In class, last week, we watched Hedda Gabler, and afterwards we broke up into groups and discussed similarities between Hedda and another story of our choosing that we have done in class. Our group maily chose Voltaire's Candide, because it appeared that in Candide, everyone had a sob story. Stories ranged from Candide's banishment, cunegonde's escape and especially, the tale of the woman with only one buttock. (The story of which Dr. Olsen is particularly fond of) The same can be said Hedda. It seemed like she was living the good liffe until she missed her chance at love, then things spiraled until she had to take her own life. Now as we are reading Crime and Punishment, I'm finding the very same problem. It seems at this pont that everything is going wrong and everything is not for the best (Or at least after reading Part 1). Raskolnikov is a poor man with serious paranoia and various other mental issues. The same with the other characters. Look at the dim-witted sister of the pawnbroker. She spent her whole life under service of her wretched sister until she was faced with a painful death. At that point, she did not even put up a fight because she was used to be abused all of her life. If one more example is needed, look at Sonya Marmeladov. She's living her life in a family in poverty as it is. Then, as if things weren't bad enough. Her step-mother forces her to be a prostitute to make sure their family doesn't starve. Why? because their father is a drunkard and lazy and won't go to work to support them.
All of this goes back to the idea of suffering. It seems like practically every major role in these stories has a terrible life that just keeps getting worse and worse. It seems like what Pangloss says in Candide is false. Everything does NOT happen for the best.
Josh Goldman
P.S. I posted a link to a youtube video below. It's from a play on Candide, and it really summarizes Pangloss' ideas well.
http://youtu.be/TlIUXvAdpcw
I commented on Will's Recurring themes.
ReplyDelete