PVSpud
08-13-2005, 12:00 PM
I've read comments from other threads, relating to surprise at the end of the second epilogue. The hapiness, the rapid rebirth. That's very true, and at first, during the feet kissing (Christ figure?) I was intrigued by the turn of events. The resurrection/transfiguration also seemed rapid to me (Christ figure?, following in the line of 'Abraham´? as the book called the land).
But, immediately upon finishing the book, I was reminded of the seen with Rodion in his room, entertaining the doctor. He was nice, charming, and put everyone at ease. But there was that irony... it was an act to deceive and calm their minds. I couldn't help but feel like Rodion's sarcastic, bitter smile was shining behind the words as I completed the book.
Would it really have been possible for this man to abandon the theory, his own mentality, after one year in prison. He seems to have taken on the cloak of ignorance, looking at the countryside as immovable, seperated from time and even beautiful in itself. He advocates the very natural, inherent lovely life he condemns in the other men. 'could they care so much for a ray of sunshine' yet his own transformation comes ´bathed in sunshine´.
I immediately began inwardly screaming, 'farce! What a cruel joke! and yet deceiving so many.' But, now that I have calmed down, I wonder if this is correct.
Is the second epilogue a cruel joke, a grand allusion to a tormented Christ, or really an advocation of ignorant joy?
But, immediately upon finishing the book, I was reminded of the seen with Rodion in his room, entertaining the doctor. He was nice, charming, and put everyone at ease. But there was that irony... it was an act to deceive and calm their minds. I couldn't help but feel like Rodion's sarcastic, bitter smile was shining behind the words as I completed the book.
Would it really have been possible for this man to abandon the theory, his own mentality, after one year in prison. He seems to have taken on the cloak of ignorance, looking at the countryside as immovable, seperated from time and even beautiful in itself. He advocates the very natural, inherent lovely life he condemns in the other men. 'could they care so much for a ray of sunshine' yet his own transformation comes ´bathed in sunshine´.
I immediately began inwardly screaming, 'farce! What a cruel joke! and yet deceiving so many.' But, now that I have calmed down, I wonder if this is correct.
Is the second epilogue a cruel joke, a grand allusion to a tormented Christ, or really an advocation of ignorant joy?