More handpicked essays just for you.
Crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
Crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
Crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Crime and punishment characters by dostoyevsky
In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov concocts a theory: All men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’. The extraordinary man should have the right to eliminate a few people in order to make his idea known to all humanity; however, the ordinary man has no right to transgress the law. Because he believes this theory is an idea that must be known to all humanity, he considers himself extraordinary; however, there is a legion of events that prove that Raskolnikov is not extraordinary.
One can be sure that Raskolnikov believes himself to be extraordinary when Porfiry says, “...surely you couldn’t have helped...fancying yourself...an ‘extraordinary’ man, uttering a new word in your sense.... That’s so, isn’t it?'; to which Raskolnikov replies, “Quite possibly'; (247).
Raskolnikov was strongly prompted to murder Alyona when he recalled a conversation that took place between two ordinary men in a bar. One declared:
I could kill that damned old woman and make off with her money without the faintest conscious-prick.... For one life, thousands would be saved from corruption and decay.... Besides, what value has the life of that sickly, stupid, ill-natured old woman in the balance of existence? (63)
Raskolnikov reasoned that it would be honorable to kill Alyona since it would supposedly benefit humanity, but the fact that “...
Throughout history there have been many odd characters. Russian history was not excluded. Grigory Rasputin, who was an assistant to the Royal Russian family, was an unusual man.
Raskolnikov seems to already be mentally unstable in the beginning of the book, “he had become so completely absorbed in himself…he had lost all desire to [attend to import...
Deep down, Raskolnikov’s motives behind his deed amount to something profound in the end, how he rejects his past and learns much from it. Santangelo’s criticism touches on the meaning of Raskolnikov’s motives, but seems incomplete in terms of the impact their resolutions have on the end of the novel and Dostoyevsky’s message. This is where the motives transform into greater meanings. How does Raskolnikov redeem himself at the end? Is there one choice that explains the action? Each of his choices alone and together are gripping because seldomly is a person’s emergence from transgression the product of a single force. All results are intertwined with unfathomable levels of choice that begin subliminally but come down to a conscious decision. Dostoyevsky had the audacity to expose the root complexity of human emotion, then show how it can consciously choose its ending, happy or unhappy. Raskolnikov’s redemption was a public, pragmatic, individual, and ideological
We see Raskolnikov as a man in extreme poverty at the opening of the book, dropping out of college, and living in a small and dirty apartment. Although he has a family who cares about him, the man hardly seems to care about anything at all. Dostoevsky explains that the poor ex-student was “...so immersed in himself and had isolated himself so much from everyone that he was afraid not only of meeting his landlady but of meeting anyone at all. He was crushed by poverty; but even his strained circumstances had lately ceased to burden him.” (quote) Raskolnikov also has major drinking issues, as he “... [tries] to find sympathy and feeling in [drinking].” (Dostoevsky, 3)) From these poor qualities of the young man’s life, Raskolnikov begins to detach and isolate himself from the rest of the society.
In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky gives the reader an inside look to the value system that he holds for himself, as well as the type of characteristics that he abhors in people as well as the characteristics that he admires in people. He uses characters in the novel to express his beliefs of what a person should be like in life to be a “good'; person. Specifically he uses Raskolnokv to show both good and bad characteristics that he likes in people. Also he uses Svidriglaiov and Luzin to demonstrate the characteristics that people should shun and his personal dislikes in people.
In Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's initial crime, failure, and acceptance of mistakes are his road to overcoming his ego, as well as self discovery.
Often times in literature, we are presented with quintessential characters that are all placed into the conventional categories of either good or bad. In these pieces, we are usually able to differentiate the characters and discover their true intentions from reading only a few chapters. However, in some remarkable pieces of work, authors create characters that are so realistic and so complex that we are unable to distinguish them as purely good or evil. In the novel Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky develops the morally ambiguous characters of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov to provide us with an interesting read and to give us a chance to evaluate each character.
Although the novel begins by focusing on the crime itself, the majority of the book discusses Raskolnikov's struggle through denial and redemption after the murder has been committed. His own "greatness" leads to his denial of God, and his attempt to suppress his conscience causes insanity and sickness. However these negative consequences force him to acknowledge his rectitude and realize his need for confession.
Raskolnikov is obsessed with his “superman theory”. He is constantly trying to prove that he is part of the 10% of extraordinary people in the world. He wants to become an eminent figure such as Napoleon. At first he believed that the murders he committed would make him part of this elite class. Once he realized that he had made mistakes during the crime he began to question his theory. After much frustration he decided to go to the scene of the crime. This gave him a rush that made him feel invincible. He believed that this would prove if, or if not he was “super”. Once he realized that he wasn’t part of this class, he suffered a mental breakdown. This pushed him to confess his crime to Sonya. She helped him rationalize his crime and admit his guilt. The outcome of this conversation was that it helped him admit his fate.
Raskolnikov gives lots of reasons for the murder, and it is obvious from the sheer number of reasons that he gives that Raskolnikov is innocent. He can't even make up a realistic motive! No one is fooled. I sure wasn't. Raskolnikov is surely a messed up character. He is upset because he can't get any work, so he decides to plead guilty to a murder he knows nothing about just so he can get some hard labor in Siberia. Oh, sure, he want back to the apartment and questioned where the body was. Sure he could relate the entire murder in realistic detail. These are merely coincidences, just like his meeting with Marmeladov. C&P was often criticized for its overuse of coincidence. Perhaps the most confusing scene in that it leads many unwary readers astray is the actual description of the murder itself. This of course was just a dream. Dostoevsky was very fond of dream symbolism and used it often in C&P.
The word “hero” is simple in connotation but complex in the feeling it evokes. The Oxford dictionary defines a hero as, “A person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.” This statement can be interpreted in many ways and thus creating a multitude of heros but heros that all share the same essential qualities, albeit in different manners. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, the protagonist Raskolnikov is depicted as a "Code" or Hemingway hero (Crime and Punishment). A proportional hero from a different literary classic would be Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984 (1984). In this story, Winston displays characteristics of a modern hero through both
One of the most profound and obvious changes in Raskolnikov’s character can be seen in the newfound appreciation for other people and human relationships he discovers at the end of the novel. When the reader is first introduced to Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky quickly makes it apparent that he has little to no regard for others, writing on the very first page that Raskolnikov was “so completely absorbed in himself, and isolated from his fellows that he dreaded meeting, not only his landlady, but anyone at all” (1). Indeed, in Raskolnikov’s mind, “to be forced to listen to [the landlady’s] trivial, irrelevant gossip […] and to rack his brains for excuses, to prevaricate, to lie” is the most loathsome thing imaginable (1). His disdain toward other people is so great that the mere thought of interacting with anyone for any length of time repulses him. On some occasions...
The beauty of Crime and Punishment is that there are no absolutes. It is a 19th century murder mystery, with the identity of the murderer clear, but the murderer's reasons far from being so. Although each chapter was replete with uncertainty, no other facet of the novel caused greater vexation both during the reading and even after its conclusion than what drove Raskol'nikov to commit the murder. That is not to say that he committed murder without purpose or reason, that he was just a cookie cutter villain with no purpose; instead, he is a multi-faceted character that is both likable and a scoundrel at once. The protagonist himself is unsure why he plans and carries out what he does. As he went to bury what he had stolen, he asked himself: "If it all has really been done deliberately and not idiotically, if I really had a certain and definite object, how is it I did not even glance into the purse and don't know what I had there, for what I have undergone these agonies and have deliberately undertaken this base, filthy, degrading business?" (Part II, Ch. 2, pgs. 92-93). The reader is not left completely in the dark, however, as motives were established. The caveat being that motive is plural, and motive is usually a mutually exclusive term. The first motive to be presented, and the strongest in the novel during Raskol'nikov's planning stages, was the issue of poverty. He was destitute, living in squalor, and in need of money to crawl out of his grave-like flat. After the murder was committed and Raskol'nikov came under suspicion, he came face to face with the inspector general, Porfiry Petrovich. Their discussion made the cut-and-dried appearance of the motive tu...
After inferring from the rationality of Raskolnikov’s hypothesis on illness that the rest of his working theory would too be correct, the reader is led down a path of definite expectations for his/her “extraordinary” narrator. This path would have been one whereby Raskolnikov was able to implement widespread well being as a result of his murders. Furthermore, he would have been able to avoid submission to the common law of the “ordinary” people in order to preserve his greatness.
Within Crime and Punishment, the limit to Raskolnikov's mental capability, over certain thoughts, appears frequently. Raskolnikov is constantly battling with his conscience over the murder, before and after its committed. The results of this thinking mixed with the overall guilt and mental influence of the crime haunt him. While battling his conscience, Raskolnikov acquires an illness that makes him mentally weak and short fused. These side effects are a result of him passing the boundary of what his conscience can bare.