... to make a first impression. So what's your first impression of Crime and Punishment? You might focus on Dostoevsky's style, the character of Raskolnikov (or another character), the novel's Petersburg setting, or a particular passage or idea presented in the first two chapters of the novel. You might also choose to pose a question about or provide an analysis of the novel thus far.
(We can use the comments below as a starting point for discussion of the beginning of the novel on Monday 12/1.)
16 comments:
My first impression of Raskolnikov's character is that he seems very proud, which causes him to be detached from the rest of society. He also seems to be in a questionable mental state as he contemplates a mysterious crime to commit. Raskolnikov is described as being tall and handsome, which may explain his sense of pride. His surroundings-which are of poverty and filth-may explain his detachment and mental condition. Raskolnikov seems to be stuck in a big cricle where his pride causes him to view others as inferior, and his minimal human interaction leads to his criminal ideas.
I agree with Carla that Raskolnikov seems rather unstable. He is paraniod about the way he looks when he goes out in public, making a big deal out if the shape of his hat because it in't inconspicuous; he talks to himself constantly (possibly due to his social isolation); he always hides what he wants to do, even from himself by saying "Am i capable of "that"", always leaving the act unknown. Plus, he seems rather sketchy or suspicious, such as when he looks around the old woman's room, asks her if she lives with anyone, and tells her that he is going bring her "something else in a day or two". He sound like a thief to me. Also, the fact that this is a translation is rather apparent due to the awkward phrases that he uses.
When first reading this I realized the constant detials of the poverty stricken around Raskolnikov. It appears as he is leaving his home and when he goes to the bar. It seems as if the word "drunkard" is attached to the word "poverty" in a way. Raskolnikov immediatly retreats to the bar after feeling that his plan will never work. At the bar another man appears who seems to be a habitual drinker. I find though that the two men have something in common. Raskolnikov and Marmeldov both appear in tattered clothes but do not show embarassment for such a thing. It seems as if both men are well aware of their surroundings but still keep a sense of pride.
I agree with both Carla and Paul. Raskolnikov's character certainly seems to be mentally unstable. He is constantly refering to some crime he wants to committ but he never states what it is. However, I also found Marmeldov's character very interesting. He randomly comes up to Raskolnikov in the tavern and proceeds to tell him his entire life story. Even if Raskolnikov wished to say something, he could not get in a word because Marmeldov is always talking. He answers his own questions and does not seem to care that the entire bar besides Raskolnikov is laughing at him. He does not take responsibility for his actions and makes Raskolnikov walk home with him because he is scared of his own wife. Marmeldov and Raskolnikov seem to be similar characters since they both have a large sense of pride and are educated yet live in states of poverty. I'm sure this is not the last time we will see Marmeldov's character.
I've got to say that I very much like Dostoevsky's style of writing. He seems to describe everything in precise detail, so that way you are able to completely visualize what is happening, in your head. As a result, the city of St. Petersburg seems to to be a character by itself, with the vivid descriptions of the poverty and filth throughout the sections that Raskolnikov walks through. Particularly vivid is the description of Marmeldov's home in that tenet building and how his family lives essentially in a hallway, not even a proper room. That, plus the description of the emaciated children and how the wife acts, all paints an especially vivid image of that building.
The most distinct attribute of chapters 1 and 2 that stands out to me is Raskolnikov's mental hysteria. On pgs. 1 and 2 he has his first "epileptic outbreak," in which his mind runs awry contemplating his cowardice. Dostoevsky amazingly conveys Raskonikov's crazed inner-psychological struggle. In his little outfit, the reader can tell that his mind is "all over the place." His distress is best summed up by his wandering thoughts where he thinks about how he talks to himself: "But I am talking too much. It's because I chatter too much that I do nothing. Or perhaps it is that I chatter because I do nothing."
So far I like the book because it keeps your attention, especially the second chapter. I thought it would go much slower because it was longer than the first but instead it keeps you reading as you long to find out each new detail about this random drunken man in the bar. With each detail, I like how the author gives us lots of details and really paints a full picture; we get closer and closer to understanding this man's life. I think that this is really the point of the story, to view life from a perspective we aren’t used to and to gain insight into a way of life that we usually condemn without thought. But after hearing the story I almost start to feel bad for Marmeldov, even thought the situation he is in is entirely his fault, it still stinks and the way it is presented makes you feel pity for him. I like a story that gets me emotionally involved, it holds my attention and makes me curious enough to continue reading and delve into the story. I am wondering if Raskolnikov is going to just keep leading us to new people, each who lead a different type of life to show us different perspectives or if we will keep returning to Marmeldov and his family. So… so far the book is pretty good and has my curiosity peeked.
Oh yea and by the way I agree with Katie that "drunkard" and "poverty" keep the same company in this story. Maybe Dostoevsky is trying to convey a message to his readers that what a pitiful life it is to drink away the little money you have while your kids are at home screaming because that have no food and your wife is dying of consumption. And on the other hand, Raskolnikov seems to have no one so he turns to the men in the tavern. He says he wants to stay just because he wants company but turning to the other drunkards in the tavern is rather pathetic and serves to show just how low their lives have fallen.
Alan's statement that "the city of St. Petersburg seems to to be a character by itself" is a perfect way to describe the way Dostoevsky writes. All of the small details of prostitues, drunkards, the poor, etc, builds up to make the image of St. Petersburg whole. So far I've liked that aspect of the novel. Otherwise, I think that the story so far is depressing; definately not my choice of reading. Everything is so gloomy; the tattered clothes, the prostituion of Sonya to support the family(poor girl), the alcoholic father, the rest of the townspeople who lack any kind of respect for others, etc. There appears to be no positive light at all. The one small part I did like was how Raskolnikov leaves a little bit of money for the family. It certainly says something about his character when he himself has no money to spare. I'm also wondering why everyone is so poor. Is it their economy, government, or is it just a lack of work-ethic?
Raskolnikov seems to be very pround of who he is. He is decribed to be good-looking wehn the author says that he has "dark auburn hair and fine dark eyes." Even though he is wearing ripped clothes, and he is not in good conditions, Raskolnikov accepts himself and his surroundings, without complaining. I like his character.
I agree with Jess that it's definately not a feel-good novel, but nevertheless it is intriguing. Raskolnikov is thought provoking early on with his mumbling. But what is interesting is that he is aware of what he is doing, saying "But I am talking too much. It's because I chatter that I do nothing. Or perhaps it is that I chatter because I do nothing"(2). I don't think he could be crazy if he is so conscious that talks to himself, but rather he is highly introspective which makes him less perceptive to his surroundings. Even in the beginning his real concerns are with himself, like his clothes and his hat.
I think that the saddest thing about the characters thus far is that they seem to be immoral with the actions and thoughts they have, but its almost like they are forced or provoked to be immoral based on their poverty level. Like Sonya would never have to get into prostitution if she did not feel obligated to support her family. Raskolnikov would never need to be contemplating stealing from another if he had enough money to eat. Marmeladov would not be an alcoholic if his massive depression had not caused his addiction. An it seems cyclical, as they beat their children and hurt them it just causes more negativity in their environment. Yet, I don't think any character is "bad" at this point, their just all stuck in the same bad situation.
My first impression of the book is a "love-hate" type. I find the author overuses suspense in the book. It's annoying when we know there is some type of deed that is going to be committed, but we don't know what the deed will be. Details that the readers care about are revealed VERY slowly, which becomes irritating while I'm reading. However, when I look back on it now, the suspense, and this sort of feeling that makes me think "AHH I must read on to find this out!" makes the reading go by faster. I like the way this book grabs my attention, but I think I'm going to be very irritated with Dostoevsky by the end.
My first impression of the novel is that it is written in a completely different way than most things I've read. First of all, the transition from the first to second chapter is very strange. For example, things are randomly revealed at the end of the first chapter and all of a sudden, it ends. It feels like a new chapter is starting, and yet a page later the book shifts to an entirely new topic. Then, Marmeldov suddenly dominates the next chapter as if he has become the main character. If this is the way the book is written, where separate characters define each chapter (the pawn broker, Marmeldov, etc) i feel that this could be an interesting twist.
So far, I think dostoevsky has done a good job of analyzing raskolnikovs character using others. Compared to the pawn broker, we find rasc. a pretty likable guy. and then when looked at beside a "real drunkard" he looks like a saint. the comparisons make him not only look better, but do it in a subtler way. I like that.
so far i love the book and i mean everything about it, from his style to the content, but right now i am very anoyed by the way he doesn't name the strret and bridges they are like -----y street (i don't know if this is just my version) but i think it is very intereting that in all other aspects his attention to detail as in the description of the zimmerman hat are imense but then he doesn't even bother to even name the streets thers has to be something there. (and you never said these had to be in by a certain time so i hope you'll give me creadit granted these are all in by midnight)
As others have said, Raskolnikov's character definitely seems to be mentally unstable. One of the first things I noticed was the author's style of writing. I like how he sometimes puts the events in Raskolnikov's perspective (and every detail that runs through his mind) and sometimes he does it from the third person. I think that this attaching/detaching from Raskolnikov represents Raskolnikov's psychology and how sometimes he feels completely detached from society and at other times he desires to be a part of it.
I'll be honest, about a few things. This blog statement is going to be irrelevant.
1- Mr. Cianfloneeeee *whiney voice* I don't like blogging =(
2- I didn't realize we started reading this, so now (at 11:37) I need to read the first..what?...section of this six part book.
3- I didn't buy my new/own copy yet, so I can't even write in it *cry cry*.
I'll make a real comment about this soon. Promise. Once I read it.
Maybe tomorrow. =)
Goodnight blogger friends/classmates/Mr.Cianflone
Post a Comment