The Extraordinary Man in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" Essay

Raskolnikov’s brusque affectation eventually yields to his predilection for salvation and redemption. He ultimately comes to the realization that he is not worthy of being “extraordinary” because of the crippling guilt that followed his murder of the pawnbroker. Raskolnikov reflects upon the implications of his crime on his psyche, “I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once for all,

In order to understand Raskolnikov’s guilt, it is important to understand the religious influences at work in the time period and place he lived in. In St. Petersburg where Raskolnikov lives, there are strong Christian influences from the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church condemns killing people with few exceptions. Although is not a devout believer, these influences are still at work in the book. It is clear that Raskolnikov is struggling to fight God away because, as he says that “once God’s will gets mixed up in it, nothing will be done” (389). He acknowledges that the guilt he has is God’s doing, and he struggles internally to get rid of it. The idea that he is not able to feel good about the murder that he knows improved society. He states that “what bothers [him] is this permission according to conscience” (253). Even though he wants to establish his own moral code, it is impossible for him to do so because of the influence of religion.

Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel Crime and Punishment by Feodor Dostoevsky, actually possesses two completely contradicting personalities. One part of him is intellectual: cold, unfeeling, inhumane, and exhibiting tremendous self-will. It is this side of him that enables him to commit the most terrible crime imaginable - taking another human life. The other part of his personality is warm and compassionate. This side of him  does charitable acts and fights against the evil in his society.

In the novel “Crime and Punishment”, the author, Fyodor Dostoevsky gives the reader a glimpse into the mind of a tormented criminal, by his guilt of a murder. Dostoevsky’s main focal point of the novel doesn’t lie within the crime nor the punishment but within the self-conflicting battle of a man and his guilty conscience. The author portrays tone by mood manipulation and with the use of descriptive diction to better express his perspective in the story, bringing the reader into the mind of the murderer.

Being the protagonist in Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is subject to most ridicule and analysis for his moral ambiguity and outlandish views. After reading about his dreadful murder of Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, many come to the conclusion that Raskolnikov is purely evil. His lack of guilt and belief of justification for his crime surely points readers in this direction. Raskolnikov remains convinced that he is superior and that it was his duty to kill such a worthless person. Although some may view this as evilness, others may perceive it as downright ignorant. His atypical way of thinking doesn’t necessarily make him evil, but that is how some comprehend it. At certain points in the story, we see Raskolnikov not as a deranged man, but instead as a compassionate human being. After the murder, we see him carrying out various charitable acts, perhaps as an attempt to atone for his unforgivable crime. For example, we see some good in him when he gives Sonya’s family twenty rubbles after Marmeladov passes on. We also see this when he attempts to rescue a drunk girl from a man by giving her money for a taxi. As much as Raskolnikov expresses that he was justified in his actions, through his mental and physical illnesses it is apparent that he feels some guilt about it. This guilt makes him seem at least a little bit more human. For these reasons, when all is said and done, it is difficult to determine

Dostoevsky’s believes in existentialism, and the idea that individual freedom is essential to the development of the mind (Copleston 165). He speaks through his characters by presenting them as “continually defeated as a result of their choices” ( “Existentialism”). Though Raskolnikov is allowed to make his own decisions he ended up making the wrong ones. He is forced to face his consequences of the murders he committed. Dostoevsky’s blend of philosophy with the novel allows

According to William Burnham, the law around the time of Crime and Punishment “required confessions [to] be voluntary, consistent with the factual circumstances of the case, and be judicial” in order to be applicable evidence (1236). Porfiry probes Raskolnikov for this three-prong confession routinely (Porfiry almost certainly knows Raskolnikov committed the crime, but he cannot prove it). Quoting an English proverb, Porfiry says, “a hundred rabbits will never make a horse, a hundred suspicions will never make a proof” (Dostoevsky 452). Raskolnikov’s calculations and covering of evidence show the ease with which he hid the evidence from the investigation. Porfiry merely checks the blatant locations: Raskolnikov’s apartment. The office’s shallow ability to search for clues represents the entire justice system’s inability to be effective. Dostoevsky criticizes the criminal justice system because while it is doing what people like, arresting criminals, it is avoiding its true purpose: turning crooks back into citizens. The system is very similar to Porfiry; while he is a very likeable

From declaring he wanted to become a Napoleon to wishing for financial independence to murdering for his own sake, he rattles off various motives, showing his obsessive rationalization (394-397). By presenting his conflicting intentions, Dostoevsky exhibits the chaos within Raskolnikov’s mind.

Through Raskolnikov’s exemplification of the impracticality of this principle\, Dostoevsky makes his greatest point in Crime and Punishment. His commentary on the subject seeks to discredit the theory in the circumstance of an individual “superman” by displaying Raskolnikov as a character who is difficult for readers to identify with because of his inanity. Even Raskolnikov’s name is a symbol of nihilistic ideas, the word “raskol” meaning schism in Russian, illustrating the shift from an older school of thought (social utopianism) to a darker philosophy: nihilism and utilitarianism. Raskolnikov seems to fluctuate back and forth between the two philosophies, acting on one and then mentally chastising himself for it, immediately and almost erratically changing his mind. This symbolizes the more human side of him struggling

If I could meet Dostoevsky I would ask him what his inspiration for Crime and Punishment was. Sometimes I wonder if the novel was written to give us insight to how Dostoevsky felt about the world. Maybe he is using the character Raskolnikov to portray a part of him who feels alienated from the world, and is torn apart

Therefore Amoia notes that, "as the implications of the deed unfold in his conscience, Raskolnikov attempts to jusitfy his actions as a 'rational' crime" (53). Though he understands that he will be able to escape the physical punishement for the crime, he has yet to comprehend the burden that comes with such an unethical action. Even when Porfiry suggests that the criminal who murdered the pawnbroker may run away but, "psychologically he won't escape" (287), Raskolnikov becomes infuriated and accuses Porfiry of trying to scare him. However, Raskolnikov fails to understand the meaning behind Porfiry's words perhaps because he still chooses not to rely on his conscience and confess to the crime.While the superiority complex sets him apart from the society in the beginning, his piercing conscience distances him from people later on in the novel. He refuses to speak to Razumuikhin or to his family. It only before he goes to jail, that he decides to see his mother. Even when he does so, he is relieved that Dunya is not in the room. He later admits to Dunya that he doesn't, "even remember why [I] even went" to meet his mother. His conscience does not allow him to face his loved ones and eventually, he tries to isolate himself from society. While Raskolnikov tries to alienate himself from his own conscience, he is alienating himself from humanity in general.

Raskolnikov lives an ordinary life as an ordinary man. He is a good man and has a good heart, but he soon commits a crime that will forever change his life. Raskolnikov is a good man; I believe he is kind, generous, and selfless. Now, how are all of these positive traits found in a murderer? I think was caught in a psychotic moment, his mental state was not all there, and he had a dream, he made a plan, and he committed this terrible crime. A good example of Raskolnikov being a kind hearted person, and selfless is when he sees a young girl at the end of the street, he sees by her a rough looking man staring at her. He starts to get very worried what this man might do to this young girl. He goes down the street to get this young girl, and he pays for a taxi to get her home. This was so generous, and small yet so impactful. Raskolnikov cared about what might happen to this young girl, and did something about it. This showed how selfless Raskolnikov is, and what a kind heart he has. I think this shows Raskolnikov’s true character. From here, he makes some terrible decisions, and is engulfed by guilt, but I believe he is a generous, kindhearted person. In this book, Crime And Punishment, Raskolnikov goes from being an ordinary man with an ordinary life to a murderer, tortured by guilt, haunted by the memory of his crime, and him finding himself again in society after the murders.

Rather than benefitting society, Raskolnikov realizes that he was driven to do crazy things in his attempt to be an extraordinary man. In that realization, Raskolnikov is finally redeemed. This dream and the epilogue itself are very important because they offer final commentary on the extraordinary man theory.

While in a conversation with Sonia, Raskolnikov says “I did not bow down to you [Sonya], I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity." (Dostoevsky, Page 350) Meaning that he went through both physical and mental suffering which contributed to the guilt that he had after the murder. But he would not have felt this guilt if he had successfully eclipsed into the Superman. But he didn’t accomplish this and still remained unaffected by his crime. Raskolnikov’s idea of the superman theory continues by a conversation he has with Porfiry Petrovitch where they talk about an essay in which Raskolnikov wrote about the superman theory with his own thoughts that got published in the newspaper, in Raskolnikov’s essay he states “In a word, you (Raskolnikov) introduce, if you remember, a hint to the effect that there are persons who are able, or rather, not who are able but who have every right, to commit any wrong or crime, and that laws, so to say, are not made for them.” (Dostoevsky, Page 220) Afterwards, Raskolnikov responds by saying “The extraordinary man has the right... I don’t mean a formal, official right, but he has the right in himself, to permit his conscience to overstep… certain obstacles, but only in the event that his ideas require it for their fulfilment.” (Dostoevsky, Page 220) Raskolnikov basically makes a distinction between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Raskolnikov’s ideology to

The author showed his opinion on the structure of the society, social norms and beliefs. He expressed his disagreement with “The Extraordinary Man Theory”. He told the audience that all people have feelings and emotions and cannot rely only on logic and calculations. People cannot hurt others and go unpunished. The ending of the novel helped to strengthen his ideas and convictions. In the end, everyone in the novel received the deserved punishment assigned either by the law or by fate. Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov realized that their actions were wrong and contradicted to the all social norms. They recognized that they were not extraordinary men. Dostoevsky made this novel very educative and filled with morality. It is great for people of all times and generations. It reveals what is good and wrong; it teaches how to be a