okay ill tell them....

The ending was really enjoyable. The suicide, and to me I found one scene very funny. At any rate, these last few chapters revolved around Svid, Dunya, Sonya, and Rasklonikov. Svid kinda sorta kidnaps Dunya and tries to rape her. (lonely man) She tries to shoot him but misses. (wow that’s just sad I’d imagine he would be like at most 10 feet away) After the attempt at raping Dunya, Svid tells people he is leaving to AMERICA. (Cause America is the most wonderful place in the world) Svid has some crazy dreams, well crazy for him cause its nice dreams. He takes a little girl and wraps her in a blanket in one of his dreams and in the other it’s a dream about St. Peterberg flooding. After his craziness, he tells a soldier to tell people he went to AMERICA then suicides. Raskolnikov tells Dunya he commited the murders. Raskolnikov’s mother reads the article “On Crime”. Raskolnikov leaves to go confess publicly, but doesn’t cause he loses his confidence. Then he goes confesses to petrovich at the police station.

            Now overall I didn’t really enjoy reading the book, only because some paragraphs will feel like they would drag on forever. Others wouldn’t even matter, some parts the author could have left out and the book would still be the same. The overall story line, however, was captivating. I enjoyed the murder scene, the prostitution (kinda), the suicide, and the tortured mind. The book allowed for characters to be universally hated or loved and I like any story that allows readers to connect with characters. I want to know what happens to Raskolnikov, I know he confess but does he get the death penalty or what goes on there.

OKAY... I did do it, I PICKED MY NOSE... you happy. T.T

                Yay, Raskolnikov finally legitimately tells someone that he cut the bitch. What’s funny is he tells the hooker. The novel set this up t show how Raskolnikov trusts Sonya because he thinks they both need redemption cause she’s a hooker and that’s a sin (to me prostitution isn’t a big deal it’s their body why not make money off it their own way). Well, Sonya is going to wait for him and some other boring stuff. A bit later Razumikhin is trying to see if Raskolnikov is crazy or not. He brings himself to say that Raskolnikov isn’t crazy. He also tells Raskolnikov that the inspector believes that the painter is guilty of the murders. Porfiry tries to apologize to Raskolnikov and said its cause of all the evidence that added up. Then the inspector turns around and basically says “hey man you’re the one you are the murderer but you know I don’t ALL the evidence but I know it’s you.” A bit further we find Sviddy in the back room with a singer *cough cough lap dance cough cough*. Raskolnikov comes to visit blah blah then they talk about Dunya and about how Sviddy has dirt on Raskolnikov. Man a lot went down this part of the book. I still love Raskolnikov for his badass ability of being an obvious UBERMENSCH.

psh.. who are you again? and should i care?

                In this part of the novel it begins with Luzhin and his roommate Lebez-(mangled Russian name) conversing. Luzhin knows that he is no longer engaged to Dunya, but because he is just so pompous he thinks to himself “man I should have given her more stuff.” Of course I rephrased that. In the next chapter we find Katerina hosting the memorial banquet for Marmeladov. She invites people but it was generally poor people that came. Near the end of the chapter Katerina gets into a scuffle with the landlady. Hahaha man I found this part hilarious, Katerina runs to Luzhin seeking “protection” but Luzhin pushes her aside, man that was funny to me. That scene just shows how much of an ass Luzhin is. God this chapter gets keep getting funny, Luzhin like an ass tried to frame Sonya, his plot started in chapter 1 of part V when he slipped a 100 note ruble inside her pocket. However when he goes and accuses Sonya of stealing the note she denies it and it turns out se does have the note, But Luzhins roommate (mangled Russian name) bursts in and tells everyone it was planted by Luzhin. WOO HOO in your face ass. It seems as though all three of these chapters were just too how much of a pompous narcissistic character Luzhin is.

YOU DID DO IT.

     

In this part of the novel Raskolnikov is getting closer and closer to revealing he is the murderer. Razumikin already knows it is Raskolnikov after the stare down they had at the end of chapter 3. Raskolnikov then goes to the police station, after meeting with sonya, to acquire his watch from the magistrate. Raskolnikov loses it a bit and pretty much confessed, but before he could go outright and say “I SHANKED HER” some random came in and confessed to the murders.

Nietzsche was a german philosopher that was involved with three major philosophies, Existentialism, nihilism, and post-modernism. Existentialism basically says a person’s action define the meaning of life. Nihilism says that any morality that exists was manmade. Post-modernism says strongly relates to critical theory.  Now when I read the three wiki articles I realized I can’t read one without reading all three. Although I read the articles I was able to connect nihilism and existentialism to Raskolnikov. Such as Raskolnikov believing that he can do as he pleases because he is an ubermensch or at least he wanted to test if he was. He also tries to find reasons to go through with the murder and voids all morality to do so. To be honest I just thought Raskolnikov was just crazy but he is following a philosophy and testing it.

Am I crazy? Maybe...

                Man that was long; I fell asleep a lot during The American life radio show. I understood a few points from the show. One point that I was really interested in was psychopaths were emotionally deaf. Also psycho paths also look at objects differently. I suppose this was expected because psychos feel no empathy or remorse for others.

                I’m a little worried about my psychopath test because I was evaluated to have strong psychopathic tendencies. Just kidding I’m CrAZzY whats wrong with you people. However it does say that a personal relationship with normal people may be self destructive. That concerns me a lot. I was really concerned when I answered a few questions truthfully with a flat out fully and there were also a lot of partially.

Hmm... I wonder what the guy across the room is thinking?

Recently I was told to read three pieces of literature. A short story called Minority Report, by Philip K. Dick. A song called “I Don’t Like Mondays” by The Boomtown Rats. Also an article about brain scans revealing that criminal minds are “different” from a normal human being. All of the previously noted literature are all related in a way. First things first are to give a brief explanation of each. Minority Report is about a special squad of officers that are called Pre-Crime and they can see crimes before the crimes happen. “I Don’t Like Mondays” was a bit harder to decipher, (probably cause I was thinking to hard) the song seems to be stating that the girl is a criminal but she hasn’t don’t anything yet but she is different and programmed to be a criminal. The article is exactly what it sounds like it’s a article about the physical criminal brain being different from a normal person.

These articles all basically say criminals are born criminals. Or at least criminals have different mental health statuses as opposed normal people. All three articles all bring up the point of morality. Even though we know what makes a criminal a criminal and there is a chance to stop the crimes before they occur, is it moral to do so when that person hasn’t committed the crime. Personally I don’t think its moral to arrest a person because his brain is shaped differently or if you have a “psychic” tell you that this guy is going to kill this guy. BUT I do believe that if you have such intelligence, that you should use it to your advantage. For example if a brain scan reveals that this person resembles that of a criminal brain, then keep him/her under surveillance. Man morality gets in the way a lot doesn’t it.

Love is just a number and my number for you girl is 20 rubles

During this time of the novel, Rasklnikov has a few friends over. His friends discuss matters about the murder and Razumikhin is defending the honor of the painter. Further on Dunya’s fiancé shows up and people hate him. Rasklnikov then gets angry and walks through the streets to a place called the Crystal Palace. Here he basically confesses to an inspector. Further on he finds Marmeladov dying because of a carriage. (GOD THAT’S HILARIOUS HE GOT HIT BY HORSES) Rasklnikov then carries Marmeladov to marmeladov’s home. Rasklnikov leaves but before going he LEAVES 20 RUBLES for the family. (BIG BALLIN) There you have it the plot summary of what basically happened, now for the good part.

Well redemption is something that’s hard to pin down to a single act for atonement. Like if I stole your Coffee, I could probably just pay you back the money and we could call it even. (Talking to you Mr.B) So yeah people can be redeemed. But Rasklnikov has it misconstrued and believes that he has reached redemption because he left the 20 rubles for the poor family. If a person does something absolutely terrible and thinks atonement/redemption is going to be easy man are they wrong. This all goes back to the person’s morals. If some believes that dogs shouldn’t die in the name of science then animal testers would not be able to be redeemed, in the eyes of the animal lovers. Personally I see that people can be redeemed for certain crimes or actions. Like stealing, okay that’s okay pay a fine or serve some time. But if you rape someone or take a life me and you are gonna have some issues. What influences my values are, well me. I see what is good with my own eyes. I see what is bad with my own eyes. I would say religion but I’m a guy who believes in god being in all of us, and not needing a superior being to tell me what’s good or bad. I think the human race is more than capable of doing this, but we are just lazy so the easiest way to rule out anything as immoral or moral is using religion. My parents and I don’t connect well so I don’t know what’s good or bad from them. Well let’s just leave it at I don’t let others influence me with what’s good or bad.

Time to punish you naughty little girls.. erm I mean criminals

Dostoyevsky for some strange coincidence writes about a place that resembles that of St. Petersberg. (wonder why). Well Dostoyevsky wasn’t entirely poor; however, he was around a lot of poverty. I found this interesting; he and his siblings had to swat flies that got near his father when Dostoyevsky’s father was sleeping. According to the Wikipedia entry his father died by vodka and was an alcoholic, if this is true then it explains why Dostoyevsky writes about a family in C&P that has a destructive alcoholic father.

Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? YES IT IS. I believe that committing a crime is committing a crime. I also believe in circumstantial purposes. But with that I can go on forever about a million surface ideas and I’m too lazy for that. But I digress, if I were to kill let’s say The Covenant(Halo reference), well I committed a crime, but the story is crime and PUNISHMENT. What would my punishment be if I were to kill The Covenant? Maybe prison, death, a slap on the hand, or even a high five. (Probably the last one I mean who cares) This is where the circumstances come into play, if I killed them for sport, and then yeah I should get death or prison. If I killed them by accident, well I still took a life and that’s wrong but should my punishment be more severe, I don’t think it should as severe but I should still receive a hefty punishment, but I would be killing them for the safety of the world and its still a crime.HA I’m rambling like Levi. The definition of crime is :

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. (from Wikipedia through google.)

By this definition yes, crime is still crime even for good reason.

IN YOUR FACE OLD MAN YOU CAN'T WALK ON THIS LONELY ROAD

Nearing the end of the book I see. Well around this point of the book the man and boy were robbed kinda… (Do what I said before). The scene shows how emotionless the man is becoming. It also shows although as the story progresses the people in the world aren’t changing. That’s nearing the end. The end when you read further you learn that…(You know what to do). This particular scene gives the book a sense of progression for human kind. I say this because of the family that finds the boy and takes the boy along with them. It also gives readers a sense of sadness because the (blank) lays down and (blank) don’t wanna ruin it for you readers.