Post # 3 (Making up for starting late)

Being that the central internal battle Raskolnikov has to do with the murder he commits, it is simple to tie each element of internal struggle to the situation. The most controversial aspect of his actions is the fact that he feels little remorse. Of course, it is hard for the readers to comprehend that he could not feel wrong for what he has done, but at the same time he regrets murdering Aliona's sister, Lizaveta. There is where his real regret spurns. Also, at times he is faced with the realization that certain incidents would be simpler had he not committed the crime. Because of the large amount of struggles he is faced with, it is hard to tell if most of his insanity and sickness really does come from regret. Of course, many readers would find themselves wanting most of the torture he inflicts on himself to be a means of retribution. Because of the small amount of evidence that is given to this claim, Raskolnikov is usually classified as mad and evil because he is not thinking in the way it would be socially acceptable for him to think.
In times of great internal conflict a person may struggle in thinking in socially acceptable ways. It is not to say that Raskolnikov's manner of thinking is totally justifiable, but his thoughts do have some merit to them. This brings upon the argument that there is no such thing as altruism, which would explain why Raskolnikov is less focused on others, and more focused on his own predicament. After all, he does have quite a lot to ponder on. He is trapped in his circling stages of regret, desire, reflection, coping, holding control over his actions, and determining what choice he will make. In this way he is punishing himself, even if some of the punishment is not intentionally self inflicted.
When the reader looks at Raskolnikov in a broader sense he can be seen as a man who wanted to do good. He can also be seen as a man who justifies his actions by claiming good intentions. Either way his self inflicted torture and constant failure can be acquainted with the idea that "Poetry does not cure/ the poet/ & the poet/ does not cure the world" (Jong). Raskolnikov cannot "cure" his internal struggles with his constant ramblings, and he cannot seem to do good with them either. What he has attempted to do in order to help himself or others cannot guarantee that he will be granted with what he intends. He is always stopped short by something, there is always a road block that prevents him from reaching the destination he intended. His way of coping does not help him much either. He either attempts to out himself to someone, or drives himself insane by once again going into his world of rambling. It is due to these elements that he may be perceived as a tragic hero, but of course tragic heroes can often be named evil.

My Comment on Rachel's Paper Part 2

My first thought when reading through your paper is that the beginning is somewhat repetitive, it takes you three sentences which all basically say the same thing before you begin to introduce your point. Also, you should probably keep the reference to outside works to be a little smaller than the analysis of Crime and Punishment, because they should remain as examples, as opposed to analyses of other works that are similar to Crime and punishment. I have no qualms about the actual writing of the essay, mostly the structure and references.

Term Paper Part 3

There is one part of Raskolnikov that goes against the idea that he only cares about doing whatever only benefits himself instead of actually helping in order to help others out of the kindness of his heart. That one part is the love that he feels towards Sonia and how he actually helps her in order to help her, the only way that this can be skewed to show that he is trying to help himself is the idea that he is trying to win her heart by helping her, and is only benefiting through the physical relationship between the two. This might be assumed by some readers, especially seeing as Sonia is a prostitute and the idea of using money to gain her love is not too far out of the question. But, the way that Raskolnikov acts after leaving prison shows that, eventually, he shows true compassion for Sonia and shows a true desire to help her out of the kindness of his heart. The relationship is not even close to being a one way street in terms of affection, Sonia is actually one of the few characters that is able to see the possibility of goodness within Raskolnikov, and at first, he is actually unable to realize this fact and treats her like crap, especially considering how much she is putting aside in order to be with Raskolnikov. But he does not realize until he goes to prison and is derived from his life and those surrounding him and he basically finally loses control over his life, and as they say, you don’t know what you have until you lose it.  After coming out of prison he finally realizes just how much Sonia loved him and just how much that he longed for her and basically allows himself to become a normal person with her. This could be considered as a realization of the fact that Raskolnikov has finally been punished for his crimes and can finally live without the fear and guilt that previously haunted him at every turn and chance. This transformation represents the loss of many of the multi-faceted aspects of feeling guilty for a crime and not being punished for it, which is what really brings home the meaning of the novel. Sonia’s perspective on Raskolnikov can be seen in multiple ways, it could be cited to show that Raskolnikov was truly good in his heart in these actions, or it can be used to show that Raskolnikov only liked her because she would put up with him and that she benefited him by giving him an outlet. Based on his reaction at the end of the book, it is more likely that the relationship is a sign of his true nature, but, as are most of the things in this book, the relationship between the two is heavily multifaceted.

Comment on Alexa's post

In your post you make some very good points regarding psychology and actions. I like your defense in the beginning about how the reader knows less about Raskolnikov than they think. The novel does make you (the reader) think that you have so much insight into him, but there are so many questions unanswered and so many details left out. I found the post to be very engaging and it really serves to inform the readers about several interesting facts regarding the novel. I really like the inner questioning that you do in your essay. I have no negative critiques for this post. :)

Part 3

On the other hand, Raskolnikov is a complex character who possesses many different traits that compliment each other but also seem to contradict each other at the same time. As with people in real life, having background information on a person and being privy to their psychology is crucial to understanding why that person behaves the way they do. A person’s actions alone are simply not enough to render a complete, let alone accurate, image of them; one has to have the knowledge of what drives that person to carry out the actions he or she does. One could argue that it is important to delve into the psyche of an individual to gain an understanding of them as a whole. In Raskolnikov’s case, the reader is not privy to much information about his life growing up. Readers are introduced to Raskolnikov’s character as a young man already struggling from internal strife with no prior history of what he was like before. This makes things a bit more difficult to understand his psychology, but Dostoyevsky includes some clues that help the reader somewhat figure things out. Raskolnikov’s name itself holds its origins in the Russian word “raskolnik,” which means to be divided or split. The significance and importance of his name alone is obvious throughout the novel in more than one scene in which readers are given a glimpse of his introspection or the examination of his own mental and emotional processes. Dostoyevsky uses introspection as a means of conveying Raskolnikov’s “inner self,” which, as stated before, is completely different than his “outer self.” He also uses Raskolnikov’s own observation of himself to emphasize his personality or multiple personalities. Through these moments of introspection, the reader is able to gain a basic understanding of Raskolnikov’s internal conflict, instability, and dual nature as a character: “...his mental powers were failing, splitting up...his mind clouding.”

Regardless of having a basic understanding of his character or not, it is still difficult to comprehend how he never truly considers whether what he is doing is “right” or “wrong.” His moral ambiguity makes the reader question a lot of things throughout the novel. Raskolnikov cannot simply be labeled as a “hero” nor “villain,” right off the bat, because who is to say what “right” and “wrong” are in the first place? While murder is considered a treacherous act that is labeled as “wrong” in society, Raskolnikov does not perceive it as so. The murder of Alyona, the pawnbroker, was not a crime in his mind, but a good deed he did for the world. Raskolnikov states at the beginning of the book that he intends to use her money for good- what he does with the money to improve either his life or the lives of others could be good in a number of ways. Also, Raskolnikov justifies his actions to himself with his notion that “great men” must remove obstacles in their paths in order to actually become great. He often compares himself to Napoleon, due to the fact that he shows signs of being stuck in a Napoleonic state of mind because he does indeed suffer from power trips and false machismo to make up for his personal feelings of inferiority. The fact that it is quite difficult to decide whether Raskolnikov is a good or bad character is central to Crime and Punishment. This debate acts as a segue from the small question, “Is Raskolnikov good?,” to the much larger question, “What is good?”

Post #2 (Rachael Marks)

There are many different types of internal struggle. With different situations different factors cause the mind to be thrust into a state of great torment. There are six types of internal struggle that can be greatly associated with this book, the struggles of choice, regret, control, desire, reflection, and coping. Raskolnikov is faced with each of these situations and spends quite a long time dwelling on how they should be dealt with.
There are many times that Raskolnikov finds himself having to make a choice. In regards to some perspectives it could be said that all internal struggle is a struggle between choices. Raskolnikov's main initial choice is whether to kill or not to kill. While this is also a desire some distinction between the desire and choice would be found in the fact that at some points, this was no longer a choice for Raskolnikov. He had to do it. That is when it is no longer a choice but something stronger, and eventually it becomes something more than a desire, it becomes something far out of his control. His body will not allow him to sit still any longer, he must act on the desire, whether he wants to or not. This is when the situation becomes a struggle of control. The book draws this out in long rants about every struggle he is going through. Raskolnikov's personal torture almost seems to be put upon the reader. In a manner of spilling his guts out, even though the book takes place in third person and he is not usually speaking out loud, Raskolnikov is telling his story in a way not so different from a poet.
In common methods of writing, a poem will pour out a feeling with some kind of conclusion or twist at the end. The conclusion is not always as simple as making a choice, sometimes the conclusion is to do nothing at all. The structure of Raskolnikov's rants flow the same way. He dwells on an idea, evaluates his choices, and either acts on it or saves it for later where he will rant about it again.
A poem that circles, turns, and contemplates to some extent that Raskolnikov may, would be "Evidence of Life" by Erica Jong. This poem is comparable to Raskolnikov's thought stream in the way it doubts, but defends certain ideas. Jong, like Raskolnikov, is tied around several points, trying to make something of them. The poem dwells on what evidence there may be of life, then love, then of the speaker having love, then if there ever was love in the first place. This is much like Raskolnikov feeling irksome, questioning what is bothering him, deciding if it is the sickness, and then contemplating if he was sick to begin with. In a way both the speaker of the poem and Raskolnikov may never have answers to any of their many questions, but at the same time, it feels like they know the answer. When the Jong writes, "& if it wasn't love,/ if you called me now/ across the old echo chamber of the ocean/ & said:/ 'Look I never loved you,'/ I would feel/ a little like a fool perhaps,/ & yet it wouldn't matter." it displays a similar struggle that Raskolnikov feels in the novel. Even though he feels like he knows what is to come, results still affect him. There is no escaping the impact that his actions will cause him. In his struggle it almost seems like he is not looking for an answer, but looking for anything to ramble about. It may be said that he is distracting himself.

Blog #3

The question has to be answered now — is Raskolnikov is actually a sociopath, or just a person with an extreme case of superiority complex and a rough upbringing? A sociopath (antisocial personality disorder) is a mental illness “in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others” (Merrill, 2012). The characteristics of a sociopath include charm, manipulation, unreliability, insincerity, lack of remorse, egocentrism, use of alcohol (Thomas, 2013), lack of change after getting punished, difficulty controlling impulses, incapacity to form a true relationship, and more than usually lives in poor conditions (Jimeny, 2000). A sociopath is someone who shows no worry for the wellbeing of others, not even those who are close to him/her. Sociopaths are aggressive, irritable, irresponsible, impulsive, and all over the place. Males are more susceptible to this mental illness, especially if they are unemployed and of a lower social status — like Raskolnikov (Jimeny, 2000). A person with a superiority complex, on the other hand, is someone with an immense feeling of being better than, or superior, to everyone else. It is usually just a psychological defense mechanism to hide feelings of inferiority (Alfred Adler : The Inferiority and Superiority Complex, 2009). Alfred Adler, whom is most famous for doing studies on the superiority complex, states, “Behind everyone who behaves as if he/she were superior to others, we can suspect a feeling of inferiority which calls for very special efforts of concealment. It is as if a man/woman feared that they were too small and walked on their toes to make themselves taller”. This superiority complex connects with “existential reality, [and] produces people who look confident one moment and ineffectual the next, motivated one moment and apathetic the next, sober and hard-working one moment and self-indulgent and addicted the next” (Maisel, 2012).

Joshua's Comment on Rachel's Post

Overall I think that the essay is good, the writing is good and consistent, but you take a little too long, in my opinion to address the main subject of the essay and get to discuss the actual book. Also, you should spend less time saying what each poem does not exactly do in comparison, but focus more on what aspects do correlate with Dostoyevsky. Other than that, I do not really have too many other suggestions.

comment on josh's part 2

Josh, I really like how you incorporate Napoleon in your essay to describe Raskolnikov's superiority complex. I did feel at times the essay was a little bit run on, in the sense that it sounded like "first he did this, then he did this, and then he did this..." I think if you used a quote from the book you would be able to remove those run ons and make it more specific, since it is coming directly from the novel. Specificity is very important for the topic you are writing about, especially when comparing to Napoleon, so I think the use of a quote would help enhance your essay a lot.

part twoooooo

          Surprisingly, there is an extraordinary opposite side to Raskolnikov — his humaneness and generosity. This attribute throws every single reader off guard. Raskolnikov performs kindhearted deeds, the first being giving away his money of which he barely has any in the first place. At a bar, Raskolnikov meets an old, drunk man with a completely destroyed and impoverished family — Marmeladov. Marmeladov lets Raskolnikov in, telling him all his problems and what led him to be in the position he finds himself. He goes to the point of bringing Raskolnikov to his home to meet his wife and his daughter (whom worked as a prostitute to make money for the family). When Raskolnikov saw the dire conditions this family was in, he left them his money at their window without saying a word nor expecting anything in return — “As he went out, Raskolnikov had time to put his hand into his pocket, to snatch up the coppers he had received in exchange for his rouble in the tavern and to lay them unnoticed on the window. Afterwards on the stairs, he changed his mind and would have gone back” (Pt. 1, Ch. 2, Dostoevsky). This is truly remarkable about him, considering he barely has any money at all. But, the “evil” side of Raskolnikov still comes out even during his “good” deeds, once again confusing the reader. He thinks to himself he should get the money back, since the prostitute daughter can make the money, but he stops himself — “‘What a stupid thing I've done,’ he thought to himself, ‘they have Sonia and I want it myself.’ But reflecting that it would be impossible to take it back now and that in any case he would not have taken it, he dismissed it with a wave of his hand and went back to his lodging.” (Pt. 1, Ch. 2, Dostoevsky). A second virtuous act Raskolnikov performs is when he saves a drunk teenage girl from getting raped by a preying old, drunk man. He does so by calling the police and giving them money to stop the old man from touching the girl. This shows his sensitive and humane side. “‘…Raskolnikov feeling in his pocket and finding twenty copecks, ‘here, call a cab and tell him to drive her to her address. The only thing is to find out her address!’… ‘An innocent creature like that, drunk already! She has been deceived, that's a sure thing. See how her dress has been torn too.... Ah, the vice one sees nowadays! And as likely as not she belongs to gentlefolk too, poor ones maybe.... There are many like that nowadays. She looks refined, too, as though she were a lady…‘The chief thing is," Raskolnikov persisted, "to keep her out of this scoundrel's hands! Why should he outrage her! It's as clear as day what he is after; ah, the brute, he is not moving off!” (Pt. 1, Ch.4, Dostoevsky). Raskolnikov’s actions here and kind words prove that he actually is kindhearted and does think about the protection of those who are less fortunate because of their destiny — not because of their own choice. Raskolnikov’s humane side always comes out in times of genuine need.

Comment on Alexa's Second Part (Alexia Barrios)

So far I think your paper is going in a good direction. You are not straying from your topic and explaining it thoroughly without summarizing the novel as a whole. I like the directness of your writing but I do have to say that in some of your sentences in the first paragraph.  In some of the sentences you should change the structure a little bit just because a lot of them start with “He” or “His” and it can be a little distracting when reading and take away from what you are trying to convey in your paper. Overall, your paper reads well and sounds good.

Comment on Josh's paper

I like your ideas on Raskolnikov's obsession with Napoleon and Napoleonistic views on life. His need to control his and others' lives is a supporting detail in my paper, as well. So far, I think what you are writing is very concise and intuitive. Your thesis as a whole was very creative, as I never even fathomed the thought of what you chose to write about. I have always had a very negative and cynical view on Raskolnikov's character and Crime and Punishmet as a whole, but you chose to look at his personality and actions in a different light. It is clear that we both have different views on the epilogue and the meaning of the story but that is irrelevant. I like the direction that you are taking this paper in and I think you should continue writing it as you are. The only constructive criticism I can administer is to change up your transitions a bit and expand your vocabulary and transitions so it does not sound the same throughout the entirety of the paper. Besides that, I think the writing is good and you are developing your ideas nicely.

2nd post- 685 words

In Crime and Punishment, there is substantial reason to believe that Raskolnikov might have been suffering from an existential crisis. An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose or value at all. Raskolnikov himself was struggling with internal issues, torn within himself between two major polar identities. In essence, he regarded himself so highly that he was mentally confined within his own philosophical thinking. He had lost the power to set his mind on something and to go out and do it. He dropped out of school, cheating himself of an education, his fiance was gone, he stopped working, and he acted as a hermit, holing himself up within the four walls of his landlord’s attic to wallow in depression and self pity. Right from the get go it is quite evident that he is experiencing a major crisis in his life and his thoughts toward that crisis are rather depressing. He does not know how to hold himself or how to continue on; he has no definite reason for living. On the other hand, Raskolnikov wanted to be something that he so clearly was not. He did not want to be the poor, uneducated, pitiful man that he is in reality so he assumed a personality that encompassed the exact opposite. His character is perceived as a narcissistic, egotistical man who is extremely confident and sure of himself. His false confidence is completely transparent, though, due to the reader being privy to his stream of consciousness. He puts on an act for the public, but within his own mind is turmoil, insecurity, fear, and confusion. The reasoning behind this theory is simple. If Raskolnikov had committed the murders and experienced a change in his personality, thoughts or perspective on life after the fact, then the theory would hold no merit. However, it is made known from the first page of the novel that his crisis existed long before his actions of murder. He murdered the pawnbroker and her sister for no reason that he can think of. He murdered due to the lack of action and direction in his life. He was so deeply entrenched in his apathetic life that he desperately needed to do something, to “dare,” as he puts it: "I wanted to dare, and I killed.  I only wanted to dare, Sonia - and that's the whole reason!"

Another piece of evidence to support this theory is the fact that he does not feel anything after he murdered. His actions did not benefit or “cure” his sense of listlessness and inaction in any way. The guilt that stems from the murders only temporarily alleviates his lack of action. It allowed him to focus on something, to blame himself for something, to worry about something that is completely separate from his own lack of motivation and self orientation. His guilt may have been relieved once he turned himself in to the authorities, but the epilogue informs the reader that he soon reverts back to his initial state of mind that we were first introduced to.  There is no escape from his existential crisis because his attempt to fix himself proved to be unsuccessful. The one time in the entire story where he experiences true redemption is when he steps away from himself and his own thinking and gives up his inherent need for control. This occurs when he learns to accept Sonia’s guidance and love. Raskolnikov finally stops thinking about himself and gives himself over to another person, subjecting himself to pain and uncertainty.  He is then able to separate himself from the polarizing despair of his identity and adopt a different view on life where he accepts the fact that nothing is realistically within his control.  The romance itself plays little to no importance to his journey of self discovery and is symbolic in the escaping of one's self. This is the one and only solution he finds to cure his primary absence of purpose that drove him to commit the murders in the first place.

Comment on Alexia's Post

I am going to start with a gramtical check and then get into the essay as a whole. This is in chronological order. "that Raskolnikov that" in the first sentence I believe the second "that" was not supposed to be there. "Becomes to detoriate due to his guilt" I believe is supposed to be "Becomes too detoriated due to his guilt". "As he struggled whether or not to..." I believe you mean "struggles". (I really hope this is not sounding condescending- please tell me if you just want me to focus on the writing as a whole next time). "seperation between himself and society to grow as he grows" (I would reccomend word variaton with grows as I feel it would flow more nicely).
Other than gramatical reccomendations I thought the post as a whole was well done. The only other thing I would like to point out is that there is not really a transition into your last paragraph. I would reccomend making a more distinct connection between that and the paragraph before it.

Term Paper Part 2

Another level that helps affirm the idea and fact that Raskolnikov only does good actions in order to benefit himself is the fact that many of his actions are taken in order to seemingly gain control over whoever he is helping. Many of Raskolnikov’s ideas are based around the theories and admiration of Napoleon, even his paper on ‘Great People’ used napoleon as one of the examples of a ‘great person’ and Raskolnikov openly states multiple times throughout the novel about how he has always looked up to the kinds of Napoleon. Also, some of the times that Raskolnikov helps people, he does so in such a way in which it could be interpreted that he is trying to gain a rise out of the fact that he is effectively in control of that person’s life. For example, when he gives money to the family in need, he seems to openly get a rise out of the fact that he is helping them survive and that he is effectively their only source of money, and their survival and well-being is based entirely on his decision of whether or not he gives them the money. Another thing that Raskolnikov does in order to seemingly prove his Napoleonic desires is the fact that he wants to be able to prove that he is different and therefore better than everybody else because he reaches over many of the societal bounds and expectations placed on people, for example, his willingness to kill to justify his goal, as he specifically stated in his paper. His efforts to help others also seem like an attempt for him to show that he is better than everybody else, because there is a constant theme that certain people are dressed better than him and that there are very clear distinctions in the different levels of society and that it is clear that some people are better in society. There are also multiple points in which he is verbally uncomfortable with the position he is in  in society and how he feels the need to prove he is better than everybody else, which he is able to accomplish through his decisions to help others that he deems to be in need. This is yet another way in which he is only helping others in order to help himself, instead of it being out of his own desire to help others, proving that he is much more selfish than he intentionally portrays himself to be. Yet, there are some other actions for which he cannot justify using the fact that he is trying to help himself where he is, in fact helping others out of the goodness of his heart, and some of those people are the people who eventually bring out his more humane side after he goes to prison and comes out being a changed man in the epilogue of the book. 

Second Part of Term Paper (Alexia Barrios)

An aspect of committing such a vicious crime that Raskolnikov that he seemed to have overlooked was the psychological turmoil that consisted of intense guilt, which results in the semi-delirious state that it threw him in. Shortly after the murders are committed, it is visible that Raskolnikov’s previously strong mental state becomes to deteriorate due to his guilt. His once lucid thoughts become sporadic and nonsensical as he falls deeper and deeper into delirium as he struggled whether or not to confess to the murders. There are several moments throughout the novel in which he comes so close to confessing, but then retracts himself or teases with the person to whom he was about to confess to.

“What was taking place in him was totally unfamiliar, new, sudden, never before experienced. Not that he understood it, but he sensed clearly, with all the power of sensation, that it was no longer possible for him to address these people in the police station, not only with heartfelt effusions, as he had just done, but in any way at all, and had they been his own brothers and sisters, and not police lieutenants, there would still have been no point in this addressing them, in whatever circumstances of life.”

This quotation, which was thought made by Raskolnikov in Part II Chapter I, illustrates Raskolnikov’s realization on the topic that his murdering of Alyona and Lizaveta has resulted in his complete isolation from society. This alienation and separation of himself from the society in which he lives in was one that began with his superiority complex, but the isolation grew much more once the murders were committed. The murders in a sense completed his separation, as he has now truly crossed over the lines and broken whatever ties he had left to humanity. His guilt only grows more intense as the novel continues, thus causing the separation between himself and society to grow as he grows unable to hold conversations without sounding as though he is a lunatic. This alienation increases along with his guilt to the point where he completely removes himself from his family and friends when it comes near to him confessing to Sonya near the end of the novel.

The city of St. Petersburg is represented by Dostoyevsky to be filthy and overly crowded by a variety of low class citizens as drunks are sprawled along the streets, and women force their children out on the streets to beg for money. This clutter and chaos that is St. Petersburg is one that is directly correlated with Raskolnikov’s mental state as he comes near the time of confessing as all the negative factors of the city “contributed to irritate the young man’s already excited nerves”. This negative image that Dostoevsky presents plays a vital role in the alienation of Raskolnikov as well. Through Raskolnikov’s eyes the city is presented to be infest with drunkards, molesters, and other vile creatures, all of which he believes to be much lower than himself. This belief directly correlates with his superiority climax thus stemming with his alienation. Due to the fact that the city is inhabited by such vile creatures, he does not associated himself with any of them, and finds himself continually disgusted by the mere sighting of a drunkard like Marmeladov at a bar.

RACHAEL MARKS RETURNS

Since this is my first post I will tell you what I plan to do with my topic (along with what the topic is). I'm sorry for the fact that this may be a longer read than the other posts due to my being behind.
My topic is: Raskolnikov's (yes I now am writing his full name since I know how to pronounce it now) internal struggle in comparison to the elements of internal struggle in poetry (namely the works of Elizabeth Bishop and Erica Jong).
I plan on addressing what internal struggle is and the elements of choices, regret, control, desire, reflection, and coping.

Within the novel Crime and Punishment, there is an extrodinary amount of internal struggle. Raskolnikov is the main subject of this conflict as there is rarely a moment where he is not contemplating his actions, trying to find a solution, or attempting to make a decision. Most of his struggle is linked to Aliona Ivanovia with the struggle he is faced with before and after murdering her. It can be said that internal struggle is one of the stronest themes of Crime and Punishment, an argument that would commonly be found in regards to poetry.
Much like this novel, poetry in its entirity is difficult to completely pin down as having one key theme, but more often than not poetry carries out the theme of internal struggle. Even authors that are not as dark as the context of this novel will struggle with issues that plauge their minds. It is not only the Sylvia Plath's and Edgar Allen Poe's that are tortured by self inquery, but the romantics and the seemingly fulfiled poets as well.
Not one person can say they have lived a single day without facing one internal struggle. The struggle does not have to be "should I murder?" it could be as simple as "should I get a drink of water?". In some beliefs, poetry is one of the key ways of addressing this conflict. Whether it is the authors voice or not, poetry written in first person typically finds the narrator dealing with their personal problems. Poetry can be seen as a way of getting out a person's feelings and helping the person deal with their frustration or confusion, much like Raskolnikov does through battling himself inside and outside of his head. Many of his battles can be seen as having somewhat of a poetical composition to them (considering that poetry is not only rhyme and lyrical patterns). In that argument, it can be said that Raskolnikov, along with many other characters in Crime and Punishment, can be associated with poets like Elizabeth Bishop and Erica Jong (amongst many others).
Erica Jong and Elizabeth Bishop are not poets who construct poems with questionable sanity to the level of Crime and Punishment, but this factor makes them all the more interesting to use them as a comparison. They are not concerned with exactly the same matters as the novel, but dwell on similar conflicts in a repitive fashion. Many of Jong's poems address the conflict of a woman's place in society, while Bishop addresses the subject of unkempt desire. Crime and Punishment and these two poets are all on the same track of longing something or someone in a certain fashion. Their yearning can be seen as a weakness, but also a self reflective attribute. They touch very little on the subject of action, but there are moments where they will get up and do something to shape their conflict, even if it is not what they want to do. Jong and Bishop can be used to capture the essence of each stage of Raskolinkov's internal struggle, as if to show that everyone has the same amount of conflict raging in their head.

Comment on Alexia's paper

I think Alexia is on the right track with her term paper. The writing is concise and fluid and she provides a lot of details in a short space. I like her transitions and how she moved from paragraph to paragraph. Maybe in the beginning she can elaborate a little more on Dostoyevsky's life before jumping into the analysis of Raskolnikov and Crime and Punishment. That's the only constructive criticism I can provide for the rest of her paper is pretty good so far. Compared to mine, I feel like mine is not eloquent enough.

100 Word Comment on Alexa's Essay

Your essay so far is very good and the main suggestion I have is that you try to split up what you have so far, I am not sure if it is supposed to be one large paragraph, or the spacing did not show up. Another comment I have is that you go into a lot of detail about Dostoyevsky, which is very good, but you should probably start talking about the book a little bit sooner, or cut down on some of the details because I feel they take up just a little too much space. Other than that the writing is very good and I can’t quite tell where you transition into your thesis, but that could just be the spacing not showing up.

Comment on Luisa's First 500 Words (Alexia Barrios)

Your introduction was very informative in that it presented a lot of interesting and important facts about the history and the novel that prepare for the presentation of your topic. In the second paragraph though at times it seems like you are rephrasing or repeating what you had previously wrote in the introduction. Also I am not sure if that is the end of the first paragraph but I think you could have used some more detailed and specific examples in order to better support what you previously mentioned in the introduction. You used a lot of detail in the introduction and I just think you need to continue that in the first paragraph, but other than that I think you have a good start and the topic that you have chosen is interesting and there is a lot that you can discuss in your paper.

Part 1 of Term Paper (Alexia Barrios)

 Fyodor Dostoevsky is a highly regarded Russian novelist whose literary works are influenced by a variety of topics based on the corrupt political and social atmosphere that was 19^th century Russia. Dostoevsky early view of the world was shaped by his experiences with social injustices and the overall tragic events that occurred throughout his life. It can be argued that he himself was somewhat alienated from society as he became active in socialist circles that were against the current political reforms that were occurring during that time period, as they consisted of a small group of people. His joining of such groups and his political opinions is what lead to his arrest as him along with others were illegally printing and distributing social propaganda. One of his most rewarded literary works is Crime and Punishment, a novel that is a psychological analysis of the main character, Rodion Ramonovich Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov believes in the capability that certain “great men” have the capability to disregard the moral code as well as those set up by society in order to commit crimes that would accomplish a certain task that they find committing such a crime would be justifiable. It then can be argued that in reality he is simply attempting to logistically justify his “evil thoughts” about the disliked pawnbroker who which he later murders in cold blood justifying this gruesome event as one that was necessary and that would benefit society as he has now eliminated an unwanted and evil presence. Raskolnikov, due to social, environmental and psychological aspects that are expressed within in the novel, had become alienated from society. This alienation stems from the environment of St. Petersburg, which was inhabited by those whom he considers far more inferior then him, and from psychological aspects such as his superiority complex and growing guilt.

             Throughout the novel, we are introduced to several different aspects and sources of Raskolnikov’s alienation, one of the many being the social aspect of it, which is the first that is introduced in the novel. Originally, his alienation stemmed from his superiority complex in which he saw himself as superior to all those who also inhabited the city of St. Petersburg and supported by his belief in the idea of a “superman”. Dostoevsky sets this up in an interesting manner as he leaves the character nameless for some time but provides some clues as he describes him to be tall and handsome, which may foster his proud and contemptuous nature, as well as someone who is emotionally detached from humanity and overly conscious. From the beginning of the novel his air of superiority is evident due to the manner in which he speaks and views those who reside in the city. Throughout the novel he continually describes them to be inferior in both physically appearance, evaluating both beauty and the manner in which they dress, and in their intellectual capabilities. Due to this, he is unwilling to make any lasting connections with those who live alongside him as he finds himself to be to great of a person to socialize with those whom he views as much lower than himself, when in reality he is in the same financial state as those who he criticizes so harshly. Also, the fact that he views himself as a “superman”, or a person who is extraordinary in sense that they are above the moral rules that govern humanity, is a factor in which he justifies his alienation as though it almost compels him to do so. As the plot develops, it also comes to light his inability and unwillingness to create and sustain healthy relationships with those who are trying to help him. As he becomes more secluded and inwardly drawn into his guilt and torment, his sister Dunia, his mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna, and one of his closest friends Razumikhin, away as they try to help him both before the murders as he struggled with poverty, and during his tumultuous psychological state afterwards.

first 540 wordsss

Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of the most prolific writers in Russia’s history. He is best known for his works that criticized the state of the Russia he lived in. He focused mostly on the social, economic, humanitarian, and political factors of the time period he was in. When he wrote one of his more famous novels, Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky was in late 1860’s  St. Petersburg. Czar Alexander II had just come into power at this time after the Crimean War, and he was a liberal man whom began reforms in the government, military, judiciary, and education (“History of St. Petersburg”, 2001). His reforms called for twenty-three million serfs to be emancipated while St. Petersburg was a prominent economic center, which resulted in complete havoc and poverty. Thousands of people were sent to prison in Siberia during this turbulent time (“Crime and Punishment Setting”, 2008). Ironically, Dostoevsky himself spent some time exiled to Siberia after being in the military. In his novel, Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky portrays a character who isolates himself from the society around him (late 1860’s St. Petersburg) and performs both acts of extreme cruelty — killing two innocent women — and others of great love, which presents to the reader an intense inner and outer conflict. This is Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky poses a question on the goodness of humanity, mental stability, and being an outcast of a strict society can lead to through this character. Dostoevsky makes use of psychology in Freud’s teachings, research, sociopaths, and humanity’s “dark thoughts” to indirectly explain the protagonist’s actions. Raskolnikov, having been raised in very rough, violent, and poor conditions, did consider himself a hero by “eliminating” Alianova and Lizaveta, yet he regretted and feared the consequences because there was a very humane side to him which knew, morally, killing two innocent women was extremely wrong and there would be grave consequences to face.

Raskolnikov, the protagonist yet “bad guy” of Crime and Punishment, is a young man who is a complete outcast, rejected from society out of his own will. He decided to isolate himself from his surroundings and live in a disgusting, old, one bed room apartment all on his own mind. Just from that, one can immediately pick up that Raskolnikov is not entirely “normal”. He is a very contradicting person that has the reader completely confused and not knowing which side to pick since the very first page of the novel. The bad thing about Raskolnikov is that he secretly kills two entirely innocent women, Alianova and Lizaveta, with an ax. The reason behind this is dumbfounding — Alianova did not belong on the world anymore, she was a waste of space and time. This presents many mental problems that Raskolnikov has which will be looked at more in depth further on. There is an entire opposite flip side to Raskolnikov, though. At heart, he is actually very generous. This is what throws every single reader off about this character. Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov performs several good deeds that prove he does have good intentions. These two sides of Raskolnikov present an argument that only the psychology of his character explain.

Comment on Josh's First 500 Words

Josh, I thought your introduction was great. It was very informative, and you presented the novel and Dostoevsky very well. I think you go into the first body paragraph a little too directly, I think you should have a topic sentence about the paragraph before stating exactly what the main support for his behavior is and his dream. I think in that topic sentence you should mention his selfishness and that he basically kills two people for no reason -- and then go on with the first sentence you have no which explains how he got the idea. Once you have those two sentences, then continue on with the paragraph as you did. Overall, you chose a really good topic which I think will be really interesting for this paper. It's starting off really well.

Term Paper Part 1

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a well-known Russian storywriter whose works were focused on and heavily influenced by the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmosphere of 19^th century Russia. Many of his novels held central themes and ideas which were usually directed towards the works of other Russian writers and their books. One of Dostoyevsky’s more notable books, Crime and Punishment focuses on the societal definition of good and whether the different structures in society should be broken in order to accomplish certain objectives. The main character in the novel, Raskolnikov, decides that it would be beneficial to murder a pawnbroker, based on insufficient social justifications, and his idea of ‘great people.’ Raskolnikov believes that ‘great people’ should be allowed to break down the rules of society if they have a goal or idea that is worth being spread. Throughout the book, Raskolnikov seems to act as though he is trying to help everybody around him, yet it is never clear that he is doing it only for the good of others. When considering the way Raskolnikov acts one can determine that his acts of generosity were out of a general need to feel in control over the suffering of others, even though his split personality contradicts itself against this statement.

The main support for the idea that he only does things to feel better about himself is the dream that Raskolnikov had about the horse that was beat to death, and the effect it had on him. The main component of the dream is the absolute dread that he felt over the fact that he was completely hopeless and helpless to save the horse and this hopelessness had a definite impact on him. He used this aversion to helplessness to justify his killing of the pawnbroker because the pawnbroker was known to be abusive of her sister, and her sister was in a position where she was entirely helpless. Raskolnikov thought that by killing the pawnbroker, he would be able to help someone else out by getting them out of the helpless position they were in, yet it is obvious that this was merely a secondary justification for the murder, the initial being his plan to rob her. The fact that he ended up murdering the pawnbrokers sister after murdering her shows that he was not really thinking about helping her as much as he was thinking about trying to get away from the murder with the stolen items, and without getting caught. Even though Raskolnikov felt terrible about murdering the pawnbroker’s sister, he clearly saw the necessity in murdering her as well in attaining his own goals, which were so much more important than his secondary goal of helping others. This general pattern where Raskolnikov uses the justification of helping others in order to accomplish his own will repeats itself throughout the book, justifying the idea that Raskolnikov only helps others when he can truly benefit, not out of the goodness of his heart. 

Term paper part 1

Fyodor Dostoyevsky was a brilliant Russian fiction writer, journalist, and publisher in the 1800s. Dostoyevsky wrote many short stories and novels but is most commonly known for his book Crime and Punishment. He had a gambling problem, suffered from epilepsy, and had constant financial problems, and similar to the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, he even spent time in a Siberian prison. Dostoyevsky first published Crime and Punishment in the year of 1866 where he submitted twelve monthly installments to a journal, Russki Vestnik (Russian Messenger.) According to letters translated by George Gibian, Dostoyevsky was under extreme pressure, both time and money wise, while writing Crime and Punishment. In addition to having to write and publish monthly installments of the story to the journal, Dostoyevsky had to come up with and write another novel altogether for a different publisher. That book ended up being one of his other more famous pieces of literature- The Gambler. The whole process left Dostoyevsky extremely depressed. Essentially, he was writing two books at the same time all while being broke, trying to ignore the temptations of gambling, suffering from random epileptic attacks, and grieving the death of his late wife. The mere fact alone that he was able to complete the two novels in an orderly fashion while staying on track during all of the hardships present in his life is incredibly admirable. His life troubles actually helped inspire a lot of the themes that make up Crime and Punishment. It is a complex and detailed story of criminality, morality, and guilt. Based around the main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment tells the story of an "ex-student" who acts upon "bad thoughts" he has from the beginning of the novel. After indulging in his fantasies and murdering two women, it is abundantly clear that Raskolnikov is guilty of his actions. In the novel, he justifies his crimes in his own way, going through different emotions and theories before he finally reaches the root cause of his action. The psychology behind Raskolnikov's character is intriguing and difficult to interpret. After robbing and murdering the pawnbroker and her sister, Raskolnikov must come to terms with his feeling, or lack of feeling, of what he just did. By the end of the novel, his remorse for the act and his motive is never fully explained. To him, the whole idea of what happened is confusing and he even goes as far as admitting that he did not understand why he killed them. He argued that the pawnbroker added nothing to society and therefore her death is of no consequence- nobody would miss her so it basically did not matter if she were dead or alive. But throughout it all, he still feels guilty. The guilt itself is his true punishment for the murder. While he cannot figure out why he did it, he does know that his guilt indicates that he is not a complete monster. Though it is evident that Raskolnikov feels immense guilt for the murders he committed, not once does he consider the possibility that what he did was immoral or wrong. Raskolnikov truly believes that his actions are noble and his crimes justified due to his suffering of an existential crisis, his psychological makeup, and his theory of "the extraordinary man."