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.