Crime and Punishment

WHAT CREATES MAN'S WORLDVIEW?

I think that Crime and Punishment has had the most support for this question of any novel the class has read thus far. Not only does Dostoyevsky create a world with complex characters, but the entire novel surrounds the question of ‘Why does Raskolnikov kill the Pawnbroker?’, a question that I think is answered primarily through how Raskolnikov sees the world.

At the beginning of the novel, Raskolnikov relates how he sees his place in the world – he sees himself as a genius, a man to whom anything can be granted. Raskolnikov believes that through the murder and robbery of the Pawnbroker, he can better not only his position in life but also better society. Raskolnikov undertakes his plot, and sets the novel in motion.

After the murder, Raskolnikov undergoes a change – he feels guilt and remorse over the murder of the old woman, and the unfortunate (but apparently necessary) murder of Lizaveta, the sister of the Pawnbroker. This guilt, along with a reunion with his family and a friend from the University, eventually lead Raskolnikov to change his view of himself and the world – Raskolnikov begins to believe that he is not a ‘Napoleon’ like he once believed, a thought that brings him closer and closer to his confession.

But Raskolnikov does not change his view of the world overnight. Even in the latter stages of the novel, Raskolnikov continually refers the Pawnbroker as a ‘louse’, and his torment between his capabilities and his reality leads him through stages of inaction, despair, and hatred not only for his family and friends, but eventually for himself.

In the midst of this torment, Raskolnikov grows closer and closer to Sonia, the prostitute-daughter of a drunkard Raskolnikov once met in a tavern. Almost inexplicably, Raskolnikov becomes further and further entwined with Sonia’s family, paying the debts caused by her father, and eventually for his funeral. Raskolnikov even steps in to avoid her honor when it is challenged by Luzihn, a shifty lawyer who has designs on Raskolnikov’s sister.

This closeness eventually comes to a head when Raskolnikov confesses his crime to Sonia. With her support, and promise to follow him to prison in Siberia, Raskolnikov eventually turns himself in to the authorities, and is sent to prison to suffer for his crimes.

Yet not even in prison does Raskolnikov change his view of the world. It is only after a year in prison, another illness, and the ‘fresh air’ of Siberia that Raskolnikov comes to his senses – “Life began to replace theory,” and Raskolnikov realizes that there is more to life; he falls in love with Sonia, returns to his faith, and the novel ends with great catharsis, knowing that Raskolnikov’s focus is no longer on himself, but on bigger and better pursuits.

King Lear

What Creates Man's World View?

One of the questions I’ve had throughout Lear has been “Why do Goneril and Reagan so quickly turn against Lear?” At the opening of the play it appears that they should be utterly grateful – not only has Lear granted them their wildest desires – immediate shares in Lear’s kingdom and it turn his fortune – but in his rash decision against Cordelia both sisters receive an extra portion than what Lear originally intends. And despite the difficulties of housing Lear and his rowdy one hundred knights, this dispute does not seem grounds for his daughters to disown, deface, and eventually bring death to Lear.

To answer this question, I think we need to take a look at the way the two sisters view the world, and in turn where this view comes from. In the same scene that Goneril and Regan receive their portions of the kingdom, Shakespeare reveals an important truth about Lear. Lear’s question to his daughters is not “Do you love me?” or “Why do you love me?” but instead is “How much do you love me?”. This exposes how Lear quantifies love – he doesn’t recognize affection and immeasurable emotion, and indeed punishes Cordelia, his only faithful daughter, for her inability to “heave her heart into her mouth”. Lear’s daughters receive their inheritance not out of merit but on flattery; more kind words in Lear’s mind is the same as more love, and he eagerly tries to attain both of these things.

This same view of the world – and the quantification of love – appears to be echoed by Regan and Goneril. The two daughters are happy to please Lear while he has power, and something to offer them – Lear’s gifts of land are the ultimate act of love in their eyes. Once Lear relinquishes this power, he loses his ability to show his daughters love in a way that they eagerly recognize. It is no longer important to the two sisters that Lear is their father; his lack of land and influence appear to be a lack of love. This point of view, when combined with the nuisance Lear and his knights are to his daughters, combine to change their opinion of Lear in terrible ways.

This quantified view of the world continues throughout the play in nearly every act the sisters undertake – be it their dismissal of Lear’s entourage, the accusations of treachery that finds Gloucester, or the two sister’s battle over the affections of Edmund the Bastard – each action the sisters undertake is an attempt to solidify their power and bring them quantifiable success and greatness.

It is this terrible mode of conduct that Shakespeare writes against – the greed, the lust, and the quantification of love these sisters (and even Lear) depict are dangerous, and cause disorder not only in the family but in the world, a theme dominantly established in Lear, and an outcome feared by Shakespeare and all others of the Elizabethan worldview.  

This picture in my mind sums up the actions of Lear's daughters -- just as the man in this picture appears to be swallowed up and drowned in his money, Goneril and Reagan set themselves on a path towards their ultimate destruction, a destrcuction not caused by outside forces but instead caused directly by their greedy actions. The sister's usurpation of their father, destruciton of their friends and family, and the downfall of their kingdom all can be traced back to their greed and their quantification of love.

Oedipus the King

WHAT CREATES MAN’S WORLD VIEW?

Oedipus view of the world appears defined by the time the play begins. The mystery of his birth, and the constant questioning of the people of Corinth have led him to question the world, and to seek out the truth in it. He has come from a foreign land, trying to escape a terrible prophecy, and has found fortune; by solving the riddle of the Sphinx he becomes King of Thebes. Oedipus sees the world as under his control – he believes he has escaped the oracle’s prophecy and has made a way for himself in the world – and also believes that he can find truth in the world. It is exactly these two facets of his worldview that determine Oedipus’ fate.

Throughout the play, Oedipus continually searches for King Laios’ murderer, and unknowingly brings himself closer to his doom with every new discovery.  Oedipus appears led to his fate more by how he sees the world – with answers to questions that can be solved without the help of the gods – than a tragic flaw of character. In effect Oedipus’ view of the world and the mysterious circumstances of his birth that led him to it are his tragic flaw, and bring about his doom.

This picture shows both parts of Oedipus, the half that could have been as well as the half that existed. We see Oedipus as he saw himself before the play: A king, a husband, a father. But perhaps even more powerfully we see what Oedipus became: wretched, broken, and dismayed. This picture depicts the transition that exists during the play, and serves as a visual representation of Oedipus downfall -- it shows both sides of Oedipus instead of focusing solely on what would become.

"The BIG QUESTION"

To choose the moment of my life that sparked this question would be practically impossible. It may have been hearing the words of William Ernest Henley teaching me of the “unconquerable soul” and that I had the capability to become “the master of my fate” and “the captain of my soul”.

Or perhaps it was before then, while watching the movie Signs. In the midst of an alien invasion, Mel Gibson described to me how “People break down into two groups. When they experience something lucky, group number one sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence. They see it as a sign, evidence, that there is someone up there, watching out for them. Group number two sees it as just pure luck. Just a happy turn of chance. I'm sure the people in group number two are very suspicious. For them, the situation is a fifty-fifty. Could be bad, could be good. But deep down, they feel that whatever happens, they're on their own. And that fills them with fear. Yeah, there are those people. But there's a whole lot of people in group number one. When they see those fourteen lights, they're looking at a miracle. And deep down, they feel that whatever's going to happen, there will be someone there to help them. And that fills them with hope.”

I can’t be certain if one of these events directly spurred my question, or if it is a combination between these and all the other occurrences of my life. What I can be more certain of is that my ‘big question’ is this:

How does the quality of our choices affect the quality of our lives, and how does our view of the world – a world of Divine Inspiration and Fate, or a world of happenstance and luck – change in light of these decisions?

This question plays a large role in The Road by Cormac McCarthy. In this novel, a Man and his Son (who go unnamed throughout the entire novel) are the survivors of a mysterious disaster that has left the world literally in ashes. Faced with this ruined world, these two must bond together and make the best of their situation, constantly trying to remain the “good guys” and “carry the torch” amidst a post-apocalyptic backdrop.  In this case, both the Man and the Son appear to see the world through the lens of divine inspiration. In the Man’s case, this worldview has tainted his mind, and he bitterly walks through life, lamenting how “there are no godspoke men. They are gone and [he is] left and they have taken with them the world.” Contrastingly the Son has hope from this situation, and relies on his father and his viewpoint whole-heartedly. In both cases, the decisions that ultimately mean life and death for this father and son spur from this Divine world view, and they carry on their journey for better or for worse.

As this year progresses, I hope to come closer to answering this question, and to further define my question. But before I begin this journey, I will have to answer the question Mel Gibson posed to me in the same movie: “You have to ask yourself, what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, that sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky? Or, look at the question this way: Is it possible that there are no coincidences?” It is the answer to this question that will determine my course of discovery, and even what I will find at the end of it.