Sometimes students have experienced difficulties with the following things:
- You are writing a post for a while, hit submit, and the post freezes or disappears. If this happens and you can't redo it, email me a copy of your post so I know you did it on time. I may be able to post it for you.
- Sometimes, writing in Microsoft Word and cutting and pasting into the blog doesn't work. Try it before you spend time on a post and realize you have to retype the whole thing. I have found that you may have luck using keyboard shortcuts for cut and paste instead of right-clicking.
Spelling and grammar do count on the blog. Don't think of this as a personal, texting-style type of communication. Posts are more like written debates or mini reflection papers.
Blog responses should read as a conversation between members as much as possible. Try to acknowledge, build upon, or respond to other people's comments. Along these lines, avoid repeating other comments. Sometimes, it's easier to post early because you get the first say and get to start the conversation. Some students may find it easier to post later because there is more there to react to.
Students without access to technology may complete all posts on paper and they will be shared with the class. Here's your first assignment: Post one question you have about any of your summer reading books. (This will also help me plan the first few days of class.)
Ta Ta-- Miss B
I hope you meant for us to post a comment...
ReplyDeleteMy question has to do with Pip's criminal in Great Expectations. While I do understand how this man comes into play later on in the book, I'm confused as to why Pip was so wary and concerned with the criminal in the first place. I'm also not sure about the "young man" and the criminal's need for the file.
-Emily Roise
Also hoping that you're supposed to comment...fingers crossed!
ReplyDeleteMy question is about Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. I'm just curious whether he has an actual mental/emotional disorder that would nowadays "justify" in some form or another his strange behavior and thoughts? They definitely are not normal!
-Erin Hayes
I'm just going to follow the trend with commenting.
ReplyDeleteMy question is about Pip in "Great Expectations." I wonder, is his love for Estella more of a symbol for his desire to rise out of perceived destitution, rather than actual love? Does he view her as a symbol for something superior that he will never attain, and that is why he fruitlessly pursues her?
-Phoebe Petrovic
Thank you, Emily, Erin and Phoebe, for being the first posters. You are absolutely on the right track and these are all good examples of what the post should look like.
ReplyDeleteMy question is about Winston in 1984. When Winston was being tortured by O'Brien he still told the reader that O'Brien was a person that could be talked to. Why does Winston continue to have a feeling that he can talk to O'Brien even after it becomes clear that O'Brien believes wholeheartedly in the Party and everything that Winston was trying to rebel against?
ReplyDelete-Kelly Carufe
My question is about Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment". Was his mental breakdown in part because he failed his own theory? Because did not possess the Napoleon gene that would let him kill for the greater good? Is that crushing disappointment part of what fueled his downward spiral after the murders? Does he view himself as a weakling and that is what contributes to his deteriorating mental and physical state?
ReplyDelete-Sarah Curran
Before I ask my question, I have a response to Kellys earlier post. O'Brien and Wiston have one of the most unique relationships in 1984. In the final phase of the book, O'Brien simultaneously enlightens, tortures, and protects Winston as part of his "treatment" in the Ministry of Love. The reader sees it as a process of breaking down all of Winston's human qualities while O'Brien firmly believes they are fixing a man who is mentally deranged. However, Winston still feels a special connection to O'Brien simply because O'Brien understands him. In the book it says, "There was no idea that he had ever had, or could have, that O'Brien had not long ago known, examined, and rejected. His mind contained Winston's mind." My question is similar to this theme. Do you think there are any other outer party members who have similar thoughts and memories as Winston? For example, is there anyone who is aware that Oceania is continually changing who they are at war with? Or do you think all of the citizens have been scared and intimidated into blindly following the party?
ReplyDelete- Ian Johnston
My question is about Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment". I feel as if the events leading up to the murder were very abrupt and "normal". We know that there will be a crime at one point or another, but this is just because we read the title and because of the fact that Raskolnikov goes on rants of paranoia pretty often about this "terrible deed". We don't even discover the extent of Raskolnikov's plan until chapter 6 and I still felt he was to normal to carry out the crime. I guess my question is would it make more sense for Raskolnikov's emotional break down to start before the crime? That would make the murder seem more "justified" in regards to Raskolnikov's state. Maybe I'm missing an important part of him before he commits the murder.
ReplyDelete-Dash Krempel
In essence, "Great Expectations" is about a young man who expects, but does not receive. Pip yearns to be wealthy his entire life, but spends all of his inheritance after three years of receiving it. Pip also wants to become a well-respected gentleman, but when he shows himself to the people residing in his home village, they are terrified at the sight of him, and what he has become. Finally, Pip's greatest expectation of all is to make the girl of his dreams love him back. In the original ending, she does not, and ends up marrying a doctor from Shropshire. This can be viewed as consistent with the rest of the story. However, Dickens chose to change this ending. In the newer version, Pip encounters Estella once more in Miss Havisham's garden, and they can be last seen holding hands, showing affection between them. This change is contradictory to the story. My question is: why did Dickens choose to change the ending, when, in fact, the original one was more appropriate for the plot?
ReplyDelete-Sam Rosenberg
For my question I am curious about the sense of of a broader question reflecting on '1984'. Orwell writes about the a hidden form of power that has fundamental control over Oceania. This hidden form of power is what Orwell names the 'Thought Police' and the 'Party'. Orwell speaks of the significance of the past, the present and the future. This is shown through the actions of the Party as they erase the past by changing newspapers, events and anything that defies the current political state of the party. This tells the reader that whoever controls the present controls the past and whoever controls the past controls the future. My question is: Why is it that the control of the past is so significant to complete power and control over society?
ReplyDelete-Sean Porter
I'll respond to Sam's question. My copy of Great Expectations had a very handy notes section at the back of the book. It describes how DIckens's friend Bulwer-Lytton suggested the happy ending so as to make the book more palatable to society at the time. Dickens was persuaded that VIctorian society would reject such a dark novel as it stood, and likewise a brighter ending would increase popularity and so bring Dickens more money. Dickens did not appear to regret creating the changed ending, claiming to have created "as pretty a little piece of writing as [he] could."
ReplyDeleteFor my question, I've got to say, did anyone else pick up on the massive religious themes swarming around in Crime and Punshiment? Is Raskolnikov some sort of Jesus or Prodigal Son?
-Julia Wlochowski
One more thing-
ReplyDeleteLast year my AP Lang class banded together in a student-run facebook group where we could discuss assignments and mainly how terribly we were procrastinating. It was a way of egging each other on away from the surveillance of Ms. Schmidt. Does anybody want to try something similar this year?
-Julia Wlo
In response to Julia's question first: I will create a group asap. Secondly, in response to Emily Rosie's question: When beginning Great Expectations, Pip is a young, uneducated boy suppressed by his evidently miserable sister. He stumbles upon the criminal, who looks frightening and threatens him. When people are young, they will believe just about anything. Especially having been abused, Pip has been trained to believe if he doesn't follow orders, he will face consequences. Therefore, he is taking all the criminal says as fact, and acts fast to protect himself. If, however, you are referring to Pip's concern of having helped the criminal, you must think of the time. This book has a heavy influence of the church; you must feel guilt and repent for you sins. At least, that's what I got from the book. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the file, the criminal wanted to file down his chains on his legs.
ReplyDeleteMy question is for Crime and Punishment. To me, Sonia is a very complex character. Dostoevsky describes her as young,innocent and very religious. Raskolnikov uses her as means for confession and she is present when he rethinks confessing to the police. She is almost like a conscience or guardian angel. However, Sonia is also a prostitute.When she makes money for her family for the first time, she lays down 30 roubles. As Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver, does she have some sort of relation to Jesus as a symbol? What does Sonia stand for and how does her "job" come into play?
Lotty
My question is about Crime and Punishment and is a follow-up to Lotty's. Throughout the book, Raskolnikov shows the need to alienate himself from society due to pride, guilt, and other factors. One of the few people capable of pulling Raskolnikov back into society and breaking down his "wall" is Sonya. My question is why Raskolnikov continues to return to Sonya when part of him knows the effect she has on him (because of the unfamiliar emotions she instills in him). Does he consciously want to end his self-alienation, or does he simply love Sonya?
ReplyDelete-Hannah V
My question is about Raskolinikov in Crime and Punishment. Is his constant refusal of help, from Razumihin especially (refusing the work of translating, and trying to refuse the money his mother sent), a matter of pride, or an unwillingness to raise himself out of his poverty? Also, is it a sign of character that he gives his money away (leaving it for Marmeladov's family, and giving it to the policeman for the drunk girl's safe transport home early in the book) when he barely has any? If so, why does he regret it immediately after?
ReplyDelete-Joan Wyeth
My question is also about Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. Initially after murdering the pawnbroker and her half-sister, he becomes very ill and is overwhelmed with remorse. Previous to Raskolnikov’s confession however, he explained how he was further than ever from seeing what he did as a crime, and therefore had no need for expiation. My question is what is the primary source of motivation behind Raskolnikov’s confession? Is his inescapable guilt his true incentive? Or is it actually because Raskolnikov thinks of himself as disgrace due to his failed attempt at becoming a “benefactor of mankind” and therfore had nothing left in himself to offer to society?
ReplyDelete-Audrey Garden
Throughout the book Great Expectations Pip’s relationship with Estella shows two lovers separated by class. Estella is a part of a wealthy family and Pip is a poor orphan boy. Pip is hesitant to fall in love with Estella because of the separation of class. I wonder if Dickens used social class as one theme to spark more issues in the story? Was the addition of social class issues, and what comes with it, Dickens’s guide to creating a book packed with lively and troubled characters?
ReplyDelete-Michaela Paholski
Audrey, I had the same questions at the very end of the book that you seem to have. I think that Raskolnikov constantly overshadows his natural guilt by relating everything to his “theory” whether it be that he failed it, or that he still has the ability to redeem himself among the great. He is constantly convincing himself of his pride, and committing himself to his theory of being "above the common man", as we see in the scene outside of the hay market in the last chapter. The jeering remarks of the drunkards and townsfolk manage to overtake his repentant, more compassionate persona and thus he interrupts his "cross-roads" deal in the name of his own pride. We see this continually happen throughout the book. Additionally, when Raskolnikov realizes Svidrigailov's suicide, he has a final ephemeral hope in the strength of his own will-power to maintain pride.
ReplyDeleteRaskolnikov had found himself attracted to Svidrigailov's ability to take advantage of others and carry out his own whim without considering consequence. Yes, Raskolnikov acknowledges the vulgarity of many of Svidrigailov's actions, as we see in their conversations in part 6 chapter 4. Perhaps this acknowledgement is a sign of Raskolnikov temporarily regretting his own bad actions. Of course he would never admit this to anyone around him, let alone himself. Nevertheless, this ever-present, yet difficult to explain connection between the two men comes back to play in the end. Raskolnikov believes for a moment, that if Svidrigailov could chose suicide over facing his own errors, than perhaps Raskolnikov had the same capability. But upon seeing Sonia, who Lotty noted was a symbol of confession and suffering, he immediatley turns around and confesses. Thus, it seems that guilt and it's powerful ability to provoke repentance, does in fact, become his incentive in the end.
If his incentive was solely his failed attempt at fulfilling his "benefactor role", and if he felt he had nothing left to offer, why would he have not just ended his life on the spot? It seems that although he had this intense and pervasive hope that he would prove to be above the average human being, his alternate personality more in tune with humanity, in the end, drew him towards Sonya and towards confession. Of course this is just one way of looking at it….
My own question is pretty much unrelated. "Rodya" is Pulcheria Alexandrovna's first born son, to whom she is always devoted to. She seems to be conscience of his pride, and sensitive to his personality flaws, yet is still determined and convinced of a respectable life in his future. This is all obvious in her first letter to him. Raskolnikov is almost sickened to see them when they first arrive. Does his own Mother remind him of his failure to be a "Napolean" figure purely because of the pride she has in him? Does he try to isolate them because of this association? Or is his relationship with his Mother less symbolic than I'm trying to make it?
Sorry for the length, I kind of went crazy…
-Elsbeth Kane
Miss use/ misspelling of the word "conscience" in my post. I meant "aware". Sorry! -Elsbeth
ReplyDeleteMy question is about Winston Smith's love for Julia in George Orwell's "1984". Julia embodies youth and rebellion two attributes that Winston desperately wants. He strives to learn more about the state of the country before the Party and his confusing childhood. Although his and Julia's sexual relations together come across as love, is it really just lust? In the end he wishes Julia would receive his punishment instead of him, essentially selling her out. Is he truly in love with Julia as a person or just in love with what she represents?
ReplyDeleteChloe MacNeil
I had another question about the book Crime and Punishment. A large part of the book is Raskolnikov fighting with himself about being a murderer. I thought it would be interesting to know why Dostoyevsky dragged out Raskolnikov’s internal conflict and emotional problems. Why didn’t he end earlier with Raskolnikov coming clean and the consequences that follow? Would a shorter ending change the impact of the story?
ReplyDelete-Michaela Paholski
I have a question about Razumihin in "Crime and Punishment." As of now I am not finished with the book so this may be the cause of this question. How does Razumihin not suspect his friend Raskolnikov to be the murderer? Especially when Razumihin is so heavily exposed to Raskolnikov's mental breakdown which began after the murder. For example, on page 133 when Raskolnikov is exiting the restaurant, he passes Razumihin, who had been looking for Raskolnikov and says, "I almost beat Nastasya on your account." Previously, Raskolnikov had been in the restaurant attempting to confess to Zametov. The reader then assumes that Zametov will tell Razumihin that Raskolnikov had tried to confess. I just don't understand how Razumihin doesn't see Raskolnikov as a murder suspect because of Raskolnikov's attempted confession and his relatively severe mental illness that came on just after the murder. Maybe Razumihin simply doesn't want to give Raskolnikov away to the Police because he wants to marry Dounia and Raskolnikov is the only way he can get to her?
ReplyDeleteCole Magee
I've got a question about "1984". It's purely hypothetical, so bear with me for a moment;
ReplyDeleteOverall, "1984" is a very very bleak (though exciting) book. By the end, with Winston cheering on Big Brother, the future of the world seems awfully hopeless, as far as freedom of thought is concerned. Here's my question; is there ANY way for such a government as Oceania, with such enormous psychological power over the population, to be brought down? I mean, reading this book is like watching "Terminator" for the first time. You just have no idea how the antagonist (or in the case of "1984", the government) can be stopped; they seem nothing short of invincible.
In my mind, I can only see one way for Oceania, or any of the three superstates, to be brought down. There would have to be one person in the inner party who, without showing any hint of it physically, wants to become as powerful as possible; second to Big Brother; for the sake of undoing some of Oceania's harm against thought. Let's call this person Herbert. And let's say that Herbert achieves this position. Since Big Brother has to be immortal, it's reasonable to say that someone new takes over whenever the previous Big Brother dies. So if Herbert actually became the new Big Brother, he could slowly loosen restrictions on human thought(assuming he hasn't been corrupted by power, or hasn't been arrested by the thought police for showing some sign of his hidden intentions).
Does anyone see any glaring flaws in this plan? Does anyone else have any ideas on how Oceania could be hypothetically brought down? Or is the state truly invincible?
-Andrew Goehring
My question is regarding Crime and Punishment. Is it Raskolnikov's fate and life purpose to kill Alyona Ivanova, or is he just searching for any reason he can think of to kill the pawnbroker? For example, after going to see her, Raskolnikov overhears two men in a tavern hypothetically talking about how humanity would be better off without Alyona Ivanova alive so her wealth could be distributed. Raskolnikov chooses to take this conversation literally and muses at the timing of overhearing this conversation and how he had just been thinking the same thing. Later on, while on his way home, he suddenly has an urge to take a different route through the Haymarket and overhears Lizaveta say she will be out of the house the next evening at seven. This is when Raskolnikov feels his decision to kill the pawnbroker is out of his hands and inevitable. However, Raskolnikov does not point out the inconveniences he encounters while committing the crime, like how Lizaveta comes home while Raskolnikov is still there. Previously, one of Raskolnikov's rationales for committing the crime was that one death would benefit humanity, but now he has caused two deaths. So, were Raskolnikov's encounters with Lizaveta and the men in the tavern just coincidences, and was he just searching for reasons to commit the crime, or was killing the pawnbroker really his fate and could not be avoided?
ReplyDeleteFrom Katie Mulligan
ReplyDeleteResponse to Andrew:
Andrew, I think that this plan is great on principle, but in reality would never work. The Thought Police are too experienced, and they would certainly catch anyone who dared to oppose the Party. Also, I question the existence of an inner party member who believes they are powerful enough to even compare themselves to Big Brother. I feel that no one in the Party could ever fathom wanting to take over Big Brother's position, because they have so much respect for him. They all love Big Brother and see him as a superior, and that is exactly what makes him so powerful.
A better alternative would be to have the proles overthrow the Party. As Winston always said, "If there is hope, it lies in the proles." Now I have no idea of the details or of the logistics, but I do agree with Winston that proles are the only ones who have the potential to resist the Party. The proles remain unaffected by the slogans, songs, and ideas of the Party and thus they are the only ones capable of their own thoughts and ultimately bringing down the state of Oceania.
-Katie Mulligan
Personal Question:
My question regards the Party in 1984.
While I was reading 1984, I couldn't help but to think of how our government compares to that of Oceania's. While I know that they were founded on English Socialism, and our government is a Democratic Republic, I couldn't help but to notice some similarities...
The first thing I noticed was that the outline of the Party was quite similar.
Big Brother -- President
Inner Party -- Cabinet Members
Outer Party -- House of Representatives and Senate
There were also little details that reminded me of our government.
"Oceania 'tis for thee" -- "My Country 'tis of thee"
Telescreen programs -- Fox News, MSNBC
Party Slogans -- Presidential campaign slogans, "CHANGE", "HOPE", "Believe America"
In principles, our governments do not have anything in common. However these little similarities still scared me. It made me wonder as to wether or not this total control, this government with such psychological power, could ever exist. Could something like this ever happen in real life? Is it possible that sometime in the future, we will have no control over our own thoughts and that we will be completely brainwashed into party slogans and false ideology? And, if so, how can we stop this from happening, how can we prevent it? What do you think?
-Katie Mulligan
My question is regarding Crime and Punishment. I was wondering why Raskolnikov never used the money that he stole from Alyona Ivanovna. It seemed to me that his primary reason for committing the crime was so that he could take the money and perhaps pull himself and others out of poverty, yet he never utilized the money. Was his reason for not using it his own guilt or was he just mentally deranged?
ReplyDelete-Caroline Madden
My question is relatively similar to Sena's, in that I find Raskolnikov's motives unclear. In the beginning of the novel, Dostoyevsky reveals the entirety of Raskolnikov's inner conflicts. He is a man struggling with poverty and unable to communicate adequately with others. Upon meeting Alyona Ivanova, he is immediately cognizant of his ability to exploit her and obtain her substantial monetary possessions. He is further tempted with his immoral thoughts to exploit the old woman, as he discovers that his temptation is shared with others in the community. The beginning of the novel suggests that Raskolnikov seeks to obtain wealth by killing Alyona Ivanova. However, upon committing the murders, Raskolnikov is no longer interested in the tangible possessions he had obtained. As such, I am left to question whether his original intent was to obtain the valuables or if the story was infiltrated with a deeper, more subtle motive for which Raskolnikov justified the heinous murder of Alyona Ivanova?
ReplyDelete-Shelby Hardgrove
My question is somewhat branched off of a few statments made by others. How is it possible for Raskolnikov to raise himself to a crime such as this? Is the reasoning his sickness, fiending for the relief of not being a victim of poverty anymore, or simply to prove his theory of his article he wrote?
ReplyDeleteAlthough, no matter which of these reasons might be the right one, from the beginning to the end of the book he does show acts of kindness and normalcy, compassion for humanity. Yet he had pulled off a crime of such measure, no one truly suspecting it is him until the end because of the type of person everyone believes him to be. Also from the beginning to the end he believes no need to show expiation for what he has done. It seems as if he contradicts himself throughout the book and this could propose he is ill in this way. It could be said that the reasoning for such a possibly rational human being such as he could be, to do such an action as this could be described in as such his sickness in all? Bringing back to my question how is it entirely plausible that he could bring himself to act in such a horrible crime.
As an example, it is as though he argues with himself frequently throughout the book surely that would show how serious his illness must be and before he considered what he was about to do to this poor old pawn-broker he had come down with this serious illness. Could his delirium possibly be the reasoning for all his thoughts and actions, also aggreeing with shelby, or could his intent for this crime be deeper than even the simplest or most logical of reasonings?
-Cheyenne Wohsltrom
Also, in Crime and Punishment, why did Svidrigailov commit suicide? What was the importance of that action to the book?
ReplyDelete-Cheyenne Wohlstrom
My question is related to Andrew's about 1984. Does The Party's many methods of controlling the citizens of Oceania rely upon each other to hold The Party in power or can The Party survive without using one of these methods? For example, if the government of Oceania didn't use doublethink to control the citizens it ruled over, would The Party fall? This is because without the government controlling things such as the past, it would allow for more freedom of thought and suddenly people have the ability to think for themselves again. On the other hand, could the other methods of controlling people such as newspeak make up for the lack of doublethink? If there is no such word as "freedom" then how could people think of freedom or grasp the concept of freedom if they have never heard of or experienced it before. If that is true, then would allow for the party to stay ruling over Oceania? If The Party relies upon all of the methods to hold onto it's power then perhaps the party isn't invincible, and maybe it could be defeated.
ReplyDelete-Eric Rannestad
My question is about Crime and Punishment. It seems as though Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov share the same feelings towards other people as being more material items than humans. Raskolnikov explains his categorizing of men into ordinary and extraordinary, ordinary meaning they are forced into submission while extraordinary men may commit any crime because they forge civilization. Clearly, Raskolnikov sees himself as extraordinary, and wanting to be like Napoleon as he refers to many times. Since Raskolnikov saw the old pawnbroker as a harmful "louse" who was harming society, Raskolnikov believes he was doing society a favor and his actions were justified. Svidrigailov is far more dominant than Raskolnikov, and also remains independent throughout the story. Since the two share such similar views towards humanity, I wonder why did Raskolnikov eventually felt the need to confess? Was it because he felt he was doing everyone a favor and believed they would praise him? Or had he realized that he had isolated himself from everyone but could not live as independent as Svidrigailov?
ReplyDelete-Abby Tibbetts
I agree with Katie in that there are slight similarities between our current government and the government that George Orwell thought we would have in the book "1984". Although maybe our government does not use direct propaganda to directly "brainwash" our minds into thinking of the very uppermost level of the President, we still do have media that is (almost) inevitably biased which can often promote our leader (or other candidates). Therefore the media could be on its way to become what it is in the book "1984," if we aren't careful. I don't know if there is any way to prevent this type of government in the future whether it be 15 years from now or 150, but I surely do know that I won't be looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteCole Magee
My question is about George Orwell’s 1984.
ReplyDelete1984 is a Dystopian novel, this genre aims to show readers the horror of societal degradation. The book was published during the nuclear age and before the television had become a fixture in the family home. Orwell’s vision of a post atomic dictatorship in which every individual would be monitored ceaselessly by means of the telescreen still seemed terrifyingly possible.
Relating to this, Syme, the man who works with Winston at the Ministry of Truth, is a very bright man who specializes in language. Syme is working on the new edition of the Newspeak dictionary, in which there are no words to describe disobedience or rebellion, If people can’t capture a feeling in words, the party believes, that feeling does not exist. Although Syme and many others working for the party are very smart, how are they blind to the fact that the party’s progression is in turn leading to degradation of the human race?
-Tazer
My question is in regards to 'Great Expectations'
ReplyDeleteWhy was the discovery of Estella's birth parents included throughout the book? The plot, based around Pip and his expectations does not pertain to this discovery...although their relationship is a constant topic the parent aspect seemed random and unnecessary..
Was Pip's discovery a symbol for the closure for his relationship with Esella? or did Pip expect their relationship to further grow because of his continual thoughts about her, proving against Estella's theory that he would forget about her within a few days of her absence?
-Sarah Shepard
My question is in regards to Great Expectations.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Pip grow so attached to the horrid conditions of his "noble life"? On his first visit to Satis House, he expresses disgust, sadness, and distaste for the conditions there, and his treatment by Estella does not add any positive ideas to that impression. When he lives in London he is also surrounded by filth and squalor, and he associates with odd, greasy people. However, he is more attached to these surroundings than to the simple, pastoral forge, inhabited by relatively good people. He even remembers his days as an apprentice fondly. So why does he find greater happiness in bleak London than in his old life?
-Seamus McGinley
My question connects with the book Crime and Punishment
ReplyDeleteIt was stated within the book several times that Svidrigailov had money. After the death of his wife, it seemed clear that he was willing to spend it somewhat freely on certain people. How did Svidrgailov decide on who to spend his money on after he was finally denied by Dounia? He openly and generously gave Sonia money after the death of her step-mother and her father. Was he truly being generous, as he was never expected to help with their family's issues, or was it used a motive to prove he was worthy of Dounia? Also with that dream at the end of the book while he was sleeping in the inn, what did it signify, as he was being very nice to a girl that he had never met before by giving her his blanket?
-Emily LeGrand