Pause & Post #4:Nature vs. Nurture in Classic Literature

I realize I've already talked about a them in Crime and Punishment, and within the whole book, there are many themes. I've discovered the overall them of the book, and I think it's important, so I chose to write about it. 

In the previous post, I asked if because Rasnolikov was a good man, did it make him bad because he was capable of bad things. This... This is the underlying theme in Crime and Punishment, what makes a person good? What makes them bad? And then to go further, why are they good, or why are they bad? It comes down to the nature vs nurture debate in the social sciences. Were people born they way they become, or is how they become because of the environment they grew up in?

This debate interests me greatly, and I love that I can compare it to this piece of literature.

Like I've said in previous posts, Raskolnikov lives in Russia, in serious poverty, there's a possibility  he grew up that way as well. 

I have read, the more poverty there is, the more likely there is to be crime. This is proven twice in this novel: when Raskolnikov murders Alyona Ivanova and when Marmeladov gets run over by the carriage. This would indicate the nurture side of the debate is true. 
All of these aspects of the novel (theme, point of view, character and etc) are what make his piece of literature. Talking about things that will never become outdated, or readers won't like to or will stop reading about. Something like point of view is what keeps the readers interested, why they keep reading. The themes like poverty, the nature vs nurture debate, and characters like Rasknolikov and more controversial characters like Luhzin, add to the point of view- they make up the story. All of those things combined makes a timeless story- something that will never get old. Possibly just modernized as time goes on, but will always be relevant.  

Pause & Post #3: Split Personality Disorder

In both posts before this one, I've said in some way Crime and Punishment is unlike any book I've ever read. And, I'm going to say it again. The plot of the book is very similar to popular series' today like CSI and Criminal Minds where someone is plotting to commit a crime (ie. a murder). In those shows, the protagonist(s), and antagonist(s) are very clear. From the beginning, as the reader, I knew Raskolnikov was the protagonist but what I didn't know he would also be the antagonist. 
Throughout the story, Raskolnikov fights this inner demon inside him. He talks to himself, and when he's thinking about murdering the pawn lady, it's almost like he's refereeing himself. He's his own enemy. He can't stop these thoughts or his murderous actions.
As I discovered this about Rasknolkov I found myself wondering if he had split personality disorder. Split personality disorder is a mental illness where people experience two (or more) different states of personality. What this means for Raskolnikov is he has the self you're introduced to at the beginning of the book, the intelligent university grad, who also lives in poverty. Later we see our protagonist talking to himself.. Which leads to...
Ones of the causes of this mental illness that I think is most is prominent in our protagonist/antagonist is stress. Rasknolikov lives in St. Petersburg, Russia where he is very poor, his mother had written him a letter saying his sister was getting married (which is disapproved of), his friend was hit and killed by a carriage, and he has little food to eat, but drinks vodka all the time. 
People with split personality disorder can have more than one other personality, but Rasknolikov  only has the one, but no matter if you have one or ten more personalities, the other 
personalit(y)(ies) is/are bad-evil. This clear is Raskolnikov.
Raskolnikov is a good person, he's intelligent and handsome, but he showed he was capable of murder. Because he was capable of murder does that make him a bad person? Or can he still be thought of as a good person?

Pause & Post #2: Point of View

Crime and Punishment is unlike any book I've ever read before. I can honestly say, if it weren't for this assignment, I probably wouldn't have even known the book existed, let alone read it. As I was reading I couldn't help but wonder what point of view the book was written from... After thinking about it I came to the conclusion Crime and Punishment is written from a third person omniscient point of view. "Why am I to be pitied, you say? Yes! There's nothing to pity me for! I ought to be crucified, crucified on a cross, not pitied! Crucify me, oh judge, crucify me but pity me?" Third person omniscient point of view means the narrator does not participate as one of the characters, but as the reader, we know exactly how the characters are feeling. 
As  a reader, I'm finding this very effective to tell the Raskolnikov's story. This way of writing allows for the story to be told in full, and also, get Raskolnikov's very important thoughts in to further the story. "Oh, God, how loathsome this all is? And can it be, can it be that I...no, it's nonsense, it's it's absurd! Could such horror really come into my head? But then, what filth my heart is capable of!...Above all, filthy, nasty, vile, vile!"  
If the story was not written from this point of view, I do not think the book would be as good of a read. This point of view reveals so much both about the story and itself, and it's characters, it's a crucial part to the story. If the point of view changed at all, I think the story would lose what makes the story so good (in the places where the point of view is changed) and the reader would lose or not pick up important points the author is trying to get across. For example, when Rasckolnikov finds out his sister is getting married, he is furious because neither his mother or his sister consulted him first. If I would have read this from (for example) Raskolnikov's mother, when she was writing this letter to him, telling him these things, I wouldn't have even know how he was going to act, except possibly the reaction his mother thought he might have. This would be a very important  point to miss because it adds to Raskolnikov's character. 
In my opinion, the point of view aids the story in a great way, and really opens the book to its readers. 

Pause and Post #1:Character

When I chose Crime and Punishment to read, I had done a little research first. I am an  fan of murder mystery type of media, so this book seemed like it would be something I would be interested in. The book started the way I expected, but as I continued to read became different than what I had expected.
In the beginning pages, Dostoevsky talks about this man who is engulfed in the clutches of severe poverty. He does so, in a very melancholy, low key way. "As for the landlady, from whom he rented this closet with dinner and maid service included, she lived one flight below, in separate rooms, and every time he went out he could not fail to pass the landlady's kitchen, the door of which almost always stood wide open to the stairs. And each time he passed by, the young man felt some painful and cowardly sensation, which made him wince with shame. He was over his head in debt to the landlady and was afraid of meeting her." 
For me reading this book, being a teenager growing up, and living in Canada, I don't think I can fully comprehend the kind of poverty Dostoevsky is describing. Canada is a natural resource rich, and (generally) a financially stable country. Recently, we've experienced  a recession, but for me personally, I wasn't really affected. In Canada, most people don't know what poverty is. Of course poverty exists, but most of us don't truly understand what it is to live in poverty-literally having nothing. So in order for me to honestly relate to what I am reading, I'd have to experience it, otherwise it would be a biased opinion of what I think living in poverty is like.