Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, Crime and Punishment. England: Penguin Classics, 1991
Summary of Crime and Punishment: Crime and Punishment is a fictional story set in Russia during the mid-eighteen hundreds and is written in First person point of view. The Narrative follows Raskolnikov as he attempts to solve a problem by committing murder. The problem is not being discovered of committing the crime, but the guilt that is overwhelming him. When he finally admits his guilt, he discovers he was wrong and hopes to be a person that can make amends.
Value Graph and McKee: In “Structure and Meaning,” Robert McKee claims that any story must have a premise, a question that the story seeks to answer. For Crime and Punishment, the premise might be “What would happen if a murderer believed himself to be innocent because by removing that person, he/she has benefited the majority of the population?” Here are many possible stories that could emerge to solve this premise. In Crime and Punishment, complexity is used in response to the seriousness of the crime, and as a response to those hoping to achieve something not thought out correctly.
McKee argues that in order to get a story’s controlling idea, we need to look at the story’s last act and the climax there. What is the last act climax of Crime and Punishment? The last part of the book where Raskolnikov reveals he murdered the old woman, and the authorities rush in to arrest him. Up until that moment it is uncertain if he will reveal the truth, or run away. What wins however, is his compassion or love and wanting to be free of his guilt. His guilt at first leads to delirious behavior, but through his connection with those he loves, he is ultimately led to reveal the truth. The counter idea is to accept the guilt by killing one’s self, therefore never to face judgment.
McKee notes that to create your story’s argument you must take great care to build both sides. Compose the scenes and the sequences that build on the power of both sides. Crime and Punishment ends with the controlling idea winning when Raskolnikov reveals the truth that he murdered the old woman to the authorities. The reason the reader is able to accept this controlling idea winning is because of all the struggles and complications Raskolnikov has faced in light of his overwhelming guilt. McKee says experience helps the reader and in this case, the truth. Knowing what came before helps the reader feel satisfied in the end.
Dialectic and Aesthetic emotion: McKee suggests that “like music and dance,
painting and sculpture, poetry and song, story is first, last, and always the
experience of aesthetic emotion--the simultaneous encounter of thought and
feeling.” I experienced this when Raskolnikov killed the old woman in cold
blood, making me feel like a knife was pressed through my stomach. It wasn’t until
Raskolnikov started suffering through his guilt that I was able to accept the
situation. This feeling is what McKee describes as an emotional
charge. It becomes more powerful; and more profound. I may forget the day I
read the passage, but the emotion of scene could affect me forever. What McKee
says is that aesthetic emotion will affect you over time and will always be
meaningful, even if you aren't aware of it.
Burke and syllogistic progressive form: In “Lexicon Rhetoriace” Kenneth Burke says, Form is an "arousing and fulfillment of desires. A work has form in so far as one part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be gratified by
the sequence" In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov’s rejection of committing himself to revealing the truth behind his guilt. He allows the reader to foresee things that weren’t present before, such as not the horrible act committed, but the person underneath. The most important part is realizing there are bigger methods behind the murder.
Burke says, “the form can be diving into one of five aspects that are syllogistic progressive form, qualitative progressive form, repetitive form, conventional form, and minor or incidental forms.” The Form of Crime and Punishment is the syllogistic progressive form, which is the unfolding of the steps of an argument, such that “the conclusion follows as a matter of necessity once the premises are laid out for the reader.” In Crime and Punishment, through interesting and often confusing methods, Raskolnikov makes the case explaining to Sonya why he committed the crime and isn’t ashamed, and trying to relate his mind to hers.
“Imagine, Sonya, that you’d known in advance exactly what Luzhin had planned to do…If it were suddenly given to you to decide which one of them was to go on living in the world, that is to say, whether Luzhin was to continue his existence and go on doing loathsome things, or whether Katerina lvanova was to die, what would your decision be? Which one of them would you have die? I ask you.” P.487
Raskolnikov is relating to Sonya indirectly of the crime he committed. He is trying to share his knowledge about what he does which is great for society. Using this reasoning, I believe he is trying to justify how he wasn't wrong for what he did. In this scenario Raskolnikov hopes to frighten her because that would make her blame him for everything and he can escape his punishment with his consciousness intact. However, the syllogistic progressive form is useless because instead of hating him she falls in love with him.
“And suddenly a strange, unexpected sensation approaching a caustic hatred of Sonya passed through his heart. As though in fear and wonder at this sensation, he suddenly raised his head and gaze her a fixed look; but what he found was her own nervous gaze upon him, anxious to the point of torment; there was love in that gaze; his hatred vanished like a wraith. This was something else; he had mistaken one feeling for another. All this meant was that moment had arrived.” p. 488
The argument is where Raskolnikov reveals the truth and instead of being scared, she becomes infatuated with him. The argument he hoped to achieve died.
Character: McKee defines character as that which is "revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure--the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature." Raskolnikov is a fairly interesting character. Raskolnikov believes that he has a different Ideology than the rest of us. Raskolnikov, on the one hand, is brilliant beyond his years, but on the other hand, has no clue what he is saying. Through reading through part three, I have realized that Raskolnikov’s constant complaint is that people who are not helping society or hurting others by their presence must be disposed.
“And so we might begin to consider a kind of bifurcation of character. At one level, the public level, a given character acts generically, and authentically (in ways given by culture, social norms, etc.), but once an individual comes face to face with a choice without any recourse to social guidance, the action taken within that moment "stamps" the character.” Raskolnikov is a very interesting individual. I, as a reader, want to hate him because he is full of hate. However, he is someone who has had nothing, but disappointment. He has no money and has not been very successful in his scholarly works. This is nothing but trouble.
“They have to find a new location to sit down and relax. He found all the people he met repulsive-their faces, their manner of walking, their movements were repulsive to him. He reflected that if anyone had said anything to him he would quite simply have spat at that person, or bitten him…”
Now, I get a really clear picture of Raskolnikov who has become a villain in his own book. To emphasize this point, he uses words like repulsive, spit or bite him. He has a tendency towards violence. With the information I've been given, I believe the reasons this happened are his time spent at the university and the attention of his sister getting married to someone who doesn't seem like a great match. Because once again, a family member is sacrificing her love life for his own benefit. This is something he hates, being indebted to someone, especially family. What I really hate is Raskolnikov accusing someone of not benefiting society... Wait.. this is the reason he murdered the old woman! He is even confronted by his weakness. “Choices made in moments of crisis filled with risk cannot be undone. The character forevermore will be responsible and accountable for the consequences of that act.” Raskolnikov fits this description perfectly undermining all that he is and has done.
Narrator addressing addressee “Narration theory is to attend to the rhetorical dimension of narrative, which is complex and sophisticated. Within the rhetorical there are many levels of audience and voice; sophisticated in that the many levels are all working at once to contribute to the experience of reading a narrative.” The question is WHAT? This narration theory, or rhetorical dimension, is speaking about the narrator, who at a certain time and place, addresses another. When someone addresses another either they be a person or thing, there must be a purpose to the address, which purpose is to impact the "addressee."
In Crime and Punishment, the author clearly wants to show those who have murdered are not just white and black. In the end of the epilogue, the author wants the audience to know what has become of Raskolnikov, after revealing the truth that he killed the old woman. According to James Seitz, “All readings are themselves narratives, consisting of characters (that is, virtual readers) who work to persuade the reader that the text should be read in the light of a particular set of values” This is particularly true when the author is trying to question our morals - is it good to follow a natural wrong path or fight against it? The narrator wants you to believe that people who murder aren’t always evil and there is a chance at redemption. The author wants the audience to believe this, even if they have done a horrible act, they are not lost.
“In short, the upshot was that the criminal was sentenced to penal servitude of the second category for a period of only eight years in all, in recognition of his having turned himself in and in view of certain circumstances that had reduced his guilt.” p.640
Reading through this text enables that person to become either a capable reader or resistant reader. Are they agreeing with the text? They may want or relate to situation or refuse entirely. They may not agree that Raskolnikov can be redeemed, but he will try to become one.
Reflection: Reading through Crime and Punishment was a vastly compelling read. This affected me on the borderlines of my morals. I don’t agree that what Raskolnikov did was right, but as a reader I saw the benefits of using this scenario. This compelled him through guilt from beginning to end. Like Catch 22, Crime and Punishment has changed my reading expectations. This rhetorical dimension has made me aware of where I stand as a resistant reader, who when things become complicated, I move on. I must become what James Savitz says is the virtual reader, but I’m not there quite yet. I am, however, starting to understand how the use of words can have different meaning, either they be symbolic or thematic. Crime and Punishment made me pause and think something that has never happened before. Where is this going? What is the deep meaning behind everything that is going on? I think in the future what I will read will change because of this book. I also liked that he used very bizarre names of the main characters making them different from the norm. What I really liked most of all was the switching of different Points of view allowing the reader to see the different sides of each character in the story, making the tale become more complex and compelling. Overall, I say this is a fascinating read, a book I will remember in the years to come.
Summary of Crime and Punishment: Crime and Punishment is a fictional story set in Russia during the mid-eighteen hundreds and is written in First person point of view. The Narrative follows Raskolnikov as he attempts to solve a problem by committing murder. The problem is not being discovered of committing the crime, but the guilt that is overwhelming him. When he finally admits his guilt, he discovers he was wrong and hopes to be a person that can make amends.
Value Graph and McKee: In “Structure and Meaning,” Robert McKee claims that any story must have a premise, a question that the story seeks to answer. For Crime and Punishment, the premise might be “What would happen if a murderer believed himself to be innocent because by removing that person, he/she has benefited the majority of the population?” Here are many possible stories that could emerge to solve this premise. In Crime and Punishment, complexity is used in response to the seriousness of the crime, and as a response to those hoping to achieve something not thought out correctly.
McKee argues that in order to get a story’s controlling idea, we need to look at the story’s last act and the climax there. What is the last act climax of Crime and Punishment? The last part of the book where Raskolnikov reveals he murdered the old woman, and the authorities rush in to arrest him. Up until that moment it is uncertain if he will reveal the truth, or run away. What wins however, is his compassion or love and wanting to be free of his guilt. His guilt at first leads to delirious behavior, but through his connection with those he loves, he is ultimately led to reveal the truth. The counter idea is to accept the guilt by killing one’s self, therefore never to face judgment.
McKee notes that to create your story’s argument you must take great care to build both sides. Compose the scenes and the sequences that build on the power of both sides. Crime and Punishment ends with the controlling idea winning when Raskolnikov reveals the truth that he murdered the old woman to the authorities. The reason the reader is able to accept this controlling idea winning is because of all the struggles and complications Raskolnikov has faced in light of his overwhelming guilt. McKee says experience helps the reader and in this case, the truth. Knowing what came before helps the reader feel satisfied in the end.
Dialectic and Aesthetic emotion: McKee suggests that “like music and dance,
painting and sculpture, poetry and song, story is first, last, and always the
experience of aesthetic emotion--the simultaneous encounter of thought and
feeling.” I experienced this when Raskolnikov killed the old woman in cold
blood, making me feel like a knife was pressed through my stomach. It wasn’t until
Raskolnikov started suffering through his guilt that I was able to accept the
situation. This feeling is what McKee describes as an emotional
charge. It becomes more powerful; and more profound. I may forget the day I
read the passage, but the emotion of scene could affect me forever. What McKee
says is that aesthetic emotion will affect you over time and will always be
meaningful, even if you aren't aware of it.
Burke and syllogistic progressive form: In “Lexicon Rhetoriace” Kenneth Burke says, Form is an "arousing and fulfillment of desires. A work has form in so far as one part of it leads a reader to anticipate another part, to be gratified by
the sequence" In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov’s rejection of committing himself to revealing the truth behind his guilt. He allows the reader to foresee things that weren’t present before, such as not the horrible act committed, but the person underneath. The most important part is realizing there are bigger methods behind the murder.
Burke says, “the form can be diving into one of five aspects that are syllogistic progressive form, qualitative progressive form, repetitive form, conventional form, and minor or incidental forms.” The Form of Crime and Punishment is the syllogistic progressive form, which is the unfolding of the steps of an argument, such that “the conclusion follows as a matter of necessity once the premises are laid out for the reader.” In Crime and Punishment, through interesting and often confusing methods, Raskolnikov makes the case explaining to Sonya why he committed the crime and isn’t ashamed, and trying to relate his mind to hers.
“Imagine, Sonya, that you’d known in advance exactly what Luzhin had planned to do…If it were suddenly given to you to decide which one of them was to go on living in the world, that is to say, whether Luzhin was to continue his existence and go on doing loathsome things, or whether Katerina lvanova was to die, what would your decision be? Which one of them would you have die? I ask you.” P.487
Raskolnikov is relating to Sonya indirectly of the crime he committed. He is trying to share his knowledge about what he does which is great for society. Using this reasoning, I believe he is trying to justify how he wasn't wrong for what he did. In this scenario Raskolnikov hopes to frighten her because that would make her blame him for everything and he can escape his punishment with his consciousness intact. However, the syllogistic progressive form is useless because instead of hating him she falls in love with him.
“And suddenly a strange, unexpected sensation approaching a caustic hatred of Sonya passed through his heart. As though in fear and wonder at this sensation, he suddenly raised his head and gaze her a fixed look; but what he found was her own nervous gaze upon him, anxious to the point of torment; there was love in that gaze; his hatred vanished like a wraith. This was something else; he had mistaken one feeling for another. All this meant was that moment had arrived.” p. 488
The argument is where Raskolnikov reveals the truth and instead of being scared, she becomes infatuated with him. The argument he hoped to achieve died.
Character: McKee defines character as that which is "revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure--the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature." Raskolnikov is a fairly interesting character. Raskolnikov believes that he has a different Ideology than the rest of us. Raskolnikov, on the one hand, is brilliant beyond his years, but on the other hand, has no clue what he is saying. Through reading through part three, I have realized that Raskolnikov’s constant complaint is that people who are not helping society or hurting others by their presence must be disposed.
“And so we might begin to consider a kind of bifurcation of character. At one level, the public level, a given character acts generically, and authentically (in ways given by culture, social norms, etc.), but once an individual comes face to face with a choice without any recourse to social guidance, the action taken within that moment "stamps" the character.” Raskolnikov is a very interesting individual. I, as a reader, want to hate him because he is full of hate. However, he is someone who has had nothing, but disappointment. He has no money and has not been very successful in his scholarly works. This is nothing but trouble.
“They have to find a new location to sit down and relax. He found all the people he met repulsive-their faces, their manner of walking, their movements were repulsive to him. He reflected that if anyone had said anything to him he would quite simply have spat at that person, or bitten him…”
Now, I get a really clear picture of Raskolnikov who has become a villain in his own book. To emphasize this point, he uses words like repulsive, spit or bite him. He has a tendency towards violence. With the information I've been given, I believe the reasons this happened are his time spent at the university and the attention of his sister getting married to someone who doesn't seem like a great match. Because once again, a family member is sacrificing her love life for his own benefit. This is something he hates, being indebted to someone, especially family. What I really hate is Raskolnikov accusing someone of not benefiting society... Wait.. this is the reason he murdered the old woman! He is even confronted by his weakness. “Choices made in moments of crisis filled with risk cannot be undone. The character forevermore will be responsible and accountable for the consequences of that act.” Raskolnikov fits this description perfectly undermining all that he is and has done.
Narrator addressing addressee “Narration theory is to attend to the rhetorical dimension of narrative, which is complex and sophisticated. Within the rhetorical there are many levels of audience and voice; sophisticated in that the many levels are all working at once to contribute to the experience of reading a narrative.” The question is WHAT? This narration theory, or rhetorical dimension, is speaking about the narrator, who at a certain time and place, addresses another. When someone addresses another either they be a person or thing, there must be a purpose to the address, which purpose is to impact the "addressee."
In Crime and Punishment, the author clearly wants to show those who have murdered are not just white and black. In the end of the epilogue, the author wants the audience to know what has become of Raskolnikov, after revealing the truth that he killed the old woman. According to James Seitz, “All readings are themselves narratives, consisting of characters (that is, virtual readers) who work to persuade the reader that the text should be read in the light of a particular set of values” This is particularly true when the author is trying to question our morals - is it good to follow a natural wrong path or fight against it? The narrator wants you to believe that people who murder aren’t always evil and there is a chance at redemption. The author wants the audience to believe this, even if they have done a horrible act, they are not lost.
“In short, the upshot was that the criminal was sentenced to penal servitude of the second category for a period of only eight years in all, in recognition of his having turned himself in and in view of certain circumstances that had reduced his guilt.” p.640
Reading through this text enables that person to become either a capable reader or resistant reader. Are they agreeing with the text? They may want or relate to situation or refuse entirely. They may not agree that Raskolnikov can be redeemed, but he will try to become one.
Reflection: Reading through Crime and Punishment was a vastly compelling read. This affected me on the borderlines of my morals. I don’t agree that what Raskolnikov did was right, but as a reader I saw the benefits of using this scenario. This compelled him through guilt from beginning to end. Like Catch 22, Crime and Punishment has changed my reading expectations. This rhetorical dimension has made me aware of where I stand as a resistant reader, who when things become complicated, I move on. I must become what James Savitz says is the virtual reader, but I’m not there quite yet. I am, however, starting to understand how the use of words can have different meaning, either they be symbolic or thematic. Crime and Punishment made me pause and think something that has never happened before. Where is this going? What is the deep meaning behind everything that is going on? I think in the future what I will read will change because of this book. I also liked that he used very bizarre names of the main characters making them different from the norm. What I really liked most of all was the switching of different Points of view allowing the reader to see the different sides of each character in the story, making the tale become more complex and compelling. Overall, I say this is a fascinating read, a book I will remember in the years to come.