Comment on Alexia's Theses

          Personally, for your first thesis, I have seen the idea of analyzing the psychology of the novel and the characters thrown around quite a bit, so I feel it is a little bit of an easy thesis. Even though it would be interesting and enlightening to go into more depth about the psychology of the characters in this book, I feel that too many people would have thought of this.

          Your second thesis is a little bit more detailed then your second, which would make it easier to write and less commonly written about, yet it is still something that I thought of as one of my theses, or a component of one of them. This idea that Dostoevsky describes of a "superman" is a very interesting idea and it really piqued my interest the first time I read about it. Personally, this thesis is much better than your first, but still a little common.

        Personally, I think your third thesis is much more individual than your other theses, mainly because I have not seen anyone comment on it, but I think that it will also be relatively interesting to write about. When I started the book, this idea was in the back of my mind for a while until I forgot about it with the murder happening, but now that I look back on it, it would be interesting to analyze much more in depth about the role that social position plays with Raskolnikov. 

         Your fourth thesis is actually almost the same exact idea I had for one of my theses, and personally I found that the correlation between the Underground Man, Crime and Punishment, and Dostoevsky to be extremely interesting. Although, I do not think that we should write about this, seeing as it is a relatively common thesis, no matter how interesting it would be to write about it. Also, the fact that there is a lot of evidence and many different facets that you could look at this thesis from any different angles and interpretations.

Comment on Alexa's Theses

         Your first Thesis discusses something that would be interesting to write about. It is clearly evident that there is some part of Raskolnikov that does not know what is right or wrong. The interesting part of this thesis would be describing whether he does it intentionally because he thinks he can, or if he clearly has no clue what is right or wrong.

         Your second thesis is strong, but I am not sure that Sonia was really a character that allowed Raskolnikov to deal with his guilt as much as she was someone who he felt that she had dependence on him. This thesis is interesting because I had not really considered the role that some of the women characters in Crime and Punishment might have played on Raskolnikov's decisions.

         I feel your third thesis is slightly weaker than your first two in that it is very similar to what I had thought of, therefore I feel it might be a relatively easier essay to write. Seeing as this book rests heavily on the psychological state that Raskolnikov is in in order to convey Dostoyevsky's philosophy, this thesis might be describing something that is relatively easy to reach.

        Compared to your second thesis, this one seems to be a little weaker, in that it is almost too focused on a single subject. I feel it would be hard for you to write a lot of details with this thesis as opposed to your second thesis which can be much broader, or much more in depth depending on how you approach it. Also the fact that you would be able to tie in Camus into your second thesis makes it a much stronger thesis. 

Comment on Alexia's

The first thesis is similar to one of mine, I think this is a really cool topic. I love psychology and it is so interesting to see how what we know about psychology is portrayed in a human being and his actions. I think studying how he rationalizes and comes to all his conclusions from a psychology based standpoint will be very interesting for you to write.

I think that with the Superman thesis, you could connect that with NFTU. I think you could do this because NFTU is all about the narrator being superior, so you could make personality connections between Raskolnikov and the Underground man with their impressions of being superior and how that affects their behavior similarly and differently.

Just like with your second thesis, I think you could relate Raskolnikov's isolation from society with the Undeground man's isolation from society. Maybe you can even do one essay that has both of these topics -- I feel like it would be a fuller essay because you are looking at every aspect of Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, yet you are also adding on comparisons with another of Dostoevky's works and psychology.

Now that I've read your fourth thesis too, I think you should put together your 2,3, and 4th thesis to make one big essay studying Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky, and comparing the two novels. I feel like that would be an extremely strong essay that you could write TONS on.

Comment and Alexa and Luisa's Thesis Ideas (Alexia Barrios)

Alexa Coots:

1.     I really like this idea and I find it to be one of your strong thesis statements because you can go into the psychology behind how he was able to rationalize the murder he has committed.

2.     This thesis is also very interesting and an aspect of the novel that I seemed to have overlooked. I am not sure if it is the strongest thesis that you have because the only female character that I found to have a strong impact on a character was Sonia.

3.     This is also an interesting thesis statement and one of your stronger ones. Focusing on the psychology of the characters is a strong topic to focus on because it is one of the major themes of the novel. I am also interested in seeing on how you will develop the existential aspect of this topic.

4.     This is an interesting thesis and I am interested in how you will develop this one. I think it is interesting on how you will discuss the effect that both of these characters that are very different had on him.

Luisa Maggioni

1.     This is an interesting topic and there is a lot that can be said here which can come from both novels and the discussions we have been having in class. I am not sure if it is one your stronger thesis statements but it isn’t a bad one.

2.     I really like this topic and find it to be one of your stronger ones. There is a lot to be said on this topic and I find it really interesting how you will broaden this to not only study Rodia, but also how others would react to a certain scenario.

3.     This a good topic since both Rodia in Crime and Punishment and the Underground man in Notes From the Underground both have a lot of aspects of their personality and theories in common. I am not sure if the comparison between Rodia and Amir is entirely necessary but it is still a good idea.

4.     I really like this topic too and think it is one of your stronger ones. It is obvious that some effects in his life definitely affected his philosophy so it is probably going to be very interesting to investigate his past and find the correlation between his life experiences and what he has written in his novels.

Thesis Statement Ideas (Alexia Barrios)

            The first idea for a thesis that I had for Crime and Punishment is to discuss the several psychological aspects implemented throughout the novel by Dostoevsky. Psychology is a key theme throughout the novel as we see the psychological effects that guilt has on Rodia, such as paranoia, denial, and fear of discovery. The book in general is a psychological analysis of a murderer as the focus of the novel is not about the actual murder itself, but the psychological torment that occurs after, which leads the reader to believe that psychological torment is far worse than the whatever punishment the justice system gives.

            The second idea that I had for a thesis is to focus on Dostoevsky’s idea of this superior being or “superman” who is above of the moral rules and the rest of society. The idea of a superman is one that I find very interesting, as Rodia himself in the beginning of the novel categorized himself as one of these “supermen”, which is where his rationale for committing the murder of the pawnbroker stems from.  Even more interesting than that is the fact that later one his “superman” characterizing is broken as he realizes he is unable to live up to the standards of the “superman” and that he is not entirely superior to those who he surrounds himself with.

            The third idea for a thesis that I had was to discuss Rodia’s alienation from society. His alienation from society stems from both the environment that he is (the city of Petersburg) which is surrounded by poverty and described thoroughly as being dirty and inhabitant by those who are very low on the social hierarchy. Also his alienation from society stems from his superiority complex, which leaves him unable to relate to those who he is surrounded with. After he has committed the murder his alienation only grows more due to his psychological torment due to his intense guilt which leaves him even more incapable of creating and keeping up with those who are trying to help him.

            The fourth thesis idea that I had was to analyze Dostoevsky as a person based on his theories in both Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground. It is evident that Dostoevsky had some very strong theories that he portrayed in his novels, such as the theory of the “superman”. Also he had very strong interest in exploring human psychology when it came to committing crimes such as in Crime and Punishments and then in Notes From the Underground the psychology of someone who is a mere observer of the society in which he has alienated himself from.

Comment on Luisa's and Josh's Theses

     I really like Luisa's third thesis idea: "Asking whether Raskolnikov considered himself a "hero" with his action, yet why he regretted it and feared it as well. The essay will mostly focus on his inner self and psychology about him, since he DID commit good actions as well... how he justifies what he did, the fear that happens to him right after he does it... this essay will study not only Raskolnikov but also study how other humans would react to situations of the sort. the selfishness, poverty, insanity that led him to commit an action of the sort... does nature and nurture have to do with why Raskolnikov did what he did???"

     This thesis is similar to a combination of two of mine- to explain how he justifies his murders and to explain the psychology of his character. I think the whole idea is interesting, especially since a lot is left to the imagination in this novel. Not much is explained, especially Raskolnikov's mental state and how he became the way he did. I like this thesis the best out of all of her theses, but the other three were good ideas as well. The first one seemed a bit easy, since Josh came up with it as well. 

     That brings me to Josh's theses. I liked all of his theses, but the one I liked the most was the one involving generosity: "My final idea for a thesis in Crime and Punishment would be analyzing the role that generosity played throughout the book. Raskolnikov seemed to be hell-bent on being as generous as possible, even though every time he was generous he immediately regretted what he did. Yet, it seems that Raskolnikov’s generosity might have had a little bit more of a malicious intent in that he felt the need to be in control of others fortune, or misfortune, as it gave him some sort of a power high. This then begs the question, was Raskolnikov giving to benefit others, or was he trying to benefit himself in the pursuit of an action that was clearly against his immediate self-interests."

     I never even thought of this and I find the essay topic to be very intriguing. It is very interesting to think of why he was so bipolar, if one could even call it that. I also liked Josh's thesis on "the wall" that Dostoyevsky so often discusses in his novels. So far, all of my classmates'  theses that I have read are pretty interesting ideas. 

Four theses ideas

     My first thesis idea that I came up with was to discuss and analyze the different and many ways in which Raskolnikov is able to rationalize sin and the murders he committed. Since Raskolnikov sincerely believes that his actions are noble, his crime is justified in his mind. Though he feels immense guilt in what he did, not once does he consider the possibility that what he did was immoral or wrong. I would like to write an essay that explains why he does not necessarily think his actions were "right" or "wrong."

     My second thesis idea was something I have brought up in my blog posts before. The essay would compare how the women in Crime and Punishment and The Stranger (by Camus) influence and guide the male characters into making the decisions they make. In The Stranger, Meursault's girlfriend helps define his mindset and in Crime and Punishment, Sonia helps Raskolnikov deal with his guilt and leads him to his decision to confess. The ways in which both women persuade the men of their respective novel into doing or thinking what they seem fit are different, but similar at the same time.

     My third thesis idea revolves around Dostoyevksy himself more than any of the actual characters. Dostoyevsky incorporated a lot of his existentialist views on life into Crime and Punishment and focuses on the psychology of his characters. I thought it would be interesting to write a paper on how existentialism plays a role in Crime and Punishment and how the psychology of the characters helps shape the book into what it is.

     My fourth thesis idea is about how Sonia's intense religious morals directly conflict with Svidrigailov's selfish nature, yet Raskolnikov interacts with both characters a lot throughout the novel. Both characters heavily influence him to examine his own morality and ultimately form his decision to confess. With this thesis I could discuss how the opposite mindsets of his peers affect his own mindset and how that led to him deciding to come clean about the murders. 

Comment on Josh's Ideas

The first idea you had was the same first idea that I had -- comparing Raskolnikov with the Underground man. Since that was the idea that came to both our minds first, I do not feel like it would be a good topic to choose because it is the easiest topic to come up with. I am not choosing that topic for that same reason. I feel like it would be too simple since it is the most obvious thesis anyone in our group will come up with.

I really like your fourth topic -- I hadn't thought about it as generosity. In my ideas, one of my thesis is studying Raskolnikov's personality in its entirety, because he is insane and I want to really study what leads him to do something like that not only from the standpoint of the book but also from a psychological standpoint, and I want to study why he does commit good actions, but I hadn't thought of taking the topic of generosity to the extent where an entire essay is written on it. I think you could find a lot to write for that and it is a good thesis to analyze and elaborate on.

I love the thesis about finding the "wall", I think you could definitely use both the discussions we've had in class and come up with your own analysis for that topic and incorporating that with Crime and Punishment. Really good topic for you

I think you could do a lot with the thesis about the "great man", it is a little bit similar to my thesis about Raskolnikov being a hero, or rather if the thinks of himself as a hero and justifies himself for what he did. You are correct that he does commit very good actions, so I think this topic will be very interesting to elaborate and truly comprehend Raskolnikov's thoughts and actions.

4 Thesis Ideas

1. Dig into simply why Raskolnikov did what he did, and compare that to the discussion we had with NFTU that had to do with eliminating those who cannot do any more for society

2. Asking whether Raskolnikov considered himself a "hero" with his action, yet why he regretted it and feared it as well. The essay will mostly focus on his inner self and psychology about him, since he DID commit good actions as well... how he justifies what he did, the fear that happens to him right after he does it... this essay will study not only Raskolnikov but also study how other humans would react to situations of the sort. the selfishness, poverty, insanity that led him to commit an action of the sort... does nature and nurture have to do with why Raskolnikov did what he did??? 

3. Compare Raskolnikov with the Underground Man in personality, thought process, motives, etc.... separation from society that the two undergo. I would also compare him with Amir from Kite Runner because they both committed a really bad action that truly harmed another person. 

4. This idea is primarily about Dostoevsky -- why did he write a book like this, what message was he trying to portray, how does this stem from NFTU, incidents in Dostoevsky's life that led to him being influenced to writing a book of this sort -- does this reflect Russia in the time he lived? 

The two in bold are the two I am more likely to do.

My Four Theses for Crime and Punishment

The first idea for a thesis that I had for Crime and Punishment is to compare the different aspects of Dostoyevsky’s personality were present in both the Underground Man and Raskolnikov. Seeing as both these books seem to be trying to prove some point or enlighten others on Dostoyevsky’s personal beliefs and philosophies. Basically, I feel that these books are a much more artfully crafted and presented form of Atlas Shrugged, for example, Raskolnikov’s idea of “great men” seems to be one of the key philosophies driving many of the forces and examples in Crime and Punishment. Also, seeing as it’s the books title, Crime and Punishment seems to question many of society’s perceptions on crime and punishment and Dostoyevsky seems to be trying to make a point towards these ideas within society.

Another thesis I came up with for Crime and Punishment is trying to determine if Raskolnikov thought of himself as a truly “great man.” Raskolnikov certainly acted as though he were a “great man” in his pursuit of his goals, yet he seems to lose sight of his goal and it becomes unclear if he actually believes in his theory any more. Raskolnikov’s idea of a great man is someone who had a defined set of goals and would do anything to accomplish them, therefore I would have to find if Raskolnikov had any truly great goals that he strove for, or if his actions were completely irrational.

Another thesis based off of a similar idea would be to try to find “the wall” in crime and punishment. Because Dostoyevsky put a large emphasis of his philosophy on this concept in “Notes from the Underground,” there is no way that “the wall” does not exist in some form in Crime and Punishment. The wall does not necessarily have to have a concrete form or directly exist as some sort of goal within the book. The wall would have to exist in some sort of a force and a general will for certain characters to act in a certain way. It will manifest itself in the characters actions and decisions throughout the book and would influence certain characters to act towards an end, even though they might not know it. The wall might also manifest itself in the fact that certain characters are trying to break down the wall, or form the wall, by searching for explanations for things.

My final idea for a thesis in Crime and Punishment would be analyzing the role that generosity played throughout the book. Raskolnikov seemed to be hell-bent on being as generous as possible, even though every time he was generous he immediately regretted what he did. Yet, it seems that Raskolnikov’s generosity might have had a little bit more of a malicious intent in that he felt the need to be in control of others fortune, or misfortune, as it gave him some sort of a power high. This then begs the question, was Raskolnikov giving to benefit others, or was he trying to benefit himself in the pursuit of an action that was clearly against his immediate self-interests. 

Final blog

I know this is late — Crime and Punishment took me a little longer to finish than I had expected being that my birthday was this weekend. I cannot say I necessarily enjoyed this novel, but it did teach me a lot in analyzing. When I say analyzing, I do not really say it as in I learned how to analyze the novel, but instead make educated comparisons between different works written by one specific author, Dostoevsky. I had not really done this before — reading more than one work by the same author in an analytical setting — so doing so really opened my mind to studying how one author puts himself in his work.

Speaking about making comparisons, on one of the Notes From the Underground blog, I had written a post specifically about the similarities between the Underground man and Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov, main character of Crime and Punishment, and the Underground man, from Notes of the Underground, both think too much — leading them to sometimes, like Raskolnikov, commit horrendous actions. Raskolnikov kills his pawn broker for no important reason — simply because he did not get a good vibe from her and she was useless. Now, when I first wrote the post comparing the two, I said that I thought the Underground man was going to become a psycho murderer just like Raskolnikov because I did not know better and his cynical, almost masochistic personality made me think so. Today, after having had multiple class discussions (which are extremely helpful), I learn that the Underground is not so much of a psycho murderer, but one who just thinks “logically” and questions EVERYTHING. I think, if the Underground man were to have been in Raskolnikov’s position, he probably would have had the thought to kill her because she was useless, and he was superior, and just like the discussion we had in class, once someone is useless it is time to leave them behind and move on. The difference here, though, is that the Underground man would NOT have killed her — maybe because of morals, maybe because of cowardice, maybe because he comes to more humane conclusions than did Raskolnikov. In Crime and Punishment, I do see Dostoevsky’s rather dark writing, because of the theme. Raskolnikov literally killed two innocent women simply because he did not “like” one of them, and the other was a witness. I feel like Crime and Punishment moves a LOT slower than does Notes from the Underground. In Notes from the Underground, we constantly move from one thought to another and get from one point to another… never having a dull moment. Instead, in Crime and Punishment, everything movies a LOT slower and because of this reasons sometimes it was really a burden for me to get the novel and read it all page by page for that week’s blog. 

I truly did appreciate being a part of the term paper group that has Crime and Punishment because I was really able to analyze how a writer changes from one novel to the next, yet still portrays himself in both. From what I read in the two books, if I were to make a description of Dostoevsky’s character, it would be someone who is incredibly introvert and always thinking — someone who feels incredibly superior to others and makes it known through his isolation. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov truly goes AGAINST the crowd — he killed two innocent people. In Notes from the Underground, the Underground man does not wan tot go agains tt he crowed but is kin do forced to. I would like to know where that differentiation sprung from. 

Overall, I loved Notes from the Underground, but Crime and Punishment not so much. It was truly a weight picking up the book and annotating and reading every page… It was not as good as I expected it to be. Nevertheless, I really love Dostoevsky’s writing.

Final Commentary (Alexia Barrios)

I have to say I feel somewhat accomplished now that I have finished reading Crime and Punishment. I cannot deny that there were moments were I begrudgingly picked up the book to read for my assignments, but by the time I finished the novel I came to enjoy it.

Having now read and discussed Notes from the Underground there are undeniable similarities between them that only lead me to learn more about Dostoyevsky himself.  The alienation of his main characters from society seems to be a reoccurring theme in his pieces, as they appear in both Notes from the Underground and Crime and Punishment. In Crime and Punishment, this is one of the primary themes of the novel. His alienation from society stems from his air of superiority and his overwhelming amount of pride. These traits leave him to be someone who cannot relate to others because his pride and superiority complex does not allow him due to the fact he finds those around him to be inferior in comparison to himself. This isolation only grows as the novel continues. As his punishment, the psychological and somewhat psychical torment, commences after the murders, his isolation grows with his guilt. What I found interesting and unexpected from Rodia, was that in the Epilogue he is somewhat due to the power of love is able to put break through this superiority complex as “something lifted him and flung him down at her feet.” and Sonya “…for her there was no longer any doubt that he loved her, loved her infinitely, and that at last the moment had come…” (520) This event is significant because it is Rodia breaking away from his alienated lifestyle and becoming a member of society again which may very well be the beginning of his journey to atonement (which is probably why the entire scene was a very emotional one for him).

Dostoyevsky is a brilliant man and I found many of the themes and ideas he presented to be very thought provoking making the book interesting. Though many times I found myself frustrated with his use of suspense when it came to Rodia confessing to the murders, I believe that it was vital for him to do it exactly the way he did it as it makes the end just that much more satisfying. He committed the crime early on in the novel and the real punishment that is presented in the Epilogue does come for hundreds of pages due to Dostoyevsky’s use of suspense. Dostoyevsky’s main focus was not on the crime itself or the punishment, but everything that happened in between. The psychological torment endured by Rodia is Dostoyevsky performing and describing an analysis of a criminal by allowing us to see what is going on inside their head. We witness all his emotional and physical torment and that is the main focus of the story; how the character deals with guilt. From my understanding of the novel, the whole point that Dostoyevsky is attempting to make here is that the punishment is not as bad as we think it is, the psychological repercussions of attempting to avoid that punishment are instead far worse.

Final Comment on the Reading of the Book

Now that I have finished reading Crime and Punishment, I have no idea what to make of Dostoyevsky’s sanity or insanity or just how much of Raskolnikov character is representative of Dostoyevsky or how much of it is representative of his ideas. Personally, I have a hunch towards the idea that Raskolnikov is either somewhat or majorly a segment of Dostoyevsky’s personality in that I could easily seeing Dostoyevsky as an extreme outcast and that he could think similarly to Raskolnikov in that same sort of insane way. Also, the fact that Raskolnikov embodies many of Dostoyevsky’s ideals is relatively consistent with the way that he writes in most of his other books, seeing as they are mostly responses to or original forms of ideas of general philosophy. If I were to choose a single theme that this book is commenting on is the existence or role that guilt plays in both society and the individuals mind and different situations. The main comment that I have on the book as a whole is that I really hated the ending, the fact that Dostoyevsky starts hinting that Raskolnikov is finally getting better and realizing his insanity, then he goes and just ends the book before giving any sort of sense of a real ending to what happened to Raskolnikov. Also the fact that the book ended on a somewhat happy note really kind of annoys me, because I had been expecting the book to go out with a bang and end horribly, that way there would be an actual ending, as opposed to this feeling of incompleteness that you finally want to know more about Raskolnikov, but the book suddenly ends. To be honest, I can see a lot of parallels between Raskolnikov and the underground man, not only in the ways that they act, but the theories that they have, and I feel that it would be interesting to try to extract the general thoughts that Dostoyevsky have on the different subjects that he talks about. Therefore, I am probably going to write my thesis on the general concept of “Dostoyevsky-ism” or what defines his general philosophical perspective. With that I will try to relate the themes and events in the book to the different ideas that Dostoyevsky might have had, whether or not they are at all logical. Personally, I think that the whole idea of contemplating the truth of meaning and many of the things that Dostoyevsky talks about are almost entirely purposeless and lack any semblance of sense. I mean it makes sense in some of the assumptions he makes, but many of the conclusions he tries to draw really don’t make any good conclusions, but I would like to try to bring as much of a complete idea as I can form Dostoyevsky’s writings.

almost done

First of all, I know mine is late -- I'm sorry! I recorded all weekend and finished at 9 tonight, so I was only able to finish all the work now.
So.... Raskolnikov is finally accused as the murderer. Nobody believed it could have been the painter because he barely knew any thorough information about the crime and because he was really innocent. Porifiry is convinced Raskolnikov is the true murderer because he has a lot of evidence, but not enough yet to arrest him. He is also absolutely sure that Raskolnikov will confess because he will be consumed by his guilt.... That makes me think that a lot of the people closely around him know how actually really vulnerable Raskolnikov is. To further keep on the down low the fact that he is a KILLER, he threatens Svrigaladov whenever he touches upon Dounya because she appears to be a sensitive point for him. Svrigaladov says that it is very fun observing, watching, and hearing every move and word Raskolnikov says.... Sometimes I try to picture how he would be in my head but I cannot fully grasp him. I am curious to see when he is going to confess. I have a really good feeling he will.

The Stranger Vs C&P

Like Josh, I too found certain parallels between Crime and Punishment and another book that we have read in our class. The Stranger by Camus has a lot of similar themes, ideas, and concepts to C&P that I have really started to take notice of recently. One thing in particular, is how the women of each novel seemingly effect the men of the novels. Love is a driving force in both of the stories and it plays a huge role in how the characters (Meursault and Raskolnikov) are developed from beginning to end. Both men are misfits from society, the black sheep of their family, so to speak. They do not believe in a lot of societal norms and have their own ways of perceiving life in general. Love does not seem like it would be a major force in either of their lives, but if one stops and thinks about it, love is responsible for a lot of decisions the two characters make in their respective novels. In my opinion, Raskolnikov confessed to committing the murders as a pure act of love for his sister. Sonia obviously means a great deal to him and he trusted her enough to keep his secrets. In The Stranger, Marie is the only person who is able to get Meursault to show emotion and feel something about life. Before she came along, he never really felt anything, let along took notice of the things that go on around him. These important women are the only two characters of each book that are responsible for effecting the men of those books in a positive way. Their love and affection ultimately led to the character transformations of Raskolnikov and Meursault. Their opinions on society and how they function in it completely changed all due to them. While the ways that the two women go about with their acts of love are completely different, their love is love, regardless of how it is shown. And the male characters ended up being the way they were due to that love. 

“It was as though a fog had fallen upon him and wrapped him in a dreary solitude from which there was no escape” (Alexia Barrios)

Since the beginning of Crime and Punishment, one of the aspects of the novel that I really enjoyed was the psychology aspect of it. Throughout the novel we have seen Rodia slowly begin to break down psychology such as in the beginning of this weeks reading we see how he is coming close to his demise as he enters a “strange period” (417) where “it was as though a fog had fallen upon him and wrapped him in a dreary solitude from which there was no escape” (417). Throughout the novel we have seen the psychological aspects that have occurred to Rodia due to the murders he committed and along with this I enjoyed the psychological mind games that were going on between Porfiry, the policeman, and Rodia. Rodia has allowed the emotional and mental reactions to the murders almost reveal his role in the act several times, many of them being in front of Porfiry such as him fainting in the police station and his remarks to Zamyotov. Even with a suspect who has confessed to the murders, Porfiry, who I am assuming has had some training in psychology, was able to determine that those events were associated with those of someone who is guilty of something.

In my last post near the end I noted how I was unsure of Svidrigailov’s intentions, and now those intentions were made quite clear. For a while this character emitted a “bad vibe” to me, which wasn’t surprising at all since there are rumors he played a role in the death of both his late wife and one of his maids. There was just something that was entirely off about him beginning when he mysteriously was in Rodia’s room discussing his affection for Dunya and even more so when he offered to pay for Sonia’s mother’s funeral, and provide them money. When Rodia learns that Dunya received a mysterious letter that upset here, I immediately knew that it must have been written by Svidrigailov based on what I had perceived him to be cunning and manipulative enough to pull that off. This was a conniving and somewhat brilliant way to lure Dunya into his hands so he could give tell her that Rodia is the murderer and offer his services only if she marries him. An interesting aspect of this predicament that Dostoevsky throws in there is the fact that though Svidrigailov is threatening her life due to his angered reaction to her rejection, Dunya is unable to go through with murder. The shots she fired barely draw blood and I found this to be important because it showed that Dunya does not share the same rationalizations when it comes to murder as her brother.

Parallels Between Raskolnikov, the Underground Man, and Dostoevsky

          After reading Notes from the Underground, this book is making a lot more sense now, the common themes and ideas that Dostoyevsky presented are highly evident in the way Raskolnikov is acting. Either Raskolnikov is supposed to be a representative of the underground man, in that he acts and thinks very similarly, or Dostoyevsky cannot help but write himself into all of his characters, and it would make sense seeing how well he can capture the insane societal outcast character. The main point of comparison between Raskolnikov and the underground man is the fact that Raskolnikov spent so much time planning out and trying to exact his revenge, only to be met with indecision and doubts. He also regrets every time he performs something as a man of action was, as he did when he murdered the women. Even though he had planned the whole thing he cannot deal with the fact that he had actually done something. Also, Raskolnikov exhibits the same wariness towards the concept of “the wall” in the way that he both seeks to confess about his crimes, yet he constantly shies away from the absoluteness of the punishment.  Then there is the whole debate in notes from the underground about the fact that one can truly enjoy being punished because it confirms their existence. It seems that Raskolnikov is not quite entirely over-conscious, it seems as if he fades in and out of periods of consciousness, which would explain why his rambles are somewhat random. Yet he still exhibits the idea of a mouse under the floorboards in the way that he seems to look down on those in power, even though he is well aware of just how low he is in society.  Yet there is a part of Raskolnikov’s personality that is different from the underground man so far, unless we have not discussed it yet, and that is the whole Napoleonic adoration that Raskolnikov has and his theories of “great men.” His definition of great men almost perfectly parallels the idea of the “man of action” in notes from the underground, the fact that they are able to charge towards a goal no matter what is put in their way. Yet in this case, that type of man is being praised for that ability which is not the same for the underground man, who seems to hold content for these “men of action.” Personally, I think the relationship of these two characters and what it entails about the author would make for an interesting thesis, but I will have to wait until the complete analysis of the underground man to choose.  

Parallels Between Notes from the Underground and Crime and Punishment

          Now that I have read Notes from the Underground, I can see a lot of constants in Dostoyevsky’s writing and the characters he creates. Especially this notion of over-consciousness and insanity that seems to carry across almost all of Dostoyevsky’s characters. Raskolnikov has many parallels to the actual underground man in the way that he acts and in many of his theories throughout the book. First of all, the seemingly insane actions that Raskolnikov goes through in his story are very reminiscent of the over conscious nature of the underground man. Raskolnikov seems to be aware of absolutely every detail of what is going on around him, and he also goes through way too many steps to prepare for one thing, and even when it is done he is not deviating from trying to plan his way through everything. Another interesting parallel is the idea of “great men” in crime and punishment and the whole page on how religion is now useless and how evolution has stopped because of humanity in the underground man. Even though these sentiments are not explicitly mentioned in the underground man, they are heavily implied in the way that the character talks about the fact that humanity is constantly working against themselves and gaining advantages in the way that they are rejecting the natural ideas that seemingly separate us from animals. This whole idea seems to be leading to the idea that some people in society cost more to society than they help, therefore they should not exist. The whole idea that the elderly should not be kept alive based solely on the fact that it uses so much more resources than it saves. This is reflected by the idea that certain people in society should be able to avoid the rules of society because they have an idea or goal that is truly great towards society and will eventually end up benefiting society greatly. The fact that sometimes if an individual has an idea that might be worth killing people, then they should be allowed to is very reminiscent of the idea that Dostoyevsky has across these writings. It is the idea that I am better than everyone else, therefore the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to me. Personally I think this is some of Dostoyevsky’s ego showing through, and the fact that he was probably a social outcast which made him despise those who were able to actually succeed in society, and shun their rules. 

So the painter is the "murderer"?

I am past the part where Raskolnikov confesses to Sonya. Now, beginning the next chapter, I find out that not only does Sonya know that he is the murderer, but also Svidrigailov. Now is when I feel trouble will start. Now is when people he does not want to know, start to know. I feel like now he is starting to adopt a sort of "mad man's" living condition... sometimes waking up at home, sometimes waking up in the middle of the bushes. He starts to live in his own world, not having any idea what is happening around him, which I feel is why sometimes he just loses himself and wakes up in the bushes. In all honestly, that is like a lunatic's living condition because he got kicked out of his house or something like that. I do like Sonya's character. I thought it was really nice that she held his hand at Katernia's funeral, showing that she still accepts Raskolnikov regardless of the fact that he is a murderer. I was shocked when they declared the painter as the murderer..... I am curious to see what is going to unfold next.

The Beginning of a Confession

In my opinion, I did not think that Rodia's pride would allow him to confess. I know that he has not confessed to the police yet, even though he made an extremely heartfelt promise that he fully intended on doing so, but that is just it. He promised he would turn himself in but at the end of the day those are just words. Words are not actions. There is no telling whether he will or will not actually tell the police or his responsibility for the murders, no matter what he said to his sister. Pride has always played a huge role in this novel. Especially when if comes to Raskolnikov's character. His pride and ego are basically his defining character trait (however sad that might be). I really hope that he does the right thing and turns himself in. I mean, he took one step closer to doing so in confessing and confiding in Sonya, but she is not the police. Maybe now that he has gotten it off his chest and spilled his deep dark secrets to he does not have the urge to tell anybody else. If he does not, does that mean that his sister will turn him in? Would she stoop that low? Rodia has shown Sonya disrespect before so maybe it is her turn to show a little tough love. Sonya said that she would be honorable and not tell anybody but then we find out that Svidrigailov overheard their conversation. Eavesdropping is never a good sign, in any situation. Just because Sonya said she would not tell does not mean that Svidrigailov will not. He had the upper hand now, he owns Rodia. He can do whatever he wishes, whenever he wishes, due to the fact that he overheard one major conversation.  Can you say plot twist? Rodia better decide what he is going to do, and quick, before somebody else makes that decision for him. Maybe now that he has confessed to Sonya he will not have as much guilt on his shoulders. I am not excusing anything he did, because what he did was awful, barbaric, illegal, and immoral, but the guilt he has been living with seemed to consume his life. I hate to see people struggle, even those who deserve it, so maybe this helped slightly. Regardless, I still believe he should turn himself in, and sooner rather than later.

“All I wanted was to do some daring thing…that was my sole motive” (Alexia Barrios)

So now that Rodia has confessed to Sonya of his role in the murders is this internal struggle that he has been having within himself since the murder come to an end? His confessing to Sonya is a major and his promise to later come clean to the police is a major development in the novel, as it seems that he is finally choosing to beginning the road to redemption.

 In the entire book so far he has been driven both mentally and psychologically ill due to the guilt that he was carrying on his conscience, and though it was evident that his role in the murders was going to be discovered I was unsure if his pride would allow him to confess. His pride has been a big factor in keeping the truth to himself as he believe that he is a above the rest and that the murder was entirely justifiable since he believes he was ridding of a evil human being. But him confessing allows me to believe that he has overcome this believe that he holds the power to judge people and act on this judgments as he did with the pawnbroker. He realizes that his philosophy in which he used to justify this act was a total farce and he says that “All I (Rodia) wanted was to do some daring thing…that was my sole motive” proving that this act was stemmed on emotions more than a philosophy. In my opinion, this act of violence was a way to prove to himself that he was a powerful human being since unconsciously he knew he was a coward, so in order to remove that he wanted to commit an exceptional act in which he stepped over the moral boundaries set by society and take matters into his own hand. For a moment he wanted to play God. He wanted to believe that he had the power to judge people and if they were considered parasites execute them or eradicate them from society for the better good of the people.

Though he first confessed the murders to Sonya only, now the plot as thickened now that Svidrigailov overheard the conversations. Though, Sonya intents on the information are honorable being that she is attempting to get him to confess, I doubt Svidrigailov’s will be the same. The fact that Rodia has now let his secret comes out makes the plot more interesting in the sense that who knows who else will learn of the truth and what intend to do with that information.