#novel analysis

[karamazovism]

𝐀𝐋𝐘𝐎𝐒𝐇𝐀’𝐒 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇 𝐌𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐇 | 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐎𝐑𝐘: A Formal Analysis of Textual Evidence and Symbolism

DISCLAIMER: This analysis is based on a close reading of The Brothers Karamazov and an interpretation of its textual and symbolic elements. The conclusions drawn here are derived from logical inference and thematic analysis rather than definitive authorial intent. As with all literary interpretations, alternative readings may offer different perspectives.

TIMELINE

To determine Alyosha’s birth month, it is necessary to establish the sequence of major events in relation to his age. The following timeline clarifies this progression:

This structure provides a clear foundation for analyzing.

INTRODUCTION

In THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV, Dostoevsky does not provide a direct reference to the exact birth month of Alyosha Karamazov. However, through a close examination of the novel's timeline and certain key textual passages, one can reasonably infer that Alyosha was likely born in November. This analysis will explore the textual evidence supporting this theory, while also considering the thematic significance of such a birth month in relation to Alyosha’s character and the broader narrative of the novel.

NOTE: The novel is written in past tense with a reflective tone, as if recounting past events. Phrases like “at this time” and “during the two months that had passed” indicate retrospective narration. The narrator also addresses the reader directly, reinforcing this perspective. This style enhances the novel’s philosophical and psychological depth, blending narration with contemplation.

The narrator establishes Alyosha’s age in relation to his brothers:

“He was only twenty, his brother Ivan was in his twenty-fourth year at the time, while their elder brother Dmitri was twenty-seven.”  — Book One, Chapter 4

A later passage states:

“On the contrary, Alyosha was at this time a well-grown, red-cheeked, clear-eyed lad of nineteen, radiant with health.“ — Book One, Chapter 5

The phrase “at this time” suggests that Alyosha was 19 when he entered the monastery. By the time of his reappearance in the later chapters, he has turned 20.

MARKERS

One of the first chronological markers occurs where the inheritance scene at the monastery is explicitly set in late August:

“It was a warm, bright day at the end of August. The interview with the elder had been fixed for half-past eleven, immediately after late mass.”

— Book Two, Chapter 6

The novel confirms that two months pass following his arrest:

“During the two months that had passed since Mitya’s arrest, Alyosha had called frequently at the widow Morozova’s house, both from his own inclination and to take messages for Mitya.” — Book Eleven, Chapter 1

We meet Alyosha again in November after he left the monastery, assuming that, we can conclude that Alyosha’s birth must be in November. Since we later see Alyosha again in early November, this places Dmitri’s arrest in early-mid September.

REAPPEARANCE

In the narrative, early November, a period clearly described:

 “IT was the beginning of November. There had been a hard frost, eleven degrees Reaumur, without snow, but a little dry snow had fallen on the frozen ground during the night, and a keen dry wind was lifting and blowing it along the dreary streets of our town, especially about the market-place. It was a dull morning, but the snow had ceased.” 

— Book Ten, Chapter 1

By this point, Alyosha must be 20 years old. Given that he was still 19 in August and that his return occurs after the two-month gap following Dmitri’s arrest, his birthday must have taken place sometime within that gap. If we remember, the narrator mentions Alyosha’s age (along with his brothers) in past tense, meaning that he had already turned 20 when his father was murdered. 

And then Alyosha marks his return: 

“[Skipping unnecessary details] To Kolya's surprise, Alyosha came out to him just as he was, without an overcoat. He had evidently come in haste. He held out his hand to Kolya at once. "Here you are at last! How anxious we've been to see you!" "There were reasons which you shall know directly. Anyway, I am glad to make your acquaintance. I've long been hoping for an opportunity, and have heard a great deal about you," Kolya muttered, a little breathless.”

— Book Ten, Chapter 4

This places his birth in late October or early November, with early November being the most probable conclusion (since it was explicitly stated). 

SYMBOLISM

Alyosha’s apparent resilience to the cold provides further justification for this conclusion. In his interaction with Kolya, the latter expresses concern about Alyosha’s lack of an overcoat in harsh weather:

"You've no overcoat on in this bitter cold. You see what an egoist I am. Oh, we are all egoists, Karamazov!"

To which Alyosha responds:

"Don't trouble; it is cold, but I don't often catch cold.” — Book Ten, Chapter 4

CONCLUSION

Alyosha, with his rosy cheeks and remarkably good health, might have been born in winter—born into the cold, perhaps as a child who was meant to endure it, always staying warm despite the chill around him. His resilience to catching colds in bitter cold weather seems like another subtle reflection of his winter birth, as though he's in harmony with the season.

Alyosha’s ability to withstand the cold without discomfort reflects his inner strength. Born in the winter months, he is physically attuned to its hardships, just as he is spiritually attuned to enduring suffering without succumbing to bitterness. This aligns with his broader role in the novel: while his brothers struggle with intellectual torment (Ivan) and passionate destruction (Dmitri), Alyosha remains steadfast, embodying warmth and moral clarity in an otherwise bleak world.

It’s as if his spiritual warmth compensates for the harshness of the world around him. His character, like his health, is resilient, even in the coldest moments. It’s a beautifully fitting idea, and the little moments like this one—where Alyosha doesn't complain about the cold, or where his cheeks stay rosy. It’s almost as if he’s always been in tune with the winter, and yet remains unfazed by its bitterness, embodying the warmth of his heart regardless. Just as he does not succumb to the literal cold, he does not succumb to the existential coldness that plagues those around him.

You’re free to expand or argue.

[ghost-in-park]

sometimes i want to write full analyses for all the books i read, but i don't like doing things and letting people see them if they're not going to want to see them.

[areadersuncertaintyprinciple]

Mrs. Dalloway captures the sense of rupture caused by a catastrophic war

Beneath the seemingly mundane surface of a single day in London, Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway paints a haunting portrait of a society fractured by the trauma of World War I. The novel's exploration of this rupture goes beyond explicit references to the battlefields, weaving the threads of displacement and fragmentation into the very fabric of its narrative.

One of the most potent tools Woolf employs is the fragmented narrative structure. The novel leaps between the consciousnesses of various characters, creating a kaleidoscope of thoughts and experiences. This fractured form mirrors the shattered state of post-war society, where traditional structures and expectations lie in ruins, leaving individuals adrift in a world that no longer feels familiar or coherent. Clarissa Dalloway, the novel's central figure, embodies this internal fragmentation. Haunted by the ghosts of a lost past and grappling with the hollowness of her present, her stream-of-consciousness reveals a mind struggling to find meaning in a world irrevocably altered by the war.

The novel's temporal tapestry further underscores the sense of rupture. Flashbacks and shifts in consciousness disrupt the chronological flow of time, creating a feeling of disjointedness and dislocation. This temporal disorientation echoes the profound loss of continuity experienced by those who lived through the war – a past that haunts the present and casts a long shadow on the future.

The contrasting perspectives of the characters further highlight the social ruptures caused by the war. Clarissa, clinging to pre-war values and traditions, represents the privileged upper class desperately trying to maintain a semblance of normalcy. Septimus Warren Smith, a shell-shocked veteran, embodies the trauma and disillusionment borne by those who witnessed the horrors firsthand. This stark juxtaposition reveals the chasm that now separates different segments of society, a consequence of the war's devastating impact.

Woolf's masterful use of the stream-of-consciousness technique allows readers to delve into the characters' raw and unfiltered emotions. Their internal monologues, chaotic and fragmented, mirror the psychological fractures caused by the war. Clarissa's anxieties, Septimus's paranoia – these intimate glimpses into their minds reveal the profound emotional ruptures that lie beneath the surface of everyday life.

Through its fragmented form, disjointed timeline, and contrasting perspectives, Mrs. Dalloway delivers a powerful and multifaceted portrait of a society grappling with the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The novel's exploration of rupture is not merely a historical artifact; it resonates deeply with our own fragmented times, reminding us of the enduring consequences of trauma and the ongoing struggle to find meaning in a world forever changed.

[m-jay-gee]



english teachers truly have too much power over my mental health.

you can only give feedback on coursework for the first draft as a teacher here and theres hardly any edits on my paper except a couple minor mistakes and then a massive paragraph from him at the end that reads:

"A fantastic exploration and comparison of the two texts, [name]. I can only imagine the hard work that has gone into this near faultless draft" first off, i did it all in one night. secondly, NEAR FAULTLESS?!?!?!

"This is intelligent, perceptive and original throughout and reads like a [higher] level piece of literary analysis." omg thanks babe i didnt even re-read the books before i wrote it so i was sorta relying on long term memory

"There are a few minor areas to look back at, but overall, really well done. You should be very proud of this achievement!" wowowow thank you sir you just provided the compliment that will get me through the rest of the year

but fr although i did write it in one night, it was like weeks before the deadline and then a few nights before deadline i looked through it and untypoed it as much as i noticed. i personally feel like 'a bit at a time' method of writing essays doesnt work for me and just ruins the flow of a piece of writing because i have a terrible memory.

[inksociopath]

The preferences and selfishness of the highest commander

——An analysis of ADHP relationship based on original novel only.

It is well known that Albus Dumbledore is the highest commander of the white side of the war campaign against Voldemort. Everyone on the white side took Dumbledore's orders as top priority and right answers, because Dumbledore's instructions "Always turns out to be right" Dumbledore is such a God-like existence in Harry Potter novels: he knows things like god, knows people like god and his magical skills are indisputably the most powerful in the whole series. At various scenes in the book, Harry thought he was in the stratosphere, only to discover he's actually in outer space in the end. Dumbledore's personal abilities are extraordinary, but I believe that while his abilities as a commander were excellent and outstanding, there were some serious and even fatal omissions. Much can be found in a speech he gives in chapter 37 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Lost Prophecy.

The following is an excerpt from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, chapter 37, The Lost Prophecy, in which Harry talked to Dumbledore after Sirius's death when he returned to Hogwarts.

"It is my fault that Sirius died,’ said Dumbledore clearly. ‘Or should I say, almost entirely my fault ——I will not be so arrogant as to claim responsibility for the whole. Sirius was a brave, clever and energetic man, and such men are not usually content to sit at home in hiding while they believe others to be in danger. Nevertheless, you should never have believed for an instant that there was any necessity for you to go to the Department of Mysteries tonight. If I had been open with you, Harry, as I should have been, you would have known a long time ago that Voldemort might try and lure you to the Department of Mysteries, and you would never have been tricked into going there tonight. And Sirius would not have had to come after you. That blame lies with me, and with me alone.’"

Let’s translate what Dumbledore said: It was not Sirius's fault that he disobeyed my orders and went to the Ministry of Magic himself, for he was by nature an energetic man who could not hide at home when believing others were in danger. Nor was it Harry's fault that he had taken it upon himself to run off to the Ministry of Magic, regardless of the consequences, because he was also a man who goes to save people when believing they were in danger. It was my failure to tell Harry that Voldemort might use the link between Voldemort and Harry, and why he was learning Occlumency, that led to this tragedy. Because I am so capable, I should be able to see all the minds of our soldiers, anticipate all your actions, and count in all your recklessness. And I was wrong, which led to Sirius’s dead. This is all my fault.

What a harsh self-requirement.

Later in the chapter, Dumbledore told Harry about the contents of the prophecy: Neither can survive while the other is alive. Most readers have been caught up in the prophecy the first few times they read this chapter, and have missed the rest of Dumbledore's message. But as I listened to the audiobook for the third time in a row, word for word, I noticed how informative Dumbledore's words had been:

‘I cared about you too much,’ said Dumbledore simply. ‘I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.

‘Is there a defence? I defy anyone who has watched you as I have – and I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined – not to want to save you more pain than you had already suffered. What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands.

It can be known from the passage above that Dumbledore cared for Harry far more than he cared for the other White warriors, or the other Hogwarts students. His caring about Harry had blinded him to the interests of the other " nameless and faceless people and creatures ". In fact, in the original books, Dumbledore also came up with many dangerous plans for other soldiers in order to protect Harry. For example, Moody's death and George's loss of an ear were the direct result of the seven Harry's air battle plan, not to mention the fact that Snape was doing dangerous wirewalking every day because of the tasks he was sending him on. Dumbledore cared for Harry as much as a parent would care for his own child, who was more important than anyone else. And this is very unfair to the other white soldiers. Other righteous characters, like Hermione, the Weasleys, Moody, Lupin, Tonks, Sirius, etc., all have sense of justice and virtue no less than Harry's, but Dumbledore, as he himself admits, has favoured Harry over many others. And these omissions, which he himself was aware of, were caused by his caring and loving for Harry, being a "fool who love". If Dumbledore were regarded as a god with flesh, such selfishness and favouritism would not be proper. But in the end, he is still a human being, and a very good and great one.

[annetilney]

Fiction Friday: Van Helsing Prologue

FYI: Since it is a novelization, I'm going to provide information about the movie so that people who haven't seen it can follow along. Of course, there are bound to spoilers. Which means if anyone doesn't want to be spoiled, please read this novel analysis after watching the movie.

That being said, let's dive in.

Prior to the prologue, there is an epigraph:

"The world seems full of good men—even if there are monsters in it."

Dracula by Bram Stoker

This quote comes from Mina Harker in chapter 17. The context of this statement is that Dr. Seward is keeping Mina Harker company as she is listening to the phonograph recordings. So she is regards Seward as someone with good character.

This is even more noteworthy considering the fact that her previous fiance and now husband Jonathan was terrorized by Dracula. Dracula also brought about her friend Lucy's death. All of this tragedy could make anyone regard the world as evil place filled with wicked people.

However Jack's simply act of kindness reminds Mina that there are good people in the world. With this, it gives Mina the hope that good will triumph over evil.

As I could ramble on about Dracula all day, let us focus on the prologue.

Prologue

The prologue starts off with Elizabeth congratulating Victor Frankenstein. Yes, you read that correctly. Even though he briefly appears in the movie, his role is expanded upon in the novelization.

We, the reader, find out that Victor spent years in medical school and switched his area of study from surgery to research. In the next hour will determine Victor's success in getting funding for his research.

Henry is also with Victor to give encouragement. It turns out that Henry is Victor's friend from school. As it turns out, Henry was quite popular with the ladies but Elizabeth only had eyes for Victor.

Victor is nervous but is glad that he has emotional support. As Victor Frankenstein stands on the podium, he is warmly greeted by Professor Waldman. In the past, Victor assisted Professor Waldman in teaching first and second year classes. But more importantly, the professor was his mentor.

The very reason why Victor is standing on the podium is that he is applying for the Goldstadf Fellowship. The fellowship is prestigious.

Should Victor be accepted in the fellowship, it will give him a large grant and the university's resources will be at his disposal. As Professor Waldman introduces Victor to the assembly, it is revealed that Victor graduated top of his class and published articles in medical journals.

Victor sees well-known faces in the fields of medical science such as "surgery, orthopedics, internal medicine, and neurology." Victor then mentions the names of famous people who shaped medicine such as Louis Pasteur, Hippocrates, and Galen.

Afterwards, Victor mentions that his work was inspired by the research of Luigi Galvani. He proposed that a "life force can be manipulated and focused through the careful application of electrical and magnetic forces- that this life force can actually be harnessed to promote health and healing."

This declaration causes some members of the audience shocked while others indignant. Professor Waldman orders everyone to be quiet. Still, some people are still talking amongst themselves.

Victor Frankenstein is aware that what he is proposing is revolutionary but counters:

"However, is it really any more revolutionary than Pasteur's work? He introduced us to an invisible world of microscopic organisms. Is it so hard to believe that there is even more we do not know, even more that we do not see?"

This prompts someone from the audience to heckle Frankenstein asking him if there is "a magic ray that will heal a broken limb, close a wound, clear a body of disease?"

He responds by saying "No more magic than sulfur powder."

Then another person derides Frankenstein by asking "[...]if you applied enough of this 'life force' to Galvani's dead frog? Are you saying it could get up and hop away?"

Victor responds with "Theoretically, yes, but-"

Half of the room erupts with laughter while the other with scorn. One even yells "Blasphemy!"

Victor Frankenstein retorts "No, not blasphemy! Science!"

The room erupts into chaos but Professor Waldman shouted and "order was restored".

After the auditorium is quiet, Victor asks for everyone to read his research which is in a folder given to everyone in the audience. After surveying the crowd, he sees only blank faces. Even though it will take weeks to recieve a formal response for his application, Victor already knows what "that reply would be."

After Victor thanks everyone for their time, his thoughts are: "He had failed his work ... he had failed himself, and . . . and, worst of all, he had failed Elizabeth."

Victor Frankenstein hears the "disapproving voices" of his colleagues as he leaves the auditorium.

For this distinguished group, it was the equivalent of catcalls and the hurling of fruit and vegetables.

Uh "catcalls"?

There are two definitions.

1) An individual shouting, whistling, or making a sexually suggestive comment at someone publicly. (For instance, a group of guys whistling at a lady walking down the street)

2) An individual making a loud cry or noise to express disapproval at a public event (For instance, someone yelling at a sporting event or a theater)

In conclusion?

While the word choice isn't wrong, many people including myself, associate "catcalls" with the first rather than the second definition.

Professor Waldman approaches Victor Frankenstein in the hallway and asks if he is all right. Victor replies that he's feeling fine but "it would appear that my career is over."

Waldman shakes his head and then offers that they can work together as there is "a great deal we can do together."

Victor muses that Waldman's research is "good science" as it produced "new procedures, new techniques." Yet Victor can't shake the feeling that it would be "a waste of time" compared to what he "could be accomplishing."

Victor knows that in a decade, his work on life force could "advance medicine than the last  two thousand years of study" and "dwarf what Waldman had done in his entire career.

Perhaps it was arrogant and prideful of him to think it. But it was also true.

Honestly? I love the idea that Victor Frankenstein being prone to arrogance. It's a great character flaw.

Victor politely declines to which Waldman "studied him for a minute."

Waldman urges Victor to "please promise  me that you will at least consider my offer". He then reminds Victor that today was "merely a setback" and "do not let it consume you.

Victor only nods his head. The professor walks away as Henry and Elizabeth approach.

Four weeks later, Victor returned to his family home in Romania. After promising Elizabeth a vacation, they go on a trip. However, Victor's mind is elsewhere. Yet Elizabeth notices this.

Victor Frankenstein is unable to relax in the "beautiful rented villa on  the Seine." The reason for his anxiety? Victor does not think he is being fair to Elizabeth "given his new professional circumstances."

After a few days, Victor has a serious talk with his fiancee. He tells her that "I want...I need to continue my work, on my own if I have to." Victor then says that he can set up a lap in his house and even though it won't have "the staff or advantages of the university,  but it's a start." 

We, the reader find out that Victor's family had some money but "their fortunes were not what they once were."

Elizabeth replies that she understands. But Victor is not sure. He informs Elizabeth that it will take "some  time before my work will bring results."

The reader is told that science "depended on experiments, data, and reproducible results." Also, years will be spent working with animals and how Victor must "make do with the equipment he could afford."

Victor adds that it will be "some time before I will have achieved anything substantial and how for the time being he will be "the laughingstock."

Elizabeth assures Victor that "none of that matters to me" and that she loves him. And before Victor can interrupt, Elizabeth informs him that "If you think that I will allow this little setback to delay our life together, you are very mistaken, Dr. Victor Frankenstein. I mean to marry you and I do not mean to wait."

Victor tells her that he can't offer her much. To which Elizabeth replies that she only wants him and she won't be stopped by "money or the Goldstadf Fellowship board or anything else."

Victor responds that they "wouldn't have much to start". Yet this doesn't phase Elizabeth. She offers to assist Victor in his research and assures him that they will "have everything we need."

These words elevate Victor's spirit. It gives him hope "not only for his work, but for his life with Elizabeth."

Now content, Victor returns to his family home with Elizabeth. In the evening, Victor finally unpacked from the trip and "attended to his responsibilities as master of the house."

Victor decides to forgo responding to the large pile of correspondence. Instead, Victor is sitting at his desk and makes notes of what he will need in order to continue with his research. The thought of Elizabeth making plans for the wedding causes Victor to smile. He then thinks: Yes, together they could accomplish quite a bit.

Later on, Gerald the butler arrives. He informs Victor that someone is at the door. That person being? Count Dracula.

Gerald asked Dracula to return in the morning. But Dracula insisted that he speak with Victor. Gerald apologies since "the hour is quite indecent."

Victor Frankenstein muses that "it was unusual."

He had heard of a Count Dracula, but this could not be that Dracula.

Very interesting. This indicates that Dracula is renowned.

In the movie, it gives the impression that aside Victor Frankenstein and the Transylvanian villagers, the Knights of the Holy Order are the only other people aware of Dracula's existence.

Anyway, Gerald is distressed. Yet Victor tells him that it is okay and asks to see "our guest." They enter the foyer but no one is there. So Victor gives Gerald a look.

Gerald explains that Dracula didn't leave the premises but he would not enter the house. Victor's curiosity is piqued. He sees Dracula standing in the entryway.

Dracula is dressed in black military clothes. He also has long black hair fastened into a ponytail and has a single golden hoop earring in his left ear. Victor is aware that Count Dracula is nobility but he has never heard of "an aristocrat who wore an earring."

Throughout history, earrings were commonly worn by men and women. Depending on the time period, it has fallen out of favor or it is fashionable. Anyway, that's the end for today's random tidbit.

Anyway, Victor regards the count's physical appearance as "striking." Victor Frankenstein estimates that Count Dracula is "perhaps thirty." Which means Dracula is "a little older" than Frankenstein.

Victor Frankenstein notes that there is "something odd about his eyes" and how they were "much older" than Dracula's face. Victor finds himself "drawn to those eyes."

Dracula's eyes are described as being "electric, intense" and perhaps "warm". Yet he dismisses the Count's expression as being only "very interested."

Anyway, Victor Frankenstein suddenly realizes that he was starting at the Count. Victor shakes his head. Victor then offers his hand and says "Count Dracula, I presume."

Count Dracula nods his head and tells Victor that "It is a true pleasure to meet you."

Victor asks why Count Dracula is waiting outside. Dracula explains that he "would not presume to enter without an invitation from the master of the house. Particularly at this indecent hour." He then peers at Gerald.

Victor "had the feeling" that Dracula overheard their conversation. Yet he quickly dismisses it as being "impossible". Meanwhile, Gerald is "unnerved" by the Count's gaze.

It is revealed that Gerald was the family butler since Victor was a boy. Victor then recollects that he never seen Gerald "as uncomfortable as now."

After what must feel like an eternity, Victor breaks the silence. He invites Dracula in. As Dracula enters the threshold, Victor feels a chill. Yet he disregards it as nothing more than "a cool evening breeze."

Victor then offers the Count a brandy. Dracula agrees and then thanks him. This prompts Gerald to leave them in order to fetch the brandy.

Victor then escorts Dracula to the library filled with many books and a roaring fire. Dracula apologies for his arrival being "a surprise." Again, Count Dracula apologies for "the lateness of the hour."

Meanwhile, Victor is trying to identify the Count's accent. He deduces that although the Romanian "was fluent", it had "a trace of something else."

Unable to place the accent, Victor assures the Count Dracula that it is "Quite all right." Dracula says that sometime ago, he sent Victor a letter. The contents announced Dracula's "impeding visit".

Victor Frankenstein informs the Count that he has been traveling and he didn't get a chance to read the letter.

At that very moment, Gerald enters the room. He then fills the glasses with brandy. Once the glasses are handed out, Victor proceeds to raise his glass to his guest and say "Cheers."

Count Dracula returns the gesture but never takes a sip. He then puts the glass down. Dracula says it is not his intention to "be rude, but perhaps later."

Victor notes this as being "odd". Yet upon deliberation, he thinks the same could be said for "an aristocrat show up at one's door after ten in the evening."

Victor Frankenstein proceeds to ask what he can do for the Count. This causes Dracula to smile. Yet the gesture was "joyless" and Count Dracula's eyes are "now boring into Victor."

Victor Frankenstein finds himself frightened. However, the feeling passed. Victor chides himself for "being silly". After all, the Count has only been courteous. Why should Victor be scared of his guest?

Dracula reveals that he is intrigued by Victor Frankenstein's work. He heard about the presentation and even obtained a "copy of your Goldstadf Fellowship application materials."

This caused Victor to stare at the Count looking "for a hint of irony or mockery." The reason being? So far the only individuals who inquired about his research were journalists "who wanted to ridicule him."

As far as Victor can tell, Count Dracula is sincere. Yet a part of him remains skeptical.

Dracula assures Victor that he is "quite serious." The Count then reveals that from time to time he has been "a benefactor of scientific research". His reason for visiting Frankenstein is that he is offering him a grant.

In addition, Count Dracula tells Victor that "your work could be very important and that he has "significant means".

Dracula's gaze makes Victor both "nervous and giddy with excitement."

Count Dracula remarks that if Victor's force could "be harnessed, the results for mankind could be revolutionary."

At this very moment, Victor Frankenstein is unable to conceal his pleasure. He is also surprised. After all, he has "been alone" in his "enthusiasm."

This prompts the Count to offer Victor support and friendship. That way, Victor can take his "place among Hippocrates, Pasteur, and the giants of medicine."

Once again, Dracula's eyes are described as being "magnetic." They make Victor Frankenstein believe Dracula's offer of "brotherhood and support."

Victor proceeds to regard Dracula as "his only friend." Victor quickly reminds himself that is "not true."

After all, Henry is his best friend. And then there is Elizabeth. She is not only a friend but his fiancée.

Victor Frankenstein has to remind himself that he "only just met Dracula." Then, an image of Elizabeth's sincerity entered into Victor's. Yet for inexplicable reason, he became "uncomfortable thinking of her" in Dracula's presence.

Victor Frankenstein then briefly had an "uncanny feeling" that Dracula opened "a window into his mind."

Count Dracula offers Victor Frankenstein a laboratory filled with new equipment along with anything "require[d] to speed your research."

To which Victor is taken back by such a generous proposal. He informs the Count "that is a large order."

After all, the cost for the equipment would be "considerable" since it would need to be designed and built to exact specifications. This is why Victor approached the university.

Picking up on Victor Frankenstein's trepidation, Count Dracula assures that his "means are considerable" and whatever is needed, he shall provide.

He then tells Frankenstein to think of what they "can accomplish together!"

Before leaving, Dracula tells Victor to make a list of everything that is required in order to continue with the research. The Count also informs Victor that he will return tomorrow evening to "discuss the matter further."

Assuming that such a proposal is "acceptable."

Victor Frankenstein walked Count Dracula to the front door. Before wishing him a good night, Victor thanks Dracula for his support.

The Count merely nodded and shook Frankenstein's hand. After the handshake, Victor notices that Count Dracula's hand felt cold. Before leaving, Dracula looks at Victor Frankenstein "once more in the eye."

After the Count disappears, Victor Frankenstein feels dizzy. He can't help but to wonder if this encounter was only a dream. Victor's pondering is interrupted by Gerald.

Gerald asks if the visitor has left. Victor responds yes and him "That will be all for the night." This prompts Gerald to leave.

Victor is relieved that "it wasn't a dream" and regards the Count as being "the answer to his prayers." He then thinks "I'm lucky to have a friend like him."

Victor had to remind himself that he just met the Count. After all, they are "just acquaintances, not friends."

Victor Frankenstein is too excited to sleep. So, Victor returns to his office and resumes working. He makes a note to "cancel his plans with Elizabeth for tomorrow" in order to work through the day uninterrupted.

What's Victor's motivation? You may ask. Since Dracula is offering him "the opportunity of a lifetime", Victor feels he should "be ready for their next meeting."

Victor feels "a rush of hope" as "the whole world will know the name Frankenstein." Yet something is persistently nagging him and it is "something odd." It finally dawns on what it is.

Aside from Dracula arriving at "the dead of night", no coach or horse was seen in "the drive."

Final Thoughts

Honestly? Having Dracula be a patron of science is good decision. This explains how Dracula and Frankenstein ended up working together. In the movie, this was never explained.

In Dracula, Professor Van Helsing explains that Dracula attended Scholomance (a legendary school for black magic run by the Devil) where Count Dracula attended and there was no "branch of knowledge of his time" that he did not study. I'm not sure if this is an intentional nod to Dracula since many people have not read the novel.

It is important to note that this entire prologue is not depicted in the film. (I'm not sure if this was from a deleted scene or created for the novelization. Perhaps in the DVD commentary will shed some light on this matter). Anyway, this chapter didn't feel like filler.

We, the reader, saw why Victor Frankenstein agreed to work with Dracula. The movie can give some people the impression that Victor is naive for trusting Dracula. Yet this shows Dracula manipulating Frankenstein through hypnosis.

All in all, this was a good chapter.

[alexmitas]

Why I’m Just Like Crime & Punishment’s Raskolnikov and so Are You: A Brief Analysis of Dostoevsky’s Most Famous Novel

Just last night I finished Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. After mulling it over for a day (likely not nearly long enough to have substantiated a complete analysis, but with my memory I risk forgetting things if I move on to another book before writing about one that I’ve just finished), I’ve decided to get some of my thoughts down. Firstly, I will say that I am struck. While I’m clearly neither the first nor last person to be amazed by this novel, a work as significant as this one still deserves its praise where it’s due. People will often preface praise based on their interpretation of a creative endeavor by stating that its imperfection is obvious, even though that it’s also the best-est or their favorite, or one of the best-est or their favorite creative works that they have ever encountered, or something of the sort. I won’t be so bold to as to make that statement. That’s because, without a doubt, this was a perfect novel. After all, if something is so close to approaching a spade, by all reasonable measures, and only becomes better and better, and more and more like a spade, with age, then why not call it a spade?

Since the beginning I had a certain kind of resonance with Raskolnikov, the novel’s main character. But just as you can’t fully judge a story unless you consider it as a single, coherent piece (that is, until you have read from beginning to end), so too did I not understand the reason for my resonance with Raskolnikov until I finished reading his full tale. He’s young, he’s handsome, he’s intelligent: check, check, check; these things all apply to me, at least to some minor degree - that much was obvious from the very beginning - but while this superficial resonance was my first impression upon dining, it paled in comparison to the impression I had after the final bite of desert; to say nothing of the pleasant after dinner conversation among friends, the latter of which, of course, I use as a metaphor for the epilogue[1]. Every flaw I see in Raskolnikov, I also see in myself; for every action he takes, I can imagine a world in which I could be drawn down a path that would lead me to make the very same decisions, and to take the very same actions. I don’t know what could possibly be a better model than that for a main character.

Perhaps Raskolnikov’s biggest flaw is his overinflated ego, which is hardly out of the ordinary for someone his age, and isn’t entirely unjustified - as I said, he has three of the most promising traits one could hope for: intelligence, youth, and good-looks – but which does, in his case, lead him down an ideological rabbit hole of naivete, a hole which he creates for himself by dropping out of school, refusing work when it’s offered to him, and letting his resentment for the world grow as he lives off of a handful of meager sums sent to him by his mother and sister as a debt ridden fool in a poor Russian city during the eighteen-hundreds. This ideological thinking, which we shall not confuse with illogical thinking, for it is very much logical, brings Raskolnikov to the thought that, yes, it would in fact be a good idea to murder and rob the wealthy old pawnbroker whom is commonly considered amongst his peers as a mean-ol’ crone, holder of many a promissory note, rumored to have left her wealth to the building of a statue in her image through her will, rather than to her own children, whilst also being a generally unsightly and disagreeable woman, and, having done this, could aim to put her money to a more just cause, perhaps distributing it to others, or perhaps using it to further his own career which he would certainly payback in the form of greater value to society later on. And it isn’t such a crazy sounding idea, is it? After all, what is but one crime if the outcome provides a much greater net good? I’ve known many people, including myself, who’ve had thoughts not so unlike this one, and I suspect you are no different, dear reader. So having rationalized this to himself, Raskolnikov goes through with it, and thereby provides us a story of his Crime, which occupies only about one-fifth of the length of the novel, and his Punishment, which nearly occupies the novel’s entirety; with these proportions themselves giving us an idea of the many-fold burden of consequences for actions, as well as foreshadowing what is to come. And this rationalization runs deep. It isn’t until later, that we learn of truer reasons for Raskolnikov’s action, beginning with the discovery of an article he was able to have published while still enrolled in school, and ending with a true confession of his deepest motives to Sonya, to be discussed later.

This article that he wrote sometime before the crime, “On Crime,” reveals deeper rationale for his decision to commit the murder: and that is that he does it as a way to become something more than he is; to break down the cultural and religious structures around him, and more than that to supersede them; to rise above his fellow man as a type of “superman” or Napoleon, as he puts it, becoming someone who is able to “step over” the line which divides who is ordinary and who is great, a line that’s substance consists of rules for the hoi polloi only; ultimately inferring this idea – which, from what I understand was prevalent in Russia during the mid 1800’s – that the best way to view the world is through the lens of nihilism, which employs utilitarianism – the tenet which proposes that actions should be considered just insofar as they help the greatest number of people overall, and where acts of evil may be balanced properly, without the need for consequence, in the face of equal or greater acts of righteousness, especially if that person can prove themselves of some sort of higher value – as a central axiom. Pulling back to a macroscopic view of the novel, this sense that Dostoevsky had to instill within his characters arguments for what at the time was – and still in some sense very well are – contemporary issues, and eternal ideological and philosophical battlegrounds, rather than thrusting his own opinions through the narrator, is something I found to be brilliant and endearing, not only for the sake of keeping the author’s own bias more subdued than would otherwise be the case, but also just as a means to see what happens; to let the characters in the story have the fight, leaving both author and reader alike to extrapolate what hypotheses or conclusions they may as a consequence. In this regard, other characters – including Raskolnikov’s friend, Razumikhin, and state magistrate, Porfiry Petrovich – have the chance to debate with the nihilistic ideology of Raskolnikov after interacting with “On Crime.” This provides depth to contemporary discourse, without reeking of contrivance, and also allows us to see Raskolnikov argue for himself also, even though what he, ‘himself’, stands for is ultimately not clear; not for the reader but also seemingly not for Raskolnikov, as even after deciding to commit the crime, Raskolnikov’s opinion on whether or not it was a just event osculates frequently throughout the novel. It is this osculation, in fact, which constitutes most of Raskolnikov’s early punishment and suffering, as even though it appears as if Raskolnikov has managed to get away with the crime in the domain of the broader world[2], his conscious will not allow such an event to be swept under the rug, or even allow Raskolnikov to continue to live his life unhindered by spiritual corruption, mental destabilization, or physical trauma – all three of which plague him constantly both during his initial contemplations and later fulfillment of the crime. Ultimately, these ideological battles and inward rationalizations do not provide Raskolnikov with the accurate prognostication needed to foretell the outcome of his own state of being after committing such an act; and thereby lies Raskolnikov’s fatal flaw, derived from his arrogance and naivete, where he is left blinded by an ideology which never fulfills its promise of return. Oh, but if only he had a predilection for listening to the great prognosticator within him, his conscious, which, despite his waking thoughts, was calling out to him in the form of dreams.

In what is one of several dream sequences observed by characters in the novel, Raskolnikov dreams himself a young spectator, holding the hand of his father, as the two of them watch a group of misfit boys pile into a carriage. The carriage master, no more than a youthful fool, whips a single mare solely responsible for pulling the carriage. Overburdened and unable to do more than struggle forward at a pathetic pace, the mare whimpers and suffers visibly as the cruel and drunken carriage master orders it to trudge on, whipping it forcefully, all the while calling for any and everyone around the town to pile into the carriage. Laughing and screaming hysterically, the carriage master turns brutal task master when he begins to beat the mare repeatedly after with much effort the beast finally collapses to the ground in exhaustion. Horrifically, a handful of other people from the crowd and the carriage find their own whips and join in on the beating of the poor mare until it finally dies. Young Raskolnikov, having witnessed this event in its entirety, rushes to the mare after its brutal death, kisses it, then turns to the carriage master brandishing his fists before he is stopped by his father. This is the reader’s first warning of the brutality to come, and had Raskolnikov payed heed to what his conscious was trying to communicate to him in his dream, he may have noticed, as we as readers do, that the reaction the young Raskolnikov had to the barbaric murder of the mare very much predicted what Raskolnikov’s ultimate reaction to his then theoretical crime would be – regret; and, therefore, repentance. A second dream of Raskolnikov’s, which very much enforces this idea, pits Raskolnikov in the act of once again murdering Alyona, except this time, when he strikes her atop the head with the same axe, she simply brandishes a smile and laughs uncontrollably instead of falling over dead. This all but confirms Raskolnikov’s suspicions to himself, as his subconscious relays his foolish inadequacy, as a man who thought that he could elevate himself above others by “stepping over” the moral boundaries all of his societal peers abide by (and for good reason). Again, through this tendency that he has to stubbornly ignore his conscious, I find Raskolnikov eminently relatable, to some degree, and it is no wonder: it is a rare individual who finds obeying their conscious to be anything but onerous (then again, perhaps this is only most common in individuals who are still relatively young and naïve, a trait which I share with Raskolnikov, but one in which you may not, dear reader; but I digress). Of course, just because a task is onerous, does not mean that it is impossible. The characters which have been placed around Raskolnikov, and specifically the ones which serve as foils to his character, provide examples of contrast with individuals who at the very least are able to combat the compelling desire that we all have to ignore our consciouses. The three most blatant examples of foils for Raskolnikov are his sister, Dunya, his best friend, Razumikhin, and his eventual wife, Sonya Marmeladov.

The first example of this contrast apparent to the reader is in the character Razumikhin. Razumikhin is also a student living within the same city as Raskolnikov. Unlike Raskolnikov, however, he has not bailed out of university for financial necessity nor wanton of a grand ideological narrative. There is also no reason to believe he has more financial support than Raskolnikov, as he also appears to be poor with no hint of endowment, instead supporting himself through the meager-paying work of translating for a small publisher. And while Razumikhin is even more naïve than Raskolnikov – having never once suspected Raskolnikov of so much as a dash of malevolence – he lacks the same venomous arrogance, whilst showing no signs of lower intelligence. Dunya, Raskolnikov’s sister, provides another example of similar contrast. This is because, as his sister, and, again, with no reason to believe that she is any more or less intelligent or attractive than her brother, Dunya comes from the same upbringing, whilst holds no apparent resentment towards the world around her. Even when she is given the choice to harm someone else – when she finds herself on the side of a gun pointing at a man who has locked her inside of a room against her will (arguably giving her a modicum of a reason to kill another, depending on one’s own stance on morality) – she is unable to do it, instead casting her tool with which to do so aside and letting fate take care of the rest[3]. Lastly, and this may be the most apparent example, presenting what may be Raskolnikov’s true foil, we have dearest Sonya, stepdaughter of the Marmeladovs. Sonya, who in the face of two useless parents, takes it upon herself to prostitute herself so that her family, including three young siblings, may eat, makes Raskolnikov look privileged and morally woeful in comparison. Recognizing this himself, Raskolnikov does his best to look out for Sonya, in what is perhaps his most genuine form of empathy. Despite this – or perhaps, in fact, in spite of this; for early on Raskolnikov identifies Sonya as the sole individual whom may be able to help him redeem himself – Raskolnikov obsessively pushes Sonya to read a verse from the bible involving the story of Lazarus, as a redemption for himself, but also for Sonya, projecting as he does his misdeeds unto her and equating his murderous acts with her soiling of her sexuality for the sake of providing for her family. The story of Lazarus is a story which promises resurrection of the individual as Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus from the dead. In this way, Raskolnikov probes, a part of him reaching out ever fervently for the means of the rebirth of his soul, despite his hitherto forthright determination to escape his guilt and conviction, looking for proof of Sonya’s moral purity, which he already suspects, despite his accusations, to which she responds by admitting herself a sinner, asking God for forgiveness, and later by bestowing upon Raskolnikov one of her two precious necklace and crosses. And it is in a kindred vein to these three examples of contrast in which the final contrast is made in small part by every character in the novel; for in some sense this novel represents the journey of one man as he isolates himself from a community he loathes to subordinate himself to; of a man who wishes to supersede his place in the world and become a “superman”; of a man who places his individual ideology above the morality of his peers; and it is in this way that the ordinary character, subservient to religion, provides contrast for the atheist who mocks them, not with critique, but with arrogance.

…

…And that ought to be enough for now.

TLDR: 10/10 would recommend.

Thanks for reading,

- Alex      

[1] The epilogue, from what I’ve observed from others’ critiques, seems to be controversial in that some believe the novel stands alone better without it. It is not until the epilogue – well into the sentence of punishment by the state for his crimes – that Raskolnikov finally gives up his idea that, essentially, ‘the only thing he did wrong was improperly rob the old lady and to then fall emotionally and mentally apart afterwards’; where, too, he finally gives up his last bit of arrogance and outward loathing for the world and his circumstances, and accepts responsibility for his actions, likely brought on by the outwardly visible sacrifices made by his then wife, Sonya, who he looks to for repentance. However, critics argue that without the epilogue, we would simply be left to assume on our own that Raskolnikov finally gave in to repentance when the novel ended with his confession, and that that would be preferable to what is otherwise a heavy-handed ending, condensed as it is compared to the rest of the novel. This would make sense and likely be fitting enough of an ending. However, in defense of the epilogue, without it, a reader’s main takeaway from the story might be only, ‘do not underestimate how much opposing your conscious will degenerate your soul,’ while with the epilogue, the takeaway is more likely to also include something along the lines of, ‘beware denigrating religion and the multitude of cultures which it has produced, for without the ability to hold yourself accountable for your own deeds and also to be redeemed, there is nothing standing between you and self-destruction and misery, to say nothing of the destruction and misery of those around you,’ which of course is realized by the death of Raskolnikov’s mother as well as the sickening of himself and his wife, as a consequence of his refusal to actually accept his punishment and repent even after his confession (which without acceptance of responsibility is still only a selfish act), outlined in the two chapters proceeding the end of the novel. So if I’d had the genius necessary to write this story, I’d also have looked to include an epilogue to ensure that the totality of my characters’ lessons would also be realized by the reader, for whatever that’s worth.  

[2] While Raskolnikov does seem to commit the crime of murder and robbery without getting caught, this does not mean that things go according to plan; in fact, far from it: while Raskolnikov manages to murder Alyona, he very poorly robs her – leaving behind a large bundle of cash she had under her bed, which he missed due to his state of unanticipated frenzy. He also ends up killing Alyona’s younger sister, Lizaveta, when she arrives immediately following the murder, in an act of pure self-perseverance, which just goes to show: when you take the fate of the world into your own hands, when you ‘step over’ the boundaries that your culture (or God; whichever) has deemed should not be crossed – when you arrogantly and naively take the fabric and truth of the universe into your own hands – you do not know what it is you are doing; you do not know what the consequences of your actions will be. It isn’t made clear the degree to which the killing of Lizaveta changed the outcome for Raskolnikov’s soul. Perhaps committing one crime constitutes the same moral weight as committing two crimes simultaneously, but also perhaps it was everything; the one factor unaccounted for which destroyed his evaluation of just outcomes and, having done so, his resolve.

[3] Here is a specific instance in which Dostoevsky’s propensity to pit ideas against each other in the form of characters playing out their practicalities in a real-world context comes to bear. This specific battle, represented by the juxtaposition of the aforementioned scene with Raskolnikov’s murdering of the two women, pits morality against ideology, while leaving a clear winner: for it is one which leads to the eradication of two lives and the degradation of more than one soul, and it is another which leads to the absolution of a dangerous conflict. These two specifically – morality and ideology – clash frequently during the novel’s entirety, with morality often taking its microcosmic form of religion.

[marumafan]

Hi! I’ve been reading your KKM analyses, and I absolutely love them, most especially the YUURAM ones! Can you do some detailed ones on Love Letters and Crossheart too? Please, please?!

Hi @celinelean​!

Of course! I'm having a day and may not be drawing, so why not?

Also to everyone who likes analyses/discussions, you can always leave some questions/requests in my mailbox if there's anything you're interested in. I'll try my best.

----------------------------------------------------------

Love Letter

"Love Letter" was Takabayashi-sensei's first new short story in about 6 years. The first part features Yuuri and Wolfram writing sweet stuff about one another.

The excuse of being 'from Greta's point of view for her homework' gave them both the excuse to express their true feelings.

(Now a cultural point here: The more I live in Japan the more I notice people never tell you the truth about anything. They either don't say anything and let you know 'in some way' or you never find out. A fan of maruma I once met, who could speak English, thanked me for continuing to talk about a topic even after we had disagreed at some point about something. She said people who disagree in Japan simply drop the topic XDD . True story. XD They avoid talking about 'truths' in general. So I feel like this whole keeping your true feelings hidden is a very Japanese thing (which is the target audience for maruma, don't forget). So in this story, both Yuuri and Wolf can express their feelings for one another.)

As for the things they like about each other:

The first thing Yuuri sees that Wolf has written in the cards was some compliment about his awesome black hair. But when Yuuri asks if he should write about Wolf's appearance "How good looking he is" " How his green eyes are like gemstones", "How even his eyelashes are blonde", Wolf's like "Of course not, that's not something Greta cares about".  (Wolfie, never change. XD)

Wolf also writes: "How well he gets along with his spouse" which really shows along with his entire demeanor during this story, that even though there's no official title, he really thinks of himself as already married to Yuuri.

Yuuri then writes:  "He never abandons his PARTNER" Again, this is a word you use for people you're romantically involved with, but in a more 'earthly' slang. This reminded me of the Seisa arc when, during the bed scene, Yuuri mentions how happy he is to have Wolf there.

He writes another 12 good things about Wolfram, and he mentions that "his left cheek was hot due to the flames of the fire" , implying his right cheek was blushed due to what he was writing. So he's putting in there things that make him blush.

Yuuri asks then if they will get these cards back, and Wolfram assures him that yes they will. Yuuri:"So that we can read them many times and remember how much Greta likes us."

Wolfram: "Of course"

Meaning: Yuuri:  "So that I can read many times all the wonderful things you really think about me?" Wolf: "Of course"

However, Yuuri tells Wolf about the futility of having the cards, when you have the other person right there living with you. Yuuri says" Even without something like this, I'm sure that the feelings would be conveyed, "  (XDD see this is what I'm talking about! This Japanese mentality of ‘expressing in some way without words’ what you feel)

BUT! this is when Wolf says that in that case, the cards would be more useful to remember people who live apart from you.

So Yuuri's 20th thing he likes about Wolfram is " He tells me things straight to the point".

This means, it's Wolfram who pretty much tells Yuuri to go visit Conrad and have him write stuff about him, cuz he's not living in the castle and so that Yuuri won't miss him.

Wolfram asks if Yuuri's going out. Yuuri says yes. Wolfram's last card says: How honest he is. Yuuri's last card says: How kind he is.

And I mean, damn! If this isn't yuuram af, I don't know what is.

Second part is what was introduced in the first part, Yuuri goes to visit Conrad, he's living above Jozak's bar in a cold, dirty room. And Conrad writes and gives him the card about Yuuri, and it 'warms Yuuri's heart'.

-----------------------------------------------

Comments on Love Letter: I used to think this was a lot more conyuu than it is, but re-reading it and seeing that it was all Wolfram's idea to begin with (and Yuuri knows it was Wolfram's idea), it really shows that strong relationship between Wolfram and Yuuri and includes Conrad's current situation (not living in the castle) as a trigger for getting in a little conyuu in the story and making those fans happy.

You see this 'conyuu afterthought to please the fans' in the first two stories she wrote after the break "Love Letter" and "Lame star Wars". After that, they're all yuuram centric stories. And before the break, they were very much so as well.

It's very clear in everything Takabayashi sensei writes, that she really likes her main couple, and had always planned for them to end up together.

------------------------------------------------

Crossheart 

This is an older story (2010ish), even if it was only published as an extra for the omnibus release in July 2013, and it was also used as part of drama cd 70 released in January 2013. But the contents of this story are the origin of another story published in 2011, so it must have been written before that. (EDIT: I found the original information at Ray Clover: CROSSHEART IS FROM APRIL 2006! (file: asuka1302). It was published as a mobile story, and republished as an extra in the omnibus re-release! )

The title: Although it could be a combination of crossword and heart, like hearts crossing/intertwining; or crossword and the last word of the puzzle" kokoro->heart",   I like to think that sensei, knowing a bit of English based it on the phrase: "Cross my heart and hope to die"; as in 'a promise' -> which is the topic of this story. 

Then the intro line starts with "That day, there was a strong wind blowing since morning, so I couldn't really go outside."  This line, much like the title of novel 4, has the concept of 'wind blowing' that makes reference to the proverb 「明日は明日の風が吹く」`Ashita ha ashita no kaze ga fuku'. Tomorrow, tomorrow's wind will blow. Which means something like "there's no point in thinking ahead" or "What comes next is up to life". Whenever sensei writes that enigmatic first line, it usually carries a lot of meaning and foreshadows what is to come.

The story starts with Yuuri and Wolfram alone at the office. Some event is taking place and everyone but them is busy. Yuuri is doing a crossword and struggling. Wolfram finally gets closer to see what's bothering him.

The first hint for the crossword, is 'a pet name for children'. Wolfram then remembers his mother used to call him Honey-chan (Hachimitsu chan). Yuuri immediately likes the name and says "Maybe I too will start calling you that from now on, honey-chan."

(Additional info: In MisePan2, 2011, Wolfram gets angry at being called honey-chan, because "Yuuri is younger than him" so he has no right to call him something that older people call younger people. Clearly, "Crossheart" where Yuuri discovers Wolfram's pet name comes chronologically before Misepan2. So we can pinpoint that Crossheart was written before 2011, maybe it was even a failed attempt at Misepan2. Misepan 2 came out with the last DVD box, which was delayed a year due to circumstances with Takabayashi sensei. We know this because in the afterword of Misepan2 , the author says: "I really can't apologize enough for this.... I honestly apologize to all of you for keeping you waiting. I'm really sorry for the inconveniences I caused to all the parties I kept waiting for this." So sensei apologizes and blames herself for the delay of the last DVD box. This might have been due to her health issues, which she only mentioned once, in 2010. EDIT: I found the original information at Ray Clover: CROSSHEART IS FROM APRIL 2006! (file: asuka1302). It was published as a mobile story, and republished as an extra in the omnibus re-release!)

The second hint for his crossword was the name of a famous mouse, so of course Yuuri is thinking Micky, since the last letters are cky. But it turns out to be "Rocky" a famous mouse character. So there's a legend that small animals, like mice, squirls, rabbits and even birds can see spirits. And this particular mouse is said to deliver messages from the dead to their families.

This triggers Yuuri to ask a question to Wolf: "What would you do, if I never returned?". Wolfram asks him to clarify what he meant. And Yuuri asks: Would you cry? To which Wolf says: I wouldn't. At first Yuuri is a little hurt by the cold answer, like you wouldn't miss me? But Wolfram explains, of course he'd miss Yuuri but he wouldn't cry. Because if he did, Yuuri wouldn't be able to live a happy life back on earth. Wolfram's promise of not crying so Yuuri could be happy, left Yuuri speechless and then he noticed the word that was formed vertically in the crossword.

The hint for that word: "What you use to share your feelings with your partner."

The word is never specifically said, but in the drama cd it's "ko-ko-ro" -> heart. Which would also circle back to the "heart" in crossheart.

------------------------------------------------

Comment on Crossheart:  This story as well as its natural continuation, Misepan2, are very yuuram oriented.  Do you want an exorcism, another contemporary story of these two, is also largely yuuram. And the same goes for all of sensei’s work including the very last doujinshi. 

I also want to point out the pet name she chose: Hachimitsuchan. Again, I may be over reaching, but she has enough English knowledge to know “Honey” is something you call children AND your significant other. The fact that Wolfram eventually gets angry at it, adds to the comedy of errors, which is one of the underlying tropes in maruma. Yuuri’s sweet words are generally misinterpreted by Wolfram.

I've been saying this for years. Takabayashi-sensei has liked this couple from the very beginning and has been building their relationship for novels on end. Every story she's written, shows them happy and together. The very last one even has them married with Wolfram wondering if Yuuri would want more 'wives' (as in, what about the other ships?) and Yuuri assuring Wolf he only wants him (no other ships are sailing from this port).

People who ship Yuuri with other characters aren't basing themselves on novel canon, which is fine, of course! But the novel canon is yuuram. Note: I use yuuram as a word to denote the relationship between Yuuri and Wolfram, also because it’s shorter than royal couple. I’m NOT talking about ‘who’s top’ in the relationship. I feel like this whole ‘top’ bottom’ talk is so 90s, we should get over it, much like Takabayashi-sensei herself has expressed she doesn’t care about that whole ‘top’ ‘bottom’ thing.