Crime and Punishment: The End

First and foremost, THANK YOU JESUS! You always said there's an end to every beginning...(or was that someone else?) Still, I couldn't have made it through this book without you.
Now, that thats done with, have you noticed that unconspicuous quote about love, from Raskolnikov? Well if you haven't, here it is:"Oh, if only I were alone and nobody loved me, and if I had never loved anyone! All this would never have happened!"(440). Raskolnikov is basically blaming all his troubles on love (for humanity too, maybe?). Yet, at the end, love gives him a reason for living (wonderful ending, by the way, him and Sonya forever). Could his new found love be another form of redemption? I think so, because of the reasons stated above. And did you catch the quote that minutely summarizes the body of the novel...?Okay, its this : "In the prison Rodion Raskolnikov, second-class convict, had been confined for nine months. It was almost eighteen since the day of the murder"(451). This quote is saying that a sentence for a crime begins right after you commit it (if you are guilty like Raskolnikov). This quote shows that Raskolnikov should've been in jail right after committing his crime since he was still "confined" either way.

Crime and Punishment: Close to the End

Well, there isn't much to say about poverty except the same old stuff: it sucks. And we also hear the same old thing about the city itself: its infested with drunks and poverty-ridden. But there is one thing thats interesting and related to my topic of symbols: we finally see the cross come into play. Sonya gives Raskolnikov a cross similar to hers to give him strengh for the upcoming days (assuming he confesses, of course), which really gets Raskolnikov thinking hard about confessing to the crime. And, to go a little more in depth, I think the cross symbolizes Raskolnikov's redemption and his turning over to God, and the cross may play an even bigger role in the upcoming chapters.

Crime and Punishment, Part Five: Chapters 1-3

I haven't been this satisfied for reading Crime and Punishment since...ever, actually. I LOVE the fact that Raskolnikov is interested in Sonya (finally, some romance, kind of) though I feel that it doesn't have the purest motives, but I'm taking whatever I can get. And Raskolnikov should REALLY look into the idea (NEED!) for killing Luzhin; his murder can be legally justified, trust me...

But here is something I picked up from tonight's reading: Raskolnikov has consumption (in the form of guilt). Consumption, in the novel, is first used in chapter 2 of part 5, refering to Katerina Ivanovna, her pride, and how it consumed her when she spent a lot of money on Marmeladov's repass. And why did Luzhin do what he did to Sonya? Maybe he has the consumption too---but of revenge, and it was probably directed at her because she is like Dunya, in his mind (poor and pitiful). And: Do you think people would have believed Sonya was innocent if Lebezyatnikov had not intervened? The answer goes back to today's discussion, so with that...no, people would've belived her guilty for a multitude of reasons. She is poor, needs to take care of her family, and is a prostitute. People would've thought her a money grubber and stealing the money wouldn't be beneath her.

So, those are my thoughts on the reading. They are completed. :)

Back to Crime and Punishment: Part 3-4

In Crime and Punishment, existentialist arguments and the belief of eternal recurrence are shown throughout the novel. Raskolnikov proves to be an existentialist (so far) through these quotes: "if men are not really scoundrels, men in general, the whole human race, I mean, -- then all the rest is just prejudice, imaginary fears, and there are no real barriers, and that is as it should be!"(22-23) and "he must put his trust in himself, not in prayer" (79). Then the examples of eternal recurrence, to me, is the scene where Svidrigaylov is talking to Raskolnikov and tells him about how he saw Marfa Petrovna after her death three times and also his old servant, Philka. This shows that situations and memories can repeat themselves (or that Svidrigaylov is psycho). Both existentialism and eternal recurrence are (somewhat) founded by Friedrich Nietzsche and influenced Dostoevsky, as shown through Crime and Punishment.

Yay---Wait, I Can't Even Fake My Joy. Whatever, Man.....

Basically, the psychopath test is an indicator to whether you are at risk of being a psychopath or not. So, if you are...? Go get some much needed help. If you aren't? Run along, back to your t.v., and finish watching your murder mysteries instead of being in them. A few questions before I publicly announce my score: In the recording, the people talked a lot about the PCL-R and how its used, but just how useful is it when a known psychopath shows signs, visually, of being reformed, yet the PCL-R says something different about their mentality? Does it fail to be useful then? And how can you condition someone to be empathetic when they have a bare understanding, or no understanding at all, of the term? As said in the recording, how can you teach a blind person what the color red is when they can't see it? And definitions only truly help those who have experienced the subject. To me, for the first question, the PCL-R is not all that useful when it comes to re-examining "former" psychopaths, since the PCL-R factors in information already known(such as the question of the person's juvenile delinqeuncy), making it unreliable for the "reformed". And, for the second question, its not possible for a psychopath to be conditioned to be empathetic, unless they have some understanding of it before hand.Oh, and before I forget, I'm not a psychopath. Be happy.

And a quote for the road: "Ye that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I pack a .357 magnum." (What every gangster should quote before making his rounds, if anything.)

Crime and Punishment, Part 2: Chapters 4-7

The only example of redemption in the novel so far is the scene in part 2 chapter 7 where Marmeladov is dying and a priest tells Katerina Ivanovna to forgive her husband , but she replies that she already has. More specifically, she says she has already forgiven him by claiming that she would wash his clothing (as well as the children's) during the night, helping him out knowing he wouldn't help her out. I think this scene alone shows that people can can be redeemed, in this case Marmeladov, because he is a horrible husband and father yet he has the redeeming qualities of being aware of his destructive tendencies  and being very empathetic towards his family. This scene also shows that in order to atone yourself of something terrible you must forgive. I feel this way because, in my religion, every person is redeemable, no matter what the crime is. And for some people, you just have to look SUPER hard.

Crime and Punishment, Part 2: Chapters 1-3

Dostoevsky is able to beautifully depict the life of the extremely poor because he was around it at an early age. I also think he will be able to accurately portray a madman (he's already started, hasn't he?) because he has lived near a lunatic asylum so has seen firsthand the behavior typical of madmen. Also, as said in another blog,  the inclusion of military and ex-military personnel in the novel most likely stems from Dostoevsky's own experience from attending a military engineering institute. From all this, and more, we can infer a few things about  Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment. First, that Raskolnikov may be an existentialist (I think we are seeing hints of this already)since Dostoevsky is one himself. And second, that Raskolnikov may suffer from horrible mental torture since Dostoevsky had gone through some of it when he was exiled and imprisoned. Now to...

Is a crime still a crime if no one finds out?

Depends. Crime is defined as "an unlawful act", right? If so, lets take away all laws (momentarily in our minds, of course). Imagine that we are neanderthals, lawless, with very primitive thoughts. Lets say I killed one of my fellow neanderthal's woman. Maybe she was mean to me; maybe she was mean to everyone and I just did us all a HUGE favor (Why I ever did it, its justified in my mind, so no one elses opinion matters to me). Anyway I did what I wanted to do and got what I wanted to get. But guess what? Caveman is mad. Caveman want justice (yet he doesn't know what the word means...). He doesn't know I did it, no one does. Even if he did, whats he gonna do? Call the cops on me? No. There is no law, thus no law protector. Now lets get back from our time traveling trip. In today's world (and Raskolnikov's), there are laws, there are law protectors. And I'm screwed if I do something "unlawful", Raskolnikov too, if someone sees. So... even if the before mentioned scenario does not apply to many situations, it applies to something, to someplace that has little or no laws, and that's why the answer depends.

Crime and Punishment: The Beginning

     The mood of the novel is of hopelessness and depression. The Raskolnikov, the main character, shows us the hopelessness and depression of the extremely poor through this quote: "Besides, the young man's heart was so full of bitter scorn that, in spite of his often very youthful sensitiveness,wearing his rags in the street caused him no embarrassment"(2).; he is so poor that even the state of his attire does not truly affect him (until later on). The point of view used in the novel is third person limited (so far) and the author does an effective job so far of showing us Raskolnikov's St. Petersburg. Characterization so far is mostly indirect, leading the reader to the discovery of a certain trait of a character, rather than saying it bluntly. The characters are well set up so far in the novel.

The Road: The Will to Survive is Carried on From Man to Man

Fire, a symbol and motif for life and the will to survive. In The Road, the fire is referred to many times by the Man and the Boy. At the end of the book we finally get an (implied) explanation of what they both mean by fire, what it represents: survival. The father tells the Boy that he has the fire and must continue to carry it, to live, basically. Fire, which sometimes flickers and then becomes steady once again, perfectly portrays the will to survive through the Man and the Boy.

The Road: Part 2

The Boy had complete faith in his father until their meeting with the first cannibal they came across; the first cannibal the Boy has ever seen. With each new experience that shows the reality of the world they live in, the boy becomes cautious, wary of everything, and doubts what his father, the Man, does. When the Boy seems to hit an all-time low in his faith for his father (when they're going through periods of silence), the Boy and the Man get into an insightful conversation that ends with this:
"You dont believe me."
"I believe you."
"Okay."
"I always believe you."
"I dont think so."
"Yes I do. I have to."

This quote shows that the Boy really does have faith (and trust) in his father and claims it to even be mandatory. Also, this excerpt can be used to argue that reality has set into the Boy (that having been why he's been non- communicative towards his father) and that he's realized that the father is all he has in this world.

The Road: Part 2

"No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later."

This quote explains how the Man and Boy's lives work: from day to day. When the fallout happened, you can say that time gradually ceased to matter; of course time still exists, but there is no reason for it besides the telling of night and day, but you don't really need time for that either, do you? The Man and the Boy have nothing planned, except for their destination, South. Each day brings something new: warmth, shelter, food, etc. They live in the moment, and this is all for their survival.

"You wanted to know what the bad guys looked like. Now you know. It may happen again. My job is to take care of you. I was appointed to do that by God. I will kill anyone who touches you. Do you understand?"
"Yes."
"He sat there cowled in the blanket. After a while he looked up. Are we still the good guys? he said."
"Yes. We're still the good guys. And we always will be."

The background for this quote is the conversation the Man and the Boy have after the Man saves the Boy from the cannibal by shooting him in the head when he holds the Boy hostage with a knife. This quote shows that the Boy is the only reason the Man lives, to protect him, and also poses the question of what it means to be a "good guy". Obviously, the Boy thought that being a "good guy" not only meant restraining yourself from committing cannibalism but being non-violent. This scene was probably the first time the Boy saw the Man do anything violent and it frightened him and switched around his understanding of "good guys".

And to answer the question of Yeat's and Eliot's vision of the end of the world compared to McCarthy's novel The Road, well, Yeat's most likely believed that humans are innately evil while Eliot believed that indecision between righteousness and sin was harsh and more evil than either of the two. But McCarthy's vision, I think, is in between Yeat's and Eliot's. In McCarthy's novel, the good are not completely good (for instance, when the Man shot the cannibal, even though he had good intentions) and the bad are not completely bad (think of the cannibals' will to survive).