Raskolnikov's View Of Crime And Punishment

1373 Words3 Pages

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment is a prime example of torn perspectives and moral ambiguity. Who is to determine what is right and what is wrong? Who or what is it that condemns an action as good or evil? We have yet to truly answer these questions as a people, but many have individual solutions- setting their own individual boundaries and beliefs. It is clear in Crime and Punishment that the leading man, Rodia Raskolnikov, is conflicted by his desires to fulfill the duties given to him through his upbringing and innate goodness, and those that he has formulated under his Napoleonic Theory. He continues to struggle with his own definition of write and wrong/good and evil without a solid, consistent basis. Ultimately, the story’s goal …show more content…

If one takes the concept of him as two people, the entire novel/the reader’s understanding of it relies on these relationships and his own with his other half of self. The journey of Raskolnikov throughout Crime and Punishment gives forth Dostoyevsky’s ultimate plan for this piece as he intended to get across the internal chaos of men and power and their desires to seek it out. There is consistent questioning on Raskolnikov’s part- ever questioning whether or not to confess to the murders to the police or go on living and separate himself from what he had done. He was deciding whether or not to consider what he had done a crime. In the thought of his Napoleonic principles- it wasn’t. The pawnbroker did nobody good but herself- she was a parasite sucking the blood/life from the community she commanded. In the thought of his untainted self, it was murder. Plain and simple. His punishment for pursuing the idea of having an upper hand on others is to deal with the internal repercussions that cannot possibly handle the mental tug of

Open Document