Monday, April 27, 2009
Prompt-- 4/27
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 a feeling of hopeless darkness. How can we better understand Raskolnikov's redemption through the tragedy of Kurtz? (as always, support your opinions)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Somewhere deep down inside Rodya there lies something good, something worth living for. Kurtz was a speaker with a monster living inside of him:
"I think the knowledge came to him at last--only at the very last. But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude--and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core. . . ."
The only way for Raskolnikov to realize the good that lies within him is to tear away the rotten exterior that covers it. Kurtz radiated an eloquent and hopeful vision which turned out to be corrupt, whereas Rodya spouts a rotten philosophy for most of the book which turns out to be a veil covering a heart willing to suffer for all.
That's not to say that it wasn't the environment's fault, like it was for Kurtz, for corrupting Raskolnikov. In that regard, the environment corrupts both of them; it's just that Rodya has something inside of him that as Porfiry says concerning the article, "there is pride in it, youthful and incorruptible, there is the courage of despair; it's a gloomy article, sir, but that's a good thing... 'Well for this man it won't end there!'"
Kurtz rotted away from the core like a piece of fruit, pretentious in his "plans", whereas Raskolnikov only had a cancerous growth on the skin which, after having been cut off and liberated from by the confession, allows him to flourish and live on.
Rodion and Kurtz engage in opposite interior battles fought between their inner goodness and their desire to be a hero, like Erikolnikov stated quite well. They both struggle with confusion throughout each novel. Kurtz is first introduced as a good fellow, but is later clearly shown to have been taken in by the forest and becomes "hollow at the core". Rodion, in the beginning of C&P and throughout most of the novel, is portrayed as a "bad" person. His good sides, Rodion's true self, shows through at times, however, such as during his conversation with Sonia's little sister (that we discussed in class).
It is as though Kurtz gives in to the wilderness. Rodion, on the other hand, remains passionate, perhaps about the wrong things at times, but his passion leads him to the realization of his faults. Knowing Kurtz' character gives us one to compare Rodion to, since they deal with essentially the same inner issue: discovering themselves and their place in a world of suffering people
Kurtz possesses exactly what the title of the book describes, an eventual erosion of his good nature into a heart of darkness. He is the evil genius or controller that ultimately is successful because of this perfected ability of degeneration. He is known for "both for his style and eloquence and for his grandiose, almost megalomaniacal scheming". Kurtz has an incredible ability to mask his true person by being a man of great power and evil, when in all reality, he lacks depth and substance. Unlike Raskolnikov, Kurtz is so hollow that he does not even deserve much thought. That is not to say his emptiness makes him unimportant but simply allows his true character to be projected. He is able to put on an act, as an impressive and put together man, but this should not just overshadow the fact that he is a horrible person, to put it lightly.
Raskolnikov's redemption relates to Kurtz's downfall and tragedy because it could have been so simple for Dostoevsky to make it painless, fast and easy. For example, he was not redeemed when he asked Sonya to read him Lazarus, not when he admitted his crime to her, not when he confessed to the authorities, not even when she traveled with him to Siberia. And though ay that point it makes Raskolnikov seem like a man who gave into his suffering, which would have been the equivalent to Kurtz's tragedy, Dostoevsky beautifully injects a little hope into each line. (Sorry this is so long, but I just think it's very necessary in explaining Raskolnikov's redemption:
"Suddenly he found Sonya beside him; she had come up noiselessly and sat down at his side. It was still quite early; the morning chill was still keen. She wore her poor old burnous and the green shawl; her face still showed signs of illness, it was thinner and paler. She gave him a joyful smile of welcome, but held out her hand with her usual timidity. She was always timid of holding out her hand to him and sometimes did not offer it at all, as though afraid he would repel it. He always took her hand as though with repugnance, always seemed vexed to meet her and was sometimes obstinately silent throughout her visit. Sometimes she trembled before him and went away deeply grieved. But now their hands did not part. He stole a rapid glance at her and dropped his eyes on the ground without speaking. They were alone, no one had seen them. The guard had turned away for the time. 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. For the 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 beyond everything and that at last the moment had come... They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other. He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering. But that is the beginning of a new story--the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life. That might be the subject of a new story, but our present story is ended." (this is from the epilogue).
And so Raskolnikov's story ends with the hope for a new beginning, whereas Kurtz's ultimate fate is just the opposite. Raskolnikov took his inner battle, though it was torturous to say the least, and became a better person because of it. Because that is what life is, the process suffering to the point of redemption.
The biggest difference between Kurt and Raskolnikov is that Raskolnikov has genuineness. Despite showing very little of it, his genuineness does show itself throughout the novel. I think one of the most notable instances was when he talks with Sonya's younger sister. He also shows his genuineness when he gives all his money to Katerina Ivanova, despite needing it as much as her. Although this genuine behavior does not last (he reverts back to the normal Raskolnikov soon after) for a moment he shows what he is like deep inside. While Raskolnikov is good inside, his goodness hides under a diseased and rotten skin. Kurtz on the other hand is "hollow to the core", despite having been presented as an inspired and noble character. Like a building without supports, Kurtz' shell crumbles under the pressures of the jungle. When we see Kurtz without his shell, we see a rotten and corrupted person. Raskolnikov is very different, what allows him to be different is his genuineness. When we see him in the last pages of the novel, instead of being crushed by suffering like Kurtz, he finds redemption and hope.
Kurtz is like the bad ex that always holds a grudge, while Rodya cries a little then moves on.
Kurtz knows of good and evil, but chooses evil due to lack of restraint, pulling him down to the pits of the darkest kind. By scrutinizing Rodya, readers can see the ties that keep Rodya's conscious away from complete despair. These ties build a safety net that catch Rodya. The ties included his mother and sister, Razumikhin, and Sonya. Kurtz didn't have this blessing. Kurtz is alone and this plays a part into understanding why loneliness is an contributing factor for slipping into madness because Rodya wasn't alone. So Rodya didn't lose it because of his people.
Erik, "...Kurtz engage in interior battles fought between their inner goodness" - I agree with Mrs. Minor on this one. I do not think that goodness escapes even the wretched character of Kurtz. He cannot be compared normally because his interpretations of morality vary so profoundly with that of the collective. To be honest, I feel like "goodness" is just a bad word in discussing morality.
I agree with you though Erik, that the veil is indeed removed to reveal human empathy that was hidden by an evil in the case of Raskolnikov,a man searching for human freedom in solitude and resistance to social norms. In the case of Kurtz, I think that his evil manifested itself in the form of a man so convinced of his beliefs that he began to behave morbidly.
Lauren, your analysis is excellent. When studying HD, I was in that same school of thought that it is not about good/evil in the case of Kurtz when taken alone but emptyness and fullness. My belief is actually a combination of yours and Erik's ("environment" stuff) - I think that Kurtz reflects society and is used as a vehicle for analyzing morality and justice.
So now, to answer Mrs. Minor's question specifically, we can understand Raskolnikov's redemption through the tragedy of Kurtz because the latter offers an example of how (a) incessantly seeking to isolate one's self as an individual will result in permanent isolation from society, that is bad [therefore Raskol should have confessed and sacrificed the freedom that he exploited to murder] and that (b) there are things worth making sacrifice for that are completely separate from these fancy concepts such as morality, justice, truth, individualism and are much more simpler and profound - Love. Kurtz dies having left his other at the end of the novel. Sounia gives Raskolnikov something to live and really "die for" by sacrificing himself.
I think, as do many others I'm sure, that Heart of Darkness can be compared with purpose to almost any other novel because the book truly expounds on the idea of morality and what is just.
Nima, to continue on with the "stepping over" that concerns both Kurtz and Raskolnikov, they are both speaking a "new word", if you will, that judges and in Raskolnikov's case revitalizes contemporary morality -- for he suffers into truth-- but, in Kurtz' example, the "new word" fails to make an impact in action, as it could not be carried out in the wild. That setting, in the deep jungle, which is really the epitome of lawlessness (reminding me of the nature of man, anarchy), requires some sort of morality while Kurtz' fails horribly, turning to pure heathenism, as it was "rotten at the core" and incapable of evolution.
In both Kurtz and Raskolnikov's case they are searching for a new "good", a new morality, a new way of life. I suppose my first post does overuse the word, forgive me. My vocabulary needs to be Beyond Good and Evil.
Looking at the empty versus fullness duality Nima brought in, I agree. Concerning a set of morals, if one were to live without ever analyzing them or challenging their foundations, one would risk that, on the day power ceases to dictate the way of life, they would be found empty at the core without any morality one could call his own. I turn to Kierkegaard's "the crowd is untruth," for what happens when you find yourself alone, without someone telling you what's what? Most turn, and have turned to Hitler, and Napoleon, and Caesar and the Kurtz of the world for guidance...
I hope though that someday all humanity will turn to Dostoevsky, and the beautiful passage Lauren was so kind to post.
In the end, it is our choices that define who we are. Kurtz and Rodya are both presented with similar circumstances, but have vastly different resolutions. This is all because of what they choose, or choose not, do to. In Rodya's case, he originally acts based on his own personal superman theory. He pursues this ideal to the extreme, until he realizes that he may have been mistaken. He turns his back on his own philosophy, choosing instead to trust the faith he finds in Sonya.
Kurtz ignores all warning signs, and heedlessly pursues his ideal vision for the Congo. It ultimately destroys his own life and the life of the one he loves. He was so fixated executing his ideas for the Congo that he failed to see the error of his ways. Thankfully Rodion was able to turn his back on his own flawed logic.
Raskolnikov could have easily destroyed Sonya's life. She completely exposed herself to him and made herself entirely vulnerable. But unlike Kurtz's fiance, Sonya pushes Rodion in the opposite direction, causing him to see the light and change his ways.
It's apparent that both Kurtz and Raskolnikov both acted on their theories. Thus, they both encountered very similar situations, where acting on their selfish desires began to tear them apart internally. However, as James so wisely stated, it's choices and ability to recognize errors that define who we are. Raskolnikov realized his inability to fulfill his "superman" theory that initially caused his actions. Kurtz failed to realize/accept the fact that he failed to fulfill his theories. Rather, he was completely consumed and blinded to the world around him that no redemption was remotely plausible.
While Raskolnikov's redemption was internal, other factors led to his ultimate revival. Sonya, like Nima said, gave him the will to prevail and recognize his inability to fulfill his theory.
Erik poses an interesting point-that both Kurtz and Raskolnikov are the opposite of what they seem. Thinking on this I decided it wasn't who they were that defined them but the idea they believed in, because in the end they were not at all the men they started out as, but products of their idea. In Heart of Darkness, he uses his "idea and an unselfish belief in the idea" to redeem actions he knows are unjust. Raskolnikov's theory is not justification for his actions, but rather the guiding force behind them. The end result for Kurtz was the discovery of corruptness in himself and inability to rely on the idea. For Raskolnikov, it was the opposite. He was able to become unselfish and believe in a more true idea.
I think that Raskolnikov's future could be Kurtz. I remember reading that Kurtz really cared about the forest when he first got there. Like Lauren said, Raskolnikov has genuineness. However, the immediate differences are that Kurtz is the kind of person that keeps a grudge while Raskolnikov is the kind of person that would forgive and forget.
It was because of their own selfish desires that both of them get into trouble. Kurtz in the jungle and Rodya in his murders. And both even stuggle with their own confusion.
Raskolnikov and Kurtz both faced similar situations, in which they felt as if society was running against them. Raskolnikov views himself as an "extraordinary" citizen who carries the powers to heal society of its woes. Kurtz has the same idea of saving humanity as the "beacon of light." Although they are placed in very similar situations, Raskolnikov's story ends with a feeling of hope and optimism, while Kurtz's story ended in darkness.
As many of you have pointed out, the main difference between Raskolnikov and Kurtz is the internal "goodness" of each character. Before setting out to the Congo, Kurtz was a man with high hopes and a passion to do great things in a wretched place. However, as time passed, his soul became rotten and he became the epitome of an empty, hollow, evil core. In Raskolnikov, although his actions and thoughts were depressing for the most part, he did have some enlightening moments which show his true character. His selflessness towards Katerina Ivanovna and Marmeladov's family, as well as his love for his sister and Sonya show the genuine compassion Raskolnikov has.
As James and Alex pointed out, Raskolnikov had some faith because of Sonya and her love for him. She gave him a reason to be good, and realize his mistakes. However, Kurtz essentially was alone, and for that reason, he became the person he was. He had no love nor no faith in humanity because no one was there to support him. The hope and redemption found in Raskolnikov is emphasized through the tragedy of Kurtz and his downfall.
This is really an interesting prompt. I really like what Kassie says about the characterization of the two characters, Kurtz and Raskolnikov. Both started out badly, but ended quite differently. While Kurtz looks only to justify his actions, Raskolnikov consciously tries to be a better person.
In this sense, the growth of Raskolnikov and Kurtz is distinct. Kurtz is consistently getting worse and more immoral, while Raskolnikov is becoming better by the day. As Erik said, he lives on, while Kurtz has been corrupted for good.
Also, I feel that in Heart of Darkness has nothing else to live for. His hope is all lost, as he has committed some of the most atrocious wrongs. Conversely, Raskolnikov is a former student, and thus has that glimmer of hope. He can still do many things to rise out of his impoverished state; the question is whether he will pursue this idea. By the end of the novel, it seems as if there is hope for him in life, and so the reader is left with the feeling that Raskolnikov will turn on to the right path soon enough.
The description of Kurtz as the "evil genius," is absolutely true. Kurtz is known for his style and eloquence. He may even be considered a bit deranged for his obsession to succeed. This obsession, loss of reality, and selfishness is absolutely detrimental to Kurtz. It is those characteristics that lead to Kurtz's tragedy. Raskolnikov is a bit different. He is trapped with two different personalities: genuine and rotten. However, the two characters are similar in a way. Like Kurtz, and his obsession to achieve great success, Raskolnikov has his superman theory. He believes he is among the elite. However, this theory takes a back seat after the murder because he has a feeling of regret. However, in the end Sonya ends up showing Raskolnikov the truth to his theory of being among the elite.
The description of Kurtz is like Portfiry’s description of Raskolnikov. Portfiry says, “I think you’re the kind of man who would stand there and smile at his torturers while they were tearing out his guts – if only he could find faith or a god.” However, unlike Kurtz, Raskolnikov still has faith but just lost a place to put his faith onto. The dream shows that Raskolnikov also knows he is doubting his own theory, “each thought the truth was in him alone… they did not know whom to condemn or whom to acquit.” The world represents Raskolnikov’s mind and the mad people represents his inner choices/beliefs, “[they] kill each other in senseless rage” in order to find that “god.” As Portfiry said earlier in the novel, “ find one and you’ll live.” Unfortunately for Kurtz even in the end, near death, he did not find faith. But Raskolnikov seems to see hope in his dream, a cure to all this madness. “Few people were able to save themselves: the pure and the chosen, predestined to begin a new race of men and a new life, to renew and purify the earth…” this type of people is represented by Sonia, she is the new “god” that he is searching for. Raskolnikov says in the end, “Can her beliefs not be mine, too? …”
In Heart of Darkness, Kurtz showed the effect of the congo and corruptness that surrounded him. For Raskolnikov, it was actually the opposite. He showed was able to free himself from something that could have made him "hollow to the core," and instead found hope in the darkest places.
Also, Raskolinikov is more troubled by his own suffering than those around him, like Kurtz. Kurtz only focused on the deterioration of the congo and failed to recognize the lack of his own ideals, which led him to a even more corrupted state.
Interesting point, James. I never thought about the importance of My Intended and Sonya as secondary characters who influence Kurtz/Raskol's fate.
I think you understand things by comparisons. We can look at Raskolnikov and see that he has mentally tortured himself, admitted to his sins, and is suffering his consequences. That's the path someone takes when they want the redemption, and when they have not quite stepped over the line. I believe that Raskolnikov dips his toes in the water on the other side, but doesn't dunk his body. He murders a woman, assuming he's a "superman", but considers the important details (like how you actually kill her) mere "trivials" (sorry for the inexact quote!)
Kurtz completely submerses in the other side which is shown by how he holds onto the ivory and the jungle with his last breath. Marlow (I think that's his name?) has to literally pull Kurtz back from the edge when he's crawling towards the jungle. He's completely lost to it.
By juxtapositioning the complete loss of self and complete stepping-over-the-line of Kurtz to the hesitant dare of Raskolnikov, I think you can understand his redemption. You understand that there has been worse horrors and that Raskolnikov is inherently good.
I liked what Sara said about Rodia having people to fall back upon -- I mean Rodia had Sonia and his mother and his sister, and of course, Razhumkin. While Kurtz didn't really have the support that Rodia had. I think that also adds to the difference between the two revelations that Kurtz and Rodia had.
And like James said--we, as human beings, always have the ability to make choices and decisions that will define the person we are and will become. And it's interesting because in that passage, the superman theory and the ordinary vs. extraordinary battle comes up again. He says that the "chosen" ones are going to be saved and are DESTINED for a certain way of life. And I'm pretty sure Kurtz didn't have this mindset/theory of humans. And I think that through this realization, Rodia is able to have this redemptive power. I mean Kurtz's life and his tragedy is so dark and in the end, Rodia realizes there is so much more to life whereas Kurtz didn't.
I agree with James; As Kurtz and Raskolnikov are walking down the path of destruction, the direction they choose is what distinguishes them from one another. Instead of realizing that his ideologies were cruel and perverse, Kurtz gives into the darkness and lets it cling to him like a tree eating weed (I saw it on OPB), which eventually chokes him and eats him alive. However, as Raskolnikov realizes that he is being consumed by the darkness, he fights back and realizes that it is harming him. Unlike Kurtz, to whom “the knowledge came to him at last--only at the very last," Rodya begins realizing this before it completely consumes him. Although it takes Rodya a while to let go of his pride and to realize that his theory is corrupted, he finally acknowledges it, and like the story of Lazarus, is called forth and brought back to life.
Like Lauren, Erik, and others mentioned, Raskolnikov was not hollow; there goodness, sincerity, and genuineness in him that was left intact. However, Kurtz was a shell and his goodness was so far gone and rotten that it was almost impossible to revive him. Once something is rotten, the only thing you can do is dispose of it. Because of this, we have no hope for Kurtz’s redemption.
Kurtz, like Rodya, is tormented by an uncontrollable “wanting” -- mainly to rise above the society in which they are part of. Like Mrs. Minor said, “step over” a boundary, one that has been put in place by society to maintain morality and justness. I found a passage in Heart of Darkness that I thought was quite interesting, one that I feel can be closely related to Raskolnikov.
Marlow has just witnessed the many skewered heads in the village and ensures his listeners that there was “nothing profitable with these heads being there.” He goes on to say that their presence “Only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked a certain restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something WANTING in him -- some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence. Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I cannot say. I think the knowledge came to him at last -- only at the very last. But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, thinks of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude -- and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core . . .” (Heart of Darkness, chp. 3)
Much like Kurtz, who has been trapped by the wilderness and darkness thriving in the Jungle, Raskolnikov becomes totally consumed by his “superman” theories. These ultimately set him down a path of darkness, and solitude, wherein he comes to understand a great deal about himself. The difference is: the ideas, or “realizations” felt by Kurtz are nothing more than empty thoughts; he was too lost and devoured by darkness… there was no room for change inside him. He is “hollow” and empty, and lacks all essence of goodness. Rodya experiences redemption because he, unlike Kurtz, still has the capacity for goodness and a willingness to change. Rodya pushed his beliefs aside, whether he was willing to or not. Kurtz on the other hand, refused. He dies desperately clinging onto his convictions.
Kurtz steps over completely; there was no turning back. Raskolnikov is somewhat different. He “crossed over” into that realm of darkness and eventually takes a few backward steps into the world of reason, blatantly disproving Luzhin’s theory: “…for once one steps over [that line], it is impossible to go back.” (P/V 301) Rodya slowly loses that part of him that is driven by theories and analysis; in the end, an entirely different part of him kicks into gear: his heart (newfound love with Sonya), the true source of his renewal, “and complete resurrection into a new life.” (549)
The most apparent and poignant similarity between Kurtz and Raskolnikov is the who idea the being an "extraordinary" person. Each sees themselves as being superior to their peers. They each have some overriding moral law that allows them to act harshly towards their fellow men.
It really is true that in the end of these two stories, the result is completely different. Raskolnikov realizes his crimes and takes the blame within himself. Kurtz on the other hand, he leaves us more in a state of wonder as to why his ways were never corrected.
What really seemed to straighten Raskolnikov up was people. He had positive (generally female) influences that lead him to being more capable of seeing his faults. He has somewhere to turn. He has a hope. It is a moral hope, love.
Kurtz's hope on the other hand is much more artificial. His hope is for power, riches, and supremacy. His hope is not for recovery, rather it is for new discovery. He wants to unlock powers unseen to any one man. This is what ultimately leads Kurtz to having an empty and hollowed out heart.
Much like a light bulb seems all the more bright in a dark room, Raskolnikov's redemption seems far greater with Kurtz's failure as a backdrop or comparison. Many Russian novels I have read often seem to have a mellow or sad ending. However, in Crime in Punishment, the ending is much, much brighter. You kind of get a little tickle to the heart and mind.
I like what James mentioned -- "Kurtz ignores all warning signs, and heedlessly pursues his ideal vision for the Congo. It ultimately destroys his own life and the life of the one he loves. He was so fixated executing his ideas for the Congo that he failed to see the error of his ways. Thankfully Rodion was able to turn his back on his own flawed logic."
I think that initially, they both started off as the same person, thinking that they were acting in order to help others. What changed their fate in the end was their ability to recognize (or not recognize) their own faults. Rodya's realization is what stops him from experiencing the tragedy of Kurtz. His feelings of guilt are obvious when he falls at Sonia's feet at the end of the novel.
The paragraph following the one mentioned in the prompt says, "It bothered Raskolnikov that this senseless piece of delirium echoed so mournfully and painfully in his memory, so that for a long time the impression made by these feverish dreams did not pass." He realizes that if everyone acted the way he did, this is the state the world would be in. Even if everyone was fighting for what they believed in, the world would only be in a state of madness. No changes would actually be made, the human race would not progress, and nothing would be accomplished.
I remember Kurtz was similar in the way that he wanted to bring a "light" to the savages, which shows he had good intentions. The thoughts and ideas that inspired his actions were positive and progressive in his mind. But he ended up changing and his goal was corrupted by greed. Unlike Raskolnikov, he wasn't able to recognize this change in his motives in the end.
Kurtz's tragedy, was just that, a tragedy. It can be used as the prime example of what happens when a person doesn't seek the redemption, but chases the foolhardy illustion about around themselves to the fullest. Unlike Kurtz, Raskolnikov has come to some level of realization that something had gone wrong. Kurtz had chased what he had thought what was the "out" of this internal battle (following what he wished to follow), but insted, he sort of let the opposing side of him win and dominate him, making him consumed in this nightmare of wickness. Raskolnikov, on the other hand, hasn't nessicarily let this opposing side of him win. Granted, it might have one a few battles in the course of the book (his theroy, his willing suffering, weird mood swings, double standards for Dunya's suffering, ect..) but it has yet to win the enitire war over him. He has hope because he hasn't lost this battle, he still has this sense of control, and he knows that he has consequences for his external action. And to some degree, to rectify/to pay for his actions in his torment, means to find ground to stand on to get through this nightmare.
Both Kurtz and Raskolnikov have a bit of the rebel spirit in them, a desire to have that which they cannot or are not supposed to have. They have a burning desire within them to get such things, yet there is a difference. The difference is that Rodya is a rebel only because of his cause, and therefore when his "superman" theory is no longer rational he is willing to show his true heart, his willingness to suffer for one and all. "There is courage in despair" as Porfiry says, it is very true our heroes are known for suffering and fighting through it, being able to adapt and change. Rodya demonstrates some of this ability, he is constantly willing to suffer while kurtz is constantly willing to make others suffer.
Kurtz was seen as a hero, but when it came down to it he wasn't, he was actually quite rotten, alas nothing was there for him. He had crossed that boundary, stepped over, and gone so far he couldn't find his way back to the line. Rodya stays in some sort of gray area, he simply has an idea and wants it valued, and so he values it above all else. Raskolnikov isolates himself, and is danger of doing it permanently but his empathy comes out eventually. On the other end of the spectrum Kurtz helps us understand what could easily have happened to Raskolnikov with a little worse luck or a different environment. Kurtz believes in his idea so firmly (beyond Rodya?) that he loses all self-control and he has nothing to die for, his mission is on Earth at the end, there is no other greater idea for him, he just gives me a perspective on how close Rodya came to being truly empty and hollow.
Both Kurtz and Raskolnikov acted out how they though, meaning that they went through certain situations that were similar. by taking selfish desires, they broke down and were torn. Like it was mentioned before, its what we are aware of, the choices we make and to see that defines us. For Kurtz, he failed to realize that he had failed to do his theory. Instead, he was overwhelmed by the world around him that it blinded him therefor having no chance for redemption at all. Raskolnikov, however, realized what his purpose was, therefor making him do what he did. Raskolnikov's redemption was internal, but Kurtz choose not to acknowledge his own doings therefor did not get a chance to redeem himself. Like it was pointed out, Raskolnikov died for Sonya, while Kurtz died without having someone to die for.
Raskolnikov mainly differs from Kurtz in their hope and resistance for the future. Evil is presented to both of these men in forms that cannot be avoided ignored. Kurtz finds the evil is inevitable and lacks the will and inner strength to overcome this obstacle. However, Raskolnikov's evil doesn't consume him. He has a good character within him, battling with the corrupted emotions that he holds. Although Kurtz entered the Congo with optimism and ideals (also having a good side to him), this soon becomes thrown aside and the darkness wins.
Just as a fever is a natural healing process in becoming better, I believe that Raskolnikov also somewhat goes through this process to cleanse himself. As Raskolnikov's problems start to increasingly worsen, he also starts to lose himself. However, before this completely consumes him, he finds the courage to confess to Sonia.
P.5 Ch 4 - when Raskolnikov goes to confess to Sonia. "..by the time he reached Sonia's lodging, he felt a sudden impotence and fear. He stood still in hesitating at the door, asking himself the strange question, 'Must he tell her who killed Lizaveta?'."
He ends up confessing everything to her and realizes that he needs to become free from this evil.
P. 6 ch 7 - when he meets with Dounia. "Yes, I am going... to escape the disgrace I thought of drowning myself, Dounia, but I looked into the water, I thought that if I had considered myself strong till now I'd better not be afraid of disgrace... Its pride Dounia." Raskolnikov also adds, "You don't think, sister, that I was simply afraid of the water?"
Raskolnikov finds what he should be doing.
Also, Sonia is the driving force that enables Raskolnikov to carry out what he has got to do.
P. 6 ch 8. Raskolnikov is about to confess in the police office but backs down to see Sonia outside. "There was a poignant agony of despair in her face. She clasped her hands. His lips worked in an ugly, meaningless smile. He stood still a minute, grinned and went back to the police office."
Through Kurtz' tragedy we can understand how Rodyas seemingly flawless theory gets tossed out the window when we discover the mess that Mr Kurtz is in emotionally. At the end of Heart of Darkness we learn that even Mr Kurtz who seems to have stepped over Rodyas threshold that binds most men to certain standards, is completely lost emotionally. Mr Kurtz is one of Rodyas "supermen," yet he is so detached from everything around him that he is simply consumed in darkness. After reading Heart of Darkness we can visualize the path that Rodya would have taken had he continued to selfishly pursue his theory. By seeing what he would have become, we can understand what changes he made within himself not to end up like Mr Kurtz.
I think other have probably said this already, but I'm going to put in my own words. Although Marlow's descriptions of Kurtz also fit Raskolnikov, I think the key difference between them is that Kurtz unconditionally believed in his own righteousness and in the greatness of power. Although desirous to be "superman," Raskolnikov continually questions himself and his actions. He also doesn't lust for power as Kurtz did. The idea of power is only mentioned a couple times, and one of the rare occasions when Raskolnikov brings it up is when he talks to Sonia about breaking free of the filth, the first time they converse. The goal, he says, is "freedom and power, and above all, power! Over all trembling creation and all the ant-heap!" (Part 4, chpt 4, 1 page before the end of the chpt) He believes that through suffering, you can transcend the "ant-heap" of "ordinary men." He has a desire to transcend people, whereas Kurtz mostly lusted for power to control others and felt that everything belonged to him: "My woman, My ivory, My..."
Kurtz' undying belief in his atrocioius vision, and his ability to "get himself to believe in anything, anything" is what ultimately seals his fate. From Kurtz' example, it's easier to see how Raskolnikov escaped the same fate. He was redeemed because he could NOT get himself to believe "anything" and everything, but questioned it and soon came to the path of truth through the "errors" he made along the way. Kurtz bargained his soul in exchange for an idea, whereas Raskolnikov bargains his idea in exchange for his soul.
Post a Comment