Within the novel Crime and Punishment, there is an extraordinary 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 strongest themes of Crime and Punishment.
The novel's entirety is difficult to completely pin down as having one key theme, but more often than it carries out the theme of internal struggle. Even individuals that are not as dark as the context of this novel will struggle with issues that plague their minds. It is not only the Sylvia Plath's and Edgar Allen Poe's that are tortured by self inquiry, but the romantics and the seemingly fulfilled people as well.
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.
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?". The abundance of internal struggle people are subjected to have altered the course of social beliefs and many key events of history. The conflict of a women's place in society began in the heads of people who knew it was too controversial to admit to their thoughts. As horrific as murder is, Raskolnikov makes many interesting points in regards to justifying it. The ranting leads to action eventually. Unkempt desire gets the better of a person and they must do something in order to feel some sensation of forward movement. Raskolnikov is stuck in one place while he contemplates the murder, he is compelled to feel like he is no longer trapped in a routine. The way for him to break this is by acting on his desire. Ranting is no longer enough after a while, which can also be one of the reasons why he turns himself in at the end of the novel.
Raskolnikov's method of reflection is not exactly unique. It is more the fact that he speaks aloud that separates him from the majority of people. That is what leads the reader and his peers to question his sanity. It is true, though many people have a hard time accepting it, that most people dwell on similar conflicts in a repetitive fashion. When people have strong beliefs they use repetition to enforce their points. Repetition can be used as means of being heard, which sometimes it appears that Raskolnikov wishes he could be.
Crime and Punishment can be a book about longing for something or someone in a certain fashion depending how the reader looks at it. The process of analyzing literature must be done with acknowledgment that there is no singular meaning. A book can have several meanings, especially in a book with several characters like Crime and Punishment. It is not only Raskolnikov that holds the essence of longing, but practically every character. Their yearning can be seen as a weakness at some points, but at other points a self reflective attribute. Interestingly enough the novel does not give much detail on the actual action, but instead has shorter, more distinct moments where the characters will get up and do something to shape their conflict, even if it is not what they want to do. Raskolnikov's peers 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, despite how socially acceptable these conflicts may be.
In most instances in Crime and Punisment it all comes down to Raskolnikov finding himself having to make a choice. In regards to the abundance of these moments and their correlation to Raskolnikov's struggles it could be said that all internal struggle is a struggle between choices. Raskolnikov's most evident 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. At this point 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, as he must act on the unkempt 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. The reader must endure the ways that Raskolnikov unintentionally brings the element of punishment to himself. Even though the book takes place in third person and Raskolnikov is not usually speaking out loud, he is telling his story in a way not so different from someone writing in their diary. His words are possibly an attempt at understanding where he is and what he is going to do. A diary is recommended as a therapeutic means of understanding certain conflicts. The problem with Raskolnikov's rants is that, unlike a diary, he must keep them in his head. This can be a burden in regards to keeping secrets.
In some beliefs, ranting and writing are two of the key ways of addressing this conflict. Whether it is the authors voice or not, literature written in first person typically finds the narrator dealing with their personal problems. Long speech or verse 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 his ranting is a realistic form of a soliloquy.
Raskolnikov is somewhat comparable to Hamlet in his constant spoken battles. Instead of questioning whether or not he should kill himself, he is debating whether or not to kill and then what he should do about it. It is as if he is standing on stage and saying words that no one can hear, but in the real world it is perfectly plausible that someone may hear him. He is confessing his secrets out loud, but it may be that people find him insane and pass him by trying not to acknowledge him. Even Hamlet was overheard eventually.
In common methods of writing, a character 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. In the same way that Raskolnikov's rants, "Evidence of Life", by Erica Jong, circles, turns and contem plates in a similar method. This poem is comparable to Raskolnikov's thought stream in the way it doubts, but defends certain ideas. The narrator, 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, "& 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." (Jong). Even though Raskolnikov 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 from his struggles.
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 cur e/ 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 admit his actions 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.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment