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.
No comments:
Post a Comment