Everyone Has a Madame Ratignolle in his/her Life

This post may seem a bit random, but today I'd like to discuss a character from Kate Chopin's "The Awakening," Madame Ratignolle.

This character struck me as particularly annoying because I know several people just like her in my own life, and I think everyone knows such a person.

Madame Ratignolle serves as a good foil to Edna - Edna has gone down the root of a typical privileged housewife, but found no fulfillment in such a life or the duties accompanying it, particularly housekeeping, socializing, hosting, and secondary child rearing (many of the primary duties were performed by servants). Madame Ratignolle, on the other hand, has adjusted very well to the role and indeed enjoys it.

Before I proceed any further, I want to make it clear that as a feminist, I am not what one might call a "hyper feminist," "pseudo feminist," or, for the extremely politically incorrect (and often insensitive) "feminazi." By this I mean I am for true equality in opportunity, and not for women to keep the privileges of chivalry but still receive the benefits men receive. If you want to be a female CEO, then open your own doors and pay for your own dinner. I also mean that I acknowledge the differences between men and women, and thus there must sometimes be differences in our roles simply due to the fact that we are different.

I bring this up because I want to make this very clear: I have nothing against mothers, housewives, homemakers, whatever.  I was raised by such a person, in fact most of us were. Being a mother can be a very noble calling. What I don't like are the politics associated with it, and by that I mean the social (to be frank) bs that goes on between rich housewives. Their lifestyle is pathetic; I'd almost call their lifestyle a constant state of paranoia. They constantly run in circles looking at each others possessions, primarily cars, houses, and boats in today's age, and try to outdo each other. The people from Edna's time called on each other to maintain proper social relations and to make sure they were of proper standing with each other. They bragged of their associations with cultured people, avoided uncultured people, and so on and so on. These exercises, in my opinion, are shallow, petty, and a waste of time. It's no wonder Edna was so miserable always; she found no joy in the "exercises," and it seems she wasn't cut out to be a mother either, so she felt purposeless.

However, Madame Ratignolle seemed to enjoy being a housewife quite a bit, and to me, it seems she enjoyed the "politics" more than the actual duties of homemaking and motherhood. This is where housewives disgust me; I see them so entrapped in politics that their actual duties, being a good mom and wife, become secondary. Suddenly it's all about looking good to the neighbors, having the best car, getting plastic surgery, making your kids be what you want them to be instead of what they want to be, etc. and before you know it, your kids become far less important than your politics.

Madame Ratignolle reminds me of such people. I've met many a Madame Ratignolle. Women who are all about gossip, are "weak" and have to rest constantly, and are always complaining they are sick to get attention. Women who are all about the drama of being a socialite rather than being a useful career woman or a loving mother. Women who, in my opinion, are a big fat waste of space.

So I commend Chopin for including Madame Ratignolle in her story, because I feel that she serves as an excellent foil to Edna.

She Killed Herself? 😱

Just a quick post today - primarily because I am out of time 😞

I just realized that in the end of "The Awakening," the main character kills herself. I never understood this because I think there was a glitch in my software which caused me to think the book had ended before it had, so I did not read the ending.

This obviously changes my whole attitude on the story - instead of finding liberation, Edna instead finds despair. I had previously thought that Edna had finally broken away from her misery, from being confined to her societal role, that of a homemaker. Perhaps the reason Edna was so miserable was because she was not supposed to be. She was married to a wealthy man, had two children and should have wanted for nothing. However, Edna didn't really love her husband, and had no interest making useless conversation with social elites for the sake of nothing but reputation. She found the whole practice of being a socialite futile. She was not even a mother, truly; someone else raised her children and she had no true purpose in life. One might say Edna had it all, that she had nothing to ask or want for, but being a woman who sought purpose, such idleness and meaninglessness brought her no joy.

Perhaps if she had needed to struggle to earn what she had, or fight for it, she would have been satisfied, but life was presented to her in such a way that she could not find fulfillment.

She tried painting, moving out, and finding love with someone who returned that love, but when that love left her, I suppose she had no more strength and found that death was the only escape.

It's a shame, because before I viewed her as inspiring, as she managed to break free from her societal role and live life for herself, but it seems loneliness overtook her and she could not find any way out.

Character is Everything

So cold out here...*sniff*

Today will be final post about Crime and Punishment *so sad*

Before I get to the main topic, a quick update on the Death Note/C&P relationship: I was indeed right, Raskolnikov's pride did indeed land his sorry person in the Gulag xD It's cold up there in Siberia...

The main similarity is indeed the philosophy of the two protagonists. Later on in the book, Raskolnikov formally discusses his philosophy with Razumihin by means of a paper; two months before the murders, Raskolnikov had written a treatise about his philosophy, which was published. In this treatise, he stated that there are ordinary classes of men, which morals tame and keep in submission/order, and there are extraordinary classes of men, (Napoleon is his chief example - Khan would be another good one) and morals only inhibit extraordinary men. Both Khan and Napoleon, even Charlemagne, could be considered mass murderers- but this is not how they are remembered. They are remembered as great men, because, as Raskolnikov puts it, they did not let morals "inhibit" their designs.

The key difference is that Light fits into the category of "extraordinary" men, as Raskolnikov puts it, and Raskolnikov himself does not. Light can execute without clouded judgement, remorse, or feeling, but Raskolnikov cannot and he realizes this eventually. He realizes he is not an extraordinary man and it depresses him quite a lot.

The other key difference is that Light never confesses, but fights till the very end and dies a tragic, rather lonely, early death. Raskolnikov eventually sees the error of his ways after confessing (he confesses because he knows he will be caught) and decides to change. 

Whether their common philosophy was right or wrong is really a matter of perspective. I know that fans of Death Note intensely debate whether Light was right or wrong. Either way, people who choose to live Light's life style and follow his philosophy, right or not, will live a difficult life without love, and this was made obvious in the end. Raskolnikov instead found love in Sonia and in religion and decided to make a change in his life at the end, since he was not in the class of "extraordinary," men.

Okay enough of that. 

Today I will be focusing on characterization. Now, I know that sounds boring, but think about it for a minute: why do we love stories? Why are we so addicted to television and movies? Half of the time, we love stories for their characters. We watch Ellen Degeneres for Ellen and we watch the Daily Show for Jon Stewert. We love Harry Potter for Harry, Ron, Hermione and even Neville. We love our stories because of their characters, more often than not, and we don't like stories with flat/cardboard characters.

Twilight is almost universally hated because its characterization is so poor, and the characters have no personality. The few who like the series like are tween girls who see the story as a way of living personal fantasy (who doesn't like to pretend they're a bland characterless girl who has every hot man/supernatural creature in existence after you? Even when you do nothing to merit such attraction? 😒)

So characterization is everything.  One of the most appealing things about Crime and Punishment are the characters: Dostoevsky weaves beautiful, complex characters who serve as foils to each other and provide interesting contrast as well as dialogue.

Here are some basic character relationships which I found to be engaging:

Dunia vs Raskolnikov

These two are siblings, and here, Dostoevsky does an amazing thing and breaks traditional gender roles. Raskolnikov is portrayed as indecisive, is prone to bursts of ill health and fainting, irrational, short tempered, and is often a burden to his family.

Dunia, on the other hand, despite being a female, is portrayed as level headed, selfless, rational, and most of all, she has self respect. She is portrayed as a strong, intelligent woman, which is very unusual for literature of the period.

Dunia loves her family enough to marry Pyotr Petrovich, who annoys her, so that he can financially support them. But when Pyotr proves himself to be a user, and a disrespectful man who only wants her subservience, she has enough respect for herself to turn down the marriage, and uses her quick thinking to find another way to save the family's finances. 

Razumihin vs Raskolnikov

The classic foil of "good" vs "evil" but a little more complicated. Raskolnikov is portrayed as selfish and cunning, but intelligent, using the ends to justify the means. Razumihin is Raskolnikov's friend, but he is very honest as well as completely positive. He acts selflessly and tries to help others, though he isn't the brightest, and his good will often ends in him being taken advantage of. This is a classic contrast which I often experience in my own life; there are the intelligent ones who often aren't the most charitable, but often make out with better situations for themselves/are never made a fool of or taken advantage of, and there are the hopelessly selfless who often find themselves being used, but are always loved and fairly satisfied.

Dunia vs Luzhin (Pyotr Petrovich)

This is an interesting case. Luzhin is a senator or a lawyer, something along those lines, and quite rich. He eventually reveals to Dunia that his dream is to marry a beautiful, intelligent, but poor girl, as a poor girl would always be indebted to him and would do anything he wished/be completely subservient. Dunia, however, is her own woman and has respect for herself, and does not go along with Luzhin's plans. Luzhin is later shown to be selfish, petty, and just a general jerk.

Dunia instead finds love with a man who respects her, Razumihin.

Well those are some basic character analyses, hope you enjoyed this series on Crime and Punishment. Try reading it yourself! It's a pretty good book :)

THANKS FOR READING

Russian Names and the Associated Headaches

Last post I discussed the similarities between "Crime and Punishment," and the TV series "Death Note."

I have now finished the novel and I can tell you there are many other similarities, but today's post will focus on something else, that may seem a little random: Russian names.

One of the most attractive features of "Crime and Punishment," is the character development. Dostoevsky creates diverse, complex, interesting characters who interact with each other in meaningful ways, and I will discuss this next post.
However, as diverse as the characters may be in personality, they are not at all diverse in name.

Russian names make me feel like this:

I suppose in English we have a pretty simple system: you have your own, first name, and your last name is your family name or surname. Many people have a middle name.

In Russian, however...

Not only are their names impossible for English speakers to pronounce (ie: Svidrigailov, Zakharovich, Lebezyatnikov) each person has five billion of them, and they are called different names intermittently...okay, I may be exaggerating, but keeping track of the characters gets frustrating at times. Very frustrating.

I liked Linus' attitude about it: (here he is reading from another Dostoevsky novel, "The Brothers Karamazov.")

However, the Linus method doesn't work too well after a while because there are so many names and if you don't keep track of them, you have no idea who Dostoevsky is talking about when he describes someone.

Here is my piecemeal understanding of it:
In Russian, you have a family name,  your own first name, and a middle name (I think) but one of your names, the middle one, is taken from your father's name and therefore isn't fully yours.

For example, the main character's name is Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov.  The first name, "Rodion," is his own name. The last name is a family name. The middle name is taken from his father's name - it works like this:

Boys:

Take father's first/ "original" name + ovich

Therefore, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov's father must have been called Roman. Rodion's own sons would be called "Rodionovich."

(Remember "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch?" Ivan's father must have been Denis.  And if Ivan ever escaped the gulag, found a woman and made some babies, their names would be Ivanovna or Ivanovitch. )






Girls:

Take father's first/ "original" name + "ovna."

Rodion's sister, Dunia (Or Advotya- but we'll get to that later) has the middle name "Romanovna," since her father was also Roman.

Also, last names very often end in "ov" (Raskolnikov, Marmeladov) but not always (Luhzin, Razumihin).








So it still seems kind of simple, right? Wrong.
It gets worse because each person has their own nickname as well -_-

Romanovitch is also called "Rodya," by his mother, and his sister,  Advotya Romanovna Raskolnikov, is also called "Dunya."

This is further complicated by the fact that Dostoevsky will call his characters any of their names, often in conjunction, and that his characters will call each other different names depending on their relation to each other. For example, Raskolnikov is most often called Raskolnikov by the author in narration, but will often be called Rodion Romanovich by Dostoevsky as well. His sister and mother will call him Rodya, and other men commonly call him Rodion Romanovich and some of them just call him Raskolnikov.

Now compound that by every character in the book -_-

To make matters worse, many of the characters have the same name! The woman who was murdered was called Alyona Ivanovna, but another large character is Katerina Ivanovna, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

More confusing is the distinction between Porfiry Petrovich (Detective who psychologically questions Raskolnikov- Raskolnikov's "L") and Pyotr Petrovich (Dunya's jerkface suitor/fiancée sort of) who have very similar names but very different roles in the story. However there is also Ilya Petrovich who has a similar role to Porfiry Petrovich (both are law enforcement) but is not blood related to him.

Anyway it becomes a major headache, and since I want my next post to be about character development, I thought I'd save you the annoyance of sorting out the characters now (and if you want to read the book, this should be even more helpful). Below I have created a "relations" chart and provided my own, single name for each of them, which I will be using in the next post, so that it's easier to sort them out in your mind.  Any time Dostoevsky talks about someone and you don't know who he is referring to, just refer to the handy chart below. I have the easy name I chose for each character, and a below that is a list of their full names.
(Sorry it's hand drawn- I'm on the road and my ipad has surprisingly poor capability for making this kind of chart -_-)

1) Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov "Rodya"
2) Advotya Romanovna Raskolnikov "Dunia"
3) Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov
4) Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladov "Sonia"
5) Semyon Zakharovich Marmeledov
6) Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov
7) Marfa something or other (I forgot 😞)
8) Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov
9) Pyotr Petrovich Luhzin
10) Dmitri Prokofych Razumihin
11) Andrei Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov
12) Zossimov
13) Porfiry Petrovich
14) Alyona Ivanovna
15) Lizaveta Ivanovna
16) Zametov
17) Ilya Petrovich

Nastasya Petrovna (Forgot to draw her in-Raskolnikov's maid)


I suppose it must be difficult simply because it's foreign to me- I'm sure a Russian person would feel annoyed reading an English book.

Well, that is it for this post. I think understanding the names is essential to understand the book.

A few more fun facts:

1) If this book is accurate about Russian culture (which I'm positive it is) the stereotype is not false!

Russians drink vodka for breakfast and cannot survive without it. I swear, they treat vodka like water in this book.

2) "Crime and Punishment," employs an interesting anonymity system- while it states the city (St. Petersburg), whenever Raskolnikov goes somewhere, Dostoevsky will say something like "Raskolnikov turned onto X-------- street," to keep the true street name anonymous.

3) If I had read this book before my 7th grade spelling bee, I would have won, because the word I lost on was "Samovar," which is a Russian tea kettle and is mentioned about 120382019 times in this book.

Kate Chopin's "The Awakening," is the Awakening of a Woman's Spirit

If any of you have ever encountered Kate Chopin, it was probably through her most famous short story, The Kiss, which many of us read in middle school. Up until now I was completely unaware that Chopin had written a novel - and what a novel.

Kate Chopin

Perhaps you've never heard of this novel because it is rather boring to most people, some would even say it is god-awful boring. It's not very long; I read the book in two days and it was only 180 iBook pages, which translates to a lot fewer actual pages. I'll admit it was slow sometimes, but the bottom line is, this book is brilliant.

This novel is boring, I suppose, if you aren't one for aesthetic, carefully crafted language. One is reminded of Tinkers somewhat; if you aren't familiar with Tinkers, it was the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner and assigned reading for many of us. Tinkers is a long, rambly story that often makes no coherent sense, but its beauty lies in the language. It's reminiscent of abstract art in a way; the words are meant to evoke distant, remote emotions that appeal to a person's subconscious fancies rather than to his or her logical side.

Chopin's book isn't that rambly - she stays focused, but the sentences are obviously sculpted with fine precision, no word out of place. She makes a careful point of using just the right adjective to express her point, every time. And her words, like the words in Tinkers, evoke certain feelings, or "fancies," as Poe liked to call them, "that cannot be expressed in words" (See Poe - taken from his only novel, "The Fall of the House of Usher- and coincidentally the exact lyrics to Alan Parson's A Dream Within a Dream). 

But aside from the syntax, what makes this book special?

This book is so brilliant because it captures the heart of feminism without being explicitly feminist whatsoever. In fact, it's not really about feminism, but about breaking free and, to use the title, awakening from a state of mechanical routine, from the state of simply doing what everyone else does because doing so is social convention. You could read this book and not even realize it's feminist - considering Chopin lived during the same time period as her characters, "feminism," hadn't even emerged as a real movement yet. 

The book is not even an outcry for equal rights; it is far from a movement for egalitarianism. It is simply the story of one woman, and how, through not very drastic measures, she found freedom and meaning in a life that was previously set for her, a life that was once destined to be one long bore.

The novel appealed to me directly - at first I had difficulty understanding the setting, because the characters were French, but spoke English (many were Creoles) yet they had African American servants. The time period was also confusing; I thought at first it may have been during the fifties. I eventually discovered that the story takes place in New Orleans, in the very late 1800's, on the dawn of the twentieth century, but this is no matter. What makes the story so powerful is that can appeal to so many women, or even men (in an abstract sense) who have been in the protagonist's position, no matter where they live or what social scene they are a part of.

The book is pretty flat plot-wise, but that's the point. Here's a quick summary; a woman named Edna Pontellier is married to Mr. Pontellier, and has two children. The Pontelliers are on an island for a summer vacation, with more of their friends, including a really annoying woman called Mrs. Ratignolle and her family, and the Lebrun family, which consists of jerk-face Victor, Robert, and their mother. 

Basically very little happens throughout this whole book; Edna married her husband because it seemed to be the right thing at the time, but she doesn't really love him. She falls in love with Robert, who moves to Mexico because he loves her too and knows he can't take her from her husband. She later moves back to her home in the city, and her husband goes away for a few months, while the children go away to their grandmother's. Edna continues to seek freedom from an old woman named Madame Reitz, who is rude, hermit-ish, and plays the piano very well; Edna feels at home with her. Edna decides to abandon household duties, and even moves into another house that she pays for herself. She has an affair with a man named Alcee, but quickly disposes of him, because she doesn't love him. Robert comes back to the city, and they declare their love for each other; but soon, Robert goes away again and the book ends.

That's it plot-wise, folks. Because of the rather slow-moving plot, many denounce this book as horrendously inane and boring, and I'll admit, at times it was slow. But the beauty of this book is, again, within the language and the overall message.

Does anyone remember A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? That was another short, but seemingly god-awful boring book. The reason that book was so amazing was because it was boring. That book captured an actual day of a Russian convict's life and how strenuously tedious his life was. That book perfectly conveyed how harsh and meaningless life seemed in the Gulag because it described Ivan's boring life down to every single boring detail.

This book is similar in a way - except, the prisoner is a housewife, Edna Pontellier. She's not a prisoner in a conventional sense; she doesn't even suffer abuse from her husband, in fact, her husband loves her and treats her rather well, although he has sexist attitudes which were completely normal for the time period and are still prevalent today. He doesn't beat her, he doesn't force her to do anything, though he disapproves of her actions, but she is still imprisoned, not just by him, but by all of the society around her.

Everything in her life seems very preset, and her life is full of meaningless routine. She is expected to call on visitors, and receive visitors, so as to keep her husband and family in good reputation; she is expected to raise her children and oversee the household and keep it nice and neat. She endures the most stupid and inane comments from her friends/company, every day, all the time, and I'm reminded of many conversations I've overheard when people come to visit my own house. The book embodies the seemingly meaningless life of a housewife who was not suited to be a housewife. 

It's reminiscent of Kimbra's "Settle Down." You may recognize Kimbra from Gotye's hit single, "Somebody I Used to Know." (She is the featured female artist). But her most famous song in native New Zealand, and in Australia, where she is most widely known, was "Settle Down." The video and lyrics to this song demonstrate how the average woman's dream in life is to find a husband, marry him, hold him down, and look perfect to all the neighbors. How the women were trained to be mindless machines who cooked, cleaned, could play the piano and recite the same rhetoric to every caller.

This is why I thought The Awakening was set in the fifties, at first - because the American middle class grew substantially in the fifties, and the time period was peaceful and primarily uneventful. Thus, we often associate the restless housewife with the fifties, and Kimbra's video is definitely fifties.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rz4qzeZZfRc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Drz4qzeZZfRc  

This book is about a woman who realizes she is more than a housewife. Not that there is anything wrong with being a housewife - being a mother is a noble calling which requires patience, and it's one of the more respectable occupations on earth, so long as you really devote yourself to it. It's the politics that often go with being a housewife - aka, living vicariously through your children and keeping up appearances so that your reputation is clean (making your reputation your #1 goal rather than your family) that annoys me. Unfortunately, the pretentious housewife is a position women have found themselves in for many years. 

Chopin's Edna doesn't one day make a feminist revolution and realize she needs to break the evil shackles of men, like you'd expect the protagonist of a feminist author to do. She slowly realizes, slowly awakens, from the state of "going with the flow-" of marrying because she should, having children because she should, entertaining company because she should- and starting to do what she wanted, what made her free, which means painting, making her own living, listening to piano, speaking honestly, and being with a man she really loves. 

So kudos to Kate Chopin. 

Death Note and Dostoevsky

This summer I have been reading Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

So far, (I have reached Part III of the book; the novel is divided into six parts) I have noticed many similarities between Crime and Punishment and a rather unexpected story; the wildly popular Japanese television show, Death Note. The stories bear such striking similarity that I cannot help but wonder if the mangaka (an author of Japanese "comic book" art, known as manga, which is often adapted for television) of Death Note, Tsugumi Ohba, read Dostoevsky's novel and was inspired by it.

I understand that Death Note is not a novel, in fact, one could label the series pop art; it was one of the best selling mangas in Japan, one of the most popular animes/television series there, and was also made into a two-part live-action movie blockbuster. However, these facts do not stop the story from being profoundly intellectual material, and I think it is worthy of analyzation as well as respect.


For those that aren't wild otakus (anime nerds) or simply haven't heard of the series, here's a very basic summary:

Light Yagami is an incredibly brilliant Japanese student who ranks at the top of his class (and racial stereotypes aside, ranking at the top of a class in Japan is no joke). He happens to encounter a Death Note one day on his way home from school, a supernatural notebook that allows the user to kill any person by writing down their name and envisioning their face.

Light, whose father is a police chief, has a strong concept of justice and decides to become the grand juror of the world, executing dangerous criminals and anyone whom he deems unworthy to live in "this rotten world." He aspires to create a new world in which only good and honest people are allowed to survive. However, he is quickly caught in a game of cat-and-mouse with the world famous detective, L, in a battle of wits and moral philosophy. L believes that what Light is doing is inherently evil, and vows to hunt him down.

And now, for those of you who have not read Crime and Punishment: 

The protagonist (or perhaps, antagonist) of Dostoevsky's novel is a Russian student, Raskolnikov, who is very bright but also very impoverished. In Russia at the time, the social hierarchy was structured in a such a way that the most respectable people/nobles could often be poor, and the rich were not always the most highly regarded. Raskolnikov thinks very highly of himself, and has a tendency to believe that he is smarter than everyone else around him.

Completely poor and in debt to his landlady, Raskolnikov finally executes an idea he has been toying with for several months; murder. An old pawnbroker woman who lives down the street is notoriously hated; she is "as rich as a Jew" (antisemetic, much?) but very stingy, and beats her kind, but simple sister, Lizaveta. Raskolnikov deems that she is of no use to the world, and her money would be better put to use if spent to 'help the poor' (aka, himself -_-). One day, he overhears a merchant say that Lizaveta will not be home the following day, and carries out the murder, stealing the pawnbroker's money. Lizaveta comes home unexpectedly, however, forcing him to kill her as well.

The "crime" is part I of the novel; the rest of the novel focuses on the "punishment." Raskolnikov seems to have endured two punishments so far; guilt, and paranoia. I expect more punishment to ensue.

So what does a seemingly obscure television show (to Americans, anyway) have in common with Crime and Punishment?

Let's begin with the protagonists.

1. First of all, Light Yagami and Rodion Raskolnikov are both very intelligent, but very prideful and arrogant people. This ultimately leads Light to his downfall, and I believe it will do so for Raskolnikov eventually. They believe that they can do no wrong, believe they were supernaturally willed to action, and as a result, they constantly justify their actions as morally upright even if they are clearly not.


Light deems himself worthy of passing ultimate judgement, stating “I’m going to make the world know I’m here… that somebody is passing righteous judgement on them.” He is very Machiavellian (Machiavelli = Italian dude who write The Prince, the notorious real-world guide on how to rule a state with an iron fist through whatever means necessary) in thought, meaning that he believes the ends justify the means, no matter what. So he justifies murder, an inherently immoral action, by stating that murder will make the world a better place for "good" people.








Light also has a tendency to believe that he has been chosen, perhaps by some divine power, to be the "god of the new world."

He expresses this belief by asking Ryuk, the god of death who dropped the notebook in front of him (Ryuk was verrrry bored) why he was chosen. However, Ryuk laughs at this question and makes Light out to be arrogant, asking, "I didn't choose you. Don't you see this is all just an accident? You actually thought you were chosen because you're so smart or something? Don't be so vain. It just happened to fall around here and you just happen to pick it up, and that's all there is to it. " 

Bored Ryuk

But Light continues to believe he was chosen to be a god, until his unfortunate end (where he goes certifiably insane) Minutes before his death, he cries in an angry rage, 'From the time I obtained the notebook, I realized I had to do it. Only I could do it! I knew that killing people was a crime, but there was no other way to correct things! That was the purpose given to me! Only I can do it...who else could have done it?!" This endless cycle of justification pushes Light to the ultimate limits of morality; he is even put in a position where he may have to kill his father, the police chief, and his sister, Sayu, to keep himself hidden. A situation arises so that their murder is no longer necessary, but all the same, the viewer is left wondering if Light would have gone so far.

Raskolnikov similarly justifies his actions, believing that the old woman's death will be good riddance and her money can do a lot of good. If her will is followed, her money will be sent to a monastery when she dies, so that the priests will pray for her in perpetuity, while her sister Lizaveta, who is beyond poor, will get none of it. Therefore, he justifies the very wrong action of murdering her by stating that she is selfish and unworthy, while he is respectable.


He also believes that he has been supernaturally fated to kill the old woman. Dostoevsky states, "Raskolnikov had become superstitious of late...he was always afterwards disposed to see something strange and mysterious, as it were the presence of some peculiar influences and coincidences" (Dostoevsky 56). Raskolnikov views a series of coincidences as proof that he has been somehow destined to kill the old woman. The first coincidence happens in a tavern; Raskolnikov has just come back from the old woman's place, lost in thought.

He concludes that the world would be better without her, and that her money would be better put to use elsewhere, when he overhears a conversation. He hears two men discussing...the old pawnbroker, and how the world would be better without her, and that her money would be better put to use elsewhere.

This strikes him as a strange coincidence. He later takes a random route to a frequent destination of his; he had no reason to take that route, as it is longer and less convenient, but he was not thinking and finds himself there all of a sudden. Then he overhears a merchant telling Lizaveta, the pawnbroker's sister, to come visit him at 7:00 the following day; meaning she won't be home, and the time will be ideal for Raskolnikov to murder the pawnbroker. He would never have known this if he hadn't happened to go that way, which he views as another sign. Later, right before the murder, he realizes he forgot to find an axe to kill the woman with, and panics, but then finds one conveniently lying around, unattended, furthering his belief that the coincidences point to a divine plan.

2. There are more similarities between the two protagonists, the main one being the destruction of their justifications. Even if both of their actions (murder, namely) had been truly justified and their cause 100% worthy, such causes quickly unravel. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

Light begins to panic when the Japanese Police and L hire the American FBI to come to Japan and investigate the Kira (a butchering of the english world, 'killer' - no one can find the murderer as of yet, so they refer to him as "Kira") case. He especially panics when one of the agents begins to follow him, as the detective L suspects him. He sets up an elaborate plot to kill the agent, Raye Penber, and his fellow FBI agents. Penber is humanized by mangaka Ohba, who shows the agent with his wife, former FBI agent Naomi Misora, a Japanese immigrant. They plan to be married and have children, and Raye has done no crime; he is even in a law-enforcement situation, carrying out justice in his own way. But Light, paranoid, kills Penber on the subway after tricking Penber into killing all the FBI agents, therefore unraveling his justification of murder. He goes on to kill Penber's shrewd wife, Naomi Misora, when she nearly finds him out. Despite all of this, Light refuses to admit guilt, now expanding his justification into "all who stand in Kira's way must be destroyed, because they obstruct justice."

Raskolnikov, on the other hand, runs into some problems during his murder. Lizaveta, the harmless, kind sister of the pawnbroker, walks in during the murder and sees him. Knowing the price if caught, he also hacks into her with an axe. Suddenly all his justifications for killing the pawnbroker dissipate into thin air; he has now killed an innocent woman to cover his own hide, not to enforce "justice."

Similarly to Light, he does not feel repentant for his actions (at first). In fact, he further believes that another coincidence proves he was ordained to commit this murder and get away with it. He almost is caught when two men knock on the door; but he bolts it, and they leave to get the porter. He runs out and there happens to be an empty room, abandoned by the painters, and he hides in there until everyone has passed. The fact that he got away by such a narrow margin confirms his belief that he is justified in committing murder.

3. Another similarity is the apparent paranoia that grows and grows and grows in these characters as they fear the consequences of their actions. With Raskolnikov, it is blatantly obvious; the language the narrator uses has made me frequently question whether he is sane. Raskolnikov worries himself into fits, and almost turns himself in several times to end the paranoia and the fear he will be caught. He even tries to throw the goods he stole into the river to escape this fear; however, he realizes the goods might surface and his crime be exposed. This is a metaphor for his own punishment; he tries to hide the crime but is paranoid that it might surface any minute.

Light, meanwhile, begins as cheerful and even likable to the audience, whether they believe in his cause or not, but by the end, paranoia causes Light to degrade into a complete maniac. He launches into his monologue about he was the only person on earth who could do something so awful as endless murder in order to create a new world of order; shortly after, he is murdered by a Death Note himself.

(See link: he's lost his mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DttHTlNaV0s)

Interestingly, Death Note has a fairly normal Japanese opening theme song to start the show every episode, but the last episode, and only the last episode, has a Death Metal song as the opening with images of Light's crazed face, demonstrating that he has gone from a charming, attractive, bright young man with a strong concept of justice to a crazed lunatic who has lost his mind, cursed by his terrible killing power and the fear of being found out.




4. Another similarity is the questionability of their statuses; are they protagonists or antagonists? Or does their position change over time? You find yourself rooting for both Light and Raskolnikov, even though they are both murderers, but parts of both their stories make viewers headdesk - or headwall - with frustration, and perhaps change their opinions of these characters mid-story.

5. A final similarity between the two characters is their strange need to confront their hunters, as if to taunt them.

Light's pride is most definitely his undoing. L taunts Kira on "National TV," and dares Kira to kill him.
Light does so, but the "L" on TV is actually a criminal sentenced to death row that very day, pretending to be L, and therefore Light hasn't killed the real L. L reveals that the broadcast was not international, but in fact only broadcast in Tokyo, Japan. By noting the times of the killings and Light's own interaction with him, L is able to deduce that Kira is a student in Tokyo, narrowing down the pool from the whole world to one city, and eventually down to Light himself. Light insists on working with L and even gets to know him; if Light didn't have a prideful need to play god, to kill those who opposed him, and to confront his opposition, he would never have been found. If he had stuck to his "kill only evil people,"motto - and never added the "all who oppose me are evil!" clause - therefore never bothering to even answer L or try to kill him - he would never have been caught. Supernatural notebooks leave no traces. Hubris is his weakness.

Raskolnikov is similar. He confronts the detective, Zametov, in a bar and tells him how he would have committed the crime if he was the murderer, which is so, so unbelievably stupid. This heightens the police's suspicion about him, in a time and place (19th century St. Petersburg) where he could have simply disappeared and never have been found. Such slip ups, I believe, are going to swiftly land his sorry person in the Gulag out in Siberia.





One key difference between these two, however, is the guilt factor. Light feels no shame or guilt (and almost doesn't seem human at times) whereas Raskolnikov, though he will not admit it, seeks atonement for what he has done and feels terrible about the crime.

So ultimately, Crime and Punishment and Death Note bear some striking similarities, and I'll update in future posts if these similarities continue further. I'm definitely liking summer reading so far, Crime and Punishment is anything but boring, and more importantly, it focuses on the concept of subjective morality as well as the idea of true justice, both of which are among my favorite topics.