Lay Down Your Burdens

Raskolnikov expresses belief that some people are above the law. In fact, he published an article which established that some “extraordinary” people have the right to “step over certain obstacles”. Raskolnikov believes himself to be one of these extraordinary people. He wonders what it would be like if Napoleon, for example, had played by the rules. Would he have made such an impact on the world? It is this very utilitarian belief that drives Raskolnikov to kill Alyona Ivanovna, and consequently her sister Lizaveta as well. He believes that the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna is a louse, “a useless, nasty, pernicious louse.” By ridding the world of Alyona, he thinks he is helping many others.

Keeping this in mind, it comes as no surprise that Raskolnikov would feel utterly abhorred when Svidrigaïlov refers to them as “birds of a feather”(p.340; Part 4, Chapter 1). While Svidrigaïlov is rather keen of their shared similarities, such as their status as murderers, Raskolnikov willingly fails to realize these associations. Raskolnikov’s better side objects to the hedonistic behavior of Svidrigaïlov, decrying him as a man of the most abject nature. The dramatic irony lies in the fact that Raskolnikov desires to be an “extraordinary” man, the very epitome of Svidrigaïlov, a man he holds in no high regard. Despite their superficial variances and dissidences, Raskolnikov had slowly rendered himself into a facsimile of the man he detested, Svidrigaïlov. Although both men, whether knowingly or unknowingly, desire to transcend above the ordinary masses, it is only a matter of time before self-realization indicates the folly of their ways.

The first thing to address while discussing the author’s purpose is to examine the motivation of the main character, Raskolnikov. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes an ubermensch, and part of this is that he does not take into account

It shall not be, so long as I am alive, it shall not, it shall not! I won’t accept it!” (Part 1. 4.). Raskolnikov begins to alienate himself from his ex-colleague, Razumikhin, although at points it is Razumikhin who supports Raskolnikov the most. It forces Razumikhin to replace Raskolnikov in situations that should have been left to his authority. In a situation where Raskolnikov should have reassured Dounia and Pulcheria of their safety “he waved his hand weakly to Razumikhin to cut short the flow of warm and incoherent consolations he was addressing to his mother and sister” (Part 3. 1). As Raskolnikov began to slowly move away from any form of comfortable socialization and a growing poverty situation, his stubbornness to contain his pride and dignity eventually builds up to the brutal murder of Alyona.

It is important in the understanding of “anti-vivisection morality” and “grammatical fiction” to also understand the Russia in which Rubashov was living. In the 1930s, Russia was a communist country following principles based on the ideas of Karl Marx. Marx believed that at some point in time, all societies end up being communist which can only be accomplished through revolution. In the early 1900s, Russian was governed by the Bolshevik party led by Vladimir Lenon. Stalin came into power after Lenin died and shortly thereafter, he began executing all those who he believed posed some kind of threat to his power. In Darkness at Noon, this is exactly what happened to the protagonist, Nicolas Rubashov. He was an elite in the Party and was there as “Number One” rose to power and later became a victim during the Moscow purges. The power that “Number One,” in reality Stalin, wielded, had been seen before and since his time in leaders such as Cuba’s Castro and North Korea’s Kim II Sung. Both followed similar paths to Stalin in eliminating all opposition and threats to their power. “Number One,” like Stalin, got rid of anyone who could possibly threaten him and take over.

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.

The protagonist, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, a former student, decides to murder and rob an old pawn broker, Alyona Ivanovna, not due to his desperate need of money, but due to a theory he wants to test. Raskolnikov leaves no evidence which would lead the investigation to him; however, the police lieutenant in charge of the case, Porfiry Petrovich, a meticulous thinker, understands Raskolnikov’s theory and has a big role in influencing the student to confess. Between the murder and the confession, Raskolnikov undergoes a long and painful process of thought. His friend, Razumikhin Prokofych, along with a prostitute and his future significant other, Sonia Semyonovna Marmeladova, are part of the protagonist’s path. In the end, Sonia turns out to be Raskolnikov’s salvation as she helps him find redemption and start living

Rubashov, though a committed Marxist, during his time in the prison seems vexed by the notion that the end justifies the means because he has himself seen that the final result is often not what is seen in the present moment but the truth that becomes apparent only in the light of retrospective thought. Rubashov realizes that it is only history that can pass judgment and thus, the shooting of B. and thirty others by No. 1 will be decided later “He who is in the wrong must pay; he who is in the right will be absolved. That is the law of historical credit;

Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon depicts the fallacious logic of a totalitarian regime through the experiences of Nicolas Salmanovitch Rubashov. Rubashov had fought in the revolution and was once part of the Central Committee of the Party, but he is arrested on charges of instigating attempted assassinations of No. 1, and for taking part in oppositional, counter-revolutionary activities, and is sent to a Soviet prison. Rubashov, in his idle pacing throughout his cell, recollects his past with the Party. He begins to feel impulses of guilt, most especially in those moments he was required to expel devoted revolutionaries from the Party, sending them to their death. These

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment features a wide variety of characters and personalities within its pages. Throughout the novel, many different characters are developed through their introductions and their comparisons to other characters. There are many examples of this foiling technique, but some of the most prominent comparisons are made between the main character Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov and characters such as Arkady Ivanovitch Svidrigaïlov and Dmitri Prokofitch Razumihin. These comparisons allow for deeper understanding of Raskolnikov as the audience sees the different potentials his character has.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

His first thoughts of murder came to him in a tavern after his first visit to Alyona. He overhears a conversation between a student and an officer in which the student compares the “stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman” to the “fresh young lives” that could be helped (58). This comparison shows the fundamental differences between her and everyone else; her greed versus the financial situation happening in St. Petersburg at the time. The student then goes on to say her murder would be justified because “one tiny crime would be wiped out by thousands of good deeds” (59). These ideas combined with his essay on the “superman” idea, justified to Raskolnikov that her murder was warranted and morally just because her existence was futile, only living to be a plague on society whereas her money could be used to help thousands of men women, and children who need and deserve it.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

    "You keep lying!" screamed Raskolnikov, no longer able to restrain himself. "You're lying, you damned clown!" And he flung himself on Porfiry, who retired to the doorway, but without a trace of panic. "I understand everything, everything!" He approached Porfiry. "You're lying and taunting me so Ill give myself away-" "You can't give yourself away any more than you have already, Rodion Romanovich, old man. Why, you've gone into a state. Don't shout, I'll call my men, sir!" (Dostoyevsky, 34)

In the novel, “Crime and Punishment” by Fyodor Dostoevsky, it follows the story of Raskolnikov and his experiences throughout his life as he arrives at his own decisions. It is a majorly praised, well written novel and explores the concept of the psychological trauma and guilt that is inflicted upon humans. Although some people disagree with the masterpiece of the novel, they are wrong in how they may criticize it and it’s effects. Critics of the novel may argue that Dostoevsky rambles on too much for the character to develop and that it only delays what the truth is, but that is not true.