For the next two or three discussions we will be focusing 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, I am collecting all your notes at the end of the unit for a truckload of points (no, I haven't decided how many) and am evaulating your blog responses as well as your in-class participation.
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 me get out my hip boots to wade through your post.
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 me when you phone it in. This is our last big unit--be with us fully by Tuesday!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Reading about Dostoevsky's endeavor to write separate novels concerning Drunkards and Crime/Punishment I find it interesting that he finally decided to fuse the two together into what we are reading today.
Dostoevsky wrote "The Drunkards" and in effect "Crime and Punishment" to argue the point that prostitutes and drunkards both are more-so victims of their society than so-called "immoral" or "sinful" human beings.
The entire Marmelodov family is in a state of hell. Katerina is consumptive and abusive, the children are starving, the daughter is forced into prositution and the father drinks all their money away.
The constant message Dostoevsky imbues into their story though remains one of victimization, and they are victims in the most pitiful sense.
"For destitution one does not even get driven out of human company with a stick; one is swept out with a broom, to make it more insulting; and justly so, for in destitution I am the first to insult myself. Hence my drinking!"
Marmelodov's vicious circles he can't escape and paradoxes remind me of the Underground Man's language, if anyone has read "Notes From the Underground".
The narrator leaves a note: 'in a company of drinkers, [victims of destitution] always seem eager to solicit justification for themselves and, if possible, even respect as well.'
Marlmelodov "ask[s] hopelessly for for a loan of money... knowing beforehand that nothing will come of it."
Why? Because "in our time compassion is even forbidden by science", as the Utopian Lebezyatnikov proclaims.
And "what if there is nowhere else to go!"
Dostoevsky, very controversially, personifies Marmelodov as Jesus. "Ecce Homo!" or "Behold the man!", he says to himself, for he is walking down the "Via Dolorosa" or "Way of Suffering" but instead of a crown of thorns he has Katerina Ivanovna pulling him by the hair. And he "drink[s], for he doubly wishes to suffer" instead of living happily as a "'sweet little thing'". As an alcoholic he can continue to suffer for his sin, his disease.
The pinnacle of pity can be found in the true horror that nothing substantial can be earned honorably by Sonya. Because "how much..can a poor but honest girl earn by honest labor?"
He and his daughter suffer their lives together. He cannot break his drunkenness(and drunkenness is a disease) and she cannot break her faith to family(perhaps also a disease of society, at least, - that is the nuclear family - but nonetheless compassionate considering their destitution by society's debauchery, injustice and inequality).
He will continue to drink until someone accuses him and confronts him; "it hurts more when one is not reproached". But, nobody has the pity to do so. "Why pity you?", the rabble asks. He accepts it, "I ought to be crucified, crucified on a cross, and not pitied!". And Dostoesky gives the drunk a Jesus-like significance, for only when society pities the drunk and helps him defeat his disease(which is ironically society's disease) will they truly become wholesome, brotherly and Christian in the finest sense.
I think Marmelodov is responsible for revealing the theme of suffering in Crime and Punishment. In his first encounter with Raskolnikov, Marmelodov says to him, “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, tears and tribulation, and I have found it, and I have tasted it,” (p. 1, ch. 2, pg. 21). Marmelodov also explains to Rodya that he “couldn’t get on with” the blows from his wife when he came home drunk and that they “are not a pain to [him], but an enjoyment,” (ch.2, 22). By choosing to drink and welcoming the blows from his wife, Marmelodov’s “tears and tribulation” (21) become the atonement for his failures. The conversation in the tavern is vital to the story because it begins shedding light on the theme of suffering, a major theme in the novel. His habit of welcoming suffering and choosing to inflict it upon himself further develops and emphasizes the theme. Marmelodov also represents characters like Raskolnikov, who choose to suffer in order to punish themselves for their sins.
Marmeladov is the driving force behind the subplot involving the entire Ivanovna's situation--complete suffering. There seems to be a common theme throughout the book involving self-inflicted punishment and suffering.
There are a few reasons why I feel like Marmeladov isn't a foil to Raskolnikov:
Raskolnikov willingly gives away his kopecks several times, only to immediately regret his decision. Marmeladov is no different in that he is fully aware that his drinking ruins his family, yet he continues...
Both Rodya and Marmeladov act out of selfish desires. Marmeladov drinks and wastes all of his money to satisfy his desires, disregarding the negative effects is decisions impose on his family. He says in chapter 2 "Here I succeeded in finding fresh occupation, but again, lost my place. It was my own fault this time, and brought about by my love of the bottle."
Last, they both push their families away, despite their feelings towards the family they have. They both care deeply, but feel they too lost and unable to support and lead a family.
Marmeladov serves as a "type" of person in the novel. He represents the suffering and anguish that fills the slums of St. Petersburg. His family epitomizes hardship--Katerina suffering from TB, Sonya's prostitution, and so on.
Does Marmeladov remind anyone else of Housman's "Terrence this is stupid stuff?" That's one of the first things I thought of when I began Marmeladov's story of his life...
Like these three have already said, I think Marmeladov represents a huge part of the major theme of the novel of suffering. And it's extremely evident from the beginning.
From the scene in the tavern, "evidently, Marmeladov was well known here and had acquired that rhetorical flair of his in many such talks in many such saloons. There are heavy drinkers who become compulsive talkers, especially those who are henpecked at home, and they are always trying to persuade their drinking companions to show them some justice and maybe even, if possible, some respect."
And from this, it's evident that he has a drinking problem. He hasn't been home in days, hasn't changed his clothes, and hasn't even left his stool. This picture of Marmeladov shows the suffering of his family. And even though he's a drunkard, he can't help himself. He knows that he wastes his money, leaves his family alone, and allows for things like Sonia's prostitution to happen, but he can't help it. I feel like the aspect of addiction comes into play with the character of Marmeladov as well.
I also thought it was interesting when he says the part about showing justice/respect. How do you show respect to a drunkard who's too afraid to go home to his own family?
You show compassion and respect to a drunkard by pitying him, trying to put yourself in his shoes and helping him conquer his disease instead of labeling him 'sinner' which assumes the drunkard had any choice in his destitution. "Destitution is a vice" because it is a drunkard's society which refuses to help those like Katerina Ivanovna and the pitiful Marmeladov family. It is a drunkard's society which sins by refusing to assist him in overcome the disease.
I agree with Alex, I felt that Marmeladov represents a "type" of person. Many of the characters seem to represent different kinds of suffering. They suffer emotionally (broken families and relationships), spiritually (Raskolnikov's own conscience), financially (Marmeladov's family), and physically (Katerina, Raskolnikov).
Marmeladov plays a significant part in developing the theme of suffering, but I also feel he represents a "type" of person. He seems to represent the type of sufferer who has given up hope. When he explains the situation with Katerina in the bar, he says, "Do you understand now, my dear sir, what it means having nowhere to go? No! You wouldn't understand that yet." He explains to Raskolnikov: "I lost my job. It wasn't even my own fault that time; the staff was being reorganized. Then I started hitting the bottle really..."
While many of the characters in the novel are suffering, they haven't all given up. Sonya attempts to work, and after going unpaid, she is forced into prostitution and sacrifices her body to support her family. Despite the demeaning nature of her work, and her father's ungracious attitude, she continues. Marmeladov is fully aware that his own daughter must degrade herself in order to provide for herself and her family. The entire family is constantly in a state of distress, yet he makes no effort to fix the situation. He turns to alcohol instead. He admits that even after all that he saw Sonya and Katerina go through, he was merely "lying there drunk."
Marmeladov lives a life of desperation and estrangement. He is trapped in his poverty, and literally has nothing but a hall-like room for his family and a single shawl to live off of. When he does manage to scrap together some money he immediately seeks comfort at the bottom of beer glasses, chugging one after the other until the escapist behavior causes him to plummet into a deeper hole than he was while sober. And thus the cycle continues and history is always bound to repeat itself.
The suffering and earthly discomfort Marmeladov endures seems to be about atonement rather than suffering for the sake of suffering. Human thought is like a monstrous pendulum and Marmeladov really encompasses how the mind can destroy a person. No, suffering without striving for purpose will not achieve any beneficial goal, it will not bring you anywhere comfortable or even partially bearable. In this way I believe that Marmeladov desperately wishes to seek deliverance and ultimately face his own conscious for the first time completely.
While Marmeladov drank away his own life and filled up every inch with sadness he not only destroyed himself but also his family. His wife has resorted to prostitution as a means of making income just for their survival. She is miserable and completely worn out by caring for their children. Marmeladov took everything she once has it in away from her and for this he feels incredible shame and guilt. However, he is much too depressed to do anything constructive about it and instead, like always resorts to the bottle for temporary comfort and salvation.
I feel that Marmeladov serves as a foil to Raskolnikov. Marmeladov’s story falls very closely into the same story line as Raskolnikov’s (expect that Raskolnikov’s crimes are emotions were magnified). Due to their family’s poverty his daughter Sonia sacrificed herself. This is very much like Raskolnikov’s sister Dunia, who decides to marry Luzhin.
Raskolnikov sees himself in Marmeladov. His mom sends him money; his sister is marrying Luzhin, yet he hasn’t seen them in years. Marmeladov was drunk when his own daughter of trembling helplessly near him. After meeting with Marmeladov, Raskolnikov is embarassed about not helping his family through their hardships beacuse Raskolnikov sees the pain Marmeladov causes his family by neglecting them. Marmeladov's actions reveal to Raskolnikov the faults in his own character and Rasolnikov begins to feel the need to change part of who he is.
My only big disagreement with the things that have been said before is that Marmeladov does not seek comfort in drinking. On what is my page 22, he says he did not drink his pint of beer for sweetness but that "It was tribulation I sought at the bottom of it, tears and tribulation, and have found it, and I have tasted it". It is the word "tribulation" that reveals Marmeladov's purpose in drinking. The religious connotation of "tribulation" gives it a sort of honor. Indeed, someone whose life has been full of tribulation is to be pitied, not laughed at.
Marmeladov does not hide from his suffering. In fact, his words as to why he drinks are "I drink so that I may suffer twice as much." He accepts the suffering willingly. He also accepts the punishment for his wrongs, he does not mind Katerina Ivanovna's pulling of his hair in the least. The only thing he wants is pity. The question this brings up to me is why does he want pity so much? What has he to gain from it and how do the answers to these two questions related to the rest of the book.
In comparison, Marmeladov and Raskolnikov both indulge in their own suffering. Marmeladov and Raskolnikov are fully aware of the breakdown of their family and unwilling to do anything about it. Marmeladov tells Raskolnikov in the bar, “Honoured sir, honoured sir, you know every man ought to have at least one place where people feel for him! But Katerina Ivanovna, though she is magnanimous, she is unjust.” At the same time, he degrades himself and his wife. His pathetic attempts to make others pity his suffering mirrors Raskolnikov’s attempts to find comfort in Nastasya and his mother.
Marmeladov’s daughter, Sonya, risked everything in order to help keep her family alive. Marmeladov however, drank all of the earnings away shamelessly to numb his pain with alcohol. He is unaware the pain that he causes to his family because he is too occupied with his own issues.
Although it is clear that Marmeladov and his family represent suffering, I think it is more important that Marmeladov causes the suffering, like Raskolnikov, who continues to act in ways that create suffering later.
Having any sort of addiction is primarily caused by the individual who endures the substance in the first place. Marmeladov creates it by choosing to drink. Raskolnikov creates his ill state by choosing to commit a crime, which he later feels guilty about. However, Raskolnikov and Marmeladov don't just do these things that cause them pain because they simply want to, but because of some other suffering they were feeling due to society's ways of life and what it has "done" to them or "shown".
The society in which the two are surrounded by in St. Petersburg, a poor and slummy town, pushes them to a crutch, which increases their suffering.
Marmeladov, soon after settling with Katerina, "earned nothing. [He] had lost [his] situation, without any fault of his own; changes made in [his] administration led to [his] office being abolished, and then [he] took to drink" (p. 1 ch. 2). Also, Raskolnikov from the beginning of the novel, resides in a poor state, unable to pay his landlady or afford schooling.
I think this is exactly what Dostoevsky wanted his readers to ponder.
Should we pity the sufferers who partly inflict their pain upon themselves or should we blame society (and higher ranked people)?
My natural inclination is to think that Marmeladov is representative of a "type". He is someone that posseses opportunities to succeed but has the one major pitfall of alcoholism. He seems to fit the stereo"type" of a Russian male.
My cousin lived in Russia, and while talking with him I discovered how Russians define being drunk. In the USA, it is the percent of alcohol in your system. My cousin said in russia it is measured by how long it has been since you've been sober. The state in which we meet Marmeladov is five days drunk and jobless.
When chatting in the tavern Marmeladov is talking of when Christ will return to the earth. You really know how Marmeladov sees himself when he says that "He will say, 'Come forth, ye drunkards, come forth, ye weak ones, come forth, ye children of shame.' And we shall all come forth...". He assosciates himself with the people who have brought shame upon themselves and their families. As a character, he is representative of a "type" of person that is far too common in the Russian environment.
Marmeladov is strangely optimistic however. Within the same passage he mentions how even though Sonia has done great evil through prostitution, she will be saved because she "had pity upon the filthy drunkard, her earthly father". This "type" is one that's shame and pity spreads all around. It can be seen in his living conditions and in the state of his family. His wife is nearly insane, and his daughter is a prostitute. His home is a hallway from which other people's home branch out. As many have said, he epitimizes the suffering of his "type".
The one thing that I both love AND hate about Marmeladov is the fact that though drunk, he is still so intellectually thoughtful. His lecture on God/Jesus is very matter of fact and correct under Christian beliefs. Being that drunkard is a part of who he is. Yet, so is being an intellectual.
I would assuredly have to agree with the point Juan brings into picture. It is quite evident from Marmeladov's rant in Ch. 2 that he finds no respite in drinking, rather he just punishes himself even more. Suffering is an integral part of Marmeladov as a person or "type".
I am afriad if I keep talking about Marmeladov Ms. Minor might need her hip-waders. The idea of him wanting justice & respect was really puzzling to me. I'll just say this, Erik's brief answer seems to be going in the right direction!
I, like many others who have posted before me, agree with the fact that Marmeladov serves as a character who conveys a major theme found within the novel: suffering -- a soul-wrenching emotion, one that seems to touch every character at least once.
We see a great amount of sadness and sorrow in Marmeladov, and right away, as Rodya enters the tavern, readers are introduced to a character who doesn’t seek the drink for pleasure, but as an act to drown one’s self in what appears to be an immeasurable amount of grief. Like Juan said, Marmeladov “wants” to feel this suffering. In a way, he feels like he deserves it. The great suffering brought on by these routine binges act as Marmeledov’s own form of self-punishment.
“Do I not feel it? And the more I drink, the more I feel it. It is for this I drink, that in drinking I may seek compassion and feeling. It is not joy I seek, but SORROW ONLY . . . I drink, for I wish doubly to suffer!” And then he bent his head to the table as if in despair. (pg 16 Pevear/Volokhonsky)
After reading the book, I personally see more similar characteristics -- rather than contrasting ones -- between Rodya and Marmeladov; however, I do see how people could come to believe that Marmeladov stands as one of Raskolnikov’s character foils. Rodya’s suffering is mainly caused by an unstable mental state -- a conflicted conscience and an incredibly confused mind. Marmeladov’s suffering, however, mainly originates from the state of his family, and the unfortunate, very physical events, that have drastically shaped his life. Such as:
-Witnessing his daughter go through prostitution with her “yellow pass.” (pg 14)
-He watches Mr. Lebezyatnikov beat his wife after failing to pay back a loan. “When Mr. Lebezyatnikov gave my wife a beating a month ago, with his own hands . . . did I not suffer?” (pg 14)
-The constant struggles he experiences with his finances. His children are starving. And his wife, as good as she is, is deathly ill with tuberculosis.
Whereas Rodya seems to be tormented by his reasons, questions, and thoughts (i.e. why the pawnbroker? Are certain people really special enough to be exempt from the law?)
I’m not sure this makes any sense at all. Any other thoughts as to how Marmeladov may serve as a foil to Raskolnikov?
I have to agree with what Sharon said. I think Marmelodov serves more as a type of person than anything. I think he does play off of the major theme of suffering but I think he's a certain type of person that Dostoevsky uses to take us into a deeper understanding of this world of complete hopelessness. And to kind of connect it with what Erik said, Marmeledov is this person victimized by society but like what Sharon said, he gave up, losing his body, mind, soul, family, and health to this vicious yet consuming society.
He hopelessly drinks away every aspect of his life. Drinking is the only thing that he can turn to, "for every man have somewhere to go". I think his actions are reasonable. His life is every bit of dysfunctional, unfortunate and basically a living hell compared to the other characters in the book but I think these other characters like Sonia, Raskolnikov and Razumikhin had their own sufferings. The difference between Marmelodov and these other characters is what they turn to and "where they go".
Mamelodov is a type of person who lost all his hope. When he talks about events in his life and you see it in a chronological order, (like the beginning of his marriage, his job, and his children being victimized by society at a young age) you can see that his life didn't have spurts of getting better. It was a downward sloping snowball of tragedies that it's only reasonable for him to resort to drinking. When you look at Raskolnikov, his character showed glimpses of light in this dark society, and I could say the same for Sonia and Razumizkin. Mameledov poses the question, "Why am I to be pitied?" I think it's hopeless to even pity him. And with that, he plays a role who crossed the point of no return. Raskolnikov had the potential of crossing that line and I think every person living in this society has a potential to completely lose every hope, and it's just a matter of making that decision with how you react to your sufferings.
Marmeladov has a very simular quality to Raskolnikov. He doesn't work and he doesn't try to work. Also, he drinks because he's got some emotion, like Raskolnikov, that needs to be settled. But Raskolnikov is thinking murder and Mameladov is just trying to figure out his life. Also, I think that Marmeladov is there to explain some things in the beginning. He shows how flawed the middle class life, how logic and moral flies right out the window when your broke, married, your daughter goes into prositution to get money, and have people that need to be fed. This gives us some persective of the worst of what life is like in St. Petersberg and what Raskolnikov can be seeing. It shows that these people aren't smart and don't always make the right choices, such as Marmeladov losing his job, taking the money away from his family to drink it away.
I agree with the idea that Marmeladov is not a foil to Raskolnikov, but rather a "type" of character that teaches an important lesson to Raskolnikov. Marmeladov's slow downfall and eventual death leads Raskolnikov to reject his own idea of a being above mankind and therefore justified in his murders.
In his explanation of the differences and relationships between poverty, drunkenness, and destitution, Marmeladov argues that poverty is not a bad thing, but destitution is. He finds no fault with living an impovershed life, but loathes the idea of being destitute. He calls his alcoholism justified escapism; who could bear to conciously live such a painful life? Interestingly, while this is one of the first things Marmeladov says in the novel, it defines him for the rest of the book.
I find this logic to be a bit odd, and I believe Raskolnikov would agree. He sees Marmeladov as a man who is tied to his own ideas and preconceptions about society. Thus, he drives himself further into misery and shirks responsibility. This eventually leads to his own death. I also believe that Marmeladov's death was not an accident. Seeing no escape from his painful existence, he chose to kill himself.
Seeing how Marmeladov's fixation on ideas slowly destroys him spurns Raskolnikov from his idealistic self. Marmeladov is the tragic impovershed man who will never rise above his status. He shows Raskolnikov a life that he would never like to have himself.
I think that Marmeladov serves almost as a possible future that might happen to Raskolnikov and also a less intense version of him. Their lives are both miserable from poverty with Marmeladov's situation a bit worse off. Also, Marmeladov has some characteristics that are similar to Raskolnikov's.
In chapter 2, Marmeladov is described as "a man over fifty, bald and grizzled...reddish eyes gleamed like little chinks. But there was something very strange in him; there was a light in his eyes as though of intense feeling - perhaps there were even thought and intelligence, bit at the same time there was a gleam of something like madness."
This passage serves as a foreshadow in the plot and in Raskolnikov's character. The "madness" in Marmeladov is also present in a more intense manner in Raskolnikov. While Marmeladov steals money from Sonia, Raskolnikov kills and steals from the pawnbroker.
Although Marmelodov is a major part character, I don't think he serves as much as a foil to Raskolnikov, rather he is a character that represents a theme in the novel. I think that by drinking and ruining his life and his family life, it represents him just simply giving up on life. Also, the entire family is struggling. Katrina is an overwhelming wife that is ill, the children and starving and Sonya, daughter of Raskolnikov is forced into prostitution. I believe that Dostoevsky is using Marmelodov to show how hopeless the world can provide. For Marmelodov, he uses drinking to escape from the problems he has in his life, as many do in the world. I also belive the Dostoevsky uses the family to represent the hardships family come by and to what extent they need to go through in order to barely live.
I think that Erik mentioned a good passage from the book. One thing about Marmelodov's drinking is that no one has confronted him about this drinking problems, therefor he keeps drinking without hesitation or a second thought. Until society gives him help and the attention, he will continue his ways. Until someone helps him, no one will be helped. Him and his family represents the wrongs and difficulties family can go through.
Of course, Marmeladov contributes to the theme if suffering, but more importantly, it is the fact that his suffering is self inflicted that makes him significant. Through out the book, there are characters with fortunes involving combinations of fate, self inflicted suffering, and self earned rewards.
I believe that raskolnikov is a true mixture of these factors, while other characters resemble the extremes. Luzhin, for example, is wealthy due to fate, while Sonya is poor due to fate. Marmeledov is an extreme case of self inflicted suffering, while rasumikhin is a specimen of hard work.
These extreme characters have traits that resemble their state of being, traits shared by raskolnikov where he shares their state of being. I don't know how to make that much clearer...hopefully you can see what I tried to say.
Marmeladov is employed to serve as a character who represents a major theme. He is suffering and his life is slowly vanishing with every drink he takes. Marmeladov lives the worst life out of all of the other characters in the book. However, characters like Sonya and Raskolnikov suffered earlier. Marmeladov keeps inflicting further troubles on himself by drinking to feel the troubles of his life to an even further extent. In the end, Marmeladov is a character who stands to present the major theme of the novel because he stands for other characters that have suffered as well.
Marmeladov is Jesus.
I think Marmeladov is very much a foil to Rodyon. To me, he seems to take certain qualities of Rodyon to the extreme, and exemplifies a possible outcome of Rodyon's life.
One thing both have in common is despair. Rodyon meets Marmeladov in his delerium, is physically weak, depressed, and has a shoddy life. Marmeladov is a destroyed alcoholic with the burdens of his failures, and the destitution of his family. He had his chances at redemption and success however with his government position. Although alcohol explicitly lead to his downfall, I think the stress and reality of life were too much for him to confront. To me, it felt like Rodyon was at a premature stage, with many possible paths on the table, whereas marmeladov was at a terminal stage, only reminiscing at his failures and shortcomings.
I thought Marmeladov's situation serves as a possible outcome to Raskolnikov's life. Further, I think the existence of such a character works to highlight the depth of Raskolnikov's ultimate maturation.
I think that Marmeladov can be categorized as all three and i think that other characters fit into this mold. What I want to focus on the parts in the passage that show the similarities and differences between Marmeladov and Raskolnikov.
It is revealed in the very beginning that both Raskolnikov and Marmeladov are in deep poverty. Raskolnikov is "crushed by poverty" (1), and it is obvious Marmeladov is not better off. besides being poor, I think it is interesting that Raskolnikov does not want to see his landlord and is "struck by fear of meeting his creditor" while Marmeladov is afraid to see Katerina. However I think the most important thing that these two characters share is their belief in redemption. Marmeladov seems to believe that through his suffering he will be atoned, while later on the novel, Raskolnikov starts to understand Marmeladov. I think Raskolnikov starts to understand why Marmeladov was glad to suffer and wishes that "fate had sent him repentance-burning repentance, that breaks the heart, that drives sleep away" (544). However he only "wishes" because he does not "repent of his crime."
I think Im taking the last passage out of context.
I actually do believe that Marmeldov is both a type character and a foil to Raskolnikov for many of the same reasons that others have stated. A foil is a character that has many similar characteristics to the protagonist, but makes the protagonist realize something about himself. Marmelodov like Raskolnikov is unemployed and has poor family relations. However, because of Marmelodov’s downfall, Raskolnikov realizes that if he continues to believe that he is superior that the rest of mankind, then he will have a similar end as Marmelodov’s.
Marmelodov definitely encompasses the typical man living in poverty. He is so unhappy with the state that he is in that he won’t even look for an opportunity to regain some kind of status. He willingly watches his own family suffer even though he is ashamed of his lack of action. Marmelodov drinks the little money that his family earns away. This definitely gives readers a perspective of how the immense poverty in St. Petersburg can affect people.
I think the most interesting passage in Crime and Punishment about Marmelodov was during the conversation between Marmelodov and Raskolnikov in the tavern. Marmelodov states that even though he has committed so many sins, he still believes that God will accept him and forgive him. I think this kind of foreshadows the fact that even though Raskolnikov committed such a terrible sin, he will be eventually be forgiven.
This is no Fortinbras to Hamlet, but it is a foil none the less. I think that Raskolnikov is a character who has many possible foils in this story, just as Ms. Minor pointed out. To me Marmeladov is certainly one of these foils, as I see it each of these foils represents a different possible outcome to Raskolnikov's own life. The key here being the variety and the depth that Dostoevsky put into developing the different characters that could have been Raskolnikov. When we are analyzing Rodion it feels like one of the choose your own mystery books, some cases end in disaster, some end up with only minor injuries, and some cases bring you out alive. If you want to you can see all of the choices. The same is true of Raskolnikov, if he had chosen different options we would see a different him.
That said, Marmeladov represents the failed state of Raskolnikov. The rogue who does bad things (kind of) but without any purpose, moral, or higher sense of belief. He is in essence a deadbeat dad. Meanwhile Raskolnikov too is depressed and in a state of anguish but he has an escape which is that he killed the pawnbroker to make the world better for everybody. Marmeladov certainly has no such calling, just misery that loves company. I believe that Marmeladov is a foil, it would be Raskolnikov's failure, his immorality and bad doings without a purpose. I think Neel is quite right in saying that Marmeladov is in the "terminal stage" while Raskolnikov is just beginning, this is right and it is this fact that enables Raskolnikov's maturation and his ability to have other feelings and evolve. Raskolnikov is eventually able to cope with his misery, whereas for Marmeladov the only way he does that is by drinking.
While Marmeladov may not serve as the perfect, perfect foil he does fit all of the necessary characteristics and Dostoevsky develops him brilliantly to showcase another possibility to Rodion's life.
I think in discussing Marmeladov, there is one word that particularly comes to my mind: conscious. Throughout all of his discussions with the protagonist and instances where the reader is exposed to the character, he is fully aware of his actions being destructive to his own life. For example, he knows that his alcoholism is detrimental to his family. A family as you guys mentioned that exemplifies suffering.
I also like Neel's analysis about Marmeladov being an example of a terminal stage and the protagonist being at a premature stage. I think the fact that Marmeladov is conscious is suggestive of the more sophisticated stage of reality in viewing himself. I think it's here that the parallel can be drawn and suggested that him/Raskolnikov are foils of one another. Both suffer from various ailments imposed upon them by society and have internal conflicts, but are different in their stage of development in regards to coping with these issues.
There have been some great analyses on this subjective prompt. I will offer my thoughts.
Marmeladov and Raskolnikov share many traits, but also have many differences. Both seem to be mentally unstable, but are also different in this sense. Raskolnikov seems to be upset about how he seems to be stuck in the rut of poverty, but still holds on to one glimmer of hope: his past as a student. Raskolnikov still has an opportunity to make his life better, and seems to have a desire t do so. On the other hand, Marmeladov is impoverished, but also seems to be "content" with his status. He has no desire to improve himself, and is doing nothing to improve conditions for himself or his family. All the money that the family earns he does not spend on food, but instead on alcohol. Thus, Marmeladov and Raskolnikov are similar, but are still different. However, this difference is not enough to make them foils, as they are stuck in the same kind of life, and neither is remotely different than the other (i.e like Razumikhin to Raskolnikov...a true foil)
I agree with almost everyone when they say that Marmeladov plays a big role in developing the theme of suffering. He seems to have given up hope and is just existing, waiting for the end. When he is talking to Rodya, he says "I lost my job. It wasn't even my own fault that time; the staff was being reorganized. Then I started hitting the bottle really". He seems so defeated and he makes it seem like his life is over. Aside from his work, his personal life isn't in much better shape. If I remember correctly, he's hesitant to go home because of his wife, and his house is actually an extremely dirty hallway. It just seems like Marmeladov is suffering in every aspect of his life.
However, I believe that Sonya, his daughter, is almost like a foil to her father. She is in a similar, if not worse situation and is forced to work to support her family while her father only just spends all the money selfishly away on drinking. Even though Sonya has to sacrifice her body for her family, she does it to support her family. Her father, on the other hand, is in a bad situation and decides to feel sorry for himself and wallow in his own pity.
Post a Comment