Welcome to AP Literature and Composition. Over the summer, you will be required to read two books—please note the appropriate due dates:
1. How to Read Literature like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster: the ultimate cheat sheet for students. It gives you the inside scoop on how your teachers figure out all that meaning stuff about literature. It divides major concepts (symbol, archetype, allusion, pattern, etc.) up into small, easy-to-digest chapters and relates them to popular movies, TV, and literature (look for references to mythology, The Simpsons, Cinderella, The Great Gatsby, The Odyssey, Oedipus, Gilligan’s Island, the Bible, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, and Ghostbusters).
Although you will be expected to read the whole book this fall, focus on the following chapters: Introduction, 5-7, 11-15, 19, and 25.
2. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s psychological novel probes the inner workings of the criminal mind both before and in the aftermath of premeditated murder. This novel of realism takes the reader into the innermost thoughts of the central character and also probes the central philosophical issues of good and evil.
Assignments and Due Dates
Postings are due by midnight on the following dates:
August 10—Parts I-III
August 25—Parts IV-Epilogue
By each due date, you need post at least twice:
1 original post analyzing a specific quote with page number from the assignment. Your analysis must:
Be a minimum of 200 words, not including the quote.
Must tie the quote to an idea from How to Read Literature like a Professor. (i.e., "Yes, She's a Christ Figure, Too," or "Geography Matters...")
Should not be a paraphrase or summary of the quote—think significance.
Cannot repeat or regurgitate ideas from another student’s post.
Stay within the assigned section.
1 response to another student’s post that must:
Be a minimum of 100 words, not including the textual support.
Must use textual references for support.
Must be an actual response to what someone said—“I agree with Tom” is not sufficient.
Feel free to respond and continue the discussion in addition to your required posts. Just keep the discussion on topic and handle disagreements maturely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
In chapter 14, Yes, She's a Christ Figure, Too, in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, the characteristics of a christ-like figure in a novel is discussed. Although Rodia/Rodion does not seem like the cut and slice christ figure, there are definite similarities that can be found. Foster lists some red flags readers should be aware when reading. Foster says a christ-like figure is "very poor", "good with children. Or atleast one child. And he has one disciple.", "he puts through great physical suffering", and although it is not a characteristic, Foster says the christ figure may be compelled to "lie on his bed, exhausted by his struggles, his arms thrown ot in the position of crucifixion, showing his damaged, raw hands." The quotes just presented, although shown in mass quantity, are directly linked to Rodia. He is physically portrayed as shoddily dressed and uninterested in his physical appearance. His one disciple appears in the form of Polia, Marmeladov's daughter. Upon his departure from the scene of Marmeladov's death, Polia stops him on the stairs, so over joyed by the money he has just bestowed on her family. After discussing Polia’s prayers, Rodia says, "My name is Rodion, Polechka. Pray for me sometimes too--'and Thy servant Rodion.'..." Polia then responds, "I'll pray for you the whole rest of my life," the girl promised, and suddenly smiled again, threw her arms around him, and hugged him close." (pg.182)
After the muderous act, Rodia returns home after some ventures and collapses on his make-shift bed. "Then he lies on his bed, exhausted by his struggles, his arms thrown out in the position of crucifixion, showing his damaged, raw hands." Although he does not have "damaged, raw hands", he holds tight the cloth that has spilled blood on it. I may have been stretching the symbolism, but Rodia committed an act that he thought would benefit the general public. The blood stained cloth is a physical representation of an act that was thought to have had the ability to better the general circumstances of the public.
Yes, my interpretation of Rodia being the christ figure may seem somewhat of a stretch, but as said in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, "Christ figures are where you find them, and as you find them."
p.s. I apologize for any discrepancies in spelling, grammar, or presentation of my argument... It has been a long summer.
The defining event of Crime and Punishment is not Raskolnikov’s confession or his redemption, it is his crime. Raskolnikov’s journey to the apartments of the moneylender woman and subsequent slaughter of the Ivanovnas represent a miniature quest narrative. As is evidenced by his internal monologue throughout the rest of the novel, Raskolnikov himself comes to see this journey as a quest as the novel goes on (part of his attempt to justify his actions), his essential character trait being self-aggrandizement. Raskolnikov thinks it necessary to travel to this particular apartment and kill Alonya Ivanovna (Lizaveta’s murder is an accident). Dostoevsky spends the rest of the novel exploring the question, among others, of Raskolnikov’s purpose in undertaking this quest. From the start it is obvious that Raskolnikov is too proud, and in his own twisted way too righteous, to butcher his soul for material gain, either for himself or for the purpose of assisting his family in their time of need. Eventually, Raskolnikov’s theory on the nature of crime is explored. The theory is, in a nutshell: A special few may commit wrongdoings for the loftier purpose of the advancement of humanity. Or, as Razumhikin sums it up, “Crime is a protest against the craziness of the social system” (page 304). Raskolnikov identifies his purpose in slaying the Ivanovnas as a desire to see if he himself might be one of these special few, a revolutionary like his idol Napoleon, but I believe this is only part of his true motivation. Raskolnikov’s real motivation is, in my opinion, a primal urge to reclaim some modicum of dignity, which he has been deprived of for months. It’s not poverty itself that bothers him (“Even his reduced circumstances had of late ceased be a burden to him”). It’s the undignified things poverty forces people to do—become a drunk like Marmeladov, sell yourself for sex like Sonya, marry a man whom you don’t love to feed your family like Dunya. Raskolnikov chooses to blame society for his problems (“Man can get used to anything, the villain!”) (page 34), and he fixates on Alonya Ivanovna as the physical manifestation of all the corrupt, cruel systems that keep him and the rest of the downtrodden masses in a state of desperation. His encounter with Marmeladov and the letter from his mother exacerbate this notion. As for obstacles, great emphasis is placed on the many, varied obstacles Raskolnikov faces—“There remained, however, a whole host of unresolved points and questions that had to be dealt with” (page 85). Obstacles include Nastasya (the possibility of her being home), the two men at the door, and Raskolnikov’s own conscience. Even Lizaveta could be seen as an obstacle to Raskolnikov’s quest, in an ironic way. Thus, Raskolnikov’s quest (the crime) is completed and gives way to the larger part of the novel, which concerns itself with Raskolnikov’s punishment.
I hope I did this right, I was a little confused. Also, I read the book two months ago, so my argument might not be as airtight as I'd like.
This comment is going to include some important stuff that happens after part three, so don't read it if you don't want to know. I'm responding to Callie's comment.
I agree with you, and I wish I'd thought of that. I think one possible (pro-religion) interpretation is that Raskolnikov kept trying to emulate Napoleon, a brutal, self-aggrandizing, sinful man when really he was emulating Jesus, another "revolutionary" who acts as the angel on Raskolnikov's shoulder (to Napoleon's devil). Once he accepts religion back into his life by taking the cross from Sonya, Raskolnikov does the right thing and turns himself in, and begins to be redeemed shortly after (rather abruptly). Before accepting the cross, Raskolnikov realizes the sinfulness of the ways of men like Napoleon--"The blood that's on everyone's hands...that is poured like champagne for the sake of which men are crowned at the Capitol and then called the benefactors of mankind" (page 626). Another, more cynical interpretation of the symbolism you pointed out could be that Dostoyevsky is saying that Jesus is like Raskolnikov--that Jesus is no better than Raskolnikov, Raskolnikov being what he is. I think the first one is more likely, but I guess it depends on how religious Dostoyevsky was. I think it's also worth pointing out that Sonya could be a stand-in for Mary Magdalene, a follower of Jesus who was a prostitute. I can't remember if Sonya ever does anything to Raskolnikov's feet, I think she might have kissed them at some point.
I used a quote and some material from later in the book, I hope that's okay.
Post 1:
Taken from page 41 in my book
While taking a walk through town, Raskolnikov comes upon a drunken girl who, as it seems, is being pursued by an older man. Though Raskolnikov does what he can to assist the girl in this situation, he ends the event with an exclamation to himself, asking why he should even be helping. The reader already likes Raskolnikov for taking action to help the girl, but now may seem a bit confused as to the correct feelings with which one should feel towards him at this point. Is he regretting having helped? Surely he doesn’t wish further ‘dirty action’ upon this girl by said creeper man? This mini-flurry of ideas somewhat parallels what will continue to go on in Raskolnikov’s head through the remaining sections of Part I-III, with his drive to admit his evil deed being pushed back to present himself as innocent.
In the same event, Raskolnikov asks was it even for him to help; did he have any right. As long as you’ve read past Chapter VII, you know that he will certainly do things he doesn’t have any right to do. This can relate back to Foster’s masterpiece of the how-to novel world, in chapter “Is He Serious? And Other Ironies.” Here, it already starts out by mentioning the importance and frequency of roads in literature. Where exactly is our character right now? Exactly! On a road! Now if you remember exactly what Forster went on to say in this chapter, you would know that he is in fact discussing the irony of characters actually not taking roads presented to them, but in this case we’ll take the mentioned road theme and run with it. So basically, our selected quote from “Crime and Punishment” is in fact totally relevant to said chapter from “How To Read Literature Like a Professor.”
To not disappoint, I have also found other relevancies. Let’s take the obvious one that stands out. Raskolnikov says, “is it for me to help? Have I any right to help? Let them devour each other alive – what is it any right to me?” Here he is speaking of the drunken girl and her pedophiliac follower, but it has strong ironies to a big event happening later. A large part of Raskolnikov’s reasoning for committing his capital crime was that it was kind of his job or fate to do so. The clues fall into place and he takes it as further incentive to kill the woman whom he believes should be dead, wealth administered among the deserving. Though the reader and narrator know very well that it was NOT Raskol’s right to murder, he feels it is, thanks to circumstance. If Raskol is in fact mentally ill, then that supports his constant misinterpretation for everything as an open invitation from the fates to kill the pawnlady, thus reinforcing our identification of irony in said quote. Raskol SAYS he doesn’t see a right in interfering with the young lady’s circumstance, but his [later] actions clearly exemplify his disregard to such self-doubts.
"And Mikolka swings the shaft a second time and a blow falls a second time on the spine of the luckless mare... Mikola is furious that he cannot kill her with one blow." (58)
In How to Read Literature like a Professor, "...More Than It's Gonna Hurt You: Concerning Violence," Thomas Foster discusses the technique of authors in using violence as a means to demonstrate symbolism. The act of violence is personal and literal in itself- yet the meaning can be interpreted on an entirely different level. In the specified quote, Raskolnikov is in the midst of a vivid dream set in his childhood. The dream provides an in-depth account of the murdering of a peasant's mare for the enjoyment of its passengers. Based on Foster's principle, we understand it not only as the literal action of killing a horse, but the true extent of social distinctions in this particular setting. 170 Prior to the dreaming session, Raskolnikov debated the return to scholasticism versus the realistic gain that would result from such a venture. "Suppose he shares his last kipeck with me, if he has any kopecks, so that I could get some boots and make myself tidy enough to give lessons.. hmm.. well and what then?" (53) Therefore it is evident that the author is foreshadowing an instance that will bring the audience further into the expectation of the lower class against the higher; the desire to please, yet ultimately receiving nothing to gain. The mare was sacrificed at the hands of a mad (crazy mad, that is) peasant who consistently beats the animal as the taunts and pressure from the crowd builds; the mare struggles under the pain in comparison to that of the lower working class. In the hands of the author this vivid dipiction, described as that which will "remain long in the memory and make a powerful impression", then ultimately imprints the true vulgarity of the society, state, and expectations that our book encompasses. (55)
response to Lily.
pg. 21-22 "and it's not because she starts pulling my hair that I'm afraid.... Let her beat me; it distracts her."
In Marmeladov's rant about his wife beating him, he uncovers the main direction of the novel. The physical punishment that is inflicted upon Marmeladov and Rodion after their sinful acts are sought after. They seek the reprimanding when they have done horrible acts because it somehow relieves them of their hardships. It is the mental aspect of punishment that tortures Marmeladov and Rodion. Crime and Punishment searches the pair, emphasizing the mental, rather than the physical, to point out that it is not a life in prison that will force you to fall and wither, but a life in freedom, sullied by sinful acts that will cause the true punishment. For even though it is the physical that is first linked to punishment, it is the mental that instills the act. Further, it is not by the law that one can seek mental justice, but by your mind alone.
On page 75, Dostoyevsky explores the collapse of Rodion Raskolnikov's mind when he sporadically wants to give up and leave the apartment without taking the old woman's valuables. "Suddenly he wanted to abandon everything and leave." His killing was meticulously planned. He brooded over it for years, waiting for the exact time when he would be able to eliminate the old woman for the good of the people. However, like How to Read Literature Like a Professor says, More Than It's Going to Hurt You, it instead permanently scars Raskolnikov's life with insanity and disgust for most things in life, while also haphazardly giving away kopecks to random people he's never met before. This newborn illness begins with his mind, he laughs at himself and his attempts to leave the situation, possibly thinking the woman might still be alive and then it travels down to his hands when he attempts to open the lock box, "...snatched at the keys, and again began trying them. Somehow, none of them worked. They would not fit the locks. Not only were his hands shaking, he kept making mistakes." (Page 75). His shortsighted hopes of helping those in need were dashed by the murder of a woman that society could live without, hurting himself and his friends & family more than he hurt the old woman, or society for that matter. His killing not only ended up creating a money sink of a delusional man (from all of his wild spending of the money given to him by his mother), but could possibly end up with Raskolnikov being thrown into jail as a lunatic, as evident as his condition of delirium and outbursts continues on into the later chapters.
The quote is not just showing us that it occurred to Raskolnikov that what he did, and what he was doing, was wrong, but that the actions he takes afterwards of goodwill and charity possibly won't make up for these evil acts and this conscious will take its toll eventually, with sooner being the case than later.
In response to Bianca's statement, I do not agree with her statement of Raskolnikov pondering what would happen after he talks to Razumikhin for a job and/or money forshadowing the instance of the lower class clashing with the upper class later in the book, and it revolves completely around two buddies who are both at the bottom of the barrel, however Razumikhin is able to sustain himself while Raskolnikov is not. The statement of "The desire to please, yet ultimately receiving nothing to gain" as a lower class versus upper class would be better described with the instance of Raskolnikov killing the old pawn lady. His desire to please those in need (The poor) comes into direct conflict with those he sees as being rich, greedy, and a leech on society (The older lady, who represents the upper class). This tension between the two reaches it's climax when the poor lands the killing blow on the rich to try and please, but he inevitably fails when people become worried about him and his stash of the stolen loot is discovered.
“When reason fails, the devil helps!” He [Raskolnikov] thought with a strange grin.” (Bottom of Page 72) This quote from Crime and Punishment ties in very smoothly with the chapter in How to Read Literature like a Professor about biblical references. In C&P, sin runs amuck throughout the story, with murder, lies, and adultery. The quote is referring to the incident where Raskolnikov came up with his idea to murder Ivanovna, suggesting a possible reason that he simply went insane and came up with the plan in his sick, twisted mind. When that student in the bar echoed his thoughts, stating that everyone would be better off if she were dead, Raskolnikov became convinced that it was his predetermined destiny to kill her. So he seized his chance, murdering her, thinking that he was doing everyone a favor, which he was obviously not. Also, when he ends up killing her sister, the murder can be tied into her being collateral damage in what Raskolnikov believes is justified killing, making her the metaphorical “sacrificial lamb.” In the aftermath of his murders, Raskolnikov lives in a cold world of loneliness and despair, seemingly as a punishment for his actions. This world seems similar to the one mentioned in HTRLLAP, in James Dean’s East of Eden. It tells that being “East of Eden” is to be in a fallen world, which is exactly where Raskolnikov has landed himself.
And sorry this is a wee bit late, I have been touring colleges A LOT and haven’t had a laptop with internet for about a month. Its just been a long summer.
“What it is, lads, is that he’s off to Jerusalem with all his kids, and he’s saying goodbye to the motherland, bowing to one and all, kissing the capital city of St Petersburg and its foundations.” (page 626)
I’m not the most qualified person to comment on Christian imagery, but I’m pretty sure this is a reference to Jesus, which supports the thesis that Raskolnikov is a twisted Christ figure. I’m going to run down the list of Raskolnikov’s Jesus-like features as dictated by How to Read Literature Like A Professor. 2) in agony: Raskolnikov is in psychological agony for most of the book, until his redemption begins in the last few pages. 3) self-sacrificing: Raskolnikov gives his desperately needed money to the Marmeladovs. 4) good with children: He’s good with Polya, Marmeladov’s daughter. 11) known to have spent time alone in the wilderness: He goes to the woods after committing his crime. 12) believed to have had a confrontation with the devil, possibly tempted. Svidrigailov, who is one of the main antagonists of Crime and Punishment, confronts Raskolnikov and offers him money so his sister won’t have to marry the other main antagonist. Raskolnikov rejects this money. 13) last seen in the company of thieves: Raskolnikov hangs out with low-lives a lot. 16) had disciples, twelve at first, although not all equally devoted: Not twelve, but he has Sonya, who like Mary Magdalene was a prostitute redeemed at least in part by Raskolnikov’s influence. Like Jesus, Raskolnikov chose morality (turning himself in to waste away in prison but also to allow himself the chance to be redeemed and to do his time) over dignity (killing himself in a final act of defiance of the “system”). Jesus is said to have died for the sins of mankind, which implies that he had a choice in the matter, and he also chose morality (saving humanity) over dignity (avoiding a nasty and drawn-out death by crucifixion). As it pertains to this quote, Jerusalem=morality.
Page 507, "Siberia. On the banks of a broad, deserted river stands a town, one of Russia's administrative center; in the town is a fortress; in the fortress, a prison. In the prison Rodion Raskolnikov, transported convict second-class, has been confined for the last nine months." This statement marks the beginning of the Epilogue. It relates to the chapter Geography Matters... in How to Read Literature Like a Professor. The cold, frigid climate of Siberia pairs up nicely with the cold, calculating, and unforgiving heart of Raskolnikov, a murderer of two, thief, and insane madman. To be able to survive in this wasteland of snow, Raskolnikov would have to have an iron will and a tough exterior, as displayed by his actions towards Sonia, who contrasts with the empty void that surrounds the prison. This contrast is that her love is deep and she would do anything for Raskolnikov, even visit him over and over again despite his harsh attitude thrust at her over and over again, as if the entire desert of Siberia was trying to thwart her attempts of possible true love. Without faltering, Sonia braves not only the polar regions of the Arctic, but the scathing, repeated "rejections" of Rodion every time, which distances us from him even more, much like how we'd prefer to distance ourselves from the frozen tundra. This kind heart eventually penetrates Raskolnikov like she pierces the climate, causing him to finally have a revolution that will change his life forever and hopefully make a turnaround for the better once he is out of the barren prison and into a warmer, much less dreary atmosphere in which he could recover and hopefully live a better life and spread his happiness to all, and finally bring a different kind of wealth to those who really need it.
Taken from page 41 in my book
While taking a walk through town, Raskolnikov comes upon a drunken girl who, as it seems, is being pursued by an older man. Though Raskolnikov does what he can to assist the girl in this situation, he ends the event with an exclamation to himself, asking why he should even be helping. The reader already likes Raskolnikov for taking action to help the girl, but now may seem a bit confused as to the correct feelings with which one should feel towards him at this point. Is he regretting having helped? Surely he doesn’t wish further ‘dirty action’ upon this girl by said creeper man? This mini-flurry of ideas somewhat parallels what will continue to go on in Raskolnikov’s head through the remaining sections of Part I-III, with his drive to admit his evil deed being pushed back to present himself as innocent.
In the same event, Raskolnikov asks was it even for him to help; did he have any right. As long as you’ve read past Chapter VII, you know that he will certainly do things he doesn’t have any right to do. This can relate back to Foster’s masterpiece of the how-to novel world, in chapter “Is He Serious? And Other Ironies.” Here, it already starts out by mentioning the importance and frequency of roads in literature. Where exactly is our character right now? Exactly! On a road! Now if you remember exactly what Forster went on to say in this chapter, you would know that he is in fact discussing the irony of characters actually not taking roads presented to them, but in this case we’ll take the mentioned road theme and run with it. So basically, our selected quote from “Crime and Punishment” is in fact totally relevant to said chapter from “How To Read Literature Like a Professor.”
To not disappoint, I have also found other relevancies. Let’s take the obvious one that stands out. Raskolnikov says, “is it for me to help? Have I any right to help? Let them devour each other alive – what is it any right to me?” Here he is speaking of the drunken girl and her pedophiliac follower, but it has strong ironies to a big event happening later. A large part of Raskolnikov’s reasoning for committing his capital crime was that it was kind of his job or fate to do so. The clues fall into place and he takes it as further incentive to kill the woman whom he believes should be dead, wealth administered among the deserving. Though the reader and narrator know very well that it was NOT Raskol’s right to murder, he feels it is, thanks to circumstance. If Raskol is in fact mentally ill, then that supports his constant misinterpretation for everything as an open invitation from the fates to kill the pawnlady, thus reinforcing our identification of irony in said quote. Raskol SAYS he doesn’t see a right in interfering with the young lady’s circumstance, but his [later] actions clearly exemplify his disregard to such self-doubts.
For Parts I-III
When Raskolnikov settles down for one of his spontaneous “pass-out sessions” on the side of the road in Chapter V (Part I) he has quite a “hideous dream”. The thick-necked peasant Mikolka, a prominent figure in his dream, says this after exiting the tavern (page 46): “Get in, I’ll take you all. The bay has gone with Matvey, and this brute (Mikolka’s small horse), mates, is just breaking my heart, I feel as if I could kill her. She’s just eating her head off. Get in, I tell you! I’ll make her gallop! She’ll gallop!” The “thin little sorrel beast” Mikolka is speaking of is a symbol representative of the feeble pawn-woman, Alyona Ivanovna (Is That a Symbol?). The cart attached to the “nag” is a big cart meant for carrying large loads and heavy goods, not one meant to be drawn by a scrawny mare like the one Mikolka has. Alyona Ivanovna is a “stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman”, and in the eyes of many, she is viewed as just as incompetent as that horse. The horse is inappropriately endowed with a large carriage, much as Alyona Ivanovna is inappropriately endowed with large sums of riches. The carriage could be much more useful if harnessed to a more competent horse, and the fortune Alyona has accumulated could be much more beneficial to the community if it were endowed to a more competent person. Raskolnikov kills Alyona, and does so with the belief that her fortune can be utilized more pragmatically. He kills her because he thinks she is a waste, not worthy of her position in life. Mikolka, although perhaps not initially intending on killing his horse, eventually does so, for the same reason Raskolnikov kills Alyona. Mikolka is obviously frustrated with his horse, and tests its competence by a design that leaves little room for the horse to prove its worth. He deems the horse unworthy, and unleashes his wrath on it. Mikolka is a manifestation of Raskolnikov. They both assume a position of authority and assert themselves to carry out an action which they feel is just. Just as Mikolka is a representation of Raskolnikov, the feeble horse is a symbol representing the feeble old pawn broker, Alyona Ivanovna.
Response to Callie’s comment: I very much agree with Callie’s statement claiming that Raskolnikov has many characteristics commonly found in Christ figures, or at least figures that Thomas Foster identifies as Christ-like. Although Raskolnikov’s hands are never described as raw (from my knowledge), the image of him falling down exhausted on his bed is quite recurring. And when “Rodya” losses consciousness for days and is given the rag he begs for, he was “comforted, and for the next twenty-four hours [he] held the wretched thing in [his] hand.” The imagery evoked by this particular description of Raskolnikov lying on his sofa and clutching the rag is, to me, very Christ-like. Callie goes further to say that this particular rag is representative of the sacrifice Rodya has made in an attempt for the betterment of others, much as Christ’s “damaged, raw hands” are representative of the sacrifice Christ has made for all of humanity. Another characteristic that Foster identifies as Christ-like is the ability to be “self-sacrificing”. Rodya’s interactions with the family of Marmeledov are incredibly self-sacrificing. Within minutes of the priest saying to Katerina Ivanovna: “God is merciful; look to the Most High for succor,” Rodya gives to the family twenty roubles, as if it were a manifestation of the good fortune the priest just promised. Another sign of Rodya’s ability to sacrifice himself is the way he prefers to be addressed by Polenka, Marmeledov’s daughter, he says to her: “Pray sometimes for me too. ‘And Thy servant Rodion,’ nothing more.” He wishes to be seen as a servant to the family, and from what I understand Christ endeavored to be a servant to all. Sonia, also Marmeledov’s daughter, acknowledges Rodya’s immense sacrifice: “You gave us everything yesterday,” Rodya, when he murders Alyona, sacrifices his own conscience, his own peace of mind, and his own physical comfort for the supposed betterment of others. When Raskolnikov is listening to the conversation of a student and an officer in a tavern after his first meeting with Alyona, he happens to have a very similar idea to that of the student: “one tiny crime [would] be wiped out by thousands of good deeds.” However the student claims that he is not in the position to commit the crime and make such a sacrifice, but Rodya endeavors to match his words with his actions, and does so, with the intent of sacrificing much of his self for the well-being of others.
I disagree with “CyberBeast69’s” (Pete’s?) interpretation of the symbolic meaning of Raskolnikov’s dream. I think that the horse represents not Alonya Ivanovna, but working class mid-19th century Russian society as a whole. If anything, Mikolka represents Ivanovna (or perhaps more accurately all of the corrupt and inhumane systems and officials that keep the working class on its knees). Raskolnikov is horrified by the dream (“He awoke panting, drenched in sweat, even his hair sweat-soaked, and sat up in horror”—page 73) not because he is revolted by the deed he is planning to commit, but because he now sees the deed as necessary to protect the downtrodden masses and in particular his sister and mother, who are being beaten down by the government and the upper classes. The young Raskolnikov of the dream witnesses the oppression of the horse just as Raskolnikov has witnessed the oppression of the working class.
My reasoning for this interpretation is based largely on the fact that Raskolnikov hates Alonya Ivanovna and feels no pity or sympathy for her at any point in the book (“My killing a loathsome, harmful louse, a filthy old moneylender woman…and you call that a crime?”—page 617). He consistently sees her as the tyrant rather than the oppressed/exploited.
For Parts IV- Epilogue
Yes, Lily, Cyberbeast69 was my online psuedonym, perhaps I got a little carried away.
Upon reminding Sonia of her seemingly miserable status in life on page 255 Roskolnikov says to her: “It would be better, a thousand times better and wiser to leap into the water and end it all!” Thomas Foster, in the chapter titled “Flights of Fancy”, argues, like Roskolnikov, that “flight is freedom.” To leap into the water, to take flight and to leave it all, would be for Sonia to leave all of her troubles behind. Sonia’s situation looks to be a cyclical system of suffering and misfortune, according to Raskolnikov. He says to her: “You can’t remain like this...they are the humanity of the future…” (p. 261- 262). He goes on to suggest that the only escape from such a recurring trap is to “Break what must be broken, once for all, that’s all, and take the suffering on oneself.” (p.262) For Sonia to truly escape her misery, she must detach herself from the cycle, from her interests within it, which are largely invested in her siblings and her step-mother. She cannot continue with them, it will only bring her down, she must leave them, she must “take the suffering on oneself”, she must take flight, because as it’s all about “Freedom and power”. Sonia’s situation is no doubt grim, and freedom from her misfortunes is found only in flight, flight from her obligations and her woes, which is flight either from a bridge or flight with a another troubled soul to a destination unknown.
I agree with Tom... I mean Pete.
Roskolnikov's prodding of diving right into the water will provide freedom. This leap will be a flight of the soul from her trapped, Earth bound body into heaven, where freedom persists over everything else, or depending on how you look at it, just a plain death that causes all those she loved to suffer even more, showing that her being able to fly away may have brought her peace and freedom, it causes more suffering on all the other people that kept her chained down. In the end flight by a mortal human being is impossible, so the soul from release itself from the sack of oily flesh and gain it's freedom within the stars.
Sonia! Yes she is a Christ figure, too!
We know this because…
A: she was born into a family not of great wealth, though had nobility inside of her. In this case, it was her mother’s claim to their supposed-to-be high class. In the classic Christ figure’s case, it would be his whole son-of-god thing that brought him [spiritually] above his counterparts.
B: she worked hard for her family, sacrificing herself along the way. In JESUSCHRIST’s way, this would be his “dying for our sins.” Though not as extreme, her sacrifice was large. Back then a young woman’s purity was her worth. Sonia gave it up, though, to get roubles for her family’s living expenses. This shows selflessness for the benefit of others as is shown in the Bible.
C: At its most basic form… she’s KIND! And caring, and loving, and wants to help everyone. She doesn’t judge people for doing bad things; even in Raskolnikov’s case of murder. She wants to help him, not assure his punishment or simply abandon him. Like Christ, this character lives a life for others.
“ “Then you won’t leave me, Sonia?” he said, looking at her almost with hope. / “No, no, never, nowhere!” cried Sonia. “I will follow you, I will follow you everywhere. Oh, my God! Oh, how miserable I am!... Why, why didn’t I know you before? Why didn’t you come before? Oh, dear!” ”
page 324
@ Mr. Bass’ Statement:
I see where Matt is going with this. It is pretty close to what I said earlier, so I can see that we are on the same page about Raskolnikov’s want to kill mixed with his looking for excuses to do it (and grabbing signs of “fate” from practically anywhere).
Matt’s point of Ivanovna’s sister being a “sacrificial lamb” is a really good idea. She didn’t have to be killed; she was completely innocent. Raskolnikov’s acknowledgement of her innocence is a big deal, because after all he did believe the pawnlady (an otherwise innocent woman) was very guilty, when really her crimes were nonexistent.
I don’t really believe that the chosen quote was really the best example of a biblical reference; mention of the devil doesn’t necessarily make it biblical. The supporting analytical details that Matt provides I think save him here, though, with the “sacrificial lamb” and the Eden reference. I just think that the quote wasn’t specific enough to pull all that out from it, but Matt’s done a good job anyway relating stuff back to it to support that.
Although I am contradicting my first post somewhat, given hints in the text, I believe that the role of the christly figure may change from different characters.
When Rodia comes to Sonia after leaving his family, he starts in on a deep questioning of her surroundings and the people she loves. He attempts to sway her from the path she has chosen to take and somehow lead her onto a path he thinks better. Throughout the course of the argument, or more so Rodia’s blast of temptations, she calls out for the mercy of God to stop such acts from occurring. At one point, Rodia even goes as far to say “Maybe there’s no God at all”. This, although possibly loosely related, could be compared to the 40 days and 40 nights in the desert with the temptations of the devil raining upon Jesus. Also during the course of his visit, he drops down and kisses her feet. "Suddenly and swiftly he stooped all the way down, fell to the floor, and kissed her foot." This could be compared to the biblical story of the adulterous and jesus, when she cleans his feet with her tears and hair. Although Rodia does not go so far, the acts could suggest a relation.
Although in comparison, Rodia may seem like the most like christ, the reverberation of christ-like qualities may present a new theme. That all those,however seemingly unworthy, are capable of the righteousness of christ and ultimately forgiveness.
I realize I have been following the biblical path this entire time, but I can't help it. I feel like it's screaming at me the most of all the other themes. Yes, it is incredibly repitive and possibly boring, but I have wanted to add in something since my first post, so thank you Lily for allowing me to prolong my rant!
In response to Lily's (and i suppose mine as well) I agree with the christ like direction Dostoyevsky wanted to take with Rodion. Lily pointed out that Rodia is like Jesus for numerous reasons, one of them including temptation by the devil. I highly agree, but I would like to show more evidence that it is indeed correct! "He fancied he was somewhere in Africa, in Egypt, somewhere on an oasis. A caravan was resting; the camels lay quietly. Palm trees grew abount in a circle... Suddenly he distinctly heard a clock strike." (pg.65) The oasis symbolizes the bliss in which Rodia is content, or before Jesus went into the desert. After this dream takes place, Rodia is pushed into his act, and into his ultimate misery. Throughout the context of the novel, hints here and there are mentioned to support the temptations in the desert, with the devil, and the bliss beforehand with God by his side. On page 109 Rodia is hit with a whip, but is suddenly released of his mental and physical pain when he realizes the beautiful church, next to the river. On page 182, "Enough!" he said solemnly and resolutely. "No more mirages, no more creeping horrors, no more phantoms!..." Again the oasis-desert contrast is made. Tired from the trials, or the results of his act, Rodia cries to be rid of the desert, or the devil's unfaltering grip. On page 241, “Raskolnikov could have sworn he had winked at him, the devil knew for what.” The noun devil being used instead of God introduces a possible power switch in the roles they play in Rodia’s life. In most cases, unless it differed in Rodia’s time, the common phrase has God inserted in place of the devil. This is due to the fact that everyone views God as a more powerful being in your life than the devil (he has more say than the devil). In the quote, it suggests the possibility that Rodia is not under God’s view, but the devil’s. This coincides with the devil being able to keep and tempt him in the desert, and thus the theory of the 40 days and 40 nights appearing in the novel.
In the next post, I promise nothing saintly will be mentioned!
to the person who keeps removing their comments - thanks for giving me false hope of there being more than a single answer since last time I was here. thank you kindly.
I-III: I agree with Chris’s comment on the effects of exile in Siberia experienced by Raskolnikov, as well as how eventually Sonia’s love trumps the cold, dead, loneliness that is his mental prison. Also, I agree with Chris’s interpretation of the symbolism of Siberia as a physical representation of the mental state of Raskolnikov, which can be tied back into the chapter “geography matters” in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, since the coldness of Siberia matches the cold shoulder that he keeps giving Sonia, despite her repeated attempts to get through to him. Another symbolism I would add to Chris’s argument is that maybe Sonia’s continued visits to Siberia, “penetrating the cold of Siberia” eventually penetrate the coldness in Raskolnikov’s heart.
Response #1 to Jaymie’s Post 1.
Jaymie, I completely agree with your analysis on the irony of the chance encounter with the drunken girl. The road can wisely be compared to the road metaphor discussed in How to Read Literature Like a Professor. You have chosen a quote that adequately depicts the irony of the tale.
Raskolinikov sits contemplating a statement made the previous day: “Do you understand, dear sir, do you understand what it means when there is absolutely nowhere to go?” A ‘chance’ encounter then ensues with a helpless drunken girl in the middle of the street. She coincidentally can not recall her place of homage and therefore in direct connection to Raskolinikov’s previous thoughts. One may interpret this street, as Jaymie mentioned, to a metaphorical crossroad of decision. Should he help the girl and do what is otherwise benefiting society, or should he turn the other way? I like the comparison of fate in both the situation of helping the girl and that of murdering the old lady. Raskolinikov determines that it was fate that drove him to commit the crime of murder; he was to be the one responsible for ridding society of what he believed to be a horrible woman. Likewise, it can be interpreted that fate was at fault in the meeting of the girl to demonstrate his mentality of ridding guilt… “That’s as it should be, they tell us.”
Response to Callie.
I agree with your biblical analysis on Sonya. In How to Read Literature like a Professor, Foster provides a list of broad qualities that can be used to draw a comparison to a Christ figure. Your analysis of the encounter with Rodia is an excellent example of a confrontation with temptation. Another glaring comparison of Sonya to the list would be “3) self-sacrificing”. It is important to recall that Sonya was forced into a life of prostitution for a greater good. She is personally sacrificing her reputation and dignity for the survival of her family- her mankind, if you will. This selflessness is an important factor in the analyzing of her biblical comparison.
Reading assignment 1 (Sections I-III)
As a book Crime and punishment does a wonderful job of setting the stage as one of bleak physically opressing aspects and repressive psychological ones. It is very fitting that the book makes a point to open during a miserable Russian summer. From Chapter One, we're set running with textual cues such as "The heat from the street was terrible; and the airlessness...all so familiar to those who are unable to get out...(Page 2)" The weather plays a major role here, it is a character itself, bearing down on the opening scene, and foreshadowing major compenents of the plot. Just as it was put by Foster in "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" the season matters. However, the location is also important. Further into the paragraph, the location is set "The insufferable stink of the pot houses..." and in the following paragraph "In that quarter of town, however, scarcely any short coming in dress would have created suprise..." It makes it clear our otherwise attractive protaganist has some serious issues plaguing him, and this tale will be one of grimmy, destitute and sad people. These two factors, the well set season, and geography (for a city, geography becomes even more important) help to drive home the opening chords of the novel.
More to come, scout's honor.
Ooops Jaymie, I had not seen your post on the biblical analysis of Sonya! Sorry, I guess you had covered what I mentioned...
Do not fear crhodin, I agree with you. You mention Raskolnikov’s kissing of Sonia’s foot as a possible parallel to a biblical story involving the same action between an adulterous woman and Jesus but Raskolnikov is not the first one to kiss Sonia’s foot. Much earlier in the novel, on page 14 of my copy, Katerina Ivanovna shows her gratitude to Sonia’s sacrifice by kissing her feet: “I saw Katerina Ivanovna…she was on her knees all the evening kissing Sonia’s feet…” Sonia has sacrificed her innocence for the benefit of her step-mother, step-siblings, and her father. Her sacrifice is very indicative of Jesus’ self-sacrificing character. Marmeledov continues to describe Sonia’s selfless actions on page 15: “And Sonia comes to us now, mostly after dark; she comforts Katerina Ivanovna and gives her all she can…” Foster’s list of Christ like features also includes the characteristic of being “in agony”. Sonia is very much in agony, but like Christ, her suffering does not take away from her dignity. Raskolnikov describes Sonia on page 256: “All that infamy had obviously only touched her mechanically, not one drop of real depravity had penetrated to her heart; he saw that.” Sonia maintains her dignity by her close connection with God, and it is unnecessary to say that Jesus also had a close connection with God, a very close connection. When asked by Raskolnikov on page 257 if she prays often, Sonia replies: “What should I be without God?” Raskolnikov continues his questioning, asking boldly what God does for Sonia, she replies: “He does everything.” Sonia is a Christ figure with many Christ like characteristics, notably her self-sacrificing nature.
and crhodin, i think your idea about reveberating Christ like qualities as a theme is quite insightful
"Why am I going there now? Am I capable of that? Is that serious? It is not serious at all. It's simply a fantasy to amuse myself; a plaything! Yes, maybe it is a plaything."
(First, if I ever plan to pursue a career as a Professor in the English or perhaps the History department of an academy or school, I will be sure to more thoroughly read How to Read Literature Like a Professor. Until then, and as a student, it will be my pleasure to avoid reading about a particular subject that seems to rely too heavily on “who is the Christ figure” and “geography matters”. If I were to compare and rig every answer according to what Foster had to say, I would only be an ignorant band-wagon rider incapable of self analysis (which makes it more fun). There. I said it. So, here is MY analysis of quotes in Crime and Punishment WITHOUT a Christ figure demanding credit for every good thing that seems to happen.)
This quote in the beginning of the novel is blatant foreshadowing to the mental misery that will follow Raskolnikov after his pre-determined plot to murder the filth known as Ivanovna whom he believes takes advantage of other peoples’ money. It is clear in the quote that Dostoyevsky intended to use each stuttering word carefully to accentuate the idea that murder has already consumed Raskolnikov and has begun to effect him in the most negative way possible by making him crazy and mentally unstable. Dostoyevsky intends for the readers to see that his particular predicament is not black and white, it is not just Raskolnikov’s crime and then his punishment. We must shed light on the purpose of this novel to even begin to understand this quote. When writing, Dostoyevsky had in mind the idea that for us to understand a criminal mind, we must look in detail and with great scrutiny at the “in-between” of the crime and the punishment. The ENTIRE novel focuses on this idea. The crime is committed in part one. We only see the punishment in the epilogue of the novel. Throughout reading, it was necessary for us to look at how exactly Raskolnikov coped with his crime and how his thoughts and reactions toward people around him did a complete 180 as he struggles to hide his secret. This quote in particular is a red flag to this idea. It shows us that he has already gone psycho and that since he hasn’t yet committed the murder, it will only get worse from there. This is the foreshadowing genius of Dostoyevsky as he attempts to illustrate the criminal mind of the “in between”.
"Why am I going there now? Am I capable of that? Is that serious? It is not serious at all. It's simply a fantasy to amuse myself; a plaything! Yes, maybe it is a plaything."
(First, if I ever plan to pursue a career as a Professor in the English or perhaps the History department of an academy or school, I will be sure to more thoroughly read How to Read Literature Like a Professor. Until then, and as a student, it will be my pleasure to avoid reading about a particular subject that seems to rely too heavily on “who is the Christ figure” and “geography matters”. If I were to compare and rig every answer according to what Foster had to say, I would only be an ignorant band-wagon rider incapable of self analysis (which makes it more fun). There. I said it. So, here is MY analysis of quotes in Crime and Punishment WITHOUT a Christ figure demanding credit for every good thing that seems to happen.)
This quote in the beginning of the novel is blatant foreshadowing to the mental misery that will follow Raskolnikov after his pre-determined plot to murder the filth known as Ivanovna whom he believes takes advantage of other peoples’ money. It is clear in the quote that Dostoyevsky intended to use each stuttering word carefully to accentuate the idea that murder has already consumed Raskolnikov and has begun to effect him in the most negative way possible by making him crazy and mentally unstable. Dostoyevsky intends for the readers to see that his particular predicament is not black and white, it is not just Raskolnikov’s crime and then his punishment. We must shed light on the purpose of this novel to even begin to understand this quote. When writing, Dostoyevsky had in mind the idea that for us to understand a criminal mind, we must look in detail and with great scrutiny at the “in-between” of the crime and the punishment. The ENTIRE novel focuses on this idea. The crime is committed in part one. We only see the punishment in the epilogue of the novel. Throughout reading, it was necessary for us to look at how exactly Raskolnikov coped with his crime and how his thoughts and reactions toward people around him did a complete 180 as he struggles to hide his secret. This quote in particular is a red flag to this idea. It shows us that he has already gone psycho and that since he hasn’t yet committed the murder, it will only get worse from there. This is the foreshadowing genius of Dostoyevsky as he attempts to illustrate the criminal mind of the “in between”.
all i wanna do is publish my comment. it won't fit. it's too big. so I'm going to give it to you on paper. SORRY but the comment box is the boss man. Also, it may be counter productive to the whole argumentation practice this thing is supposed to be for, but at least you know i actually did the assignment. so yeah. here it is. on paper.
wait i could do it in pieces on it right? im going to do that
(First, if I ever plan to pursue a career as a Professor in the English or perhaps the History department of an academy or school, I will be sure to more thoroughly read How to Read Literature Like a Professor. Until then, and as a student, it will be my pleasure to avoid reading about a particular subject that seems to rely too heavily on “who is the Christ figure” and “geography matters”. If I were to compare and rig every answer according to what Foster had to say, I would only be an ignorant band-wagon rider incapable of self analysis (which makes it more fun). There. I said it. So, here is MY analysis of quotes in Crime and Punishment WITHOUT a Christ figure demanding credit for every good thing that seems to happen and where it seems to happen.)
"Why am I going there now? Am I capable of that? Is that serious? It is not serious at all. It's simply a fantasy to amuse myself; a plaything! Yes, maybe it is a plaything."
This quote in the beginning of the novel is blatant foreshadowing to the mental misery that will follow Raskolnikov after his pre-determined plot to murder the filth known as Ivanovna whom he believes takes advantage of other peoples’ money. It is clear in the quote that Dostoyevsky intended to use each stuttering word carefully to accentuate the idea that murder has already consumed Raskolnikov and has begun to effect him in the most negative way possible by making him crazy and mentally unstable. Dostoyevsky intends for the readers to see that his particular predicament is not black and white, it is not just Raskolnikov’s crime and then his punishment. We must shed light on the purpose of this novel to even begin to understand this quote. When writing, Dostoyevsky had in mind the idea that for us to understand a criminal mind, we must look in detail and with great scrutiny at the “in-between” of the crime and the punishment. The ENTIRE novel focuses on this idea. The crime is committed in part one. We only see the punishment in the epilogue of the novel. Throughout reading, it was necessary for us to look at how exactly Raskolnikov coped with his crime and how his thoughts and reactions toward people around him did a complete 180 as he struggles to hide his secret. This quote in particular is a red flag to this idea. It shows us that he has already gone psycho and that since he hasn’t yet committed the murder, it will only get worse from there. This is the foreshadowing genius of Dostoyevsky as he attempts to illustrate the criminal mind of the “in between”.
“My killing a loathsome, harmful louse, a filthy old moneylender woman…and you call that a crime?”
This is an important quote to consider. This quote allows us to see that Raskolnikov STILL believes his murdering of the filthy money-lender, Ivanovna, is completely justified. Dostoyevsky uses several techniques in and out of the quote to allow for this particular quote to gain significance. The first being word choice. The way he shows Raskolinikov describing the woman intensifies our belief that Raskolnikov believes his actions are justified. Initially, he thought she was a “loathsome, harmful louse, and a filthy old money lender”. He still believes this after he has killed her. Perhaps this is a method for Raskolnikov of coping with his criminal actions to create a sense of denial for himself. In other words, he wants to believe so badly that he did not do anything wrong, rather, he did a “favor for humanity”, that he strongly believes his actions were justified. This claim is evident through his questioning of the law. “…you call that a crime?”. Raskolnikov knows that murder is a crime. The way he copes with his actions is to justify them in any way he seems fit even if the rest of society labels him as a murderer. This can be one way the quote is significant, however Dostoyevsky himself believes that Raskolnikov’s actions are justified. His purposed and goal as a Russian writer were to expose the hideous living conditions and oppression that Russians experienced every day during that time period. Poverty, starvation, vice, and corruption are all aspects of Russian society that Dostoyevsky hoped to reveal. It is reasonable to believe that this quote was not only intended to reveal character traits of Raskolnikov, but also was meant as a social commentary. Through the use of symbolism, it is clear what Dostoyevsky was trying to say and how he was protecting Raskolnikov. He uses the money-lender, Ivanovna as the symbol for the oppressive Russian society and government. Their only interest at the time was to hoard the money of the less fortunate (Raskolnikov and co.) for their own personal gain. This is a perfect example of one of the dreadful things Dostoyevsky was trying to bring to light. Since Dostoyevsky had this purpose, it is reasonable to believe he created this scenario in a hidden attempt to make a social commentary. That any attack on unjust practices or corruption is justified for the improvement of the condition of the people as a whole.
i have a strange affinity for posting unnecessary things multiple times....sort of like this
Response to Bianca's post of the horse being beaten to a bloody pulp:
Dear Bianca, I agree with your detailed analysis of the symbolism of the beating of the horse....that was alot of of's. I agree with how you tied in the oppressed Russian society to the horse and the higher powers, perhaps the aristocracy and government, to Mikolka. It is clear that Dostoyevsky was trying to reveal these social problems through Raskolnikov as his avatar. I particularly enjoyed how you saw that Mikolka was 'eager to please the crowd, but without gain'. Although I disagree with the upper classes being eager to please, I liked how you noticed that yes, he kills his horse, way to go dude. But, now he has no means of transportation. What a clever fella! These things you have pointed out, I do agree with. But, another thing to consider might have been foreshadowing. Dostoyevsky could have used this event as a way to foreshadow the ways that Raskolnikov will put a beating on someone or something, but will not have anything to gain from it. Just as he splits open Ivanovna's skull, he attempts to take her money, but only ends up stashing it under a rock...thus gaining nothing but a bad conscience.
Callie, I agree with your belief that Raskolnikov could be a Christ figure. Although you make a good argument as to why he may fit this description, Foster offers only feeble examples to this and perhaps you follow too closely his criteria for this type of character. Although I agree with your statement, perhaps you could have looked at Christ's association with the salvation of ideals and values that "His people" cherish. Raskolnikov follows THIS description through his murder of the filth known as Ivanovna. In his own defense, he describes his actions as justified because he acted in defense of his people (the masses of the oppressed Russian society). In this way he attempts to be the salvation, however he is symbolically "crucified" in the end by his exile to Siberia. Another important piece of evidence is his loyal prostitute, Sonya. This can be directly tied to Christ and Mary Magdelene.
In Part V, Katerina Ivanovna is in direct connection to Foster's "... and Rarely Just Illness." How to Read Literature Like a Professor discusses the symbolism that is associated with a deteriorating illness. In this aspect, Katerina's sickness is the physical representation of her deteriorating life following the death of her husband. The illness is demonstrated through the coughing and spitting of blood, as well as the mental insanity. Her madness is evident in the obsession to produce an elaborate memorial dinner. "Even the poorest and most broken-spirited people are sometimes liable to these spasm of pride and vanity which take the form of an irresistible nervous craving." The craving for convincing others of her "aristocratic family" consumes her existence and hopes to regain dignity. I suppose you could possibly interpret the blood from her lungs as the result of the air wasted in trying to convince others of her notion. Ultimately, this 'illness' is also a reminder of society's effects on the poor. Her final attempts at survival are spent in the streets with her family. In response to the jeering and degrading comments, she again wastes her breath to convince their nobility. Her health continues to deteriorate as the respect lessens from the crowds that pass. Her ending comes with the confrontation of the policeman about her status and rights to perform such acts; it all comes to an end- she is told she is noone, and has no right...
i love college
in response to Natedawg's "I love college," I refer you to the chapter, "Nice to Eat you, and Other Acts of Vampirism."
In this chapter the author wrote about literature and reading literature and he probably also referenced at least twice that book exmaple about the women because either he cowrote that book, or he's getting paid in timeshares everytime he mentions it.
Pat,
Congratulations, your point is totally valid! Dostoyevsky does indeed succeed in getting the novel off to a great start via bleak and dreary, yet sharp clues about the Russian summer setting. I like the quote about the heat from the streets; if I were a writer that piece of genius could have knocked me out of the deepest writer’s block, baby.
Now what you have done here in your response that I haven’t seen in any others is tying just a detail of your point back to HTRLLAP. While other, such mediocre, students prefer to take the easy road and relate their entire message back to HTRLLAP, you have gone one step above. Instead of making your post fit one of Foster’s lessons, you let Foster work for YOU. By tying in just one detail (that being the seasonal importance) to the other book, you were able to continue your analysis of the intro sans chains from “the man,” and explain the importance of Dostoyevsky’s “setting the stage as one of bleak physically oppressing aspects and repressive psychological ones.” You also say how the setting is important geographically, not just seasonally. This is true, as well, and you prove your point just well. You also mention how the protagonist is “plagued” by “serious issues,” and you make sure to relate that accusation back to the quotes you supplied here.
Geography, season, and the “grimy” characters all serve to set the tone of the novel. You capture that well, fellow AP kid, you capture that well.
Post a Comment