Svidrigailov is the catalyst that undermines Raskolnikov’s theory of extraordinary men.
After killing the old pawnbroker, Raskolnikov is riddled with the guilt despite having resigned her to a “deserved” death. He sees the pawnbroker as “a mistake perhaps, but she's not the point! The old woman was merely a sickness...And I didn't even manage that, as it turns out” (). Raskolnikov’s split conscience obliged both the side that was weighed down by guilt and the side that believed extraordinary men were not held to the same moral standards as ordinary men. His pride made it impossible for him to question his theory, and thus he concluded that he, as someone who couldn’t “even manage that”, must not be an extraordinary man.
However, Svidrilgailov seems to embody what the theory describes is “extraordinary”. He acts only for himself and to service his sensational pleasures, which precludes all moral accountability. Svidrigailov has been the cause of a number of deaths over the years, but, as the theory implies of an extraordinary man, is unchained by remorse. He asks Raskolnikov, “Am I a monster or am I myself a victim?” ().
…show more content…
Svidrigailov is extraordinary according to his theory, but when asked, “Didn’t I say there was something in common between us? ...... Wasn’t I right in saying that we were birds of a feather?” (Part 4, Chapter 1) Raskolnikov reacts angrily. Though Raskolnikov aspires to be great, to the point that his murder of the old pawnbroker was more a test to prove his greatness than for the betterment of mankind, he is repulsed by the mere thought of relating to Svidrigailov. Even Svidrigailov admits he is not a good man and recognizes his depravity, but with no remorse. “why not be vulgar at times when vulgarity is such a convenient cloak for our climate... and especially if one has a natural propensity that way”
Raskolnikov, so far, has been able to repress his anger towards Svidrigailov and also Porfiry. He does scream at Porfiry to either arrest him or let him be, but he is much less outwardly forceful with his anger. Does Svidrigailov represent Raskolnikov's evil side? Does he embody the ideas and philosophies of Raskolnikov? Perhaps it is easy to say yes-to simplify this great work of a philosophy and psychological writing. It is much better to steer away from the trap though of simply saying that he is the representation of R.'s evil side. The story is much deeper than that. Svidrigailov molests, irks, and bothers young women who do not wish to be associated with him. He panders to their weakness and self-admittedly uses deception to win them for his own. This is not Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov is the man who conceives a theory-a theory that actually had the better of society as its aim-Svid. simply exists in a nihilistic atmosphere of vice and wanton behavior.
However, it soon emerges that he, despite the physical nature of his situation, has a very active mind. To reveal whether he is of a special "breed" of humans, he finds it necessary to kill, and the unfortunate subjects of his experiment are an old pawnbroker and her sister. After the murders, Raskolnikov is subject to a series of mental and emotional changes, eventually leading to his confession and, later, his arrest, trial and eight-year prison sentence.
Raskolnikov commits his initial crime out of arrogance. "The old hag is nothing.... I killed not a human being," he says. (245) Raskolnikov feels that he has justification for killing the pawn broker. He thinks that the woman has no reason to live. He believes that the woman is less than a human, and that he is a superior being. Raskolnikov thinks that he has a right to kill.
Raskolnikov holds that by a law of nature men have been "somewhat arbitrarily" divided into two groups--ordinary and extraordinary. Raskolnikov believe that the duty and vocation of the first group is to be servile, the material out of which the world and society is to be formed. The first group are the people of the present, the now. The second group, those who are extraordinary, are a step above the normal, ordinary curs. They have the ability to overstep normal bounds and transgress the rights of those who are simply ordinary. They are the prime movers--they have a right to transcend normal societal strictures to accomplish those things they have determined are valid in their conscience. Extraordinary men are the prime movers. He cites such extraordinary men as Newton, Mahomet, and Napoleon. He tells us that Newton had the right to kill hundreds of men if need be in order to bring to the world knowledge of his findings. Napoleon and other leaders created a new word. They overturned ancient laws and created new ones. They had the right to uphold their new ideal, even if it meant killing innocent men defending the ancient law. "The first class of people preserve and people the world, the second move the world and lead it to its goal." Despite these tremendous differences in his theory, and the obvious superiority that the extraordinary people are afforded, Raskolnikov maintains that both classes have an equal right to exist. This is interesting, and anyone who sees tremendous problems with this theory must realize this very important point--both classes of men and women are necessary to understand the true meaning of Raskolnikov's theory.
Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment begins with Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov living in poverty and isolation in St. Petersburg. The reader soon learns that he was, until somewhat recently, a successful student at the local university. His character at that point was not uncommon. However, the environment of the grim and individualistic city eventually encourages Raskolnikov’s undeveloped detachment and sense of superiority to its current state of desperation. This state is worsening when Raskolnikov visits an old pawnbroker to sell a watch. During the visit, the reader slowly realizes that Raskolnikov plans to murder the woman with his superiority as a justification. After the Raskolnikov commits the murder, the novel deeply explores his psychology, yet it also touches on countless other topics including nihilism, the idea of a “superman,” and the value of human life. In this way, the greatness of Crime and Punishment comes not just from its examination of the main topic of the psychology of isolation and murder, but the variety topics which naturally arise in the discussion.
...ing to compensate for them. As his guilt is almost done eating him inside and out, Raskolnikov finally admits and with a new love, he points his life in a whole new direction. Svidrigailov’s moral ambiguity seems to play a smaller part in the whole picture than Raskolnikov’s, making a subplot for the story and adding details to make it more exciting.
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.
In his book Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky explores the paths of two men, Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov. These two men encompass many similar problems and obstacles throughout their lives. Both commit murders and are faced with the long and mentally excruciating journey of seeking redemption. They also share many characteristics of their personalities. The reason that the outcomes of their lives are so drastically different is due to the fact that they have completely different perspectives on life.
Torn between his sense of morality and his belief in nihilism, Raskolnikov becomes estranged from society. Nihilism is the rejection of all moral and religious principles and even that life is meaningless. Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov is trying to relieve the tensions between these two extremes. In the beginning, Raskolnikov has hit a low point within his life. He feels helpless because his sister is marrying for money to help his family, he is beyond poverty and cannot even afford to pay rent, and he has no job. Raskolnikov feels at the mercy of the world and completely and utterly helpless. He hates having to rely upon the Pawnbroker for help and even money. When the idea first pops into his head to murder the pawnbroker, it starts to become a potential reality. The ideology of murder is masked behind Raskolnikov’s belief that it would be for the greater good to eliminate the pawnbroker because of her mean spirited nature. Driven mad by the possibility of a choice, which Raskolnikov convinces himself exists because of nihilism. Raskolnikov because of his torn morality goes between extreme submissiveness to over powering those around him. Overall, Raskolnikov decides to commit the murder in an attempt to see if he can transcend his morality. This is what Terras refers to in the context of The Brothers Karamazov, where tensions between Raskolnikov’s façade and his true self are creating an external and internal struggle that causes him to have a
The moral side of Raskolnikov's mind requires absolution in a Christian manner. This need obliviates his claim to be a Nietzchean superman, and illustrates that all humans have a desire for morality. Throughout the book, he constantly desires to confess, even when visiting the police station. "I'll go in, fall on my knees, and confess everything" (p.84), he thought; later, he considered if it was "better to cast off the burd...
In Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, Raskalnikov undergoes a period of extreme psychological upheaval. By comparing this death and rebirth of Raskalnikov's psyche to the story of the resurrection of Lazarus, Dostoevsky emphasizes not only the gravity of his crimes, but also the importance of acceptance of guilt.
In Crime and Punishment, we see Raskolnikov caught between reason and will, the human needs for personal freedom and the need to submit to authority. He spends most of the first two parts stuck between wanting to act and wanting to observe. After he acts and murders the old woman, he spends much time contemplating confession. Raskolnikov seems trapped in his world although there is really nothing holding him back; he chooses not to flee and not to confess, but still acts as though he's suffocation (perhaps guilt?)In both novels defeat seems inevitable. Both characters believe that normal man is stupid, unsatisfied and confused. Perhaps they are right, but both characters fail to see the positive aspects of humans; the closest was the scene between the narrator of Notes from the Underground and Liza. In this scene he almost lets the human side show, rather than the insecure, closed off person he normally is.
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...
Raskolnikov's article, "On Crime," is vital to the understanding of his beliefs. This article also has a profound effect on Crime and Punishment as a whole, the subject matter being one of the main themes of the novel. The idea of the "extraordinary man" is referred to literally throughout the book, but also notable is the subconscious effect the idea has on Raskolnikov. Sometimes Raskolnikov is not even aware of this influence. It is important to note originality, or the ability to "utter a new word," as a defining characteristic of the extraordinary man. Therefore, we must take into account the presence of similar ideas, those of Pisarev, Nietzsche, and nihilism, as these might bring to light the possibility that Raskolnikov is not original, a possibility that haunts him throughout the novel.
According to Raskolnikov’s theory in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”,there are two types of people that coexist in the world; the “Extraordinary” and the “Ordinary”. The ordinary men can be defined as “Men that have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because they are ordinary.”(248). To the contrary “extraordinary” men are “Men that have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way , just because they are extraordinary”(248). Dostoevsky’s theory is evident through the characters of his novel. The main character, Raskolnikov, uses his theory of extraordinary men to justify contemplated murder. There is a sense of empowerment his character experiences with the ability to step over social boundaries. He is led to believe the killing of the pawnbroker is done for the perseverance of the greater good. It is ironic that character who is shown to be powerful in the early stages of the novel subsequently go on to show many weaknesses.