So it finally ends here..

         To come to a close, Crime and Punishment ends very dramatically with most of the characters drifting away from each other. Svidrigailov suicides and fakes it by concluding that he's going to America. Rodya's mother falls ill and dies. Dunya and Razumihin get married while Rodya and Sonya go to Siberia for eight months of hard labor. It fascinates me how religion is the focus point near the end of the story to bring a sinner to the righteousness of humanity. However, Rodya still thinks and believes that what he have done wasn't wrong at all. This will definitely support the trial play for next week by bringing up Rodya's confession and his same beliefs after confession. 

          As Dostoevsky, the author of C&P, ends the story with Rodya still in prison and leaving the story without much of an ending, poses a question that may change the story. What if Rodya did, which he did, comes to Sonya for help, but religion was excluded? The author relied on a single "female" character holding figures of God/Jesus to enlighten Rodya's mind and liberate his sufferings of guilt. What if religion and love wasn't the climax of the story, but rather an input on justice or heroism? In evidence, Rodya evicted this way because he had lacked the influence of care and love, which in the whole story he had barely, spoke to his mother. Apparently, Sonya was the only one who actually revealed love even after he confessed about his crime. But that is what I loathe about the story. I understand that she's very religious, but we're talking about a murder here. How is she not petrified by the way he killed the pawnbroker and her sister? There is hardly anybody in the world that would actually convince a person into confession when the murderer is right next to you. That will give you some cutis anserina. 

          Overall, the story does introduce heroism in a great factor, but it didn't necessarily be regarding murder because there are, in fact, many ways to show heroism into the society deprived of causing harm. I presume it was Dostoevsky's way to indicate how crime is truly unscrupulous and that everyone deserves punishment at a degree of whether we know what we see to was erroneous or having acknowledged. "An error" is what Rodya have said.  

The Egg is Cracking!!!...

          Near the end of the story, Crime and Punishment, Rodya finally confesses his murder to someone he dearly loves, Sonya. He specifically looks upon her for help because he feels that he can relate with her. Maybe because she has a figure of Jesus. By telling him,"Accept suffering and redeem yourself by it," suggests that if he wants to seek salvation, then going "to hard labor" would get rid of his sins and hopefully obtain redemption.This seems to be a theme about death because he says, "I killed myself, not the old crone," which means he has lost his life and not the life of the pawnbroker. The motif about Ubermensch seems to define the personality of Rodya throughout the story. But when he confessed his murder of Lizaveta, he first lied to her by saying he did it to rob. He then speaks the truth and reveals that he wants to be another Napoleon and by experimenting murder, it will justify himself as a "louse" or a hero of the impoverish society.
          Katerina Ivanovna's death is very significant in a way that symbolizes the dream that Rodya had about the old horse. She forces her children to dance and sing in the street and how the crowd of people spoke badly about her. With the miserable children of hers, who starves and rely on prostitution to feed the family, was the cartload that increases. Ivanovna is constantly being taunted by the guests at her husband's funeral, like the mare who gets whipped by those people. But the more she fought back, the faster her illness devours her.
Truly the overall theme that I’ve recognized in these two factors is the anguish that the society had put on the shoulders of both Rodya and Ivanovna. They both face the pain and suffering and they try to prevent those things to happen. However, Rodya took it the serious way by committing murder to show the society and he the power of heroism. Ivanovna did not try to make any changes of the society, but rather adapted to it to live the days she have. I guess in any case, the society could be a major influence in a person's personality. But I would think that Rodya committed murder because he is slightly educated (law) and Ivanovna is just a poor lady.

A well-planned out accusation but failed horribly..

          At this point in the novel, Crime and Punishment, has seized to bring action and the thoughts of Rodya into play and introduces our new villian, Luzhin. He is confined by the hatred that Rodya has brought upon him and the story begins to foreshadow his actions against Rodya. What I noticed in the book and how Luzhin would obviously dislike Nietzsche, is the idea of Nihilism. He felt as if it was just a mere battle of children going crazy. "younger generation." But what actually profound me into the chapters were the conversation between Luzhin and Sonya. I had a strange thought, why would Luzhin request for her approach to him when he despises Rodya and having relations with Sonya. I began to think ahead. He might be using Sonya to get revenge for what Rodya had done to him. By making a fool out of himself in front of Dunya and his mother and getting kicked out of his own interview. I knew something was wrong. And suddenly it struck me. To relinquish a girl of her destitute relative and giving her ten roubles was to make her look bad. I thought I read the text wrong when I saw ten roubles. I mean why a wealthy being like him would, goes to a funeral and not attend the lunch and spoke privately to a girl and give her only ten rouble? And yet, something did go wrong. It also struck me that Sonya's stepmother would uphold such invitation and dramatic lunch and constantly berates her guests. She used all the money Rodya gave her for the funeral for some lunch, where those who attended were low class including Rodya-a former student of a university..(educated) 

          Though, Luzhin leaves with embarrassment, I think he might try to imply another act of revenge against Rodya and maybe this time, Lebezyatnikov. Oh, and another thing. I have noticed that both Royda and Lebezyatnikov hold similar names that end with nikov and the idea of them being atheist when Luzhin insults them during his departure.

Are you saying there's no point in living?

          Friedrich Nietzsche and his Nihilism beliefs actually portrays the thoughts and beliefs of our main character in "Crime and Punishment," Raskilnokov. By claiming that " death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth," Nietzsche speaks of which the world would collapse and decline if such beliefs were to have died. Nihilism indicates his support on how life is meaningless with no certain value and no purpose or goal to strive for. Yet, he believes in morality for those who are "extraordinary" people, according to C&P, has a meaningful purpose in what they do. Raskilnokov, in C&P, constructs his thoughts in murder because there is a purpose for him to approach such actions. He believes that he is the Ubermensch of the society and has the right do so because his actions has a meaning, a purpose, and values that he seek.
However, philosophers are philosophers and beliefs are opinions. One's being on the face of Earth, whether without purpose or values, will begin to develop thoughts and values that they seek to be precious and important.

Psychopath Test Result

I was actually excited to see my result in this Psychopath test because I know clearly that I'm not a psychopath.(i hope) The test seem to be flawed in a way because the questions asked is too deep and forceful. The test includes words like "self-importance, belligerent, reckless impulse, and essentially." I'm quite satisfied with my result,"The test results don't suggest strong psychopathic tendencies," but the questions do include small quantities of those natures but not as severe as the questions asks for. I just think that the test doesn't necessarily determine whether a person is a psychopath or not. It is hypocritical for a person to think that criminals will be psychopaths prior to taking the test. And only a few questions(18 is not considered enough for psychopaths) is enough to qualify a person's appearance or trait. The test is only like a survey, anyone can input false claims and not prove it. Even if a person took that test and is qualified as a psychopath, they may never ever commit a crime.

It can't be helped...

Through the readings of Dick's short story, "The Minority Report," the MSNBC article on the neuroscience of criminals, and the lyrics to "I Don't Like Mondays," it hardly surprised me of these informational outcomes. The article and the short story spoke of criminal preventions earlier than what will happen, but their justifications cannot overpower destiny. "The Minority Report" has a Precrime system, where names of individuals will be predicted as a "criminal" through the evaluation of precogs. However, the founder and creator of this so-called Precrime is yet to commit a murder in the end to make sure his system is correct.(Sounds like a dystopian society) How flawed is that?..Yet the article, on the other hand, demonstrates brain scans to reveal the criminal minds of people. The fact that using an illness or mental disability as an excuse to lessen the punishment of causing a murder is yet to be obsequious to the laws of crime. The correlation of the two readings seem to have one main point: preventing or lessening the act of crimes. But the lyrics seems to differ and relate more to Crime and Punishment than the other two. The lyrics speaks of a young girl with no morality in killing children at the playground. She has no reason in doing so except the dislikes of Mondays. (Is that even considered a reason?) Crime and Punishment also has killing reasons, but unlike all of these, guilt is actually the role play here. The short story is what I would say, retarded. To come up with a system of preventing crimes to happen and show names of people doing so, will bring the thought of them planning to do it.Understand? If not, then shall we mention Anderton, the creator of the Precrime System. His mind was never embedded into the act of murder, but since his system showed his name, it finally brought up that thought. (How exciting..)
         However, the three readings are so vague in revealing the destiny of crimes. There will always be crime no matter how much we try to restrain it from happening. Yes, it is good to lessen crimes in our society, but think about our freedom. We can't predict whats going to happen today or tomorrow so don't rely on such things and call normal people criminals. All brains are significant in their own way and it cannot specify whether it will cause a crime or not. So please, keep the mental ones on this side, and us on the other.(Don't jump the border)

Redemption of A Murderer???!!!NEVER!!

As far as the novel goes, Rodya has not yet been providing any goods for his poor neighbors. Then why does he think his reasons of murder were good? After Dr. Zossimov has been going on his tails about the case, he seems to recollect his mind into ending it all and give himself to the police. But after seeing a woman's attempt to suicide, he changed his mind. The question lies here, "What if he does surrender to the police? How would he atone himself of his guilt?" He thinks that turning himself in will end everything, but has he ever thought about his father and how they will react? Back in the days, there was no way to redeem someone's guilt, but rather taking their life in return. We have laws now that reduces the penalty of crimes at a limit. In my opinion, he shouldn't be redeemed or atoned for his doings. How can he? He killed a person, a living person who dies forever. I feel that killing things that has a heart beat is a crime and not a crime to things that doesn't have one.
The values that I treasure is the values that I've been taught. Anything that doesn't belong to me means that I cannot touch them or steal them for my own cause. Everyone has likes and dislikes and we know everyone can't agree with one decision. That is why we all have arguments and debates. In the end, no one is right/wrong because it's how the opinion we think is embedded in our minds through experience. We may think this is right because we saw it happened or we may think its wrong because we that happen. Its all in the head!!

Dostoyevsky's Life and Relation to His Own Book

Part A: The life of Dostoevsky seems to connect with the setting of his book, Crime and Punishment. He feels bonded with the lives of patients at his father's hospital, which strives his compassion in the society of the poor, criminals, infants, and mental people. This ties to the way he wrote his book that makes the main character as poor, makes him a criminal, quite lunatic to me, and abandoned children like that of the drunken man. Wikipedia also talks about his attendance at the Military Engineering Institute, which refers back to the mentioning of services and duties in the story.
Part B: In response to the question,"Is it a crime if someone other than yourself
benefits?", brings up another question in mind. HOW THE HECK DOES IT BENEFIT YOU?! You're just taking a life of someone who helped you by accepting that dang-o watch. The pawnbroker, Alyonda Ivanovna, and also her half-sister, Lizaveta, was murdered for what? OHHH..Because she only gave him a few copecks off. Like that's a good reason why he killed her. Back to being serious, I see no point in killing both the sisters when he doesn't get anything from it. Yes, it's true that he does steal the goods, but only reserved for the poor. He feels as if she's cheating them in their goods, but that still is committing a crime. It's always a crime if you try to take someone's else belonging even without murder. Your reason is your reason, and if you don't own it then don't touch it. We all have laws in which we live in and we must abide by those laws.

New Book, New Crime, Same Punishment

Surprisingly for the first 30 pages of the book, I feel the mood of the story is kind of binding, and has a connection of family commitments for each other. The author introduces the story with a student in debt of his rent and a drunken man who can't seem to get over is ridiculous drinking habits. The author's perspective was to show two different worlds: one as a young man who is a student and another as a man who has a family and constantly loses his job by drinking alcohol. He characterizes these characters to show how indifferent they are to the world. One shows commitment and the other shows dishonesty and unaccountability. But how does crime and punishment really ties into this two worlds? Basically who will be the one that falls into insanity and commits a crime. It will be interesting as I read further more into this story, but so far, the author gives clues and hints on who will be punished.

Along The Road

I came to realize something as I continued my way through the book, The Road. It was the mentioning of names because throughout the whole story, there is only one name that is given to us. It was Ely, an old man on the road who spent the night with the protagonists. But the odd thing is that it wasn't his real name, but rather a fake name to tell people whenever they ask him. Just in case he gets hunt down. The funny thing about this part of the book is that both the man and the boy begin to face phenomenal sites that just catches their eyes. The man's days is coming to an end as they find foods in houses to last for a couple of days as they travel to the coast.
How ironic about the road toward the coast can lead them into seeing more and more people. There might be a reason why the coast is the reason why they try so hard to survive at that point. Maybe because they want to see the sunlight to everything. They came to face a thief who took their wheelbarrow with the food and tracked the man to a point where he had to take off all of his clothes. Basically naked. The story speaks of bad people and good people, but the things that the man does is not actually a good doing. I feel like he's drifting himself in by trying too hard to protect what belongs to him and his son. What aspects does he gain by stripping a man naked and taking his clothes for warmth? Also, the guy who shot him with an arrow. Why shoot him with a flare gun when you can do something else? They might've been good people who thought the man and the boy was cannibals. Basically they were protecting themselves at any cost. If the end of the story results the death of the man then I believe that's a good thing. Foreshadows a new life for the boy.

Just Part A & B

Part A:
Despairingly, the novel The Road is definitely a world ending catastrophe where we know that anything can happen, anything we imagine that is impossible can happen. I never thought that out of all people, normal/regular and typical people would give up on anything they love. How can we define love? Love can be portrayed as a missing puzzle in our heart that we want something we adore to contain it. But how is love shown after the life for oneself is determined? By the quote," I've taken a new lover. He can give me what you cannot. DEATH is not a lover," shows us that life is hopeless. Our mind says that we should give up the things that we have since there is nothing left for us to live.
If a world was to end with no family, no relative, and no friends, can you really begrudge to something that has power over you? The loneliness inside of everyone during that sake can drive people into disillusions. "The one thing I can tell you is that you wont survive for yourself." This quote is actually right. You can never survive a post-apocalyptic world by yourself, but rather with someone you love dearly. That is the only reason for survival. For the lack of change in the world, a world where something must change in order for all to have a stabilized living.
Part B:
How can we all classify the end of a world? Desolation, starvation, destruction, supernaturals, and/or natural disasters? We all have our opinions and images of how the world would be if it would end suddenly. I have known two poets and one author that shows how the world can end and partake the condition of society. Yeats' and Eliot's poems reveals an omen of the world, but they expressed it more naturally rather than McCarthy's The Road novel. He talks about a world of which humankind eats off others for survival and the love of both father and son, basically salvation.
As for the two poets, they talk about how the world ends naturally, something that we believe can happen and that we expect it to happen. Eliot's poem, "The Hollow Men", I believe talks about war and the remembrance of their death. Only men on the battlefield can be inane to show merciless factors. Dead as the grass and silent as the winds, their graves lie on a tomb stone engraved by the kisses of the loved ones and the newborn babies. The ending of this world is the cause of mankind. The aftermath of war itself leaves behind a trail of memories and love, something The Road lacks of. What the novel leaves behind is just insanity and impassive behaviors. But none of that matters because either way, the end of the world is just the end of the world. Who the hell we will care how the world ends? If it ends, then it ends...But we can always try to make changes. If one person can make a difference, then a million can make a change.