Russian Literature is unlike anything we have ever read, right? Or...IS IT?
I have an opinion, of course. But, what do you think? Using only what we know of Part 1;
Compare Raskolnikov with a character from a book we have read (in class, 11th or 12th) using textual evidence from Part One of C&P and examples (if not direct quotes) from the other text to support your analysis of their similarities.
OR
Compare Dotoevsky with a writer that we have studied, using textual evidence from Part One of C&P and examples (if not direct quotes) from the other text to support your analysis of their similarities.
So I immediately thought of the character Darl from Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. Now I'm not sure if it's correct but I think Darl and Raskolnikov has many similarities.
Let's begin with Raskolnikov. In the beginning he is contemplating about whether "he should do it" and that "if [he] is scared now, what would it be if it somehow came to pass that [he] were really going to do it?" (pg. 8) He even began "torturing himself with such questions, and finding a kind of enjoyment in it." (pg. 46) Raskolnikov debates and questions whether or not he should kill Aliona Ivanovna. He tortures himself enough to the point that he does kill Aliona "with all his strength dealing another and another blow with the blunt side [of the axe] to the same spot." (pg. 77) Why I think Raskolnikov is like Darl is because they are both pretty crazy.
Darl, in As I Lay Dying, continually repeats over and over that his mother is dead and no longer living, rambles on about himself in third person (who does that), burns down an entire barn, and commits more weird acts. But one reason that I think Darl did all of those things were to cleanse away all of his emotional baggage for his now dead mother. Now, could Raskolnikov's reasons for acting totally and psychologically insane be of emotional reasons like Darl? Or just logical reasons? Whatever Raskolnikov's reasons, he is still crazy just like Darl.
Reply
Laurel Bell
3/20/2013 10:59:09 am
Angela, I agree with your choice. The moment I read the first discussion question, I thought of Darl. They aren't completely synonymous, but there are definite similarities. Both have psychological problems. There is an entirely different world within both of their minds and an conglomeration of ideas. Sometimes it's as if they do not need to interact with others. In Raskolnikov's case, he can be engrossed in "a complete blankness of mind" (pg. 6) without observing his surroundings. Darl was disturbingly smart and knew current events without being informed.
Both of these characters have the most intellectual, well considering Darl' circumstances, he was quite intelligent, conversations with themselves. The two absorb every detail and produce interesting observations. "'And what if I am wrong... What if man is not really a scoundrel man in general, I mean, the whole race of mankind-then all the rest is prejudice, simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be.'" (pg. 29) Although they were confusing, Darl could conjure up incredible ideas, if you viewed past the incessant rambling.
Darl and Raskolnikov are geniuses in their own rights, psychological, but still incredibly intelligent. After all, there is a fine line between insanity and intelligence. Both did what they felt was moral, and coincidentally, that led to their downfalls. It pushed them off the edge.
Reply
Clara Grace
4/6/2013 01:32:00 pm
Who better to compare Raskolnikov to than Grendel? They are both lean, mean killing machines, are terribly misunderstood by society, and hate every living thing around them. The comparison is so clear cut that I really don’t even have to write this prompt. I feel the Hulsey glare so I better just do it anyways.
Although I do not believe that Raskolnikov is an existentialist, he and Grendel are alike in more ways than one. Both come from mothers that they want to have a relationship desperately, yet both mothers fail to understand the complexities of their son. Also on this note, there isn’t a father present in both. Grendel and Raskolnikov were raised in poor surroundings. Very early on in both novels, the existentialist theory is presented. This causes Raskolikov to become a recluse, “completely [withdrawing] from everyone, like a tortoise in its shell.” (page 30) With Grendel, he also closes himself off, “[understanding] that, finally and absolutely, [he] alone exist[s]. all the rest, [he] saw, is merely what pushes [him], or what [he] push[es] against, blindly - as blindly as all that is not [himself] pushes back.” (Grendel) This discovery of existentialism causes a great hatred to grow in both of the characters. Raskolnikov sees humans as a waste. When he attempts to offer the prostitute assistance, he gets angry at himself for giving the rubles away. He thinks “and why did I want to interfere? Is it for me to help? Have I any right to help? Let them devour each other alive- what is to me?” page 51) Grendel also shares this disgust for the human race as he watches them terrorize each other; “they watch on, evil, incredibly stupid, enjoying my destruction.” (Grendel)
Along with this disgust for the waste of space which is the human race, both Grendel and Raskolnikov see that humans have no value of life and cannot appreciate time. Raskolnikov observes that “man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!” (page 29) Grendel recognizes the drones the humans have become, commenting “so childhood too feels good at first, before one happens to notice the terrible sameness, age after age.” (Grendel) The culmination of these interpretations lead to one terrible thing: violence. The incidences of violence from both characters are forced and gruesome in nature. Raskolnikov kills the old lady in cold blood; “with all his strength he dealt another and another blow with the blunt side, and on the same spot. The blood gushed as form an overturned glass, the body fell back.” (Page 77) Violence also envelopes Grendel’s mind: “I should have cracked his skull mid song and sent his blood spraying out wet through the mead hall like a shocking change of key.”(Grendel)
Their thought processes are very similar, always jumping from one idea to another via stream of consciousness. Before Raskolnikov kills the pawnbroker, he struggles internally as to if he should continue with his plan. “So he tortured himself, taunting himself with such questions, and finding a kind of enjoyment in it… Long, long ago his present anguish had its first beginnings; it had waxed and gathered strength, it had matured and concentrated, until it had taken the form of a horrible, wild and fantastic question, which tortured his heart and mind, clamoring insistently for an answer.” (page 46) From this, Raskolnikov’s inner turmoil causes his outer destruction, just like Grendel: “I know what's in your mind. I know everything. That's what makes me so sick and old and tired.”(Grendel) This greater knowledge of things in the world both ultimately leads to the abandonment of their sanity.
Reply
Molly Williams
4/7/2013 11:38:46 am
I agree with Clara Grace. Even though I despise Grendel, I am not really a fan of Ras either because of the similarities shown between both characters. Their ‘I rule the world’ attitudes immediately make me think of one another. The only real difference is Ras is a genius, and Grendel isn’t(or at least in my mind he isn’t).
Off the rip, you can see the similarities through: 1-the hatred of man, 2-the criminal mind, and 3-the thought that only they truly matter.
1 & 3-“I alone exist”-Grendel states even though he has walked around and killed hundreds, seen and spied on mankind, he still believe he is the only one that actually makes sense in the world. He sees no point in anything men do, and doesn’t agree with the way they live their life, which associates with Ras because he believes that through all of the things man take for granted they waste their lives through stupid things, which basically also says he is the only one taking advantage of the life he is given. They both attempt to avoid anything social at all costs, and the fact that they can live alone without anyone to talk too, shows that they don’t care if anyone else were to exist.
2-Grendel is a murderer, he murders for fun. Hungry? Kill a man. Also, the fact that Grendel is angered by the stupidity of men fighting each other which makes him kill them for it. That, minus the hunger, is pretty much the same mentality Ras has, especially since he is so sentimental over the beating of the mare, but yet he whacks an old women over the head with an axe, and had no problem hitting her again after he thought she may have been alive still. They contradict themselves in my mind. Or maybe they don’t, and I just hate them both so much that I too have put them in my mind as horrible people, and am confused with their choices.