Joshua Cohen's Reaction to Luisa's Post on Chapter 7 and Chapter 1 Part 2

I agree with the fact that it was kind of a surprise that Raskolnikov had to kill Alyona’s sister, but it makes sense with the rest of the story. If Raskolnikov had just killed Alyona, there doesn’t seem like there would be much guilt that Raskolnikov would feel, but because he had to kill Alyona’s sister, he is feeling a lot guiltier than he would be. Also, I am not so sure that it is really his “evil” side as much as it is his will to survive by whatever means. He only justifies this murder with the fact that he heard someone else complaining about Alyona and he felt that that was enough to justify her murder. The book is definitely changing from the crime stage, where Raskolnikov is thinking about the crime and eventually committing it, to the punishment stage in part two. I feel that now Raskolnikov is finally going to feel all the consequences for his actions, but I am not sure where it is going to come from. I personally feel that Raskolnikov is going to become extremely paranoid or extremely depressed and inflict most of the punishment on himself. I feel like that would be worse because if he got caught and sent to jail, everyone would know that he deserved the punishment. If people do not know why Raskolnikov is being so paranoid or depressed, they will try to help him which would probably cause him more torture because of the knowledge of his guilt that will most likely haunt him. It would also make more sense if the punishment came from within himself because then it would explain why he is so weird and introverted at the beginning of the book. 

My Comment to Alexa's Reaction

I think Alexa makes an extremely on point observation saying that the story resembles Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Raskolnikov truly has this outside composure and then complete insanity on the inside. I agree with her that his punishment will truly lie in his inner conflict of deciding whether to confess or not confess and remain a free man.

Raskolnikov's evil side prevails

Raskolnikov's mysterious plan is finally shown and executed. He had consistently had hatred for Alyona Ivanova, because he had overheard people saying she was an extremely bitter woman who had no purpose, and after hearing it multiple times he decided that it was his own job to be the one to kill her. He always had these thoughts in his head in the previous chapters, but I never knew what the thoughts were about, until it was revealed in this reading and then executed. Not only does he muder Alyona, but his sister as well. He did not intend on killing her too at first, but he killed her in the end because she was a witness to him standing over her dead sister's body and she could not tell anybody what he did, so he killed her too. He killed his witness. This twist to the story was kind of a shocker to me because even though I suspected him of doing something evil, he had moments where he committed such humane actions, such as giving away his money or helping that girl, that I did not think he would just go and kill somebody because he felt it was his duty to eliminate her from the planet. His evil side, so to say, prevails in this case.

My comment on Alexia's reaction

I completely agree with Alexia's reaction to this part of Crime and Punishment, in fact my initial reaction was quite similar. The internal struggle Raskolnikov is going through is a huge aspect of his punishment for what he has done. His fainting spell in the police station demonstrates the evident pressure that he feels to figure out and classify the conflicting desires he has. His inability to do so also shows how difficult the struggle really is for him, which makes me feel slightly bad for him. What he did was clearly wrong, immoral, unconstitutional, and illegal, and I'm not saying I can relate to him, because I can't, but I do sympathize for him. The tension and feelings of alienation from society that he is feeling are important to the development of his character. A person who commits such a crime should undoubtedly feel estranged from the rest of humanity, if he didn't, I would not consider him human. Maybe he'll decide to truly pay for his actions and make the correct decision in dealing with them. Hopefully, Raskolnikov can redeem himself in my eyes at least.

Raskolnikov's Punishment

My feelings toward Raskolnikov are still unclear. In the second part of Crime and Punishment it is quite obvious that he feels some sort of guilt or remorse for the crimes he has committed. Now that the "crime" part of the title is behind us, we can focus on the "punishment" part. But what exactly is Raskolnikov's punishment? As we all know, from the beginning of the novel, Raskolnikov displays more than one persona. His range of actions and emotions is similar to a "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde" type of character. On the outside, he appears to be in control of his situation, but he is full of turmoil on the inside. Thus far, nobody knows the truth behind his actions, but as he sits in the police station it grows more and more obvious that he is guilty of something. The result of the crime was the complete opposite of what he thought it would be. He thought that, with the completion of the murder, he would feel better about everything, satisfied, more in control, accomplished. But in reality, his carefully composed facade and general feeling of superiority are slowly deteriorating and being replaced with anxiousness, delirium, paranoia, and weakness. Now, the real point of the novel starts to unfold. We get to witness his torturous confliction between wanting to confess and wanting to remain a free man. The internal suffering he is experiencing is, in actuality, his true punishment, but I have a feeling that this is only the beginning of what Dostoevsky has in store for Roskolnikov.

My (Alexia) Comment on Rachael's Post

I find it interesting that you do not find him to be purely evil. The way that he committed the murder makes it hard for me to see him as anything but evil. He killed this woman in such a brutal manner and then killed her sister in an equally brutal manner for being nothing more than a witness. This is dark and twisted in my eyes. The only aspect of this all where I can see how you would not categorize him as entirely evil is due to the fact that he feels remorse. Due to the fact that he feels guilt both physically and emotionally proves what you are saying with the fact that he cannot really be described as evil. Though the murder was committed as if he were wholly evil, I agree that it is challenging to pinpoint him as evil just because it looks more like a crime of opportunity and passion. If he was entirely evil, I don't think he would have felt the remorse at all or as strong as Raskolnikov does in this weeks reading. On the other hand I do not admire Raskolnikov in any way shape or form. I find it difficult to after he committed the murder, but I do think that the author attempted to have the readers sense this conflicting emotions that you feel, though for me it is a little challenging to feel that way.

The Guilt Proves to be Too Much for Raskolnikov

The first part was focused more on the actual crime, but now that it has been committed the second part seems to be more dedicated to his punishment, hence the title Crime and Punishment. I got the answer to the question I proposed in my last blog post and the answer was yes, he is obviously feeling remorse. I use the term obviously because his whole emotional and physical state has changed; he is paranoid, frantic, and growing weak, all because of the guilt he is feeling. In the beginning of Chapter 1 of Part 2, he is frantically searching his clothes to ensure there is no blood and then finding the pawned items. This demonstrates how he is becoming paranoid, which leads him to worry because he almost forgot to hide the pawned items. This paranoia is considered by Raskolnikov to be a the beginning of his punishment, which is interesting because h believes that he will punished through emotional torment and stress rather than physically being punished. He also later when he is called to the police station he faints, and I believe this happens because he is nervous that the police suspect him and also he has a very heavy guilty conscience weighing on him. This causes him to once again have this internal struggle with himself on whether to rid himself of his overbearing guilt by confessing but as a result lose his freedom, or say nothing at all and remain a free man with a guilty conscience. Also at the police station we get a sense that Raskolnikov is now feeling isolated from society. This isolation was not something that is new since before he had this air of haughtiness and he isolated himself from society because he simply thought he was better than everyone else, but now he comes to the realization that he has completely isolated himself saying “…that it was no longer possible for him to address these people in the police station, not only with heartfelt effusion, as he had just done, but in any way at all…” (188) 

Rodia Loses It (Rachael Marks)

It appears that Rodia has finally reached his breaking point. The line between good and evil, and although his intentions are "good" I would not define his murderous craze as such. He has not only killed his intended victim, but another person who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Would I call it evil though? I'm unsure. Although the act was spurned on malicious intent, there is something about it that makes me feel wrong about calling it wholly evil. I do not believe Rodia is an evil person, although he is a murderer. There is something, that I cannot quite put my finger on, that brings him out of this category. It irks me that I am unable to find the words to explain why this would be. He killed in such a brutal way so why should I feel the need to defend his actions? Why is he such an admirable character? I feel sick with how much I care for him, but at the same time, I do not. Of course, I have come to realize, that this conflicting emotion I hold is something that Dostoevsky intended to create in his audiences mind. Can a person commit an act of violence and still be percieved as a decent person? Is there really such thing as good or evil? Maybe so, maybe not, but I feel like labels are not going to cut it in terms of this story. Rodia is an exception to the standard label, and maybe that is why I admire him so much.

Joshua Cohen's Reaction to the Murder of Alyona and it's Implications to Raskolnikov

So, here we get to see Raskolnikov kill the broker, and we get evidence that he is not completely void of all emotions. He reacts like a normal person should when killing someone (not from personal experience), he is nervous about whether or not the old woman will notice his intentions, he is somewhat careless because he is distracted by the act of killing Alyona and he overlooks a few things. This is an important insight into Raskolnikov character in that he is not just a cold blooded killer, he is in fact human. Even though he had planned the murder out in his head so many times, he is still in shock after the killing. Yet, it is unclear as to whether he is disturbed about the general idea of killing people, or that he had to kill Alyona’s daughter which he had not intended to do. At this point in the story, Raskolnikov’s perception that he is the judge of moral justice has turned against him as he is now at the mercy of being punished for the moral wrongdoing of murdering two innocent women for his own benefit. I find it interesting that Raskolnikov is not actually being punished by an external source, as nobody has discovered that he has committed the crime yet, therefore any suffering that Raskolnikov feels is entirely his own punishment. He is hating himself for committing the crime, he cannot believe himself, and it is almost as if the part of him that strove to punish moral wrongdoings is separate from his conscious self, and has decided to punish himself. I feel like this is a foreshadowing for things to come later in the novel and I feel that Raskolnikov is going to end up having a personal crisis over this and will probably end up killing himself or those around him out of paranoia. 

Rodia's Dream (Rachael Marks)

I have to say that I had a very difficult time with this weeks reading. I did not take from it as much as I would have liked to. My thoughts and ability to concentrate were overshadowed by the dream Rodia has in chapter five. It was horrifying. The imagery Dostoevsky uses to depict the scene terrified me. I could not focus on anything but the horrid picture of the vicious slaughtering of the horse. It was so graphic, so brutal, yet it was perfect for this story. The writing in the part is beautiful, it is done with excellence. A writer has done their job if they can make you feel. Whether the author makes you feel sadness, disgust, fear, or relief they are accomplishing something. They have brought you (the reader) inside of their story. I did not particularly want to be in this aspect of the story, but my writerly appreciation gave me so many mixed feelings. In this part of the book I was faced with the collision of two things that are immensely important to me, excellent literature and animal rights. Being put together in a contrasting manner has made the reading a very painful experience for me. It is hard to feel disgust and appreciation at the same time, yet Dostoevsky has brought this upon me. I see now why he is a highly regarded author.

Joshua Cohen's Reaction to Alexa Coots

     I agree that the ambiguity of the book in its description of Raskolnikov and his past are very much an aspect of the books appeal. Because the reader has very little knowledge of Raskolnikov’s background or surroundings at the beginning of the novel, the reader is left to see the world only from Raskolnikov’s eyes, which perceives things a lot different than the readers would. With a lack of knowledge about Raskolnikov’s past, the reader is left to assume how Raskolnikov grew up, making it difficult to see how even Raskolnikov perceives what he is doing. It is unclear to the reader exactly what Raskolnikov thinks about what he is doing, other than the fact that he thinks that whatever he is doing is right. Even with that, Raskolnikov vacillates between perception a lot in the story which kind of leaves the reasons for Raskolnikov’s compulsions and actions up to the reader. Personally, I think that Raskolnikov grew up without a real guide as to what is right and what is wrong because everything he can remember from his childhood is all of the immoral actions of those around him. I think that, as of now, Raskolnikov is kind of taking revenge on society for being so possibly messed up in his childhood by dishing out what he thinks is social justice. Yet one could see the actions of Raskolnikov as just an expression of his truly generous self and his want to reduce the number of immoral deeds committed in society. Yet another person could see this as Raskolnikov trying to fulfill a desire for power to control others by making sure that he helps those below him, almost as if he feels vindicated by knowing that people are lower than him, and that they depend on his actions to get through the day. All of this combines to the true ambiguous beauty that Dostoevsky captured in his writing.  

My (Alexia) Reaction to Josh's Post

I really love your interpretation of Raskolnikov's moral compass. I totally agree when you said that he believes that killing the pawnbroker is the only right thing to do when he hears someone complaining about her, and he justifies it that if someone else thinks this way about her then it must be true thus supporting his belief that he can murder her. I found that he used this and the fact that he finds out that she will be home alone at a certain time as an excuse and justification for his rationality about murdering Alyona. I also do not believe that Raskolnikov is a good person even though he has brief moments of compassion, that sometimes make me believe otherwise. They are just that, they happen for a moment and then he is back to be the self absorbed man that he normally is. I find it interesting that you think that the way the book is written show him as "morally perfect". When I read it I didn't find him to be morally perfect but I can see how Dostoyevsky through his writing style tries to justify his thoughts and actions thus making readers want to perceive him as "morally perfect". I never thought that his overexposure to the poverty and unjust society that he is surrounded by possibly affected his idea and over assumption of justice, but I can definitely, now going back, see how that could have affected him along with his anti-social personality and fragile mental state. Overall, we seem the perceive the same ideas and concepts from the story thus far.

The Ambiguity of It All

To me, the mystery and ambiguity of Raskolnikov's past and personality makes this book so much more interesting than it really is. Overall, I find Crime and Punishment to be a bit boring at times, and other times I find it to be a bit disturbing (like the passage about Roskolnikov's dream about the horse). Generally, I do not like reading murder-mystery type books, but so far this book is keeping me on my toes. Some of the same questions I've had since the start of the book still haven't been answered and it's quite frustrating. I hate when authors purposefully withhold important background information and big details about main characters from the reader. It makes me feel like I know nothing about Roskolnikov, even though I've been reading about him for a lengthy amount of time now. I give props to Dostoyevsky, because the elusiveness of Raskolnikov is intriguing and makes me want to continue reading until I figure him out. I hate how "hot and cold" he is, though. One minute he's an arrogant, self-centered egomaniac and the next he's a caring, compassionate human being. His personality is up and down, which makes his thoughts and actions quite unpredictable (another aspect I enjoy about C&P), but sometimes it's hard to follow. I still do not understand why he murdered Alyona. His motives are unclear, and it's pretty confusing trying to decode his thoughts and actions. I just wish Dostoyevsky would throw us a bone every once in a while, and give us a few hints as to why Raskolnikov is the way he is. 

A Mysterious and Confusing Man

In this weeks reading we finally witness the murder of Alyona which in my opinion was inevitable, but something that has been a little ambigious and mysterious throughout the novel are his motives for murdering her. Now that I come to think of it, there is very little we know about the Raskolnikov. For example, how did he end up in such a state of poverty? Why did he quit school? I am dying to know the answers to these questions, because personally I am struggling to get a feel of Raskolnikov which would help me understand him better. One moment he seems entirely conceited and self absorbed, but then in the following paragraphs he begins to reveal a compassionate side to him, and though it is brief and he goes back to being self absorbed, that moment still happened and leads me to doubt my previous analysis's of him. He is constantly battling with his emotions and his rational thoughts and throughout the novel flip flops between one and the other. In Chapter 5 for example, he has this gruesome dream about a mare that was beaten and murdered in front of him and he is horrified at the thought of killing Alyona, but his rational thoughts tell him he has every right to murder her. Moments after he finds out that Alyona will be alone tomorrow at around 7 p.m., and that repulsion he had only moments before disappears and now he is determined to perform the crime more than ever since he finds this coincidence to be sign when more likely it is just an excuse he is coming up to put the blame on something other than himself. In the end, this dream was foreshadowing the death of Alyona, who like the horse, was murdered gruesomely with an axe, but with Raskolnikov being a character who flip flops between emotions and rationality, it is possible in next weeks reading he will feel remorse for the murder and punish himself in some way or another for the crime he has committed.

Comentary on Raskolnikov Moral Compass Chapters 5-6

          In this reading we get another example of how Raskolnikov thinks that he is following a perfectly just moral compass, at least, based on his perception of the world. According to him, killing his pawn broker is only the right thing to do, he overhears another person complaining about her lending rates and just how badly she treats her sister, so Raskolnikov uses that as a reason to finally decide to kill her. From any outside perspective, his decisions would seem rash and unnecessary, but the novel is intentionally trying to make a distinction between different opinions on what is morally just. For me, I find that Raskolnikov is not truly a good person, even though the writing style and the way he portrays his actions, show him as morally perfect. This shows that in anyone’s eyes, without input from other people as to what is right and what is wrong, they might think that something as terrible as murdering an old woman, is completely justified. One explanation for this over assumption of justice on Raskolnikov’s part might be due to his overexposure to the unjust and morally degraded sides of society throughout his life. That combined with his anti-social nature gives him no direction for what is right outside of his own perception. It is almost as if Raskolnikov gets on a power high whenever he feels he is doing something morally just. He is not doing it to help other people, he only does it so that he can fulfill his desire to have power over someone else who is in a worse condition to him. 

My Comment on Rachael's Post (Alexia Barrios)

I must agree that Pulcheria Alexandrovna, or “Mama Raskolnikov”, is as you said “quite the character”. Like you said nothing is “simple” with this woman. I really do not know how this letter fit on two pages.  With her extensive use of adjectives and detailed descriptions of so many events starting with Dounia’s former employer hitting on her, the embarrassment that followed, and finally her engagement, I would have expected this letter to be much longer than two pages (but maybe her handwriting was small, who knows). When reading her letter, her language and use of adjectives really provided me with a better understanding of both her and Raskolnikov’s sister. Mama Raskolnikov describes Dounia as “an angel”, but as you said we don't know if she really is one or not, and just like you, I am anxious to find out whether her description of Dounia and all the other characters that were mentioned in her letter are accurate. I like how you found that connection between the quote on page 39 and a possible allusion to the fact that she is not providing us with a proper description of these characters. I did not recognize it at first but know I definitely see it as a possibility, because like the quote says we cannot “…judge a man without seeing him up close for oneself” (39) and we have yet to meet any of these characters.

Comment on Josh's Reaction

I find it interesting that you think Raskolnikov has redeeming qualities such as selflessness, because my reaction to these chapters was completely different. To me, it seems like you think that Raskolnikov is actually good on the inside, because he helped a defenseless girl out and gave away some of his money, of which he barely has, to help someone else out besides himself. While he did give money to a cop to take the girl back home in a cab, and also paid for said cab, I can't help but feel like he did it as some kind of power trip or to make up for some goodness that he clearly lacks. The way that he is characterized makes it seem like there is nothing good about him (but that's just my opinion and, of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion). I think that Raskolnikov would help the girl out to satisfy some inner need to seem like the hero. He knows he's not a good guy so he's trying to prove to himself that he isn't all bad, but I could be wrong. Surely, nobody could be all terrible. 

Raskolnikov's Pride Somewhat Explained

     In the third chapter, I got the answer to one of the many questions I had throughout the first and second chapters: how did Raskolnikov develop such a large ego and pride? The answer- his family. The incredulous devotion of his mother and sister, who are strangely willing to make huge sacrifices for him without hesitation, can definitely be considered some of the larger influences on his personality. 

     The way in which he reacts to the news of Dunya's engagement further exemplifies how egotistical he really is. If he were a part of my family, his self-absorption would be extremely old by now- how his sister and mother put up with him is beyond me. When he determines that he will not allow his sister to sacrifice herself for his sake- how sweet and caring of him, right?- it further shows how he does not even take Dunya's wishes into consideration and believes his opinion to be the only important one.

     The personality of his mother comes through clearly in her letter. It is obvious that, like any good mother, she cares for her son and would go to any length to see him happy, including supporting Dunya's self-sacrifice for his benefit. I enjoyed reading the letter mainly due to the colorful language and description his mother uses when writing it; her character really shines through.  

     I think Dostoevsky uses Pulcheria’s letter as a means of providing us readers with a ton of background information on these two supporting characters (and Luzhin) so that when Raskolnikov interacts with them in the future we have a deeper understanding of them right off the bat. 

Reaction to Alexia Barrios's Impression of Raskolnikov

I find it interesting that you find Raskolnikov to be arrogant, which makes sense according to how he reacted. When I look back on the reading I do realize that maybe Raskolnikov is being arrogant and somewhat unthankful for his sister’s situation. He definitely talks as if he thinks that everything he is doing is the absolute correct thing to do. For example, helping out the drunk girl and helping out the family in the previous chapter. From his perspective, he is ensuring that social justice is kept by punishing those who deserved to be punished and helping those who do not deserve to be punished, at least, in his eyes. When I look at his actions from outside of his head, which is difficult to do because of the way the book keeps the reader inside Raskolnikov’s head, I can see how he is extremely arrogant. I can also see how other people might think that certain things he is doing and/or planning to do are the absolute wrong solution to a problem, even though he has convinced himself otherwise. This represents a brilliant strategy that the author is employing by keeping the reader so caught up in Raskolnikov’s thoughts that there is not much room to question his motives. Yet, when the reader does question his motives, it brings up the idea that no one really knows what is right. Therefore, the novel seems to bring up the concept of the true definition of what is right and what is wrong, and I am interested to see just how far the novel takes this concept. 

It's All About Raskolnikov (Alexia Barrios)

In my first post about Crime and Punishment I discussed how the main character, Raskolnikov, in my opinion is arrogant and it was further supported in this weeks reading. In the third chapter, we are introduced to Raskolnikov’s mother, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, through a letter. She is obviously someone who loves her son very much and all she seems to want to do is what any mother would want; do whatever they can to make the life of their children better. But it is obvious here that Raskolnikov is the favorite child since she allows her daughter to make sacrifices for him. In the letter she describes his sister’s uncomfortable work situation where her former employer, Svidrigailov, made uncomfortable advances towards her even though he was married. The mother insists that his sister went through this and embarrassment that followed due to the discovery of these advances, in order to help him which possibly fosters his arrogant attitude.The mother’s attitude throughout the letter makes it seem like everything revolves around him, that everything that both she and his sister have chosen to do with their lives have been in an attempt to benefit him.  When he finds out about her engagement he believes that his sister is marrying Luzhin, who is wealthy, in order to improve his lifestyle by possibly providing him with a job. He doesn't really consider the possibility that she might be marrying him because she sees marrying him as an opportunity to better her own life. Instead he jumps to the conclusion that it must be only to benefit him and no one else.  

Joshua Cohen's Reaction to Chapters 3 and 4

In Chapter 3 we find out a lot more about Raskolnikov through his relationship to his mother. The letter from his mother tells of how his mother acts and hints at certain aspect of their relationship, for one, it is obvious that Raskolnikov really loves his mother and is grateful for the letter. By the end of the letter Raskolnikov is furious about the fact that his sister is going to marry a business man in order to live in comfort and possibly save Raskolnikov from poverty. The fact that Raskolnikov thinks that this is completely unjust and that his sister is making a sacrifice for him shows his idea of justice and how he does not feel that others should sacrifice their happiness to let him live comfortably. In the next chapter, we see an instance of how Raskolnikov rescues another person from the vice that exists in the world when he saves the drunk girl from the man on the street. Raskolnikov notices that a young girl has been tricked into getting drunk and has been taken advantage of, while another man is going after her to take advantage of her as well. The fact that this disgusts Raskolnikov more than his poverty, to the point where he is willing to pay an officer to get the girl a cab, shows that his hate for unjust punishment and the dark aspects of his society is his main goal. This seems to be foreshadowing that Raskolnikov might use any power he has, with possible detriment to himself, to saving those who do not deserve the situations they are in. This will most likely apply to the situation of his sister and her marriage. 

Mama Raskolnikov and Her Adjectives (Rachael Marks)

Before I begin I am going to say that from now on I will be calling Raskolnikov "Rodia" from now on. I feel like it is easier and will be less distracting as I write out my reactions. The names in this book confuse me very much- but considering that Raskolnikov is, I believe, his last name, I feel like it may be less confusing to identify him as his mother does. Anyways, what I would like to say is that I found chapter three very entertaining. Rodia's mother (who I will call Pulcheria) seems to be quite the character. She really seems to have a thing for adjectives, and has a wide range of them. Nothing seems to be able to be simple, it has to be vastly extrodinary to this woman. I found her colorful language to be hilarious actually, because it is immensely repetitive. When she describes Dunia she is bent on characterizing her as this good-hearted, innocent, girl. She uses words like "resolute", "sebsible", "patient", "generous", and "noble" to describe her affinity for her daughter. My favorite phrase that Pulcheria uses is deffinitely "she is an angel", which she uses about four times in the letter. I think I can tell who the favorite child is. Throughout the letter I was wondering if the pictures she was painting of Dunia and Peter were at all accurate. When I got to the line "one could never judge of a man without seeing him up close for oneself" (p. 39) I felt as if Dostoevsky could possibly be alluding to this same thought. Pulcheria certaintly has very strong opinions on people that she does not like to describe with brevity, I hope to soon find out how accurate or inaccurate her evaluations are. Is Dunia really "an angel"?

Crime and Punishment Second Reaction

I feel like I understand Crime and Punishment a little bit more than I did two weeks ago. So far, I see that there has been a constant theme of poverty and desperation. In my last reading, it was Marmeladov’s family in ridiculous poverty and taking measures that are not proper to make money – sending Sonia into prostitution. In this week’s reading, I saw that Raskolnikov’s family is doing the same with Raskolnikov’s sister, Dounia. Her mom is having her marry a man, Luzhin, within 24 hours of getting the proposal, all to be able to pay off debt and send money to Raskolnikov because he has none of his own and cannot teach. Raskolnikov’s mom lets him know of his sister’s marriage through a letter. This letter brought Raskolnikov pain because he believes it is completely wrong for his sister to do that and he knows that it is his mom pushing this because he knows Dounia would never have done something of the sort out of her own will. Another thing I noticed in the reading this week is that we are once again reminded that Raskolnikov is actually good on the inside, because he once again gives his money, of which he barely has, to help someone else out; he gave his money to a cop to take the girl back home in a cab and pay for the cab. This is another reminder that Raskolnikov is actually good on the inside and cares for others, as he did with Marmeladov in the past reading.