My (Alexia) Reaction to Josh's Post

I really love your interpretation of Raskolnikov's moral compass. I totally agree when you said that he believes that killing the pawnbroker is the only right thing to do when he hears someone complaining about her, and he justifies it that if someone else thinks this way about her then it must be true thus supporting his belief that he can murder her. I found that he used this and the fact that he finds out that she will be home alone at a certain time as an excuse and justification for his rationality about murdering Alyona. I also do not believe that Raskolnikov is a good person even though he has brief moments of compassion, that sometimes make me believe otherwise. They are just that, they happen for a moment and then he is back to be the self absorbed man that he normally is. I find it interesting that you think that the way the book is written show him as "morally perfect". When I read it I didn't find him to be morally perfect but I can see how Dostoyevsky through his writing style tries to justify his thoughts and actions thus making readers want to perceive him as "morally perfect". I never thought that his overexposure to the poverty and unjust society that he is surrounded by possibly affected his idea and over assumption of justice, but I can definitely, now going back, see how that could have affected him along with his anti-social personality and fragile mental state. Overall, we seem the perceive the same ideas and concepts from the story thus far.

The Ambiguity of It All

To me, the mystery and ambiguity of Raskolnikov's past and personality makes this book so much more interesting than it really is. Overall, I find Crime and Punishment to be a bit boring at times, and other times I find it to be a bit disturbing (like the passage about Roskolnikov's dream about the horse). Generally, I do not like reading murder-mystery type books, but so far this book is keeping me on my toes. Some of the same questions I've had since the start of the book still haven't been answered and it's quite frustrating. I hate when authors purposefully withhold important background information and big details about main characters from the reader. It makes me feel like I know nothing about Roskolnikov, even though I've been reading about him for a lengthy amount of time now. I give props to Dostoyevsky, because the elusiveness of Raskolnikov is intriguing and makes me want to continue reading until I figure him out. I hate how "hot and cold" he is, though. One minute he's an arrogant, self-centered egomaniac and the next he's a caring, compassionate human being. His personality is up and down, which makes his thoughts and actions quite unpredictable (another aspect I enjoy about C&P), but sometimes it's hard to follow. I still do not understand why he murdered Alyona. His motives are unclear, and it's pretty confusing trying to decode his thoughts and actions. I just wish Dostoyevsky would throw us a bone every once in a while, and give us a few hints as to why Raskolnikov is the way he is. 

A Mysterious and Confusing Man

In this weeks reading we finally witness the murder of Alyona which in my opinion was inevitable, but something that has been a little ambigious and mysterious throughout the novel are his motives for murdering her. Now that I come to think of it, there is very little we know about the Raskolnikov. For example, how did he end up in such a state of poverty? Why did he quit school? I am dying to know the answers to these questions, because personally I am struggling to get a feel of Raskolnikov which would help me understand him better. One moment he seems entirely conceited and self absorbed, but then in the following paragraphs he begins to reveal a compassionate side to him, and though it is brief and he goes back to being self absorbed, that moment still happened and leads me to doubt my previous analysis's of him. He is constantly battling with his emotions and his rational thoughts and throughout the novel flip flops between one and the other. In Chapter 5 for example, he has this gruesome dream about a mare that was beaten and murdered in front of him and he is horrified at the thought of killing Alyona, but his rational thoughts tell him he has every right to murder her. Moments after he finds out that Alyona will be alone tomorrow at around 7 p.m., and that repulsion he had only moments before disappears and now he is determined to perform the crime more than ever since he finds this coincidence to be sign when more likely it is just an excuse he is coming up to put the blame on something other than himself. In the end, this dream was foreshadowing the death of Alyona, who like the horse, was murdered gruesomely with an axe, but with Raskolnikov being a character who flip flops between emotions and rationality, it is possible in next weeks reading he will feel remorse for the murder and punish himself in some way or another for the crime he has committed.

Comentary on Raskolnikov Moral Compass Chapters 5-6

          In this reading we get another example of how Raskolnikov thinks that he is following a perfectly just moral compass, at least, based on his perception of the world. According to him, killing his pawn broker is only the right thing to do, he overhears another person complaining about her lending rates and just how badly she treats her sister, so Raskolnikov uses that as a reason to finally decide to kill her. From any outside perspective, his decisions would seem rash and unnecessary, but the novel is intentionally trying to make a distinction between different opinions on what is morally just. For me, I find that Raskolnikov is not truly a good person, even though the writing style and the way he portrays his actions, show him as morally perfect. This shows that in anyone’s eyes, without input from other people as to what is right and what is wrong, they might think that something as terrible as murdering an old woman, is completely justified. One explanation for this over assumption of justice on Raskolnikov’s part might be due to his overexposure to the unjust and morally degraded sides of society throughout his life. That combined with his anti-social nature gives him no direction for what is right outside of his own perception. It is almost as if Raskolnikov gets on a power high whenever he feels he is doing something morally just. He is not doing it to help other people, he only does it so that he can fulfill his desire to have power over someone else who is in a worse condition to him. 

My Comment on Rachael's Post (Alexia Barrios)

I must agree that Pulcheria Alexandrovna, or “Mama Raskolnikov”, is as you said “quite the character”. Like you said nothing is “simple” with this woman. I really do not know how this letter fit on two pages.  With her extensive use of adjectives and detailed descriptions of so many events starting with Dounia’s former employer hitting on her, the embarrassment that followed, and finally her engagement, I would have expected this letter to be much longer than two pages (but maybe her handwriting was small, who knows). When reading her letter, her language and use of adjectives really provided me with a better understanding of both her and Raskolnikov’s sister. Mama Raskolnikov describes Dounia as “an angel”, but as you said we don't know if she really is one or not, and just like you, I am anxious to find out whether her description of Dounia and all the other characters that were mentioned in her letter are accurate. I like how you found that connection between the quote on page 39 and a possible allusion to the fact that she is not providing us with a proper description of these characters. I did not recognize it at first but know I definitely see it as a possibility, because like the quote says we cannot “…judge a man without seeing him up close for oneself” (39) and we have yet to meet any of these characters.

Comment on Josh's Reaction

I find it interesting that you think Raskolnikov has redeeming qualities such as selflessness, because my reaction to these chapters was completely different. To me, it seems like you think that Raskolnikov is actually good on the inside, because he helped a defenseless girl out and gave away some of his money, of which he barely has, to help someone else out besides himself. While he did give money to a cop to take the girl back home in a cab, and also paid for said cab, I can't help but feel like he did it as some kind of power trip or to make up for some goodness that he clearly lacks. The way that he is characterized makes it seem like there is nothing good about him (but that's just my opinion and, of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion). I think that Raskolnikov would help the girl out to satisfy some inner need to seem like the hero. He knows he's not a good guy so he's trying to prove to himself that he isn't all bad, but I could be wrong. Surely, nobody could be all terrible. 

Raskolnikov's Pride Somewhat Explained

     In the third chapter, I got the answer to one of the many questions I had throughout the first and second chapters: how did Raskolnikov develop such a large ego and pride? The answer- his family. The incredulous devotion of his mother and sister, who are strangely willing to make huge sacrifices for him without hesitation, can definitely be considered some of the larger influences on his personality. 

     The way in which he reacts to the news of Dunya's engagement further exemplifies how egotistical he really is. If he were a part of my family, his self-absorption would be extremely old by now- how his sister and mother put up with him is beyond me. When he determines that he will not allow his sister to sacrifice herself for his sake- how sweet and caring of him, right?- it further shows how he does not even take Dunya's wishes into consideration and believes his opinion to be the only important one.

     The personality of his mother comes through clearly in her letter. It is obvious that, like any good mother, she cares for her son and would go to any length to see him happy, including supporting Dunya's self-sacrifice for his benefit. I enjoyed reading the letter mainly due to the colorful language and description his mother uses when writing it; her character really shines through.  

     I think Dostoevsky uses Pulcheria’s letter as a means of providing us readers with a ton of background information on these two supporting characters (and Luzhin) so that when Raskolnikov interacts with them in the future we have a deeper understanding of them right off the bat.