In Heart of Darkness, Marlow's descriptions of Kurtz include the following: “a wandering and tormented thing”, someone whose words were like “phrases spoken in nightmares”, someone who “had no restraint, no faith”, whose “soul was mad”, someone who “struggled, struggled”. Think back to the nightmare-like atmosphere that suffused Heart of Darkness, then read again the description of Rodya's last dream (6 pages from the end of the novel, p. 547 P/V version, paragraph beginning “He lay in the hospital all through the end of Lent…” and ending with “…had heard their words or voices.” Both Rodion and Kurtz engage in interior battles fought between their inner goodness and their desire to “step over”, to be “supermen”. Crime and Punishment, however, ends with a powerful feeling of hope and redemption, whereas Heart of Darkness ends with impenetrable darkness. How can we better understand Raskolnikov's redemption through the tragedy of Kurtz? (As always, support your opinions.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Really Duncan? Really? You spring Heart of Darkness on us? *Sigh*
Okay well I'll get back to you on this one....
After eight months, Miranda, you should know that I really dislike students addressing me by my last name only. Wise up, okay?
Wow, I am the first official poster? This has never happened. And unlike Miranda, I personally like Heart of Darkness. Haha. Now onto my post.
I think one of the most important factors in Raskolnikolv's redemption, if not the most important, is Sonia. Sonia and really all of the women of Crime and Punishment are very different from those portrayed in Heart of Darkness. In HOD, the only women who appear are the Native woman of Kurtz's, the Beloved, and then the three Fates. None of them are central characters, although they play roles in the novel. The Beloved in particular is an example of Marlow's conviction that, "The women…are out of it- should be out of it completely. We must let them stay in that beautiful world of their own, lest ours get worse,". She is completely unaware of Kurtz's true nature and can do nothing to save him. He dies, mad and a completely changed man, in the jungle without her.
In Crime and Punishment, however, Sonia and the other women help save Raskolnikolv. Sonia is this beacon of light and goodness for Rodia. Not only does she help convince him that he must confess, she follows him faithfully to his prison in Siberia and visits him as often as she can. It is after one of these visits that Rodia has this dream of a plague where, "... Men attacked by them became instantly furious and mad. But never had men considered themselves to be so intelligent and so completely in possession of the truth... They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good... Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite," (518, Part 6, Ch. 2). After this dream, Rodia finally realizes just how futile and wrong his "idea" was. Up until that point, in prison, he still somewhat believed in his "idea" but all that changed after his dream reveals what the world might be like if it was filled with people who believed just like him.
Sonia, patient and loving as always, waits for him to make this realization. After this dream, she comes to him and they both realize that they are love. Rodia feels new peace and sense that he can build his life over. The hold of the "idea" over him has been broken. As Rodia himself says, "Life had stepped into the place of theory and something quite different would work itself in his mind," (521, Part 6, Ch. 2). If Rodia had not had Sonia, I think he might well have fallen into the trap of madness and despair that Kurtz fell into. Sonia helps him realize the folly of his damaging ideas and sets him on the path towards regaining his life back.
Raskolnikov realized and eventually accepted that he was not one of the extraordinary people he had considered to be above the law. For, according to his theory, if he were, he would not feel any guilt or conscious effect for the crime committed. This realization and acceptance allowed him to finally feel a bit of redemption. He no longer saw himself to be above everyone else, and because of this he could begin to redeem himself. Raskolnikov could now acknowledge his love for Sonia, “she knew and had no doubt that he loved her above everything else and that at last the moment had come” (520). His mind was no longer clouded by the ideas he had insisted on holding onto, so when he let go, he could feel what he hadn’t allowed himself to feel previously. “Life had stepped into the place of theory” (521).
Kurtz was never able to redeem himself because he never acknowledged that he was no better than anyone else- he considered himself to be an, in Raskolnikov’s terms, an extraordinary person without doubt. Kurtz was viewed as a god by the people in the Congo, which only fueled his ego. Unlike Kurtz, Raskolnikov accepted reality and could start over. His new story would be different, it would be, “the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his transition from one world into another” (521).
Sorry JD, I blame it on watching too many cop and/or sports shows/movies.
Above all, I think that there are a couple reasons that Rodia was saved where Kurtz could not be. The first was in the fact that while they both desired to be "extraordinary," no one else thought Rodia to be "extraordinary" (at least not in the same sense that Rodia viewed being "extraordinary".) Kurtz however had a following of people, both in the natives and in the Russian. The Russian himself states, “You can’t judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man” (Part 3 Paragraph 4.) In addition, despite his attempt to be "above" the law, Rodia was still bound by the rules of the society in which he lived. Kurtz had ultimate authority in his area of the Congo, and no one would have been able to punish or reprimand him. Over a small lot of ivory, Kurtz almost shoots the Russian and who would have prevented it if the Russian had refused? No one. However, in C&P, Rodia is constantly under suspicion. Finally I think it is important to note that, Rodia had more people there to help him. Kurtz might have had some moral back-up from the Russian if the Russian hadn’t idolized Kurtz so much that it negated any positive effect. Kurtz was on his own and as the saying goes, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
As for Rodia’s dream, I think that the realization here is that it is the men that don’t think of themselves as being “extraordinary” that really are. Kurtz wanted the power – he relished in it – until he became too weak to maintain his power (and then eventually died). I don’t really think that Rodia ever thought himself to be “extraordinary.” His motivation for killing the pawnbroker was in his own words, “an experiment.” He was testing himself to see if he was an “extraordinary” man in the way he viewed being “extraordinary.” In calling himself a louse later in the novel, I think it is apparent that Rodia didn’t view himself as an “extraordinary” man. However Rodia is “extraordinary,” just not in the terms he is thinking of. Porfiry can see this and even states, “I am a finished man, that’s all… But you are quite different matter: God has a plan for you” (Part 6 Chap 5.) The Biblical saying, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (St. Matt 20:14 – King James Version) rings true to this as many are called to positions of power (Kurtz for example), but few are truly “extraordinary.” (As a side note, Rodia does have power. It’s just not as clearly defined as Kurtz’s. Last class we discussed how people were drawn to him and almost idolized him [especially his mother]. This I think qualifies him as having “power”.)
That is all I have for now. Again, I am sorry for my incorrect usage of your last name Mr. Duncan, but I hope you liked my blog!
The dream Raslkolnikov has in prison is very interesting. He dreams about the world going mad, because everyone becomes senselessly, feverishly fixated on their own ideas. There is no law because everyone thinks that they are right, and abandons their regular posts to fight for their cause. I think this dream projects a possible future of what could happen if everyone did what Raskolnikov had done. It helps him realize that even though the police are not always just, and even though people become trapped into mindless occupations, it is really best this way. If everyone were to rebel as he tried to, even if they were rebelling for something they really believed in, noting could be accomplished. How this dream relates to Kurtz quite escapes me. But after meditating on it for sometime I was able to identify many similarities between the characters Raskolnikov and Mr. Kurtz.
In "Heart of Darkness" the jungle is personified as the 'heart of darkness', the deepest, most isolated, darkest, untouched land yet known to man. It is here removed from all laws of 'civilized' society that the heart of man, and its great potential for evil is exposed. In this way it shows how 'dark' man can be, and raises the question if social laws are the only thing keeping all men from such rough savagery as exhibited by Kurtz. Raskolnikov in his theory similarly wonders at the nature of man. What enables some men to rise-like Kurtz- and rebel against such taming confines of society. Is it some superior breed of men that are able to become 'great' or perhaps, ruthless and maybe even evil? Or could any man become great if he chose to? Raskolnikov discovers within himself the answer to this question that all men cannot become 'great', doing whatever it takes to achieve personal gain. Applying this knowlege to a character like Kurtz makes one ponder if Kurtz could have become 'great' if he had never been to Africa. His initial ideas and intentions were positive, to bring 'light' to the savages, but in the end he became corrupted by power and wealth. Was he always corrupt or inclined to be so, or was it only his circumstances? How would a character like Raskolnikov act in his place? We can conjecture from his heavy consonance that Raskolnikov would have not became a 'Kurtz'.
Kurtz is one of the great, the 'Napoleons'. Raskolnikov is not, but he realizes that perhaps the world is better with fewer such people. This I believe is the essential difference between the two characters. Kurtz's story ends tragically because his death was the end of his great reign. He has had his moment of glory and that was it. Raskolnikov's end is hopeful because he failed, his glory has not come yet, and will not come in the same way Kurtz's did.
by the way mr. duncan i am hoping to talk to you before are next essay. could i stop by tomorrow after school, or should i come in before?
After school should be okay, Krista. Be sure to get there early. I have a nasty cold or something and may want to get out of there pronto.
Thanks for the apology, Miranda. Guess it'll be a steady diet of Masterpiece Theatre for you until the Jane Austen Society pronounces you cured.
Wow, Heart of Darkness seems so long ago. The difference between the two very similarly troubled men is the cause of Rskolnikov's redemption. Both men I gather, are very idealistic but both with skewed morals. Kurtz believed it was his rightful duty to "exterminate all the brutes." Raskolnikov sees that some people have the right to commit crimes if for the betterment of the general public. Raskolnikov though truly realizes that he is not "extraordinary" but rather needs to suffer for his crimes. Kurtz, I believe, knew what he was doing but he lacked the one thing that Raskolnikov had to keep him going: Sonia. She was intent on keeping him in line to seek his redemption. The reader doesn't see that idealic figure in Kurtz's life. Instead he has a mistress who is more like to stir up trouble. Each time Raskolnikov is ready to turn around and run such as at the police station, Sonia is right there.
Ah, Heart of Darkness. I wasn't expecting that to ever crop up again. I actually don't think this one is too hard to draw a connection between though. Hang on one second while I go dig through my backpack for Crime and Punishment.
Okay, got it. That didn't take too long. Here is the passage I immediately thought of upon reading this blog prompt:
"How it happened he did not know. But all at once something seemed to seize him and fling him at her feet. He wept and threw his arms round her knees. At first instant she was terribly frightened and she turned pale. She jumped up and looked at him trembling. But at the same moment she understood, and a light of infinite happiness came into her eyes. She knew and had no doubt that he loved her above everything else..." {520). Raskolnikov is saved by love. He has someone to be there for him and to be there for in return. His love lifts him up as nothing else could. He "had risen again and he knew it and felt it in the whole of his being" (520). The last two pages are filled to the brim with lovely descriptions of the way that the two of them were "renewed by love; the heart of each help infinite sources of life for the heart of the other" (520). The paragraphs I have been quoting ring distinctly with not-so-subtle echoes of the raising of Lazarus. The love Raskolnikov finds resurrects him. In fact, "those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life" (520).
Kurtz, on the other hand, has no such love. The Beloved, is not. Not beloved, that is. Kurtz abandons her. They can not save each other the way Rodia and Sonya save each other. Kurtz has only his ideals, and as such, perishes to the darkness within him. But Raskolnikov is able to overcome his darkness with the light of the love he shares with Sonya. Even though she is frightened, she is still there for Raskolnikov. "She too had been greatly agitated that day, and at night she was taken ill again. But she was so happy--and so unexpectedly happy--that she was almost frightened of her happiness. Seven years, only seven years" (521)! That kind of steadfast care is unavailable for Kurtz to cling to. He has nothing to hold on to and isn't saved.
I'm going to go get something to eat, and then I'll come back and maybe read through some other people's posts.
So, JD. It's Tuesday, and Hannah and I are studying together. So, we thought we would tackle this post together!
Hannah and I found the dream sequence very interesting. It shows a lot about the new realizations Raskolnikov had come to. Raskolnikov dreams about a plague that causes men to think of themselves as "extraordinary" and that they are in the right, as a result they go mad and "everyone and everything was perishing." (547) However, the dream ends with the following words, "Only a few people in the world could be saved; they were pure and chosen, destined to begin a new generation of people and a new life, to renew and purify the earth; but no one had seen these people anywhere, no one had heard their words or voices." (548) This shows how Raskolnikov believed that he was one of the plagued "extraordinary" men who ended up suffering, but as he pays for his actions, the pure and moral people like Sonia (who never tried to be anyone extraordinary) live in faith and without suffering.
After much confusion and discussion, we think that Kurtz's tragedy lies in that he died without someone to help him achieve his redemption. In seeing the demise of this character, we can compare this to the redemption of Raskolnikov. While Kurtz suffers alone, Raskolnikov, like many others have mentioned, had Sonia who introduced him to faith in God and forced her help on him when he shut everyone out. Raskolnikov is now able to accept the suffering he needs to endure in order to redeem himself.
6:42pm!!!Woohoo!!! :D
Yay back to Heart of Darkness, that one was my favorite book, or novella so far! :)
It is true that Kurtz and Raskolnikov both have the similar view of being extraordinary; however, it seems that Kurtz knew that he was as opposed to Raskolnikov, who was testing himself with the murder
I think what separates them is the way that they try to reach the level “superior”, or how they step over others and the actions they take after that. On the one hand, there is Kurtz, who does not think twice about what he is doing, he takes and kills as he pleases, never really considering the effect has on others. Moreover, after he does what he does, Kurtz forgets about it and moves on to the next task. He never questions himself, his actions, or his power, and is able to move on.
Raskolnikov, on the other hand, after committing the murder is left with a divided conscience, and at the bridge questions himself intensely, and his reasons for doing it.
His action affected him drastically, and Raskolnikov was no longer able to live an ordinary life. Raskolnikov is in a constant state of delirium and the only cause is simply the murder, and the act of the so-called “extraordinary” man. In addition, unlike Kurtz, Raskolnikov struggles with the idea of whether or not he should tell anyone, and for quite some time, and in turn, he lies to those closest to him.
Therefore Raskolnikov can reach his redemption because he never truly wanted to kill Alyona or Lizaveta, thus he had a constant internal struggle that affected him tremendously. By working through this struggle while he was in prison and with the help of Sonia, Raskolnikov was finally able to redeem himself after all.
Kurtz never saw that he had a problem, and one must admit the issue in order to move forward. Therefore, he was never able to redeem himself as Raskolnikov did, because Raskolnikov understood that he was not extraordinary and could not justify his actions and deep within himself, he possessed caring conscience.
In addition, in Raskolnikov’s final dream, all of the people are running around saying that “they alone had the truth…They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil or good; they did not know who to blame, who to justify.” This chaos of ‘I know what is right, and everyone else is wrong,’ is sort of what Kurtz believed, and that he had the answers and no one could tell him that he is wrong, is the type of destructive behavior that cannot be redeemed. Being humble and seeing the faults and what is actually there and not just one’s beliefs, is the only way to move forward and past all of the havoc, which is why Raskolnikov could redeem himself.
Raskolnikov and Kurtz are similar in that they're both murderers, but theyre completely different people overall. Raskolnikov thought what he was doing was helping the greater good of the public, and that he was actually allowed to do this. This is what Raskolnikov thought at first, until he realizes what he has done, with the help of Sonya, and decides he needs to pay the price for his crimes so he confesses. Kurtz, however, commits his crimes fully knowing what he's doing. He thinks he can just become king of Africa while doing what ever he wants. His ending is much darker then Raskolnikov's, and he pretty much ends up paying the price of his life after Marlow rescues him. Raskolnikov's ending is light and hopefuly, quite the opposite of Kurtz's. The contrast!! It's burning my eyes! @_@
Wow, Interesting! Wait a second...something smells fishy...and it's not that tuna casserole. Mr. Duncan you must have known these two fellows's ending would have contrasted like this, didn't you? Didn't you?! Oh well since it's for the sake of learning, I'll let it slide, but consider yourself lucky!
The first thing I noticed as I read through my peers' posts is that Raskolnikov's final dream is totally absent from my post. Oh well. My thoughts didn't really stem from his dream too much. I think I like Miss Tilleman's post best out of the people who have posted so far, but there were things I liked in all the postings.
A quick side note:
I really really liked the last two pages. They were definitely my favorite two pages of the entire book. So many awww-inspiring lines. I like the "and a light of infinite happiness came into her eyes" line best. Doesn't reading that just make you smile? Well, it made me smile at least...
I think the main difference between Raskolnikov and Kurtz was that Raskolnikov had a guiding hand, mainly from Sonia but also Razhumikhin and Porfiry. It is this that prevented Raskolnikov from falling into the pitfalls of his own ambition. Raskolnikov was able to change and somewhat understand his behavior throughout the book, which ends up leading to his epiphany in jail. Kurtz, on the other hand, allowed his ambition to run rampant. His actions continuously built in magnitude to a point in which any shred of inhibition was completely gone. I think Kurtz’s demise illustrates what can happen to a man with such “supermen” ambitions if his peers or society do not guide him in any way.
In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz is described as a normal man turned rampant. Thus he was previously similar to Raskolnikov, but the key difference is that he was isolated, without the unconditional love and advice of others to guide him. As Matthew said, Kurtz’s Beloved was, to Kurtz, a physical object and received no love nor gave loving advice. The same goes with Kurtz’s other acquaintances. No one was able to steer Kurtz in the right direction – they either supported his actions or were unable to dispense advice. This goes to show that without external inhibition, most men with this sort of internal conflict will lose out to their “superman” ambition.
In Crime and Punishment, the two main guiding hands are Sonia and Porfiry. The dream represents Raskolnikov’s epiphany, finally viewing his ambition from another point of view. “Everyone became anxious, and no one understood anyone else; each thought the truth was contained in himself alone” (547). Finally Raskolnikov is able to view himself from an objective, unbiased viewpoint. All of this is thanks to the unconditional love Sonia gave to him that regulated his morality and the unbiased reasoning and psychoanalysis of Porfiry. These two allowed Raskolnikov to finally view his ambition from a morally and logically neutral standpoint, allowing him to see that his behavior was “meaningless”.
Forgive me if my Heart of Darkness references aren’t completely correct. That part of my brain looks kind of like a whited sepulcher—barren and empty, but the face in front of it is very beautiful and white.
I am going to continue on with what Matt said because I think he is on to something.
Raskolnikov has Sonia and Kurtz has his Intended (not “Beloved” Matt). It is true that just having his significant other there with him Raskolnikov has an advantage and that helps him make the right decision, but it doesn’t account for the un-repentance of his soul. Like what Duncan was saying, in the Epilogue the narrator says “And if fate had only sent him repentance—burning repentance that would have rent his heart” implying he never really repented of his crime. Contrast this with Kurtz. He died with nothing and there was nothing left of his soul to save. Thus Kurtz and Raskolnikov are both un-repentant.
In the end, Sonia and love was able to make Raskolnikov do the right thing and that brought to pass a better ending. When you take away that love, like with Kurtz, the opposite is true. That is what makes Raskolnikov’s redemptions so interesting. Here are two men that are quite similar once you start to compare them. They both have tainted and broken souls that will not be saved by Christian standards, but since Raskolnikov has a love that actively tries to help him whereas Kurtz has a love that waits for him, Raskolnikov gets redemption. Thus love, not morality, saves Raskolnikov.
What does this say about Jesus if Sonia is supposed to represent Christ…?
I think that the main difference between Raskolnikov and Kurtz (besides the happy and not happy endings) is that Raskolnikov had people. No matter what he did there were people behind him, loving him no matter what. Kurtz was consumed by his own wrongdoings and eventually died a lonely man because he would never give someone the power of getting so close to him.
Kurtz's tragedy offers perspective and appreciation towards the conclusion of Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov was lucky, while he didn't want people there for him, they were there anyways. Raskolnikov's redemption was only able to take place because of those dedicated people around him, especially because of Sonya who loved him and pushed him to repent. My favorite part is at the end when it says "love had raised them from the dead, and the heart of each held endless springs of life for the heart of the other."
It’s strange to me that I had nearly forgotten about this passage—I guess as I was running down the last homestretch the night before the test, bits of the epilogue slipped past me without leaving anything behind. So I reread it and now I basically love it. Fun fact of the day for you.
Along with Brianna, the first thing that popped to my head when reading this prompt was the role of women in the respective novels, and more specifically, in the road to redemption or darkness for Raskolnikov and Kurtz. Both have women who play an integral part in their lives, and both of the women seem to be embodiments of light and good. Kurtz’s Intended is described as having “this fair hair, this pale visage, this pure brow,” while Sonia is described in terms that also display her as pure, innocent, and even saintly.
So why is it that Sonia’s love for Raskolnikov could lead him to redemption, while the Intended’s unwavering loyalty to Kurtz could not?
The first thing that popped into my head besides the obvious distance between the two pairs (which wouldn’t be as much fun to discuss) was the knowledge each woman possessed. Sonia did not hold an idealized view of Raskolnikov. In fact, one of the more vivid passages to me is when Raskolnikov yells at her, and makes her cry, not backing off even when she seems miserable and cannot stand to hear anymore of it. Sonia has seen Raskolnikov through his murder—has seen his questionable behavior, has experienced his irrational moods, and ultimately, learns about his unforgivable murder.
The Intended, however, never learns about Kurtz’s true nature. Is it possible to lead someone to redemption without knowing that they need it? Kurtz, in that sense, was alone. He was left in the darkness with his internal battles over his false ideals, and did not have a Sonia-like figure to draw him to absolution. He may have had the same unconditional love from a woman, but without being forced to face the conditions to test it, the Intended never had the reason or opportunity to serve as a saving grace for the man.
The dream Raskolnikov has is related with his own condition. The people in the dream, "considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decision, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions infallible." (pg 547). They are like him in the way that they are struck with ideologies and theories that they are willing to risk their lives for. Raskolnikov sees the danger of everyone thinking the same as he does. If everyone was obsessed with convictions that they deemed true, the world would be in chaos and eventually destroyed. Kurtz is the same way as Raskolnikov and the people described in the dream. He was afflicted by an idea "exterminate the brutes" and like Raskolnikov, he thought it was for the greater good. The difference between Kurtz and Raskolnikov is that the latter realized his folly by his nightmare and the flaws in his ideas. Kurtz never realized why genocide was a bad idea. I agree with others that Sonia is a primary reason why Raskolnikov could realize the flaws in his views. She was a moral compass that helped him through anything and showed the right way to turn even in the dense fog of his thoughts. Kurtz did not have Sonnia, but even if he did one doubts if Kurtz could change or realize why his ideas are horrific. Kurtz is a crueler man by nature and is a type of devil that Raskolnikov could never be.
Whoops, I called the Intended, the Beloved. Haha, not having every actually bought Heart of Darkness, and, having forgotten her "name," I skimmed through other posts looking for if she had been mentioned by someone else, and saw "the Beloved" and used that. I think it's relevant that I forgot her name. Kurtz's "love" isn't memorable; she has no substance. But, five, ten, twenty years from now you could ask me, "Who saves Raskolnikov from himself, gets him to confess, and falls in love with him?" and I would know that the answer is Sonya. The Intended, however, does nothing note-worthy, and so is banished to shadowy corners of memory, doomed to be buried under cobwebs, and forgotten. No doubt this is roughly the same impression she left on Kurtz. It takes someone great; someone special to make an impact in someone else's life. Sonya makes that impact, while the Intended leaves little to no impression at all.
Mr. Duncan, please disregard the email I sent you.
I likened the entire dream that Raskolnikov had at the hospital with the condition set forth by Kurtz in the jungle: "People killed each other in some sort of meaningless spite. ... "The most ordinary trades ceased, because everyone offered his own ideas, his own corrections, and no one could agree." I would draw that both Kurtz and Rodya wish to be supermen, but for very different reasons, and by different means. Kurtz wants it out of lust for himself and his ideal of the world, and comes by it through doing what makes him feel elevated. Rodya does what he feels is best for the world as a whole, and from the Machiavellian standpoint he thus becomes a superman, by creating a superworld. He delouses the world, and attempts to abstain from anything that is incorrect, with the exception of that which will help society. I would conclude that Kurtz' punishment and pain was also his demise, the very last moments in his life, in which he himself saw essentially nothing but the pain he caused, without the reward he was seeking. Rodya, on the other hand, submitted himself to his own punishment even though in his mind he was just. His redemption was his punishment. Kurtz had no redemption because everything he did was for himself, but Rodya did everything for the world as a whole despite the consequences (he was clever, he certainly knew what would happen to him if he murdered the ladies; he also overcame his own disgust and did what he felt was needed -- he sacrificed himself).
Heart of darkness seems like it was so long ago.
There is definetly a simmilarity between Rodya and Kurtz. However there are of course some differences between the two. The first one is that Kurtz seemed like a more "matured" (not matured in a positive manner) version of Rodya in that he knew what his actions stood for and did not have to think about them. Raskolnikov went through a huge mental process in determining whether he was superior and what he was doing was right. Raskolnikov seemed like an early version of what Kurtz might have been. However this sense of superiority transformed into something bigger in Kurtz.
The next difference is that Rodya had loved ones around him. Both men had women in their lives who could have the potential to change their men. Kurtz's "intendent" however never really knew Kurtz's true nature and was physically apart from him. We see in Crime and Punishment that Sonia had a direct impact on Rodya. The impact of loved ones really made a huge impact of Rodya. It is partly this family love that he receives that he is able not to transform into a Kurtz.
In my mind, what distinguished Raskolnikov from Kurtz was not his actual finding of true redemption but, rather, the circumstances under which he found that redemption. While he certainly struggled for much of the novel to explain to himself his murder of the pawnbroker, he was never truly bereft of idealism in some form - at first, that idealism was born from Raskolnikov's intellect, from his theories concerning crime and its commission; following the collapse of that ideal, he took strength from Sonia's beliefs, heartened by her ability to uphold her religious convictions despite the vice of her profession. In experiencing this paradigm shift, Raskolnikov came to realize what Kurtz never could: humans are not made to be perfect, and they can never truly be perfect. Even the great men of the world, the men "made not of flesh but of bronze" (pg. 291 in my edition) are fated to err, to make a mistake, and in accepting his punishment and forgiving himself of his trespasses, Raskolnikov proved himself to be what others deny themselves to be, what Kurtz could not admit himself to be: human.
Here are some things that got my attention when I read Ras's dream. It is during a religious time, a time when I think Jesus is resurrected? Or the other way around? Well, it's Easter time. And the words that really popped out at me were "plague" and the "chosen few men." I do not know a lot from the Bible, but from what I picked up from growing up, there's something that has to do with the plague and some chosen men that would lead the world to peace. Or something of that sort, maybe? I think... But thinking about it, it is those few people that will save the world from the truth. Or what people to believe to be the truth, because apparently everyone views the truth differently, "Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others..." (539 [Bantam]). Well.. I remember this one thing that my teacher way back in middle school asked us, "Will the truth disappear if people believe the lies?" For instance, think of the dodo bird. We know that it existed right? But what if someone made everyone believe that there is no such thing as the dodo bird, will the truth still be there? Or will it be gone forever? But in Ras's case, what is the truth? Everyone is so stuck up with their own truths that they cannot distinguish what is real and what is fake. That is why everyone in Ras's dream is bent on destroying each other. But that's something I don't really get, if this is in such a religious context, why is it so bloody? But then again, the history of religion is pretty gory.
O I was just thinking about something else. So you know how Ras's dream has everyone killing each other and everything because of the truth and all of the suffering it causes? Marlow lies to the Intended, but it causes no suffering. Marlow may feel a bit crappy, but the Intended feels as if she has been lifted from her shroud of darkness. (Note: I am not going to make the deadline, I'm really sorry about that. It is 7 58 right now, sad day)
Remember back in Heart of Darkness, when Kurtz was walking through that field almost in a dream-like state with all of the chanting of the savages. It was Marlow that saved him from being consumed. But did he really save Kurtz? Whose truths are we looking at, Kurtz or Marlow's? I mean, Marlow is thinking that "if Kurtz goes there, he will never survive and no one will never know the truth" but maybe Kurtz is thinking "if I go there, I will be saved." That just goes with Ras's dream. If only Kurtz had the strength to fight back, he would have just bitten and scratched and kicked and had done anything to get out of Marlow's grasp to join that cult.
Hmm... I still do not feel like I've totally grasped this concept. Well, I agree with Brianna that Sonia plays a big part in Ras's redemption. But "how can we better understand raskolnikov's redemption through the tragedy of kurtz." Kurtz's tragedy was that his truth was never told? That the Intended was lied to, to please her. But wait.. The truth was told in Ras's situation, but he's suffering more. OOOHHHH But in his suffering, he finds redemption. I get it, I get it. Because Ras is suffering for his truths, he discovers a higher meaning (God? Sonia? Love?) and he gets redemption.
Kurtz was tossed into the horror going on in Africa and although he started with good intentions, he ended up succumbing to the violence and greediness of those in Africa. Raskolnikov murdered Aliona under the context that he was ridding the world of a "louse", but up until the last moment he debated with himself on whether he cold actually take the life of another person. Raskolnikov wasn't pressured to murder Aliona by anyone but himself, whereas Kurtz was forced to become one of the greedy murderous men inhabiting Africa in order to survive and get ahead.
Kurtz never found redemption for his crimes because the realization of what he did didn't occur until he was too weak and about to die. Raskolnikov had Sonia to help him realize that what he did was wrong and that he needed to be punished for those crimes.
Crime and Punishment ends with Raskolnikov finding his redemption and having somebody who loves and understands him waiting for him to be realeased from prison. Kurtz dies a completely different person than who he was when he came to Africa with his good, honest intentions and without redemption for his crimes. Unlike Heart of Darkness, Crime and Punishment leaves the reader with a sense of hope for its characters.
The comparison of Raskolnikov and Kurtz is a very interesting matter as both characters are very similar to each other. However, they are not entirely exact copies of each other, as evidenced by Raskolnikov’s eventual redemption and Kurtz’s disintegration into darkness. First and foremost, what I find interesting is both characters are interested, led, and compelled by an idea, though they differ. Raskolnikov is in the grips of a fantastical and absurd idea that there are men allowed to morally overstep boundaries in order to achieve their goal. Kurtz himself is led by an “idea at the back of it…and an unselfish belief in the idea” (32). It his sincere belief in altruism and his ability to “…exert a power for good practically unbounded…” in the Congo that sends Kurtz to the heart of darkness (86). These ideas, while differing in content, are powerful forces that hold a grip on the two men. What’s interesting is that it is the darker of the two ideas that succeeds and is translated into action. Raskolnikov’s idea of the “superman” has a viselike grip on him, while the idea that initially compels Kurtz into the Congo falls away as “…the wilderness has patted him on the head…caressed, and -lo!- he had withered…(84). Thus, both Raskolnikov and Kurtz are trapped in darkness, repulsed by their deeds.
I believe what ultimately brings Raskolnikov out of the darkness is love from Sonia and strength of will arising out of a deeper repulsion by his deeds. Both men step over or kill what they consider to be “louses”, yet Raskolnikov is distinctly more affected by his murder as it was personal, direct, and by his hand and not issued down by an unfeeling God alone in his hut. Thus, the murder of Aliona Ivanovna and Lizaveta cause substantial mental trauma, and it is this regret, remorse, and guilt that helps Raskolnikov to find redemption. That is not to say, though, that Kurtz has no remorse for his deeds; his guilt and regret is shown by his last words, “the horror, the horror!” Moreover, as Fiona mentioned, Raskolnikov’s crime was not motivated by selfishness. He had no desire to rob the old woman of her money and pledges; the loot he took was compelled by his belief in spreading the wealth to the unfortunate and sickly. There is no great element of greed in his deeds, unlike Kurtz’s fearsome reign over the heart of Congo. Kurtz’s immense and bottomless greed (his belief that “everything belonged to him” (85)) made redemption impossible as the ivory and the unlimited power had a deathlike grip, one he could not break, on his soul. I feel that this “better nature” of Raskolnikov’s crime helps, in some way, Raskolnikov’s redemption.
Secondly, as everyone has said, the care, love, and unwavering devotion of Sonia made it possible for the hopeful ending in the book. I think Anna talked about that really well, so I won’t elaborate.
Sorry for the lateness, JD!
Besides Sonia, it seems like I forgot the other loving influences surrounding Rodia, namely that of his mother, sister, Razumikhin, everyone that is drawn towards Raskolnikov.
Krista, I agree with you in that Kurtz certainly is one of those men with the capacity for greatness. His inspirational oratory skills certainly show that. However, I don't think he ever reached that greatness. He abandoned his ideals in the Congo; I never quite saw his role playing as God over the natives to be his greatness moment, merely an imitation of the power he desired and a sad reminder of the good he could have accomplished.
Just my two cents!
ahhhh sorry for the late post JD and everyone.
Both Kurtz and Raskolnikov are similar men in terms of their idealism and their inner good compared to their desire to "step over." In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz goes through a journey in which he sees and experiences the immorality that humans inflict towards others of the same kind. And in this journey, it is Kurtz's exodus from his naive state of mind into a much deeper and darker understanding of humans. Raskolnikov goes through a similar journey in which he experiences the terrors that are caused through certain injustices and suffers a psychological punishment that plagues him throughout Crime and Punishment. However, Raskolnikov is able to redeem himself from the acts he has committed through the help of Sonya, who helps Raskolnikov to come to peace with his schism. Such help is what Kurtz lacked and caused him to enter a darkness that he is not able to get out of.
whoops, like Matt, I realized I too stated incorrectly the Intended as the Beloved. my bad. just ignore that part of my post. :)
ya i agree with you michelle, i don't think he was ever great by our standards or really even by his own, after all his final words 'the horror, the horror' reflect that he himself is horrified by what has happened and what he has become. but, in terms of the ability to concur at all costs he has achieved this sort of 'napoleon' like greatness. this greatness though is defiantly questionable, like in the dream, if everyone acted this way the world would be chaotic and dysfunctional. history has shown that greatness by means of mass destruction and control are short lived and often disastrous runs of megalomaniacs.
Kurtz and Raskolnikov both struggle internally to find themselves amidst their actions. Both characters' experiences expose hard truths about human nature, and their environments mold them into representations of what a human may become. Raskolnikov's dream invokes a sense of Nightmare and hell, much like Heart of darkness. Each person described in the dream, who thinks their way the only one, is similar to Kurtz in their self- worship and their incompatibility with other authorities. While Kurtz never really finds "redemption", Raskolnikov seems to "wake up" and realize that he isnt neo, bound to free the humans from the matrix. This difference in outcomes is the result of Raskolnikov and Kurtz's differences in character. Kurtz is fighting to hold on to his glory, sinking deeper and deeper, while Rodion is fighting to find himself, and justify his self-image. Something has been stirring in raskolnikov that I don't think can be settled, like Kurtz, but unlike Kurtz, he withdraws from the ranks of the ubermensches. Kurtz may or may not belong in that crowd, but Raskolnikov is fighting to reconcile his good side through being a superman, while kurtz is fighting to stay god.
The main difference between Raskolnikov and Kurtz was how each found their redemption. While Raskolnikov struggled for much of the novel to rationalize his murder of the pawnbroker, he never truly rid himself of his idealism. His ideals, at first, were born from Raskolnikov's intellect, from his theories regarding crime and its consequences.
While in jail, Raskolnikov drifted from his ideals and instead took strength from the Bible, from Sonia's beliefs. In experiencing this dramatic shift of ideals, Raskolnikov realized what Kurtz did not: humans are not perfect, and never will be perfect. Even the great men of the world, the Napoleans', the Einsteins', make mistakes, and in accepting his punishment, Raskolnikov realized what Kurtz could not admit himself to be: human.
Going off of what Brianna said, I do believe that Raskolnikov's madness ended with his dream of the plague. This dream allowed him to see where his theory would lead and-- unlike Kurtz-- Raskolnikov had some foresight into his madness that allowed him to realize he was headed down a dangerous, undesirable path.
I don't give nearly as much credit to Sonia, though I think she was a large part of his discovery, the women in his life do help him considerably, but I do maintain that he would have come to this realization with or without Sonia, eventually. I credit Sonia with positive influence in his life, but he had realized his love for her before he had the plague dream. Once he kneels down in the plaza, he realizes that she will always be there for him. "She was hiding from him behind one of the wooden shanties in the marketplace... Raskolnikov at that moment felt and knew once and for all that Sonia was with him for ever and would follow him to the ends of the earth, wherever fate might take him." (pg 443, pt.VI ch.viii)
I do think Sonia had her hand in bringing him to Sibera, but I think it was Sibera itself, and atoning for his sins that helped him reach "the fatal place".
Post a Comment