Crime and Punishment

From the beginning of the book it appears that Rascolnikov has very little communication with the outside world. Probably, the only person he really talked to during the weeks prior to the meeting was himself. He certainly listened to a lot of people talk, but he never communicated his own ideas and thoughts. This lack of communication was ultimately one of the contributing factors to his eventual choice to murder. In this case words neither empowered nor limited him simply because he chose not to use them. Rascolnikov chooses his isolation and as such finds difficulty doing anything after the crime because he never thought through what would happen afterwards. Once he’s murdered the old woman, and after his fever, Raskolnikov becomes much more talkative. He eventually informs Porfiry of everything he did, pretending it’s hypothetical. They discuss it at length his idea about extraordinary people and ordinary people and firmly cements in Porfiry’s mind that he is guilty. Although Rascolnikov feels at first that he has ‘won’ the conversation because he was clever enough not get caught in Porfiry’s simple trick at the end, but then begins to feel uneasy and flees from Razumihin. When he does finally share with Sounia his crime, it seems that words limit him. He tries to explain why he killed her to Sounia, and lies a couple of times but she knows he lies. When he finally gives the real reason he thinks, “he no longer cared whether she understood or not. The fever had complete hold of him; he was in a sort of gloomy ecstasy (he certainly had been too long without talking to anyone)” (Dostoevsky 359). In the end when he finally reveals the truth he doesn’t even care if she understands his words. His desire to share his ideas, which he should have given into earlier is so great that he can’t even contain himself. In this way communication had power over him. Unlike the previous books, words don’t really empower or limit him, because he is so focused on controlling them, he doesn’t realize that they control him. In the end, Rascolnikov chooses confessing over suicide. He struggles to say the words but he does and it is his imprisonment and discussions with Sounia that ultimately begin his renewal. For Raskolnikov, lack of communication led him to ruin himself, and it was communication that helped him to begin to heal.

Sounia’s ability to use language is limited by her status in their society. Because she is a woman, a prostitute, and of low class, Luzhin could easily accuse her of stealing from him and win. It was only with Rascolnikov and Lebeziatnikov, both men, that she was able to avoid the consequences of stealing. When she speaks to Raskolnikov, many of her thoughts he dismisses as childish. Ultimately however he does follow her advice and they lead him to prison rather than death. Sounia’s words, at the time had very little effect on Rascolnikov, but on his way to prison he recalls them: “He suddenly recalled Sounia’s words, ‘Go to the cross-roads, bow down to the people, kiss the earth, for you have sinned against it too, and say aloud to the whole world, ‘I am a murderer.’ ’ He trembled remembering that… Everything in him softened at once and the tears started into his eyes. He fell to the earth on the spot…” (Dostoevsky 452). At the end for Raskolnikov, Sounia’s words are the words that he remembers and are the ones that have an effect on it. Sounia’s words and her presence have a power that lets her help Rascolnikov. In this way she is empowered by her language.

King Lear

I found the language of King Lear to be interesting because, sometimes the characters that were mad or pretending to be mad, as with Edgar said the most truth. Also I think that The Fool could be included in that too. Most of the other characters lied fairly regularly, or simply didn’t say anything that didn’t have an obvious meaning. I know that Shakespeare likes to have fools and madmen speak the truth so this would be consistent with his other works. I found the idea that the insane speak the truth interesting because it would seem that the reason most people lie is to avoid consequences whether these are that a child loses his innocence (‘white’ lies) or detrimental effects to oneself doesn’t really matter. Thus, I think Shakespeare is making a point that the insane don’t fear the consequences because they either have nothing to lose or they simply cannot for see what the consequences will be. The Fool was one of the characters who didn’t fear the consequences of the truths and insults he said to Lear and I think that while language didn’t empower him to help Lear, nor did it limit him, it was simply too late by that point Lear couldn’t be helped. Moving on to the other characters, the lies Edmund tells empower him, albeit temporarily. Through Edmund’s careful speech and some actions he is able to convince Glouster that Edgar is plotting against him, all while appearing loyal to both Edgar (in ‘hiding’ the letter) and Glouster (in eventually giving him the letter). This empowers Edmund to Edgar’s status. Edmund’s later betrayal of Glouster further empowers him, this time he doesn’t even have to create a fake letter. He starts his reveal to Cornwall by stating that his loyalty to the kingdom prevailing over his loyalty to his father surprises him, as well as his ‘wish’ he were not the detector of his father’s treason add credibility to his claim. Edmund is very good at using words to manipulate people, ultimately however he still dies at the end, by Edgar’s hand because of his machinations against Edgar. Similarly, Goneril and Regan are also empowered by language, since it was through there descriptions of their completely false love for Lear that they got their kingdom. They too die at the end and I think that in Goneril’s case, she couldn’t live because her true nature had been revealed and she could no longer disguise her meanings in clever phrasing. I think that it’s interesting that the characters who I think were the cleverest speakers (with the exception of the Fool) were also the most villainous. Perhaps Shakespeare is suggesting that listeners should take more into account that simply what the speaker says, that they should base their opinions of them off of their actions. After Regan’s and Goneril’s proclamations of love Kent says, “And your large speeches may deeds approve, That good effects may spring from words of love.”He wishes that their future actions will reflect their claims of love but I think he knows they won’t and that pretty language means nothing without action to back it up.

Oedipus

Oedipus has an elevated way of speaking that emphasizes his nobility, but ultimately can do nothing to avoid his terrible destiny. His language doesn’t empower him in his arguments early on with Teiresias and Kreon. When he argues with Teiresias, he is immediately at a disadvantage, due to his lack of knowledge regarding his identity. With Kreon, his lack of evidence and hot anger in the face of Kreon’s cool logic causes his argument to pale in comparison. So the language available to Oedipus neither limits nor empowers him. However, a lack of communication throughout the entire play contributes to the circumstances that allow him to fulfill the prophecy. Had the servant sent to abandon Oedipus revealed the truth about Oedipus’s birth to the messenger who gave him to his adopted parents, then the messenger might have eventually shared this information with Oedipus. If the oracle had been a little more forthcoming and/or answered Oedipus’s initial question he might not have left Corinth. Nevertheless, Oedipus was fated, and would probably have fulfilled the prophecy anyway.

Since the school year has begun, it seems as though I've been struggling with writing and discussing my thoughts. Words seem to get stuck at the tip of my tongue and are not quite capable of expressing everything that I really mean. It’s certainly not uncommon, but very frustrating. Sometimes, there simply aren’t words to express what I mean. Unfortunately there are few other methods of communication, other than language. There’s charades I suppose, but that’s even more limited than language. Pictures can sometimes imply meanings that words cannot, but it’s not particularly practical to communicate with pictures. So people are left to use language, despite its occasional inadequacy. Communication is necessary, though, of course. Many times it’s even empowering. Over the summer I helped my mildly autistic brother in sessions with a speech therapist so that he can learn to speak more clearly. It frustrated him when people couldn’t understand what he was saying because he couldn’t enunciate clearly. Because of the lessons, he’s been having more conversations and seems more confident. So, language can be both empowering and limiting and it’s this duality that I’ve decided to examine.

Over the summer, I read Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. I found Oscar’s grandfather’s life to be a clear example of the duality of language. Oscar’s grandfather had stopped speaking. His only way of communication was through writing and gestures. Because he often ran out of pages in his journal, he had to use the limited number of phrases he’d already written to best state his meaning. He gives an example, of having to use, “the regular please” as an answer for how he’s feeling. In that way language was limiting him. To him, not speaking is almost a way of not living. He states later in the book, “it’s a shame we have to live, but it’s a tragedy that we get to live only one life, because if I’d had two lives, I would have spent one with her. I would have stayed in the apartment with her…said ‘I want two rolls,’ sang, ‘Start spreading the news,’ laughed, ‘Ha ha ha!’ ”(Foer 133). He doesn’t enjoy the life he leads, but he chooses not to, if he had a second life he would choose to actually live by communicating. In that way, language empowers life, makes ‘living’ possible.

This idea reminded me of a theme of several articles we read last year. They focused on modern loss of communication. That, since it is so easy now to send message, the messages we send mean very little. People say things through writing that they wouldn't say out loud or to someone’s face. In a way this empowers the message sender, to say hurtful things with little if any repercussions. At the same time it limits other messages, since tone and emotions cannot be expressed through a text. This ability to spread messages also empowers the message sender by allowing many people to read his message. For example, if he were a blogger, he could gain many followers through the internet. At the same time though, this ease creates more messages (or blogs, or internet articles) than anyone could actually read, and it gets lost in the masses of available information. This doesn't limit the words’ impact but it can limit those that are impacted.