"Well, and what if I'm mistaken?" [Raskolnikov] suddenly found himself exclaiming. 'What if man-- the whole human race in general, I mean-- isn't really a villain at all? If that's true, it means that all the rest is just a load of superstition, just a lot of fears that have been put into people's heads, and there are no limits, and that's how it's meant to be!..." (34).
Within the first few pages of Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky has already let his readers in on the mental perversions and spineless justifications of Raskolnikov. In this passage, my interest was quickly peaked when Dostoyevsky takes the quiet thoughts of Raskolnikov and suddenly rockets them to an entire new set of ethics. Here, Raskolnikov is characterized as ungrounded and dillusioned-- both descriptions intended to describe the mental state of his crime. His quick tangent of thoughts is means of self-justifying his crime, but most importantly, it attests to the rabid guilt of the human mind.
Realistically, the main conflict throughout the novel is Raskolnikov's struggle with this rabid guilt. He is quick to compromise truth and logical reasoning just to satiate his ravenous conscience. As evidenced in the quote, Raskolnikov uses his own presumptions about the motives of mankind to mold an entire new system of thought and happily concludes by saying that his presumption is "how it's meant to be!" (34). Raskolnikov's circular reasoning is extremely vivid in this passage as Dostoyevsky uses his insanity to preface his reasoning throughout the rest of the book.
Coincidentally, I find that this insanity-stricken compromise of "truth" is ever so rampant in today's culture as well. With the dynamic changing of our society, all sorts of ideas and beliefs are melded into whatever justifies an individual's conscience. Just as Raskolnikov is, people are trapped in their nebulous minds, and their reasoning is rendered obsolete. Truth is no longer constant, and bewilderment is ever-present.
Thoroughly enjoyed your last sentence!
ReplyDeleteYou've got some fabulous phrases in here Camille-- love the way you personified the conscience as rabid and ravenous-- those are strong, vivid words! Also love "nebulous minds." GREAT words.
ReplyDeleteThough FYI-- a note-- the correct spelling is "piqued my interest."
It seems like Dostoyevsky describes every character as "mad" at some point or another-- I started keeping track because it seemed so incessant. What might he be trying to do with that theme of madness? Clearly it's most significantly illustrated through Raskolnikov, but it almost seems as though Dostoyevsky wants to show that no one is exempt from insanity. What's that about? Is he making a greater commentary on the human condition? (Raskolnikov arguably-- very arguably-- could be considered a sort of "every man," I think.) If he is a more general representative of the human condition, AND the other characters follow suit-- what does that imply of humanity as a whole?
Incidentally, Dostoyevsky supposedly wanted to write this whole novel in first person, but found it too disturbing to spend that much time in Raskolnikov's head. (C.S. Lewis struggled for the same reason when writing Screwtape Letters.) It's interesting to watch how the point of view changes though-- most of the time it's third-person omniscient, with a focus on Ras, but it drifts at times, and we see into Dunya's brain, or his mother's, or Razhumikhin... Wonder if Dostoyevsky was doing that on purpose as well. It's very unsettling, I think, when we drift away from Rask. I always wonder if he might be getting into trouble again.
10/10
Ah! This is so good Cami :)
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that DOstoyevysky questions sanity of the primary character in his novel right off the bat, because (although its not written in first person), it makes much of the philosophy presented in the novel somewhat unrealiable (like an unreliable narrator). I don't believe that Dostoyevsky agreed with most of Raskolnikov's philosophy (duh, I know :)) BUT I am curious to know whose philosophy he does support, if any? So many of the characters go on philosophical rants throughout the novel, but whose philosophy does Dostoyevsky support?
Yay, I think i just figured out one of my discussion questions :)
*Dostoyevsky questions THE sanity
ReplyDelete*unreliable
*it's
whoops