Extraordinary Men: Bludgeoning Pawnbrokers and Consulting with the Devil

Greg posed an interesting thought in response to my last blog post- "The man who trusts in the Devil is granted divine knowledge and pleasures, while those who are God fearing wallow in mediocrity." This concept reminded me strongly of Dostoyevsky's bulky Crime and Punishment, which I finished over break.  The parallels are irresistible.

 

The protagonist of Dostoyevsky's novel commits the premeditated murder of a rich pawnbroker after sending an article for publication in the Weekly Review. He is driven to kill by the theory that mankind can be divided into two parties- the ordinary and the extraordinary. When the police detective Porfiry discovers the article, Raskolnikov explains: 

"I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound...to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity" (Dostovesky 302).

The core of the theory is that extraordinary men have an inner right to break the law, even to kill, if it furthers an exceptionally new idea. Men like Napoleon, "these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage" (302). So, Raskolnikov chooses the pawnbroker, a louse who takes advantage of the impoverished, and bludgeons her to death with the blunt end of a stolen axe. He intends to use her money and pledges for good. Later in the novel, stricken ill by guilt, he admits that he committed the murder to prove that he was significant. He wanted to be extraordinary- just like Faust wanted to separate himself from the multitude, the common people. And just like Raskolnikov commits a blasphemous sin because of his egoism, Faust makes a pact with the Devil himself. Also, just as in some versions Gretchen's negotiations with God save Faust, it is Sonia's Christianity that salvages Raskolnikov while he is residing in a Siberian prison.

But, what I'm really asking is what Greg suggested in his response to my previous blog post- why do Raskolnikov and Faust believe the only path to greatness transcends morality? In both novels, is the introverted scholar merely an archetype for perpetuating Christian morals? 

A Comparison Between Marlowe's, Goethe's, and Mann's Versions of the Faust Legend

The author's Christopher Marlowe, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Thomas Mann all have overlapping versions of the famous Faust legend.  All three of the main characters are men that seek to overreach their human capabilities in gaining access to more knowledge (or in Thomas Mann's novel) increased musical ability.  However, there are key differences in the plot of each version, which demonstrates the intended purpose of each version or, the impact each of them would have on the audience.

The earliest of the three, Marlowe's version of Doctor Faustus has the most plot similarities to Goethe's Faust, which we have been focusing on.  However, Marlowe's version involves the presence of a Good Angel and Bad Angel at crucial moments in the text.  They are both present when Faust considers the pursuit of magic, they appear again when Faust signs over his life to the Devil, and at the end of the play when Faustus is about dragged to hell.  With the Good Angels presence, there are much more opportunities in the play for Faust to repent and choose God over evil.  In addition, the purpose of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus is relatively straightforward- it serves as a lesson to the audience about the consequences of trying to surpass the limits of human ability.

Goethe's Faust on the other hand is more complex than Marlowe's version.  One of the key differences in his play is the opening scene with the wager between God and Mephistopheles.  It sets the stage for Faust to make his own decisions when he is tempted/influenced by Mephistopheles- he has no outside interference or guidance that encourages him to make the right decision.  Also, unlike Dr. Faustus in Marlowe's play who does magic and harms multiple people under Mephistopheles influence, Faust's deal with Mephistopheles only harms one other person: Gretchen.  Gretchen's downfall caused by Faust's pursuit of her love demonstrates the negative impact his deal had just as well as Dr. Faustus doing harm to multiple people in Marlowe's version.  Lastly, what makes Goethe's version of the Faust legend so complex is Gretchen's action of drowning her illegitimate child.  This component of the play involves questioning her morality and instills a reaction within the audiences and readers.

Lastly, Thomas Mann's novel titled Dr. Faustus The Life if a German Composer Told by a Friend differs greatly from Goethe's and Marlowe's versions of the Faust legend even though it has a similar story line with the main character seeking enhanced musical genius and composing ability.  The German composer named Adrian Leverkuhn intentionally contracts syphilis to deepen his artistic inspiration, through the madness induced by the disease.  Throughout his madness, he encounters a character similar to Mephistopheles with whom he strikes a deal with to gain musical genius for 24 years.  Mann's purpose of his version of the Faust legend is drastically different from Goethe and Marlowe.  It does not necessarily focus on serving as a lesson to its readers regarding how to behave- it parallels the historical times and hardship that Germany was going through when the novel was written.

For more information, on the summaries of Marlowe's and Mann's Faust stories go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Faustus_(Thomas_Mann_novel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of _Doctor_Faustus

Imaginary Homelands: The Good in Grappling with Dual Identities

In his essay “Imaginary Homelands”, Salman Rushdie raises the point that duality in an author’s identity provides a highly unique point of view within their work.  Rushide describes his experience writing his novel Midnight’s Children on the basis of his experience relocating to Britain from India.  In regards to the standpoint he has on being an author with a dual sense of identity from both cultures he says: “Our identity is at once plural and partial.  Sometimes we feel that we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools.  But however ambiguous and shifting this ground may be, it is not an infertile territory for a writer to occupy if literature is in part the business of finding new angles at which to enter reality, then once again our distance, our long geographical perspective may provide us with such an angles.” I personally agree with Rushdie’s point here and believe that it holds true not only for those of dual geographical or national identity, but for those with intersecting identities involving race and gender as well.  Authors who have personally experienced and grappling with several components that make up their identity are at an advantage of having a unique position.  Although it may pose challenges within their writing, (for example Rushdie contemplates writing in English over his native language) it also enables them to tell a story that is nonetheless distinct and valuable.  For example, being a man of color within a society that functions on white privilege and is primarily patriarchal has a different experience to tell than a woman of color that lives in the same society that imposes those constraints.  Though it may be difficult for the author, the “territory” that he/she occupies is still valuable and is worth being read and listened to.  Literature has the ability to provide a space for these stories to add richness to communicating the human experience and I think Rushdie’s statement within his essay upholds this idea.