1. WELCOME BACK MR. DUNCAN!
2. For the next two or three discussions the focus will be on characters who serve as foils/doubles to Raskolnikov and/or as representatives of particular "types" or "theories". Without running to Google or Cliff's Notes or whatever your crutch of choice might be, choose a character who you think serves as a double or foil to Raskolnikov. Find a list of passages that reveal that character and be ready to support your reasoning (FYI: I have 17 just for Svidrigailov). Be sure to take down these notes and be ready for the discussion. As you will recall, Mr. Duncan will be collecting all your notes at the end of the unit for a truckload of points (no, we haven't decided how many) and evaulating your blog responses as well as your in-class participation.
3. For the blog: Discuss Marmeladov. Some critics say he serves as a type of foil to Raskolnikov, others that he is a representative of a "type", others that he represents a major theme of the novel. What do YOU think? Look again at the discussion with Raskolnikov in the tavern (ch. 2), beginning with paragraph 7: "My dear sir," he began almost solemnly, "poverty is no vice . . . " on through the point where they leave the tavern. As always, support your ideas -- don't make Mr. Duncan get out his hip boots to wade through your post.
4. p.s. For those of you out there who haven't finished reading the book and are winging it: Be scholars. You will discover great joy and form all kinds of powerful synapses in those massive brains by sinking your teeth into a novel with this depth. You short-change yourself, your classmates, and Mr. Duncan when you phone it in. This is our last big unit--be with us fully by Tuesday!
5. How about sending Mr. Puterbaugh a thank-you note for all the time he has devoted to you!
6. I'm sorry about Mr. Duncan's knees, but glad I had a chance to get to know you, if ever so slightly. -- Mrs. M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Raskolnikov meets Marmeladov very early in the book (2nd chapter of the 1st part to be exact), right after completing his “experiment” at the pawnbroker’s apartment. It is Marmeladov who initiates the conversation; He pours his drunken heart out to Raskolnikov, essentially confiding to a stranger his life story. Marmeladov is an alcoholic, trapped in a hopeless cycle of drinking and regret. He has a “…weakness for high flown speeches from a habit of frequently entering into conversation with strangers of all sorts” (15). Yet, within these speeches, Marmeladov is fully aware that his deeds are pathetic and despicable. He admits, “I am a pig”…”a useless worm” (16-17). One can’t help but feel sorry for him, even Raskolnikov pities the man. When talking to Marmeladov, Raskolnikov’s demeanor changes, from one of abhorrence and despise for humanity to a “desire to be with other people” (13). This change signifies the schism within Raskolnikov as his attitude towards Aliona Ivanova was that of hatred and disgust. Thus, these two meeting early within the book establishes Raskolnikov’s dual personality: his compassionate and/or detached nature.
I think Marmeladov represents a crucial theme of this novel: vice and human nature. Dostoevsky uses both the characters of Marmeladov and his daughter Sonia to advance his belief that one cannot simply consider and judge another on their deeds and disposition. He questions the very nature of Raskolnikov’s theory of the superman. Both Marmeladov and Sonia commit acts that are frowned upon in any society: extreme alcoholism and prostitution. Yet, they cannot be considered “louses”, as Raskolnikov’s theory advocates. Both characters are essentially “good people”; they are compassionate and moral. No one can easily be fit into distinct categories, as the Marmeladovs indicate. Human nature must be taken into account. Within Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky offers seemingly contradictory characters such as the honorable, virtuous prostitute and the remorseful, self-despising drunkard to advocate that such apathetic and coldhearted theories have no real place in society.
Moreover, Marmeladov is essential to the story line. Although he doesn’t appear too often within the novel (at the tavern and when he was killed by the carriage), he represents a crucial link to Sonia. Without Sonia, Raskolnikov may never have found redemption.
I'm not sure how Marmeladov can function as a foil to Raskolnikov. Anyone?
In my personal opinion, and from what I gather from reading this particular passage, I think that Marmeladov represents the intense amount of poverty in Russia during this time. I represents perhaps the lowest level of poverty to the point where his family lives in one room and he merely drinks all of their posessions away. he has reached the point where even he can see no solution to the problem that he himself is causing : " Such is my character, would you believe, that I have actually drunk her stockings." also his statement taht " I do not regard the matter with contempts but with resignation." He no longer see's the point of fighting it. I think he represents the theme of poverty within st. petersburg that is evident throughout the book. The Imagery Dostoyevsky uses to describe their poverty is particularly alarming, conjuring images of cold dirty children, intense illness, and child prostitution. It allows Dostoyevsky to set the tone for the city, as many of the people in the bar simply laugh at him and his drunkness, this due to the common nature of Marmeladov's situation.
however, michelle's theory about crime and punishment being covered in seemingly contradictory characters is also interesting. But i disagree that Marmeladov is a good person, Sonia is for sure, but Marmeladov no longer truly cares about anyone, and spends his money on alcohol and sleeps in the ally to "escape" his problems, where is the moral in that?
Ah, Marmeladov, the destitute drunkard. I thought him to be almost comical in his mannerisms. However, I wouldn't call him comic relief as he is only funny in the sense that he is a bit whimsical on account of his inebriation during his and Raskolikov's first meeting. The other aspects of his life: the shabby, cramped "corner" he resides in, the health of his wife, Sonya's unfortunate occupation, his inability to stay away from the drink, the loss of his job, and his eventual death, are all exceedingly tragic events. I don't even think that first meeting was meant to be comical, I just have a weird sense of humor and found his ramblings amusing. Heh, don't you think it's awkward when someone says something, and you start laughing, but then you realize you're the only one laughing? Yeah, that happens to me probably more often than it should... Back on topic though...
Okay, so I need to theorize what theme Marmy represents right? And how he might be a possible foil to Raskolnikov? And I need quotes? Alright then. How about, "...has it ever happened to you...hm...well, to ask hopelessly for a loan? ... Hopelessly in the fullest sense, when you know beforehand that you will get nothing by it" (16). Here we see Marmeladov's dire straits. He has no money, and a loan is out of the question. Yet he tried anyways. We want to pity him, but that's made a little harder once he says "Do you know, sir, do you know, I have sold her stockings for drink" (17), referring to Katerina, whom he goes on to describe as "coughing and spitting blood."
Now, it seems from class discussions like people so far are suggesting that Marmeladov represents the extreme poverty of Russia / St. Petersburg. However, one of the very first things Marmeladov says is, "Dear sir, poverty is not a vice, that's a true saying...But destitution, dear sir, destitution is a vice" (15). I think that Marmeladov represents the hopeless despair that poverty and destitution are capable of instilling, rather than the poverty itself.
I think my "possible foil" reasoning is pretty far-fetched, but, here is goes anyway: my shot in the dark. While Raskolnikov has difficulty ever making up his mind, and always seems confused and unsure of just what he wants, Marmeladov knows exactly what he is doing, what he has done, and what he wants. But while Rask goes about taking action, Marmy never does anything about his situation except to drink and drink and drink (and possible throw himself under the horses' hooves).
Um, yeah. Haha, let's go with that for now, but I'll probably come back later and see what others have come up with.
I don't think Marmeladov is a 'bad' person. He is a complex character that brings his own themes and ideas to the book and also mirrors many aspects of Raskolnikov. The beauty of Marmeladov is the mixed emotions his life account evokes in readers. He is an utterly disgusting man for many obvious reasons, both his appearance,
"Bits of hay were in fact clinging to his clothes and sticking to his hair. It seemed quite probable that he had not undressed or washed for the last five days. His hands, particularly, were filthy. They were fat and red, with black nails." (15)
But also in his self admitted guilt of stealing from his wife, driving his daughter into prostitution, and abandoning his starving young children- all for drink. Yet, despite all this there is something not entirely despicable in him. He loves his family deeply, and begs that they are to be blamed for nothing. He knows he is a 'swine', and doesn't pretend the things he has done are not horrible. He dipicts himself as a helpless victem of circumstance and because of this we must pity him. He himself even pleads for the pity of his listeners,
" Come, who will have pity on a man like me, eh? Are you sorry for me, sir, or not? Tell me, sir, are you sorry or not? " 20
Marmeladov is destitude and utterly hopeless. He does nothing to improve his situation because he sees not what can be done. He is mearly a passive force in life that excepts what blows come and does nothing to change them. He reasons
"such is my fate and I am a beast by nature!"
and so he is always prone to fall to drink, because it is his fate to do so, it is his fate to suffer. And he embraces it. He welcomes suffering, the tavern where he goes is not for relieve but to deepen his suffering by drink-
"And the more I drink the more I feel it. That's why I drink too. I try to find sympathy and feeling in drink.. . I drink so that I may suffer twice as much!" (21)
And it is through this exepting of his beast nature and welcoming of suffering that Marmeladov finds comfort. He reasons suffering will be his salvation, and God will take pity on him and safe, not because he deserves it but because he knows he does not.
"And He will say, 'This is why I receive them, oh ye wise, this is why I receive them, oh ye of understanding, that not one of them believed himself to be worthy of this.'" (25)
Marmeladov serves in the as the absolute picture of suffering. He is utterly destitute, but what separates him from the other impoverished figures is that he does nothing about it, but rather welcomes his pain, knowing he deserves it. He is completely fatalistic in his reasoning. Raskolnikov sees his own passive nature in Marmeladov and it frightens him. What if he were to just allow life to happen to him as this man has done and watch silently as his family fell into deep poverty and shame? Would he be a sedimentary beast like him who only lies and suffers yet does nothing to change it? Ironically Raskolnikov does indeed follow the path of Marmeladov. After he commits his 'crime' Raskolnikov lies and mulls over his weakness like Marmeladov. He rests in an ill stupor and leaves his family to fend for themselves while he suffers greatly, and suffers more for this lying yet still his weight and pain is to great for him to move to action. So in different ways both characters fall into the same inactive state of suffering, showing the complete entrapment of poverty. It is like quick sand where the more one struggles the further they sink in. From this perspective the Marmeladov path is the wisest one, since he will only lie and sink slowly to death. That is why his character evokes not only disgust but also pity. Perhaps, like he claims, he is only a victim to his beast nature and the circumstances surrounding him.
By the way, Welcome back Mr. Duncan!
And super thanks to Mrs. Minor and Mr. Peuterbaugh (sorry for spelling) for taking such good care of us the last quarter or so!!!
What was interesting to me about Marmeladov was not in the character himself, but in the way Raskolnikov responds to him. At that point when they meet for the first time, Raskolnikov is coming from the pawnbroker’s place. He has a few choice opinions of the woman—he is absolutely disgusted with her, and hates her for her useless, degrading character. But then pops in Marmeladov, a drunk who is arguably just as despicable, even if in a different ways.
He tells the story about his family, and of Sonia, who is forced into prostitution in order to support them. He is well aware that his alcoholic ways are damaging, but he acknowledges this as downing another drink. He doesn’t do anything about his situation. And yet, Raskolnikov receives him vastly different than how he did the pawnbroker.
Ah, it looks like Michelle already touched on the dual personality thing. That’s where I was planning on going with this. BUT OKAY. I’ll attempt to add onto it. His meeting with Marmeladov, juxtaposed with the previous meeting with the pawn broker, illustrates two opposite sides of Raskolnikov’s personality. The first, which can hate so deeply that it leads to murder, and the second, which can feel compassion toward even the most pitiful.
I’m also not exactly sure how the two of them serve as foils. I had been looking mainly at Raskolnikov and Razumikhin.
--
CAN'T WAIT TO SEE MR. DUNCAN TOMORROW!
Marmeladov is introduced to the readers very early in "Crime and Punishment." In chapter 2, Raskolnikov wanders into a tavern in which he stumbles across a seemingly intelligent, but yet "mad" individual who strikes up a conversation with Raskolnikov. I believe that instead of being a foil of Raskolnikov, Marmeladov represents the depth of an individual. Dostoyevsky uses Marmeladov to show that "poverty is no vice" and that despite his socially unaccepted alcoholism, he still possesses noticeable human compassion and good. Marmeladov states, "You may be poor, yet still retain a certain inborn nobility of feeling," which directly relates to Dostoyevsky's theme in the book. Though one may have a socially unaccepted exterior, one can still possess a moral and humanistic interior.
Again: This is William's Blog post, as he does not have access to the blog
In a way, I think Marmeladov acts as a foil to Luzhin. Both have problems, but while Luzhin does not seem to acknowledge his evils, Marmeladov fully embraces them and feebly attempts to change them. Luzhin is essentially a bad guy who is unwilling to acknowledge and attempt to change his ways while Marmeladov is at heart a good person with a serious alcohol illness.
He himself states that his problem, “drunkenness is also no virtue” (13). In contrast, Luzhin never lets up, trying to even use a guilt trip “‘either you or him,’ you say, and thereby show me how little I mean to you” to get his way. Thus Marmeladov acts as a foil to Luzhin when one talks about evil actions, one is wealthy and mal-intentioned while the other is poor but well-meaning at heart.
In essence, Marmeladov serves to represent one type of a person who seems “evil”. Dostoevsky uses Marmeladov to argue that while one’s actions may seem evil, one cannot judge solely by those actions. Similar to what Michelle said, this represents the mixed quality of human nature. One can perform seemingly evil actions but still be moral and have good intentions. As stated previously, Luzhin is the other portion representing the mixed quality of human nature. One can be seemingly righteous and moral (marrying a girl in need) but also have a mal-intent hiding underneath. Marmeladov and Luzhin are used to describe how human nature is never as simple as the actions that can be seen.
As for Marmeladov as a character, I agree with many of the other posts here, especially that Marmeladov is the pinnacle of suffering. The only thing that is worse than knowing what you are doing is wrong is continuing to do wrong actions and not being able or willing to stop yourself. Marmeladov is almost at a point where he is contemplating suicide, feeling that it is better to be “crucified” (23) and then pitied, then to continue to live as he is.
I think Marmeladov represents a major theme in Crime and Punishment. His situation is pretty stereotypical of the time period. Marmeladov doesn't have a job, has a wife and small children to provide for and tries to escape from his poverty stricken life through alcohol. In order for his family to live in an apartment and have some food in their stomachs, Marmeladov's oldest daughter Sonia is forced into prostitution to provide for the family. Marmeladov even goes to Sonia to get money for the tavern. So Sonia provides money for Marmeladov's wife and kids, her own rent since she can't live with Marmeladov and Katarina, and also must give her father money so that he can go waste it at the tavern. Marmeladov hates that he does this to his daughter but he can't seem to stop himself either.
To me, Marmeladov is an example of the kind of person that Raskonikov is becoming. Marmeladov was a successful clerk and then became unemployed just like Raskonikov went from being a successful student to living in debt and dropping out of school. Marmeladov brings no money home to provide for his family, instead he takes the money his daughter earns and spends it on alcohol. Raskonikov has no income and he takes the money that his mother recieves and either gives it away or spends it on alcohol.
Because of these similarities I think that Marmeladov is simply a more advanced version of Raskolnikov. With the continued disrespect and lack of independence Raskolnikov continues to rely on others and blame them for his own shortcomings. The difference between the two is that Marmeladov is at a stage in which he is "without hope" and doesn't see a point in trying anymore. Raskolnikov sees this and knows that that is not what he wants. He makes a change and does something drastic, stepping further away from Marmeladov's stituation, but closer to a helpless state. (Side note: I don't think that Raskolnikov killed the old woman because he didn't want to be like Marmeladov, I just think that he viewed their situations as completely different after the murder, when in reality they are not.)
I would like to submit the idea that Marmeladov is both a foil and representative of a theme in the novel. Raskonlikov doesn't seem to be too interested in Marmeladov's story in the bar, he just has nothing better to do. Whereas Marmeladov bides his time and attempts to plan things out, albeit in a haphazard manner, and still keeps his "look before you leap" manner, because he always knows what he wants or he expects next (e.g. the beating he wants, because he feels he deserves it, and he knows he has what's coming to him). Raskolnikov acts on impulse -- a form of "leap before you look". He spends the majority of his time worrying and thinking about turning himself in, and then changing his mind, then fainting at some mention of a murder, and he continues on this way for some time. As well as being Raskolnikov's foil, Marmeladov represents an entire theme of foresight, a skill that seems to elude Raskolnikov, although his friends and family all seem to realize what they do will have an effect upon the future, and they try to plan out said effect.
For me, Marmeladov is like a mirror to why Raskolnikolv does the things he does. They are similar in several ways. One of the very first things he says to Raskolnikolv is that, "Poverty is not a vice... But destitution... is a vice. In poverty you may still retain your innate nobility of soul, but in destitution,- never- no one," (Part 1, Ch. 2). Not only is Marmeladov in complete destitution, but so is Raskolnikolv. It can be inferred from the strong feelings of the people who love him that he had quite a noble spirit and was overall a good person. Part of the reason he goes and kills the pawnbroker is due to his intense poverty that goes beyond average lack of money. He is basically completely broke and it's during this time that Raskolnikolv snaps and commits the murder. The actions of Raskolnikolv show the truth of Marmeladov's words. In addition, Marmeladov's own actions support these words. He drinks and doesn't go to work and basically starves his family. All of these terrible things occur at least in part due to his destitution.
Later on in their discussion, Marmeladov reveals that his daughter Sonia, who became a prostitute to save the family, gave him 30 kopecks for food for the family. Instead he spends it foolishly and ridiculously on drink. Raskolnikolv later follows this poor example when Marmeladov is ran over and killed, Raskolnikolv gives Katerina Ivanovna all of the money his own family had just borrowed for him to survive.
One of the most important things Marmeladov says to Raskolnikolv is that he ought to suffer for his terrible actions. He says, "I ought to be crucified, crucified on a cross, not pitied!" (Part 1, Ch. 2) A major theme of this novel is clearly the importance of suffering for the greater good. Sonia gives herself up to try and save her family. Marmeladov, realizing how awful his actions are, admits that he needs to suffer to pay for what he's done to his family. After the murder of the pawnbroker, it takes a long time for Raskolnikolv to realize he too needs to pay for his crime, but eventually he too realizes that. Marmeladov's words at such an early part of the novel reveal this important theme.
Marmeladov is a man who once had a really nice life, but has lost nearly everything due to his addiction to alcohol. He obviously has the option to quit or atleast try, but he continues going to that tavern and drinking. He's kind of like the outcome of the poor society. Something that's different about Marmeladov(should we just say Marmalade?) is that he doesnt beg like some of the other poor characters. I mean, this guy is dirt broke, DIRT broke, but he doesnt ask for the money that Raskolnikov gives him. He's very...very...what's the word? Oh well. Anyways over I think he's halfway between a character serving as a foil, and one that's there just like any other, to bring in new themes and what not.
Marmeladov is interesting because I think he is what Raskolnikov would be if Raskal (it's shorter and slightly ironic) never acted and only brewed on his thoughts. Like what Jill was saying Marmel is an advanced form of a kind of person Raskal could become. Marmel has a thought process about God and the saving grace of Jesus, how if he is irresponsible when he is saved he will be more greatful than one who lived a clean life. To many this sounds crazy: do wicked things and you will be rewarded, but this is the conclusion Marmel was able to justify through his own personal contemplation. What is interesting is that Marmel was able to justify a poor lifestyle and Raskal was able to justify murder. They both did the same thing. Raskal comitted murder because it was for the greater good and it would test out his theories of justice. He justified his situation. Thus Marmel can be seen as a type for Raskal .
The character of Marmeladov is an intriguing one. At first glance, he appears to be nothing more than a profligate drunk, rash and despondent and wallowing in self-pity, and keenly aware of the misfortunes that have befallen him; yet, when examined more closely, he proves himself to be much more, to be someone else entirely - he is at once a man of great compassion and depth, aware not just of his woes but of his guilt. He professes that he is nothing more than a "dirty swine" (p. 31), that he "ought to be crucified - crucified, and not pitied" (pg. 40), and he begs for forgiveness for those transgressions, asking that his daughter Sonia be pardoned too. Says he in a drunken rant:
"Where is the daughter who sacrificed herself for her wicked and consumptive mother and for little children who were strangers to her? Where is the daughter who had pit on her earthly father, the disgusting drunkard, and who was not dismayed by his beastliness?...Come unto me! I have already forgiven you once. And now too your many sins are forgiven because you have loved much." (p. 40)
Marmeladov makes clear how anxious he is to repay his daughter for what she has given him, how desperate he is that she not be punished for doing good for others. I believe it is that anxiety of his, that desire to make amends, that interests Raskolnikov the most, that inspires in him a compulsion to act. I think that Raskolnikov recognizes just how similar he is to Marmeladov, and I think that he understands the poor man's urgency - he knows that if he does not act soon, if he passively accepts the fate handed to him and allows his sister to marry on his behalf, he will become Marmeladov. He will be bereft of will and conviction, and he will be confined to seeking "sorrow and tears" just like Marmeladov. Perhaps that is why he makes for such a good foil for Raskolnikov: he is steadfastly moral and resolute despite his failings, like Raskolnikov, yet, unlike Raskolnikov, he knows no way of truly redeeming himself and solving his predicament.
"'...I don't understand about that drunkard who died and that daughter...' [said Pulcheria Alexandrovna (Raskolnikov's mother)]" (page 220).
I want to say Marmeladov is both a foil and a type. Readers remember the character more for his suffering and characterization than for his personal beliefs on why he is a drunk. This leads more to a "type/theme."
He's a guy in a bar who's hopeless to the outside world. An example of Russia's poverty. He thinks he's hopeless himself, he is fully aware of his expenditures. "'...I am a beast by nature!...Such is my fate! Do you know, sir, do you know, I have sold her very stockings for a drink'?" (page 14). Marmeladov is a regular ol' type of literary character. The drunk who knows he's a drunk, but still possesses a grasp of awareness and intelligence.
He talks to Raskolnikov about his hardships. His family life is very poor, his wife has consumption, his oldest daughter is a whore, and his other children are starving. He drinks to suffer. "'...it's not merry-making I seek but tears and tribulation! ...Do you suppose, you that sell, that this pint of yours has been sweet to me? It was tribulation I sought at the bottom of it...'" (page 22).
Everyone in CRIME AND PUNISHMENT seems to suffer in some way. Marmeladov chooses to avoid the weight of the world by suffering from the hands of alcohol. He willingly chooses it. Raskolnikov chooses to suffer by killing a man. By juxtaposition, calling Marmeladov a foil is appropriate. He thinks of everyone and only of himself at the same time. There's little altruism present in him. He doesn't use his money for his family, but for his own burdens. Raskolnikov, on the other hand, pays for things for Marmeladov's family. He was "vexed that he had come [to the tavern]" (page 20) but later puts up with the clerk and helps him out even though he didn't fancy him too much in the first place. Marmeladov seems to highlight the good in Raskolnikov, he's not just a mad murderer, he keeps on helping the Marmeladov family throughout the book.
Marmeladov represents the suffering of the poor and destitute people. The reader obtains a vivid image of his current social status by the description his clothing which is old and ragged (I also pictured it having many grease stains because just about everything is greasy), he hasn't showered in five days, and his hair is unkempt and extremely greasy.
And I would agree with Michael that Marmeladov is a foil (in terms of their approach in taking action). It is seen that Marmeladov tends to think about events and is aware of the outcome before making a decision while Romanovitch acts on impulse with little foresight.
I found what John said about Marmeladov possessing some goodness despite his negative habits interesting because at the end of the chapter, Romanovitch thinks to himself "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". Maybe Marmeladov affected Romanovitch's belief in some way… maybe, but this is where I stop.
Thank you, Mrs. Minor and Mr. Puterbaugh :)
Welcome back, J.D.!
While Marmeladov can serve as a foil to Raskolnikov and can also be representative of a type of character, to me he seems to represent a major theme of the novel. Marmeladov represents a reoccuring theme in this book which is poverty, destitution, and the inability to change fate. He knows he keeps drinking away his life and money and that his daughter is left with no choice but to prostitute herself in order to help out. But he does not change in order for the better. He recognizes his true vice which is not poverty but his drinking yet does nothing to help his family. Poverty is a major theme of the book and ends up being one of the motivations behind the killing of the pawnbroker. Discontent stills up when some have more than others.
Marmeladov is representative of a theme in the novel about one type of people in society. He is genuinely good on the whole, but his actions lead him to become a member of the lowest rung in society. Dostoevsky might be trying to prove withMarmeladov that good people can do bad things and still be realized as good. Marmeladov abanodoned his family and threw away any responsibilities he has to gain another drink. He commits all his dispicable actions while knowing full well that he is ruining lives. An interesting aspect of Marmeladov is that he knows all the things he did wrong and does not try to justify for them. He hates himself more than his wife ever could, because self loathings is how he can survive from a day to day basis.
I thought it was an interesting point that the other posters make about how Raskolnikov dispises the pawn lady so much, but he takes pity on Marmeladov. They can both be considered bad people, but Marmeladov can be considered worse as he is abadoning all the mouths he has to feed and allowing his daughter to prostitute herself for money. The main difference between the pawn lady and Marmeladov is that Marmeladov admits all the faults he has and hates himself for it. The pawn broker has no ounce of guilt for taking away posesions from the helpless people and ripping them off. One cannot hate Marmeladov, but just pity him for the unfortunate way his life turned out. Marmeladov helped Raskolnikov sweep away the idea about murdering the pawn broker for a little while, because he reminded him of the opposite of Napoleon's character. And that society is filled with anti-Napoleons rather, Raskolnikov can question what right does he have to take a life of another.
Marmeladov is an interesting character, who is somewhat like Radkolnikov. Both were once sucessful, or on the path to sucess, but are now poor and squander money away. Even though there is this simmilarity, I still believe that Marmdeladov represents an unique type of character. He represents the poverty in Russia. The hopeless despair on the poor. He is a person who has let poverty to make him feel like life is inescapble. A trait which I think is very different than Raskolnikov who believes he is Napoloeon. However he still retains that "Poverty is no vice" and that one can be good and feel noble despite poverty.
To me Marmeladov represents all three of the things he speaks of in the tavern, poverty, drunkenness, and especially destitution. Of all the things that Marmeladov talks about, it is the line a few paragraphs into his speech that reads, “Do you understand what it means when you have absolutely nowhere to turn?” that strikes me with the most force. I believe that Marmeladov, perhaps because of this line, is more of a type/foreshadow for people and events to come, as opposed to a foil to Raskolnikov’s character. This is because of how, though not explicitly, this question comes up time and time again within the book. It is a major tone/theme in the book. When Marmeladov himself has nowhjere to turn, he takes all of him money and wastes it away at a tavern, and then, even later possibly commits suicide when he is trampled by the horse carriage. Svidrigailov was similar in the sense that after he realized that Duina could never love him, he too committed suicide. Where does a man do when he has nowhere else to turn? Too often to death, but not always. Raskolnikov really feels no remorse for his murderous actions, however, Raskolnikov often feels backed into a corner, like everyone knows what he did, and panics, even making himself sick at times. Even when he is finally going to confess, it is first because he thinks that if he doesn’t Svidrigailov will beat him to it. Though to give Raskolnikov some credit, he did go through with the confession even after finding out the Svidrigailov was dead. Needless to say, I think that Marmeladov is really a representation of the philosophies/ramblings that he speaks of in the 2nd chapter. Marmeladov is the first to bring up these key ideas/themes and definitely foreshadows to future events that coincide with the idea about where a person can go when there is nowhere to go.
Marmeladov. His name apparently is derived from the word marmalade, the jam that is made of orange or lemon peels. A delicacy that is sweet yet bitter at the same time. I think that his name somehow reflects his own personality and traits. Marmeladov is a very "sweet" man, he knows that he is doing wrong in drinking and he knows all of his vices. However, his situation is bitter in that he can't seem to fix his faults and his living matters. He doesn’t try to justify his actions, he accepts them. He wants to fix his flaws, but he feels that he is not strong enough to do them. He watches his wife and his children suffer, and he is becomes so disappointed in himself for not doing anything about it. But what does that matter at all with the novel?
I think it matters because he then becomes an underlying theme in the book. The book is called "Crime and Punishment" for the reason of Ros killing the pawnbroker and her half sister. However, he does not have a reason to repent from his sins. He was a student, nothing more, nothing less and he does not do anything to get himself out of his rut. He is stagnating in his own room, not doing anything except plotting for murder. His punishment is 8 years in Siberia? That is nothing compared to Marmeladov's punishment, being trampled underneath horses in possibly his drunken state. He dies for his sins. It confuses me how Marmeladov knows his faults, and although he's not fixing it, he suffers and dies. Ros knows how he is going to commit a huge fault, and he doesn't stop himself from doing it, but he suffers from it, he only gets 8 years in Siberia? That doesn't really make sense.
"Do you understand, sir, do you understand what it means when you have absolutely nowhere to turn?" (16) Is the quote that always gets to me. When there is nowhere else to turn, why turn when you can just go up or down? Either kill yourself, commit suicide; or do certain things to bring yourself up again, such as turning yourself in. I guess this is what also brings us to Sonia. Sonia had nowhere else to turn, and Ros almost laughs in her face for not just giving up. But she was always looking up, she had the Bible and God to look up to. Marmeladov not only brings himself into Ros's life, but he also brings Sonia into Ros's life which changes everything for him. We got to view the two sides, one going up while the other going down. Which one receives the redemption? Yeaa. So I think that the theme Marmeladov portrays is that there is always hope, even in the darkest hour. We just have to look for it and grab hold of it when it comes by. I know that sounds corny but I can't help myself.
Marmeladov is introduced early in the book, right after Raskolnikov completes his ‘experiment’ at the pawnbrokers. The drunk strikes up conversation with Raskolnikov (in which he does most of the talking) and spills to him his life story. What’s intriguing about Marmeladov is that although he is a drunk and drinks away the little money and few possessions that his family has, he acknowledges this and feels terrible for it. He says himself that he is, “a pig” (17). Even though he is the cause of many of his families problems, he doesn’t try to fix any of them. His own young daughter is, “forced to take a yellow ticket” (21). While she tries to get enough money to keep her younger siblings fed, he goes out and drinks it all away.
I think that Marmeladov represents the level of poverty to which so many people had sunken to. He is so poverty stricken that he no longer even attempts to get out of his horrible situation, and the only way he feels he can escape it (or at least cope with it) is by drinking.
Marmeladov serves as a representative of a major theme in the novel. Marmeladov represents the reoccuring theme that is poverty, destitution, and the inability to change fate. These qualities are shown through most of the characters and settings Raskolnikov encounters. Even Raskolnikov falls under these guidelines, though he believes he can control his own fate due to his percieved similarity to Napoleon. Poverty and destitution both enhance the setting of the novel and also provide tangible evidence to show how desperate and in despair the people in St Petersburg are. However, there are some contrasts to the theme Marmeladov represents. Luzhin and Svdrigailov come to mind, but for the most part poverty, destitution, and the inability to change fate - Marmeladov's vices - affect the majority of the characters and is a reoccuring theme in Crime and Punishment.
Post a Comment