one of which being about religion. I had walked into class on Thursday (having said nothing on Wed.) planning on sharing my views and having the class shake their heads in agreement and then we would move on. That, however, did not happen.
Instead, to my surprise a few classmates began to challenge my points and even present completely different theories. I had read the entire novel going solely by my assumptions, beliefs, and personal biases, and thus I had never even considered any of the opinions they had to offer. That is one of the great things about group discussions; it brings you out of your comfort zone and lets you see the story through the eyes of fellow readers.
The best thing I walked away from our Socratic discussion with was the true nature of the extraordinary man. Someone in our class pointed out that Sonya might be the true extraordinary person because she is able to restore the souls of men.
I thought about this for a little while, but I ultimately disagreed with the assertion. The extraordinary man, as defined by Raskolnikov, is the man who is able to transgress moral law, the man who is able to disregard the innate value of the souls of men. Dostoyevsky himself regarded moral law as "the only law", which explains the importance of both it and the concept of the extraordinary man in C&P.
So Sonya would not fit the definition of the extraordinary man, and neither would Raskolnikov because even he feels a form of remorse after his double murder. Really, the only extraordinary man might be Svidrigailov, who commits atrocities with little more than a shrug.
Steven Moen
Period 6
During our socratic discussion I learned so much about Crime and Punishment, and the novel started to come together and make more sense, finally. On the second day, someone said something about the similarities between Raskolnikov and Sonia. My criticism said the same ting, except elaborated more, comparing them as sinners and how there actions were unforgivable. However, I had to disagree with one part of the criticism that said their "morality and virtue is lost." I thought it was wrong to put murder and prostitution on the same level and comparing their sins as equal. I think that Sonia's virtues are in tact. She sins so her family can survive. To compare this to Raskolnikov murdering someone for his own personal reasons is incorrect. I thought Sonia deserved more praise for being the spiritual figure of the novel.
Daniela Arboleda
Period 6
I read one of the same critical essays as many of my classmates, entitled “In Defense of the Epilogue of Crime and Punishment”. It discussed Raskolnikov’s “two opposite personalities” – the “generous and kind” man who cared for friends and strangers alike, and the “cold and unfeeling” man who committed a murder and distanced himself from his loved ones. While I certainly recognized this element of the split personality in the novel, I had never considered the idea that Raskolnikov did not commit merely two murders, but three. When he killed Lizaveta, he essentially killed himself, at least for a time. Our class wondered how Raskolnikov would have felt if he murdered only the old pawnbroker, and not also her stepsister Lizaveta. I believe that Raskolnikov eventually would have still felt guilty and confessed his crime, even if he did consider the pawnbroker a “louse”.
While I strongly disliked the epilogue the first time, after reading this essay and hearing my classmates’ opinions, I agree with the critic that “the ending [of the novel] is…inevitable” after Raskolnikov’s prolonged psychological suffering. However, I am not so sure that Raskolnikov had a true religious experience, as the epilogue seems to suggest. Throughout the novel, he attempted to rationalize the murders and never truly seemed to believe that he was in the wrong. He accepted the idea of punishment as merely “fate”, whereas Porfiry Petrovich was the one to put things in a “Christian context”.
Amy R.
pd. 6
After listening and contributing to the conversation this week, I realized that I had never fully understood the meaning behind the epilogue. For me, the entire book focused on portraying Raskolnikov as mysterious man who was plagued by conflicting morals. In his mind, an inner conflict raged over the death of Alonya and her sister, Lizaveta. A result of this conflict was a morbid tone that persisted throughout Dostoevsky’s writing style. Very little joyous moments occurred in Raskolnikov’s life and that was the way it was supposed to be. But then, as I read through the epilogue, it seemed to contradict the tone of the entire novel. After over five hundred pages of Raskolnikov’s retribution, I was expecting a grand finale of punishment in which he would finally receive the punishment he had been hoping for the entire book. This was the exact opposite of what happened. Raskolnikov began to see the error in his ways and even ended up finding love, something I never would have even considered a viable ending. At first, I was slightly distraught that Dostoevsky had made me read all those pages of hardship to end up with this ending. Then, someone in class explained their interpretation of the ending, and I finally had a reasonable explanation of why the epilogue was written as somewhat of a happy ending.
I believe it was either Keith or Dong that brought up their reasoning for Dostoevsky to write it this way. First, they brought up how throughout the entire novel, Raskolnikov has arguments with himself over the murder. The bases of these arguments come from two contrasting personalities that he displays. On the one side, Raskolnikov thinks of himself as a superior human being who is above everyone else and therefore is above the law. On the other hand, Raskolnikov also has a “weaker” side with which he questions his own motives and his right to look down upon others. This “weaker” or submissive side reveals itself throughout the novel, but is somehow always quelled by the more dominant personality. In the class discussion, someone said that the epilogue revealed this submissive side as being more apparent than the dominant side. The epilogue was just a reflection of the multi-dimensional mind that Raskolnikov possesses, and it heightens the contrast between the two sides of his mind. This explanation satisfied my distress over the epilogue because instead of it being a stereotypical happy ending, it was actually just an extension of the novel.
Ella S
Period 5
To me, the most significant aspect of our class discussion was the one that was most related to my criticism and it was the theme of symbolism in the novel. Specifically, the idea that intrigued me was that Raskolnikov's inner-struggle(s) was/were mimicked by his surroundings. Different characters represent different sides of his personality. What intrigued me was the presence of this theme in his dream: the man beating the horse being the murderer within Rask and the child being Rask's compassionate side.
One thing I recall from our discussion was some of the examples people gave of symbolism in the novel. Somebody noted that Raskolnikov hiding the loot under a rock and not touching it throughout the novel was symbolic of the crushing guilt and the pressure he felt all through the story. Someone else suggested that the scene where Raskolnikov stares at the water and contemplates drowning himself represents a choice: death (water symbolizes drowning) or life (water represents regeneration or in Rask's case, rebirth).
Observations such as these have clarified a lot for me. So many of the things Dostoyevsky did in his novel struck me as random when I first read it. "Why the heck would Raskolnikov kill the old lady to steal her money and then leave it all under a rock?". Now I understand that many of the strange things Dostoyevsky does in his novel serve a greater purpose.
Mostafa Rizk, period 4
During the Socratic seminar I especially benefited from the discussion of Svidroglov and Raskolnikov and how both felt as though they are self sacrificing when in fact they are self loving. And there actions help no one but themselves.
The ongoing debate of whether Raskolnikov took responsibility for his actions and atoned was interesting but I still cannot choose a side. On one hand Raskolnikovs actions throughout the novel appear more like self pity in either discovering the falsie of his theory or the fact that he improvised in his plan and killed Lizaveta who he did not want to. However his confession seems necessary for his rebirth and it releases him from the trench which generally happens when a guilt ridden person confesses.
The discussion ultimately added a deeper understanding of the complexities of the novel.
Helen A. p6
The most interesting thing that I got out of our Socratic discussion was the severity and importance of Raskolnikov’s split personality. When reading the novel, I hadn’t realized that it contributed so much to the novel as a whole, and served as the driving force in all of Raskolnikov’s actions. When someone in class brought up that his dream about murdering and beating up the horse was symbolic of the different sides of his personalities, the whole book was put into a different perspective for me. Not only did I see how the psychology and Raskolnikov’s internal struggle was the motive of both the crime and the punishment, I realized that the three parts of his personality make up the whole of his attitude towards the murder.
Katie K.
6th period
At first when you announced that we would be having an in-class discussion about Crime and Punishment, I will admit I was a little bit nervous. I don't usually have a problem speaking in front of others, but prior to our class discussion, I did not feel I understood the novel enough to express my opinions on it. The first day, I squeezed in one comment just so I wouldn't be pressured to speak three times or more on the second day. But walking into class on Thursday, I actually found myself getting involved in the conversation and having ideas and opinions that I wanted to share.
Having a class discussion is an easy way to get new and contrasting ideas out in the open. Although it is mentioned in the novel several times that Raskonlnikov is crazy, I had never reflected much on his multiple personalities. Mulitple people in our class (5th period) had a criticism in which Raskolnikov's different personalities are reflected in the characters of his dream in which the horse is killed and a few had articles comparing his split personality to Lizaveta and Alonya. Previously, I hadn't thought of it in either of those point of views so the discussion gave me a few things to think about.
Overall, I am glad we had the discussion and I look forward to other activities like this where we can openly share our opinions. By speaking our minds, other people can benefit and we all learned more about Crime and Punishment.
Camryn Pennington
Period 5
The socratic discussion of Crime and Punishment was intresting and very beneficial. Being able to listen to my classmate's point of views on the novel and compare them to my own viewpoints allowed me to obtain new information on the novel and challenge my personal thoughts as well. I enjoyed one particular topic of our discussion of how Raskolnikov feels intellectually superior to his society so he must committ the murder to conquer human nature and rise above. However, Raskolniknov can not committ such a crime without suffering, and he therefore confesses and accepts the murders as his own public identity. After hearing the class's views, I continue to question myself wether I believe Raskolnikov truly redeems himself. Lastly, after reading my articles, I enjoyed learning background information and the irony that exists on certain character's names. For example, the name Raskolnikov comes from the root "raskolot'", which means to split..ironic! It was also intresting to see how all the characters in the novel are all conncected in someway.
Michelle Svitek
Period 6
I found the socratic discussion in class to be very helpful in my understanding of Crime and Punishment. The thing I found most interesting however was the topic of Raskalnikov and his motives for the crime. The topic was one of most discussed and I feel that we had done a fantastic job of exploring Raskalnikov's motives. What stood out most to me was Raskalnikov's views of humanity and how he believed himself to be one of the elite with the "right" to kill.
-Phillip C
Period 6
Through the literary criticisms and the class discussion, many new aspects of the book were revealed to me. A point we hit on a lot that I found very interesting was how his name "Raskol" means "split" in Russian and all the symbolism behind that. The most prominent was his split personality, which we talked mostly about in the discussion. We went so far as to discuss rather his personalities were actually "split" or were they "fighting?" The splitting also came into play when he physically and forcefully split Lizaveta's brow down the middle. This action led to his split from society and humanity. This murder was very overlooked in the book, and my critic discussed this saying the killing of Lizaveta was the only thing that made him feel guilt or remorse throughout the novel because he felt no regret for killing the old pawnbroker. The murder that seemed to be rather insignificant, actually kept the plot line moving throughout the novel with Lizaveta's different connections. For example, she was "spiritual sisters" with Sonya, meaning Raskolnikov killed his lover's very dear friend.
Another element we discussed a lot in class was the epilogue. I personally believe the epilogue fits the book perfectly. Although it is very controversial, the book as a whole is questionable, confusing at parts, and controversial, and to think that the end would just tie up every loose end and make everyone happy, would not go along with the previous 500 pages.
Molly Walker
Period 5
I felt that our class discussion was really interesting and really opened up my mind to new ideas and aspects of the novel. Certain topics we discussed, such as Raskolnikov's split personality, really made me view him in a different light which led me to reevaluate some of actions throughout the novel. Not only did our discussion make me analyze certain events again but it made me consider what would happen if Raskolnikov only murdered the pawnbroker. Would it have been a completely different story, or even a story at all? I felt that these two topics we discussed were very insightful and made me think of the novel with a whole new perspective. I discovered that even though the author doesn't make it very apparent, Lizaveta was a very important part to the novel. One final issue we discussed in class was the necessity of the epilogue. i think it was properly placed because it continued the theme of the author's ability to make us believe one thing and then totally change it by one single event. All of these topics were very interesting to discuss and helped me look at Crime and Punishment in a new way.
Rachel Bett
Period 5
The aspects of the novel I found most interesting throughout our Socratic discussion were Raskolnikov's multiple motives and the importance of Lizaveta to the entire novel. While reading the book the importance of Lizaveta really wasn't apparent to me but is now realized through the various criticisms which discussed it. Raskolnikov's multiple motives were also very interesting to me during the discussion, while at first I thought it must be either necessity or the need to prove himself that makes him commit the murder I know realize it could be a mix of the two along with other elements. The class Socratic discussion was very successful in opening up new ideas for me.
Jake Lewis
Period 5
From our Socratic discussion on C+P, I came to appreciate the many different ways of examining the novel, especially looking at the critical stances we learned about last year. The discussion about Raskolnikov’s “split personality” really intrigued me. Is it even split? If so, into two parts (good vs. evil) or three (little boy, murderer and onlooker?) Who wins out in the end? Many classmates seemed to think that his compassionate/little boy side is the victor, and I can’t help but agree. Someone also brought up the idea that Sonia instituted those ideas of compassion and self-sacrifice into Raskolnikov’s mind.
We also discussed the crime scene and how Raskolnikov’s sense of alarm is repeatedly eased with relief. Someone pointed out that his surroundings mirror his mind. His cramped room parallels his isolated, closed-off mindset, and the rock he hides his loot under mirrors his guilt. This provides a compelling evidence for the idea that his actions are a results of his environment. Another critic cited the similarities between the murder scene and Rask’s confession as reasoning for why he turned himself in.
We also looked at the epilogue’s presence: is it necessary or even warranted at all? Some see it as unnecessary, extraneous and “too neat,” while others see it as a way to tie loose ends in. Both arguments have valid points, and, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion on it.
Jenny H.
Period 4
Our class discussion of Crime and Punishment brought up some very interesting questions, mainly dealing with Raskolnikov. One question that stuck out to me was, "Does Raskolnikov have a split personality, or is he just derranged?" At first -along with my critic- I believed that he had three personalities: the little boy, the onlooker, and the murderer, similar to his dream. But after some thought, I do not think that there is a right or wrong answer. Dostoyevsky created Raskolnikov to be unpredictable and some what spontaneous.
Another question that stayed with me was, "Did it matter that Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker, or could it have been anybody?" I think most of my class agreed that it had to be the pawnbroker because of her role in society. She was considered a "louse", therefore, Raskolnikov did not go into the murder with much of a challenge. However, he left the scene of the crime having commited not one, but two murders. Lizaveta is the source of any guilt/punishment that Raskolnikov feels, not the pawnbroker.
Taylor Goodwine
period 5
After listening to my classmates and participating in the discussion, I have come to understand and grasp Crime and Punishment on a completely different level than on what I initially read it. One of the discussion topics that really stood out to me was Raskolnikov’s personality -not split into only two parts, like I had thought through most of the novel, but instead three – a “little boy” personality included in the good vs evil. I think that Raskolnikov’s personality was too multifaceted that it had to be broken down into one more category. It was very interesting to see my classmates’ opinions about the multi-varying personalities of Raskolnikov.
Another topic I found interesting, and one I wish I could of elaborated and expanded upon within more time, was the way the critics broke down the element of motivation for the murder. Critics differed over what the true motivation was – some offer the motivation of self superiority, religious reasons and social/humanity reasonings. Another reasoning was of the “inner rebellion” – social and religious. I feel that all of these motivations should be included into thought of the “true” reason behind Raskolnikov’s killing. I think to understand all of these different motivations helps us to understand the majority of the book that reveals itself all the way through the end.
Kelly Taylor
Period 4
In our Socratic discussion we started with the idea of Raskolnikov's split personality. My criticism also focused mainly on the split personality, but the part that revealed something to me in our discussion is the process of suffering Raskolnikov went through. When reading the book I gathered the literal meaning of events and focused on the plot, but throughout our discussion I began to understand the consequences of Raskolniko's disturbing actions. In our discussion we discovered the effect a mistake can have on the human mind and the physical and emotional deterioration that follows. The several viewpoints presented assisted me in finding a standpoint on the concepts present throughout the novel.
Sammy Roy
5th period
The literary criticisms and Socratic discussion really amazed me because they revealed so many different ways of reading and interpreting Crime and Punishment.The novel's complexity and relevance only seemed to increase the more I listened to the discussion. The many themes, lessons, and ways of analyzing of Crime and Punishment surprised me, for at first I believed it to simply be a heavy, slow-paced, and outdated crime novel.
I particularly liked the debate we had over the different aspects of Raskolnikov's personality and whether his act of murder would have occurred without the old woman's presence. I believe that he would have simply directed his hatred and social philosophies toward some other lowly member of society, and the events of the story would have panned out in a similar fashion.
An observation that I didn't get a chance to include in our discussion was that Dostoyevsky 's novel also serves to chronicle his experience with radical ideas. Crime and Punishment can be interpreted as an exploration of the harmful effects of radical new thinking on the mind and behavior as well as an account of the struggle to return to reason after a period of blindly following these ideals (as Raskolnikov does). These radical ideas are the result of hard times and poor living conditions. It is an account of how a character deals with difficulties and strives to achieve peace within himself. This political interpretation of the novel was touched upon briefly in the second day of our discussion, but not extensively elaborated on.
Annie Hopper, per. 4
Going into the Socratic discussion, I carried with me the idea that each character has a specific philosophical ideal that they stick to. As the discussion picked up, someone mentioned that perhaps Raskolnikov is an amalgamation of all the the ideologie. In other words, many of the characters are Raskolnikov's alter egos and their conflicting philosophies brew in his mind in turn creating his inner conflict.
Raskolnikov's short term incentive for committing the murders always boggled me. From the discussion, I learned that perhaps indecisiveness is the cause. He was tired of internally struggling to decide whether or not he should kill her, so he just did it to finally put an end to the burning deliberation. Ironically, the murders lead to magnified internal struggling.
Jack Mohajer
Period 5
During our Socratic discussion of Crime and Punishment, I wish we focused more on the murder of Lizaveta. I feel like her death had a significance in the novel that was commonly overlooked by both Raskolnikov as well as us. Dostoevsky most likely utilized her character to enter our subconscious minds like it did Raskolnikov's, and prevent us from forgiving him. I find her presence in the novel very interesting, and the comments mentioned during the discussion only intrigued me more.
I enjoyed the topic of a certain force that propelled the entire novel. While reading Crime and Punishment, I also felt some sort of supernatural force carrying Raskolnikov through his journey. I can't help but wonder, however, why this force would want him to succeed. He did not deserve to be given any sort of grace or mercy, but he definitely received an abundance through several "lucky" coincidences. This drives me to believe that this force must have been God. A same feeling occurs inside us as well. We hold a definite disgust for Raskolnikov and his distorted motives, but a twinge of us wants him to succeed. We want his suffering to stop. Even if the murder scene was described much more gruesome than it was, we would still have much sympathy for the deranged murderer. On some sick level, we can't help but hope he gets away with his crime and somehow ends his internal punishment.
Our class also spent a significant time discussing the necessity of the epilogue, and I found that very interesting. The more I think about it, the more I realize the discussion is irrelevant. Even if the epilogue were to be considered unnecessary, the addition wouldn't take away from the book. Some readers will be satisfied prior to the epilogue, and some won't be until after the "new story" of rebirth is "inevitably" mentioned. However received, the book remains remarkable from beginning until either end.
Overall, I really enjoyed the discussion. Everyone's ideas were so different yet brought together by a common moment of realization. Many of my epiphanies came with the discussion of Raskolnikov's Extraordinary Man theory, and helped me to better paint a backdrop for the novel.
linnie6257 is Linnie R. Period 4
Sorry!
The one thing that interested me the most during our discussion was Raskolnikov's conscious. It was heavily debated on whether Raskolnikov felt guilt or if the murder was always justified in his eyes. What really convinced me that he was wasn't at all remorseful was the chapter with the reading of Lazarus. Even in one of his most vulnerable states in the book, his coldness in regard to the murder remains consistent. He falls dramatically before Sonia and says, "I bowed down to all suffering humanity." When I first read the book, I misinterpreted this line as Raskolnikov bowing now, in repentance. However, my criticism shows this event in a new light, and it completly changed my view of the novel. I now believe that Raskolnikov meant that he bowed down to humanity at the time of the murder. He "bowed down" to show his superiority. He uses the excuse that he's helping out humanity; he "bow[s] down" to what he belives to be their wants. My critic suggests (and I now agree) that Raskolnikov doesn't "[bow] down" to them out of humility, but instead out of his own pride. He is so proud of the fact that his is above everyone else that he tells Sonia that he bows to all humanity.
-Kiera K.
I have to say, as nerve-wracking as last week's discussion was, I really gained a new perspective on Crime and Punishment. One of the issue's we spoke a great deal about was Raskolnikov's "split personality." Some of us argued that his personality was split in two, and others said three (based on his dream of the horse), but after a while I started to disagree with the "split personality" idea completely.
I believe that Raskolnikov is a man struggling within himself. Part of him wants to be apart of society, and the other so desperately wants to make a point. In the novel, Raskolnikov occassionally does something good for another character, but as soon as he does he feels disgusted and forces himself into the twisted mentality of a murderer. It's clear to me now that he can't have one without the other. After all, if there's good in the world, then there has to be evil too.
- Yasmine Saqer, 5th period
Our Socratic discussion delved into depths of detail to which I had not prior explored. I was astounded by the break-down presented by Lin Tran of Raskolinikov's tripple persona: the murderer, the onlooker, and the little boy (his compassion). Additionally, we considered whether or not Raskolinikov's killing was indiscriminate or target for his one victim: Alyona Ivanonva. I presented a piece from the Sunday Times that posited Raskolinikov's attitude as that of the Columbine shooters, or Timothy McVeigh. Such a comparison suggests that his angst, although strong and potent, remained confused and. That Raskolinikov's rage against a unspecified given oppressive force would and did in fact lead him away from what seemed like a purposed objective: his slaughter of Lizaveta.
Shama Ams
Period 4
The Socratic discussion as well as the critical articles gave me a deeper understanding of the book. I didn't realize deeply religion was imbedded in the novel.My first thought of the book was that Raskolnikov was being punished in the mind. Upon further consideration I realized that there was more to the novel than that.
One thing I did notice in the Socratic discussion is the reoccuring idea of redemption and its role in Raskolnikov's life as well as the many different motives and justifications for the crime. The way Dostoyevsky wrote the novel makes it hard to concretely defend whether Raskolnikov's crime was justified or not.
The Socratic discussion also made me question whether the ends justify the means. If Raskolnikov's crime was done for the good of the people, does that justify it? At what point can we decide who's life is worth destroying for the good of mankind?
Christal Jackson
Period 6
During my classes socratic discussion, I gained a deeper understanding of not just the plot, but the individual characters within the novel. In both of my criticisms, Raskolnikov was referred to as having "split" personalities, but only two. A new way of looking at it was brought into the light during the discussion, which entailed Raskolnikov having three sides: the killer, the observer, and the compassionate. It makes sense that such a complex novel is more than just "good vs. evil". Another interesting point that was brought up was Rakolnikov's comparison to Napoleon. Someone mentioned that comparing the two is a flawed comparison, because Napoleon's actions were far more "grandoise" than the killing of two people. My favorite topic of discussion was about Luzhin and how him, not Raskolnikov, committed the worst crime in the novel. I never thought of it this way, but it makes sense considering how his intention in placing the money in her pocket was entirely selfish. Raskolnikov, on the other hand thought the murder of the "louse" was justifiable.
If there was more time for discussion I would have liked to mention the origin of Raskolnikov's name. From my article, "Dosteyevsky's Crime and Punishment", Thomas Beyer described how the Russion word "raskol" means "schism" and the verb "raskolot" means to "split" or "separate into pieces". It was interesting to me how in depth Dosteyevskey puts into the characters. Given our discussions in class these meaning makes sense considering Rask's three different personalities and the terrible murders of the two women.
Ben Haley
Period 4
Over the discussion period my view of Dostokevsky's book, "Crime and Punishment" has changed significantly. My first impresson of the book was that it was a pyschiological drama, with a soicopath at its main protagonist. Little did I know this was the "tip of the ice berg." The book had many more themes that before I had overlooked Themes such as wealth vs. Happiness finding ones role in society, love, self reliance and sacrifice. THis gives me a better anaylsis of the book and gives me a reformed outlook on the book overall. With Trying to find his existence in society, Raskonkov's split personality leads him to become a sociopath;making ti hard to differat morally good actions from bad. Raskonkovv then forms a narasstic personality and becomes deathly ill from his own guilt, giving evidence that a morally good person is still within his coienince. Through love, Rakonkov admits his wrong doings and accepts his punishment.
One focus of our class was on the relevance of the epilogue in accordance to the main storyline. I feel that not only does the epilogue add to the story but acts as a continuation of Raskolnikov's legacy as well. David Matual, the author of "In defense of the Epilogue of Crime and Punishment", believes that the epilogue may even symbolize the afterlife of the novel, and in turn, that of Raskolnikov as well. I feel that the epilogue is too harshely criticized and is not given proper credit, at first glance. Our class even, towards the end of the discussion, realized the importance of the epilogue from various points of view. When looked at from a strictly story-line based perspective the epilogue seems unappealing but from many other aspects it serves great purpose.
-Nick Roller, period 5
Our class socratic discussion has helped me realize several things about the novel, chief among them just how much parallelism there is between characters, and how many characters have a foil. For Raskolnikov there is Razumikhin. Dostoyevsky draws a parallel between Porfiry and the unnamed artisan accuser by describing them both as rather like an old peasant woman. There is also the common misjudgement, I think, of Sonya as a person who is bad in any way. I realized she should be seen as only a pure hearted angel of a character, for she is giving up and ruining her body just to support her mother and siblings, and gains almost nothing in return.
Andrew Harris,
Period 7
I feel that the discussion initially focused on the split personalities that lie within Raskolnikov. Contrary to nearly everyone in the class i don't believe he is split. I believe he acts the way he does because of his misconstrued beliefs. In the article Raskolnikov writes in the novel he describes two types of people; the stupid and submissive, and the intelligent and aggressive. Raskolnikov feels that if he succumbs to any rules or limitations such as society's laws he is grouped within the submissive category and is nothing more than a lout. He wants so bad to be among the intelligent that he breaks the law and kills the pawnbroker which in turn goes against his morality. This is what causes him to endure such pain throughout the novel. What Raskolnikov should've realized is that a truly intellectual person knows there is a time and place to follow rules and that sometimes there is a purpose to them.
Nick Bain Period 5
The first day of our discussion left me in awe over the innumerous facets employed, reflecting different concepts, into "C&P". The aspect of the novel I found most intriguing was the psychology, and (lucky for me) our forum seemed to be founded on the curious mind of "Rask". In hearing everyone’s inputs, my own understanding of Rask grew, and birthed new questions and observations, too numerous for me recant! But I especially enjoyed the segment of Rask’s “alternate ego”, we eventually came to the conclusion that Rask has at least two personalities. The scholar: harsh, cynical, constructed under warped logic, and his more human side “the child”.
I would’ve loved to comment on such observations, but they were based of my own theories, and I found it difficult to succinctly articulate thus didn’t speak. But in a nut shell my idea was posed my answering a question: What created this Supreme side within Rask’s mind? Being a Socratic discussion I wanted to ask the class, to try and get a response that might stimulate some-kind-of brilliant idea. Because my theory was not a comment more than it was a social hypothesis: If I ask the class the same series of questions (I had asked myself, that made me arrive to an inaudible conclusion) then I may be able to articulate my thoughts efficiently. Which is the soul definition of a Socratic discussion, but the class appeared to be drifting into stating facts often at times. That’s what I wanted to do, but i couldn’t find the time. It’s been a pleasure, to be in your class. Thank you
After reading the criticisms I collected for the discussion, I came to a thought that I found to be pretty interesting. One of the criticisms I (and everybody else, I'm willing to bet) collected described how Sonia was a symbol, an allegory for divine grace. So did the other piece of criticism I had collected for the discussion and many others that I did not. So I guess it's generally agreed upon by critics that Sonia is a symbol for divine grace, that she is inhumanly eager and willing to save Raskolnikov. Sonia is one form of grace, yes, but what about Raskolnikov's murder of Alyona? My thought is that Raskolnikov killed Alyona as his first form of salvation, Sonia being his second. In my mind, Raskolnikov cared far, far, far less about being caught than he was about proving himself right in regards to his "superman" theory. Both before and after the murder, whether consciously or not, whether hinted at by the novel or not, I think Raskolnikov itched to know if he was a superman. Out of his relentless obsession, it became a necessity to kill Alyona and test his idea. Had he not, I think he would've ended up like Prufrock, a character who one of my critics said was majorly influenced by Raskolnikov. Prufrock, in short, was the "alternative" for Raskolnikov come to life. Prufrock is trapped by himself; he is afraid to cross the line that Raskolnikov crossed and he sinks into an unuterrable, unreconcilable morass of self-consciousness that tears away at him for the rest of his life. Needless to say, that isn't healthy. Raskolnikov saved himself from Prufrock's fate by crossing the line, by killing Alyona. Whether his crime was truly justifiable from a legal standpoint didn't matter to him. Whether the crime was justifiable from his own standpoint might not even have mattered to him. I think Raskolnikov simply needed to know, to know in order to save himself from becoming a Prufrock. He was the scientist who made an observation and Alyona was the experiment. That's just one way to look at it, though. Oh, the joy of the mentally unstable.
- Kevin S., Period 7
P.S. THIS POST WAS MOST CERTAINLY POSTED ON TIME.
During our Socratic discussions Thursday and Friday many issues that intrigued me were addressed. One of which was the question concerning whether or not Raskolnikov's internal conflict and anguish would have been lessened if he had not killed Lizaveta. This got me wondering. Was Lizaveta necessary to Dostoevsky's message of the power of human's moral law? Because what I took from the novel was that no matter who it be, the killing of a fellow human being would cause an internal struggle between guilt and anxiety. However, many of my classmates felt differently and thought that Lizaveta was the essential piece of Raskolnikov's mental anguish.
Another interesting thought was concerning Raskolnikov's state of mind in the epilogue. Was he truly saved (in a religious sense)? This question is one that is mainly answered with opinion rather than facts. However, what spoke to me was the new approach that the epilogue really didn't do much, it's still ambiguous in this sense. All it really did was change the setting for us and provide a literal punishment for us to give Raskolnikov. It does not, however, give closure to the fact that he has taken responsibility or felt remorse for his crime. Such a perspective puts a more realist viewpoint on the epilogue.
Matt Hortenstine
Period 6
The comment that i found most interesting during the discussion was that Raskolnikov committed the murder to find his weakness. This struck me because everyone's comment was that he was looking for the power in committing the murder and that he wanted to feel powerful. But when this comment was made, it made me think in an entirely different way.
Maureen L. Period 5
Prior to the Socratic discussion, I believed that the Crime and Punishment's biggest misfit had been the epilogue. It wasn't the change that I expected to see in Raskolnikov and thus I felt compelled to find articles specifically referring to the epilogue. In truth, I was surprised to find that there are a lot of critics out there that believed otherwise. Some argued that the epilogue "fits" into the contemporary style of happy endings (or at least the hopeful ones) and others even tried showing by contradiction how the happy ending wasn't all that surprising, namely by demonstrating how much of Raskolnikov's dreams and actions foreshadowed redemption.
However, what really turned my opinion around was the discussion. Starting with Raskolnikov's split personality (which OBIVOUSLY has a lot to do with how Dostoyevsky could have written the epilogue)and how differently each "side" of Raskolnikov views the world, I was able to understand the other side to my epilogue arguement. What the discussion did for me was opened my eyes and allowed me to be less biased about issues I felt strongly about and look at the novel with from a more comprehensive point of view.
Dong-Hyun Kong
Period 5
I had many realization moments during our socrastic discussion. The significance of Lizaveta stood out to me the most because there is so much about her that represents Raskolnikov. The character Lizaveta represents one of Raskolnikov's personalities. She represents his innocence and self-effacing side of Raskolnikov. More significantly, when Raskolnikov murders Alyona and Lizaveta, he feels as though he has murdered himself. He has killed the one side of himself - the side that Lizaveta represented. To take it even further, Raskolnikov splits Lizaveta's head down the middle, which represent the splitting of his double nature.
Another element I found significant in the novel was the relevance of Raskolnikov's dream about the animal being beaten to death. At first, I did not see the importance of such a dream until I discovered that the three main people in the dream: Milkolka, the boy, and the onlooker all represent the the three ways of reacting that Raskolnikov shows throughout the novel. He is like Milkolka when he takes on the personality of the murderer. He represents the boy personality in that he is horrified about what he has done. He sports the onlooker personality in events such as when he comments on himself giving the Marmeladov's so much of his money.
Morgan Zabel
period 4
Our socratic discussion really opened my eyes to the many qualities the novel has. Through out our discussion my brain was forced to take view the novel in different angles. I found myself many times agreeing with two opposing arguments, contradicting myself. I think this is because every comment can be backed up with evidence and the range of possibilities seems to be endless. Going into the discussion, my main points I read about were the "should's" that Raskolnikav experienced.. kind of giving a reason for why he committed the crime. As we talked more and more about his motives/reasons, there were so many other directions to take the discussion. The complexity of the arguments represent the complexity of the novel. As we talked about the split personalities of Rasknolvikav, I was so surprised to find that there are many ways to "split" him up. Realizing that many of the characters are all Rasknolikav's different sides, and that Rasknolikav himself is all of them combined. That opinion, although many would say is obvious, was a new thought to me and really opened my eyes to characterization not just in this novel, but in any novel, and how it can illuminate any certain person, object, or setting.
CAROLINE PURCELL
Period 5
I am generally the kind of person who thrives on these kinds of discussions. Instead of getting nervous and quiet,I often find myself talking many, many times and they usually prove to be fairly painless for me. However, this discussion was different. Although I still found myself in the discussion many times, I was often confused as to what was being said. I fond myself in conversations simply because I really didn't understand what somebody was saying. I found that there were two sides to almost every argument brought up and for every criticism there was another one to refute it. Our discussion began with almost an entire day focused on the idea of the split personality. Prior to the discussion, I really hadn't given much thought to this basic concept and I was shocked to see how many differing viewpoints there were on such a seemingly simple issue. After we got past this discussion,something came up that really made me think. The concept of selfishness came up. Did Raskolnikov do what he did out of selfishness or did he do it because he truly, in some skewed perception, thought he was doing the right thing? I found myself often going against my own thoughts. At first, I agreed with the first point of view. He was selfish and thought he had the right to do whatever he wanted. However, once the second point was voiced, I agreed with it because he truly thought he was doing something to help other people. The concepts of Lizaveta and her murder, rationalization and Raskolnikov's psychological motivation were also heavily focused on. My main criticism focused on Lizaveta and her murder and really made me take a second look at her role in the novel. The criticism describes how her name is mentioned constantly in discussions and how Raskolnikov repents multiple times for her murder, putting her at stark contrast with the pawn broker. I brought up the point that he probably wouldn't have felt as bad about what happened, had he not killed Lizaveta as well. Many people voiced contradictory arguments to this claim and I found myself wavering on my own thoughts. I felt that the discussion forced me to challenge all of my previous notions about the novel and was a helpful tool in fully understanding it.
Kat B
Period 6
After the completion of our in-class socratic discussion, I saw the novel in a different light than before. The common "two-sided" Raskolnikov is what everyone talks about, but after looking furthur, it's as if Dostoevsky put different personalities of Ras. in alternate characters throughout the novel. When I first read the novel, I was desperately just trying to get past the gruesomeness of that part, so I failed to see the complexity of its symbolism amidst its vulgarity. After the excruciatingly detailed horse-beating dream experienced by Ras., it's easy to see how sneaky Dostoevsky really is. Each character in the dream seems to symbolize a different dimension of Ras's mind. Each of the three main actors in the dream reflect differnt behaviors that Ras. consistently demonstrates in the novel. The peasant Milkolka who brutally kills the horse is similar to the detached axe-murderer the ras. becomes. Second, the little boy who cries painfuilly as he witnesses the agonizing episode represents the Ras. that gives to the Marmeladov family and protects the young girl on the street from dangerous onlookers. Lastly, the uninvolved father who ats as an onlooker in the dream is similar to Ras. when he curses himself for even bothering with the Marmeladov's, saying he shouldn't care. Overall I gained a lot out of the discussion, and saw the novel in a different perspective than when I origianally read the novel.
Alexandra Walker
Period 6
One of the major aspects of the novel was whether or not Raskolnikov ever repented for his sins, and if he did, why did he? I have heard many different views about why he chose to repent, but my personal opinion was that he did so because of Sonia. Sonia was his guiding light and was a part of his life that he could not lose. Sonia was able to awaken Rask's spirit and open his eyes to the good in the world. In my personal opinion, she is a foil to Rask. She does not view herself as "extraordinary" in any way, but rather is embarrassed about who she is. However, she has a good heart and is misunderstood by those around her. Her character exemplifies that there can be goodness in the world, and this goodness helps Raskolnikov repent his sins.
Catherine Wagner
Period 4
(sorry it's late, I was absent the day it was assigned!)
Post a Comment