Even when Newton discovered gravity, he questioned the fact that why did the apple fall from the tree? Similarly, Raskolnikov concludes that murdering the pawnbroker is morally right as he challenges himself.
He sees how the old women the pawnbroker is exploiting the poor people by not giving them what they deserve. He also understands that the pawnbroker has made her sister a slave in her house and makes her do all her work. She has taken her freedom of life and is now torturing her and bending her into submission.
So, by this process of questioning, the reasons and concludes that murdering the pawnbroker would be a kind act for the society, keeping in mind the example of Napoleon. As Raskolnikov talks about how the extraordinary people have the right to crime of course not an official right but a private right to bring out their ideas.
He speaks of Newton and how he had the right to get rid of those hundreds of people who were obstacles in his path towards the discovery of gravity. Before committing the murder, Raskolnikov has dreamed of a horse being brutally beaten to death by his very owner. As he was a small child during that time, he felt powerless and could not stop that incident from happening.
But in the present time, he thinks of the pawnbroker as the owner of the horse and her sister, Lizaveta, as the poor horse. He must act now to correct the inability to act that he had in the past. By murdering the old woman, his crime would be that of a great man, ridding society of oppressive people.
During the discovery of gravity, Newton had the right to kill hundreds of people who would act as an obstacle in his way of bringing out an idea for the better development of the world. After the murder, he is mentally destroyed. The symbols in the novel are not quite as clear as Hawthorne's symbols, for instance. Nevertheless, there are some important ones.
I think the primary symbol to pay attention to is the land itself. Russian authors of the 19th century put a lot of emphasis on land. One example of this is when Sonia instructs Raskolnikov to kiss the ground. There is something about returning to the land and respecting the land that is key. Another symbol is academia. Raskolnikov and Razumikhin were friends in university together, and Razumikhin represents this in the story. Likewise, there is a lot of discussion about Raskolnikov's publication of the extraordinary man theory.
A couple of smaller images appear from time to time, but I'm not sure I could write a whole essay about them. Anyway, good luck and I hope this helps! I just read the part where he tries to confess and explain his ideas to Sonia, and well the first thing I thought of was that it wasn't very different from an existentialist take on murder, similar in fact to the Stranger perhaps, but presenting its counterpart at the same time.
The idea of murder as an act of freedom came to mind. I think the idea of the "extraordinary man" transgresses on the fantastical on purpose. In our era, it seems a bit ridiculous to look to Napoleon as a role model.
Maybe it was not so then, but still the point is made that he was no necessarily a good man. I think raskolnikov's desire to be extraordinary can be rephrased as a desire to be Consequential. A Consequential man whose acts have a clear and irrevocable impact upon the world. His crisis stems from a fear of fading into the mass of humanity,of being subdued to the life of the many, of leading a life where none of his actions really matter. It is all the human race, it is all the normal course of history, and it is all the same whatever he may do with his life.
Studying, not studying, the fate of his family. He is caught in a crisis where he desperately needs to reaffirm his existence, his freedom to choose, and his ability to effect change. The most extreme expression of this, the most irrevocable act available to him, in his ungloriously unnapoleonic condition, is the murder. The problem is, though, that it doesn't work. Nothing really changes much. Thank you for these latest comments. I am never tired of exploring this aspect of the story, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
I think I am much in agreement with you. In particular, I loved: "He is caught in a crisis where he desperately needs to reaffirm his existence, his freedom to choose, and his ability to affect change. It's interesting that you draw comparison to The Stranger, which is certainly identified as an existential text. Perhaps a key difference is that readers tend to embrace Raskolnikov and get turned off by Meursault.
Yet it's entirely conceivable that they were facing the same root distress. And indeed, their actions do not ease their distress much, if at all. I suppose the next question would be whether an existential crisis can be resolved at all I do agree with you fully, but I also want to pinpoint the importance of the others reasons of the murder.
The idea of murder , I consider as a result of his poverty. That is, his wish for money let him think of murdering the old woman. When Raskolnikov is planning the murder, he is disgusted by his own plans, and thinks he cannot fulfil them. When he receives a letter about Dunya's impending marriage, I believe it is some kind of trigger. That he again wishes the money. Still, I do believe your reasons are more important, but I would not completely dismiss his wish for money. Does it affect the plausibility of the narrative?
How does it affect the pacing? Crime and Punishment abounds with coincidences. Although he is extremely reluctant to kill Alyona before he overhears the conversation, one can argue that he truly desires to kill her and is simply waiting for a sign that he is fated to do so. Support for this claim can be found in the fact that when he overhears that Alyona will be alone at home the next evening, he senses that circumstances support his decision to commit the murder.
The coincidence of Raskolnikov coming across the just-injured Marmeladov, on the other hand, makes no statement on his character. Thus, Raskolnikov desperately grasps at anything that will pass as a coherent and satisfying explanation. In delineating his explanation of how spitefulness and insanity lead him towards murder, he interjects three parenthetical phrases to stabilize and support his wobbly new hypothesis.
Raskolnikov resorts to claiming that he has an adequate explanation, but simply cannot articulate it. Despite all his efforts to neatly outline the motivations behind his murder, Raskolnikov only manages to spout discordant and slipshod half-notions. His attempts to think through and articulate an adequate explanation require the exertion of extreme mental effort. The mental toll upon him even manifests itself physically as Raskolnikov periodically hangs his head, holds his head, and eventually develops a headache.
Raskolnikov faults Sonya for all the anguish and frustration he experiences in trying to hash out an explanation. She is, after all, the one who demands from him an understanding of his crime. Rather than confronting the issue, he wishes to ignore it and brush it aside.
But each time, he realizes that Sonya either does not understand or does not believe his explanation, which once again thrusts him back into the excruciating process of strangling the truth out of himself.
She believes that honesty with himself will allow him to recognize his sin, which will prepare him for confession. Confession is necessary for suffering, which in turn is necessary for redemption and a return to God and society. However, Raskolnikov has difficulty handling the weight of emotional and intellectual honesty, as well as the suffering it promises to inflict.
Because Sonya passively forces him to confront his crime, he periodically falls to tormenting her. Whenever he cannot think of an explanation, he starts lamenting over the fact that he had ever come to her. Sonya meekly accepts the suffering that he passes on to her. Ironically, he himself does not understand what he is saying and what his real motive was for killing the pawnbroker. He is simply projecting his own confusion, bewilderment, and perplexity onto Sonya.
He reasons that, since she would not understand it anyway, he does not have to offer an explanation. Once she successfully forces the issue, he stops struggling with her and begins to struggle with himself.
0コメント