Was Rodya's theory wrong?
Was Rodya one of the exceptional class?
If Napoleon picked up from his same place after his crime, how would he have proceeded?
What was the purpose of Svidrigailov? He seems to reflect in some ways raskolnikov, why did he kill himself while Rodion didn't?
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
>Was Rodya's theory wrong?
No. Just because he failed to prove it by himself, by his own action, doesn't mean that the theory itself was wrong. The only conclusion he got from it is that he wasn't part of the exceptional, he couldn't be, but that does not disprove the existence of them.
>Was Rodya one of the exceptional class?
No. Otherwise he wouldn't become a christian
>If Napoleon picked up from his same place after his crime, how would he have proceeded?
Impossible to predict, but i'd say he wouldn't feel remorse or guilty if he really believed in the worthy of his actions.
>What was the purpose of Svidrigailov?
Svidrigailov is a portrayal of what a man without God would be. He mirrors Raskolnikov to a much extreme level. He killed himself because he, at the very end, felt guilty for his actions, at least that was my interpretation of the dream that he had. Also the utter shock and pain for getting rejected by Dunya, although if he got her it wouldn't make much difference in his life. His "search" for pleasure proved to be worthless, and i think the suicide was the result of it.
Interesting answers, especially the part about Raskolnikov turning to God as proof positive of his inability to be of the exceptional class. Do you know if Napoleon was a believer? I plan to read his memoirs, my opinion has always been that the young shirk God but seek Him later in life due to a natural fear of death and/or spiritual longing, and lastly from a calming down that comes with age and makes vice less appealing. But, I've also considered that the Church is obviously a detriment to the individual, and a power structure not directly (but as I age would argue indirectly it does) benefitting its flock. And I could see Rodya turning to God as a means of welcoming community.
Is there anything within the book you found powerful that you think someone like myself may have missed?
I don't know that I viewed svridgrigailov the same way you did. I think what confuses me the most is the way he speaks it seems like his plan was always to kill himself, and I wonder if success with Dounia would have modified that end. As I write it I think I get your argument more though
>Do you know if Napoleon was a believer?
"I think that Napoleon used religion as a means to gain power rather than for pure belief.
>Is there anything within the book that you found powerful which you think someone like myself may have missed?
Not in the book itself, but assuming that you haven't already, I think you should definitely read "Beyond Good and Evil". In this book, the idea of rising above a strict moral system or creating a set of values of your own, are characteristic of the exceptional being, or the man "that is beyond good and evil". It's worth noting that Nietzsche's philosophy came after "Crime and Punishment," and he was an admirer of Dostoyevsky, even though they obviously arrived at different conclusions on that theory. Perhaps Raskolnikov's theory was, at one point, Dostoevsky's theory as well, which I find most likable, just as Svidrigailov mirrored some internal aspects of Dosto's life as well, mainly his vices."
Very neat anon, happy to give it a read
Lmao based. Keep it up anon
If you mean his original theory is wrong, yes it is. Not because of what the fp said though.
The whole point of Raskolnikovs inner struggle is not because he cant be exceptional, but because his idea of the great man is inherently flawed and he realizes that Napolean was actually just a bad person with no conscience. Thats the whole purpose of his musings on 2+2=4 not applying to human lives
Humanity is far too often sacrificed for personal/societal gain. This was what was meant by the dream of the horse being beaten to death.
By the end of the novel, Rodya recognized a greater human in Sonya, who sacrificed her reputation and body so that innocent children might eat, than Napoleon could ever have been. That is the purpose of his struggle
>Rodya recognized a greater human in Sonya, who sacrificed her reputation and body so that innocent children might eat, than Napoleon could ever have been. That is the purpose of his struggle
I get your interpretation, but I didn't see it that way
Rather I felt he found that he could be accepted and loved despite being average and not great because of her insistence on loving him even when he had hit rock bottom. His mother and sister had huge dreams for him, expectations, that he likely felt unable to fulfill. To me it appears he didn't decide his theory wrong, but his position misjudged within said framework.
I wrote a story that's the total opposite to 'Crime and Punishment' and wasn't even thinking about it.
Guy doesn't kill people and views himself as being average?
Yes, but the character spends months in jail for the most petty misdemeanor on the books.
I should get off IQfy and email more agents. Wait three months? Who has that time?
Kindness & Reward
>Was Rodya's theory wrong?
I dunno about wrong per se, but the point of the book is to show that only a psychopath can be a great man, that if everyone went around thinking they were great men the whole world would burn, and that the average person thinking he was a great man would likely only bring suffering to himself and those around him.
You know, in consideration of that, which I agree with you for the record, do you think his light sentence and leniency granted by the criminal system in view of his works and state of mind imply a sort of greatness, maybe someone who's not entirely above the law but at least partially beyond reproach because of his very nature? 8 years for two murders, astonishing, I can't help but feel there's some subtext there.
What's ur favorite part of the book?
I think mine is the moment where he and his friend are standing under the light by the door and his friend finally realizes what he had done
Kino in word form
How did dosto do it bros?
I liked when Porfiry came clean with him
>why, it's you, Raskolnikov... of course it's you..
Mfw
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
Cringe
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
schizophrenia.
Now post all the times you reply in the same way
was rodya’s theory even the main point of the novel? it felt to me as if his theory was just a way of rationalizing his desire to kill. from what i understood, at least part of him wanted to kill in order to lower his pride and allow himself to be “saved” or “understood” by someone he loved. but his split between pride and compassion forced him to rationalize his decision and make it “logical”.
it seems like he was even more tempted to kill after his conversation with marmeledov + his discovery of sonya’s existence/experience. he even tells sonya during his confession that he knew she would be the one he would confess to before he even met her. it feels like he intentionally created his own suffering in order to find someone else as miserable as him who would love him unconditionally (he could not accept god as this person due to his pride).
this is paralleled with svidrigailov’s constant twisted search for love, which ends in his suicide due to his failure to find intimacy.
i think there are also hints left in with raskolnikov’s dead fiancé (who a lot of readers seem to ignore for some reason.)
at the end of the day the book seems to focus more on his pride creating an impenetrable wall which does not allow love in or out. only at the end of the novel, when he lets go of his pride, can the love of humanity and god enter his life.
raskolnikov’s name literally means “schism” and almost everything he does has a dual intention. it seems right to me that his decision to murder would have dual motives as well, the external one being his flimsy rationalization, and the underlying one being his irrational compassion.
the point of the book isn’t really that the content of his theory is bad. it’s more that the desire to rationalize everything is bad, and that one should allow themselves to be irrational by accepting humility
>What was the purpose of Svidrigailov?
To add to the other answer, Svidrigailov is also a reflection of what would have happened if Raskolnikov got away with the crime and the money. He is a guy who also killed 2 people but no one has proof against him. And at the end he uses his money to help the poor.
Now, what I really like about him, is that part where he says to Raskolnikov that there are 2 possible ways for him. To shoot himself in the head because of the guilty, or go to prison. He was not only talking to Raskolnikov but to himself too. Each of the two characters took a different path.
I also remember thinking that Marmeladov is also a reflection of Raskolnikov if he didn't commit the crime and let his sister marry Luzhin. But I haven't read it in a long time so I won't be able to defend it.