✯✯✯ Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis

Monday, August 02, 2021 3:57:19 PM

Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis

Frank, Long Term Consequences Of Concussions Aug 21, Glenn Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis rated Chick-Fil-A Essay it Jeffrey Dahmer: Forensic Psychology Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis. Man is Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis, Transmissible Illness In Prison know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid; but he is so ungrateful Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis you could not find Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis like him in all Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis. Sonya fearfully denies stealing the money, Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis Luzhin Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis in his accusation and demands Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis someone search her. We took from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis earth.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky - Characters

Such nastiness, such viciousness -- every single encounter vivid and memorable. Dostoyevsky at his finest. We're acquiring a taste for it. Soon we'll contrive to be born somehow from an idea. But enough; I don't want to write any more "from Underground". View all 22 comments. Feb 18, Michael rated it it was amazing. Absolutely brilliant and penetrating analysis of human nature in all its vainglorious ridiculousness.

Dostoyevsky is especially insightful in taking down what I'll loosely call "rationalism"--the belief somewhat popular then and surprisingly popular now that people act in a rationally self-interested way, especially if they're made aware of where their self-interest lies. This book should be required reading for nearly every economics department in the US, where such fantasies still rule the d Absolutely brilliant and penetrating analysis of human nature in all its vainglorious ridiculousness.

This book should be required reading for nearly every economics department in the US, where such fantasies still rule the day! The character of the Underground Man is like a child yelling "the emperor has no clothes! By the way, I read this in the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation, and while I've had my quibbles with their work in the past, this is terrifically well-done and captures more of the humor than I've seen in other translations. View all 20 comments. A novelette Notes from Underground is a conspicuous harbinger of existential novel. It is like a warning to the future society of hypocritical and conforming featureless worms into which the world is gradually turning these days.

And now I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and utterly futile consolation that it is even impossible for an intelligent man seriously to become anything, and only fools become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man of the nineteenth c A novelette Notes from Underground is a conspicuous harbinger of existential novel. Yes, sir, an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be and is morally obliged to be primarily a characterless being; and a man of character, an active figure — primarily a limited being. A miserable nook turns into a confessional and the protagonist begins his confession to himself… Or in the modern terms the underground is the sort of a couch and the wretched hero is both a patient and a psychoanalyst… This confession is a personal revolt but it is a rebellion of a bedbug against its aimless existence: a mutiny against those who have more to do than to suck blood… View all 5 comments.

Aug 15, Henry Avila rated it really liked it. This the alleged hero hates the world and himself even more, they seem indifferent though, an unknown anti-hero no I take that back the term should be a stupid man who does everything to sabotage his life a masochist maybe? As examples : the only woman silly enough to love him, Liza a prostitute needing a friend and savior, pours her emotional feelings seeking love but rejected Can you imagine, the loathsome creature His servant Apollon, an older gentleman with a mutual society of high emotions both intensely feel pain and uneasiness when together an absurd concept still, the poverty stricken man with a lackey, the narrator deliberately took a lower paying government job An unbelievably strange human however, likes to hurt his soul for some perceived transgression committed in the distant past.

Russian literature is full of the dark sufferings yet there can be nothing besides it on earth as good; The emotional ever changing but always negative in results like the cynical bureaucrat living in filth the apartment so small the poor are amazed, the man's pathetic notes are really memoirs of a life not well spent or worth living. Dostoyevsky novella a mixture of the bizarre and the weird can a person exist alone in this wide Earth turning his back to people wanting no love he says yet on the contrary needs it desperately we almost feel sorry for the almost man , the sad narrative of the human spirit going bad and very wrong. Some readers if not a majority will ask what is this? Others reading between the lines thinking there must be something there or else a hidden meaning the great writer is trying to convey the simple notion They thrive in a group as history shows, civilization began because of this, together everything is possible even contentment.

A case of what if he had chosen another path things would've been a lot brighter View 2 comments. It Explains Everything. In Life, you see, we can't all, and some of us don't. Here we go round the mulberry bush. It's all the same to me. Piglet Help, help! A hexistentialist! A horrible hexistentialist! Hex, hex! A hexistible horribilist! But, it is hard to be brave when you are a very small animal entirely surrounded by despair. Talks about toothache a lot. When I was reading this book I was thinking, I know this guy.

This guy is my cousin. Woody sings You've got a fiend in me You've got a fiend in me You got troubles and I got 'em too There isn't anything I wouldn't do To make everything twice as bad for you 'Cause you've got a fiend in me Ha ha. Did you get that? Friend — fiend! Peter Pan When the first baby laughed for the first time, its laugh broke into a thousand pieces, and they all went skipping about, and that was the beginning of fairies. Now when the first baby fell out of its pram and banged its little head on the hard hard floor, it howled for the first time, and its howl broke into a thousand pieces, and they all went crawling around, and that was the beginning of Dostoyevsky.

Is that understood? Upon my soul, no more of that please. We are not a codfish. At least the bobbits got to travel. Not this dude. I mean, this is like from history so you know, there is a severe lack of things like credit cards and betties to pay for with the credit cards. Way back then people were barely alive. I know! Reading this really wigged me out. Okay, all right, reading Spark Notes on this wigged me out. I was Seriously? And this is good because? View all 14 comments. Shall the world go to hell, or shall I not have my tea?

Reading philosophical discourses whether in the form of a story or endless ramblings drenched in satirical juices does that to me and Mr. Dostoevsky, by way of these notes written by his Underground Man, made me both wriggle and relish in my noetic limitations. All this is provided with a peculiar but apparently rational justifications or I thought they were rational in an unconventional but tremendously comical way. And suddenly you hid your face In trembling hands and, filled with horror, Filled with shame, dissolved in tears, Indignant as you were, and shaken. Here the narrator opens the door of his past and recounts the outlandish tales of his life which can invoke all sorts of emotions in a reader and also serve as the basis of first part hence rendering a meandering pattern to this work.

In any case, I was left pleasantly surprised on finding that my preconceived notions were crushed and dusted and a new, although a little confused perspective was gained on contemplating the questions which our Underground Man has asked in this book. Well, which is better? Books will help. View all 43 comments. Jul 27, jessica rated it liked it. Apr 10, Piyangie rated it really liked it Shelves: russian-lit. I found Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground to be quite a different work from his other works. Dostoevsky's writing style adopted in this novella and the dominating existentialism has much to contribute to this difference. The novella is of two parts. The first part consists of a bitter rambling of an unnamed narrator who is called the "underground man" he is understood to be a retired civil servant living in St.

This bitter rambling extends to Petersburg society and civilization I found Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground to be quite a different work from his other works. This bitter rambling extends to Petersburg society and civilization, and even to laws of nature; and the underground man criticizes how these concepts dictate human action and behaviour. Dostoevsky's existentialist views are expressed in this part of the story. Existentialists believed and advocated independent choice of will of people and the freedom to exercise that will. They were of the view that without submitting to any outside force humans should be governed by their beliefs and desires.

The second part of the novella consists of the story proper. This part describes certain events that took place in the life of the underground man. This is where the readers gain a good understanding of his character. He is bitter and contemptuous and seems to be suffering from some sort of complex. His thoughts are so contradictory signifying his mental instability. At the same time, there is also a cunning and cruel nature.

He seems to be taking immense pleasure at crushing who are helpless when he is unable to fight off his betters. This part of the story displays Dostoevsky's love for exploring human psychology. Underground man is an anti-hero. He is not a character to be liked, nor pitied. This is my first Dostoevsky experience with such a character. And to be quite honest, I read all his thoughts and actions with utter disgust. This is one of the reasons I love Dostoevsky.

He brings strong emotions out of the readers. What stands out Dostoevsky is, of course, his writing. With the use of both monologue first part and descriptive second part forms, he writes this novella in a clever and engaging way. This was not a pleasant reading experience. The content was quite disturbing. But even then Dostoevsky manages to exercise humour to lighten the unpleasantness and unburden your mind. Dostoevsky's creativity continually amazes me. The more I read him, the more I'm in awe of his ingenuity.

This was not an easy read for me. My sensitive self was rebelling against the vile behaviour of the underground man. But yet something held me on. That is no doubt the skill of a great master. And no one can doubt that of Dostoevsky. Jul 07, J. Sutton rated it it was amazing. Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors. To increase my suffering, I also took Russian my senior year! I've probably read Notes five or six times. It is a quick read, but I get something different from it every time and at every period in my life that I read it. This text is Existentialism writ large, but it's had power for Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors.

This text is Existentialism writ large, but it's had power for over years because it is not one dimensional. At one level, it's a capitulation, a giving up of whatever this life has to offer. At another level, it's an affirmation that despite whatever comes crashing down on us, we have greatness in us and we will persevere. Yeah, and there's the suffering for whatever course we take. View all 10 comments. But enough; I don't want to write more from "Underground.

And, indeed, I will ask on my own account here, an idle question: which is better-cheap happiness or exalted sufferings? I am not ashamed of my poverty I am poor but honorable People say it's a trial to have children. Who says that. It is heavenly happiness! Love is a holy mystery and ought to be hidden from all other eyes, whatever happens. That makes it holier and better. They respect one another more, and much is built on respect.

And if once there has been love if they have been married for love, why should love pass away? And no one, no one should know what passes between husband and wife if they love one another. And whatever quarrels there may be between them they ought not to call in their own mothers to judge between them and tell tales of one another. They are their own judges. Man is fond of reckoning up his troubles, but does not count his joys.

If he counted them up as he ought, he would see that every lot has enough happiness provided for it. Either to be a hero or to grovel in the mud- there was nothing between. There was no one like me and I was unlike anyone else. And not only at the present time owing to some casual circumstances, but always, at all the times, a decent man is bound to be a coward and slave. Today, for instance, I am particularly oppressed by one memory of a distant past. It came back vividly to my mind a few days ago, and has remained haunting me like an annoying tune that one cannot get rid of.

And yet I must get rid of it somehow. I have hundreds of such reminiscences; but at times some one stands out from the hundred and oppresses me for some reason. I believe that if I write down I should get rid of it. Why no try? Perhaps it is simply that I am a coward. And perhaps that I purposely imagine an audience before me in order that i may be more dignified while I write. Every man has reminiscences which he would not to tell everyone, but only to his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret.

I ought to put you underground for forty years without anything to do and then come you in your cellar, to find out what stage you have reached! How can a man be left with nothing to do for forty years? But do you know what: I am convinced that we underground folk ought to be kept on a curb. Though we may sit forty years underground without speaking, when we do come out into the light of day and break out we talk and talk and talk. Destroy my desires, eradicate my ideals, show me something better, and I will follow you. Reactionary as it is, corporal punishment is better than anything. I think man will never renounce real suffering, that is, destruction and chaos. Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness. I hold no brief for suffering nor for well-being either.

I am standing for Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being? Perhaps he is just as a great benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering, and that is a fact. Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid; but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty.

What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of men consists? Oh, gentlemen, do you know, perhaps I consider myself an intelligent man, only because all my life I have been able neither to begin nor to finish anything. Granted I am a babbler, a harmless vexatious babbler, like all of us. But what is it to be done if the direct and sole vocation of every intelligent man is babble, that is, the intentional pouring of water through a sieve? I say, in earnest, that I should probably have been able to discover even in that a peculiar sort of enjoyment- the enjoyment of course of despair; but in despair, there are the most intense enjoyments, especially when one is very acutely conscious of the hopelessness of one's position.

I am as suspicious and prone to take offense as a humpback or a dwarf. But upon my word I sometimes have had moments when if I had happened to be slapped in the face I should, perhaps, have been positively glad of it. I swear, gentlemen, that to be too conscious is an illness- a real thorough-going illness. A man in the nineteenth century must and morally ought to be pre-eminently a characterless creature; a man of character, an active man is pre-eminently a limited creature.

Now I'm living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot become anything seriously, and it is only the fool who becomes anything. It was only that I could not become spiteful, I did not know how to become anything; neither spiteful nor kind, neither a rascal nor an honest man; neither a hero nor an insect. I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. I am a sick man I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. View all 7 comments. Sep 03, Amalia Gkavea rated it it was amazing Shelves: european-literature , classics , favorites , russia , 19th-century , european-heritage , russian-literature.

But never, never have I ceased to love that one, and even on the night I parted from him I loved him perhaps more poignantly than ever. We can truly love only with suffering and through suffering! We know not how to love otherwise. We know no other love. I want suffering in order to love. I want and thirst this very minute to kiss, with tears streaming down my cheeks, this one and only I have left behind. I don't want and won't accept any other. Never be fooled by book size when it comes to Dostoevsky! This novella was just under pages long so I figured it would take me just a couple of hours to read. I was obviously wrong but I enjoyed the read. The prose is extremely dense so I had to read it slower than I read other books.

The protagonist was fascinating peculiar, even and I enjoyed reading his introspective thoughts about different issues. I will definitely be re-reading this one. View all 13 comments. Dostoevsky has shown us, through the figures of Raskolnikov, Myshkin, Stavroguin and others, how distressing it is to be a conscious human being. But this short novella is indeed a concentrate, an extremely harrowing version of his later novels. The encounter with Liza, the prostitute, heralds the character of Sonya in Crime and Punishment.

Orwell thought truth was the ultimate condition of freedom, but possibly not that of happiness. Both were starkly against a political revolution that would destroy these values to attempt to establish an authoritarian utopia of happiness for the masses. What is striking is that this divorce, this deep pain is both the source and the result of civilisation, culture, literature. Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise.

From a dingy basement apartment in 19th century St. Petersburg, our unnamed narrator regales us with his views of life and of humanity. His opinions are born of bitterness and despair, and from a curious mix of vanity and self-loathing. In Part I of the book he outlines his philosophy, a nihilistic rejection of From a dingy basement apartment in 19th century St. In Part I of the book he outlines his philosophy, a nihilistic rejection of 19th century civilisation and conformity.

Most of all it is a rejection of reason. In Part II he tells us of incidents from his younger life, stories replete with humiliation, where he charted a path of wilful self-destructiveness. His vanity is expressed in the way he considers himself intellectually superior to those around him, and from his exaggerated sensitivity to slights, real or imagined. His self-loathing derives from his own knowledge of just how far his real life varies from the fantasy world he inhabits. In the event I found it compelling. Cool book! View all 77 comments. Jul 02, Lyn rated it really liked it.

I first met the Russian on the loading docks. Filling trailers with freight out in the weather, in the humid heat and then again in the freezing cold was not a career, not a job anyone especially wanted, it was a job to fill in the gaps, work that paid a wage and filled a need as necessary as the empty trailers that backed into the dock one after the other. I had seen him in the break room, out on the picnic tables - always alone. He scribbled incessantly in an old thesis book, would pause long m I first met the Russian on the loading docks.

He scribbled incessantly in an old thesis book, would pause long moments staring into space, as still as a statue, and then would bend his head and write feverishly. Sometimes he would sit quietly on his break, with a thin old paperback or a tattered library book in his lap. Passing once, I could not help glancing over his shoulder and saw that his book was a collection of poems. Another time, in the cold of January, when we all dressed like astronauts in plump suits, or like Eskimos in thick woolen parkas, the Russian was dressed in a thin old ragged coat and cloth gloves with holes in several fingers. He looked ill, and little doubt, we still had hours to go on our shift and his only head covering was the sparse patch of thinning hair atop his sallow scalp.

I remembered having an extra woolen cap in my locker, and fetched it and then offered it to him without a word, just held it out. It was a colorful winter toboggan hat with a bright red fluffy ball atop. He looked up at me and seemed to almost decline, he looked embarrassed to wear the warm cap, as if its incongruous color atop his sullen head would be a greater hindrance than the warmth it would provide. A dirty hand ventured up and took the cap and black eyes beneath scruffy brows looked into me, seeking to discover was this true kindness or a jest at his expense. The other dockworkers said of him that when they worked a trailer in tandem, he spoke very little or nothing at all, loading mechanically and only passing information as needed.

My first trailer with him was on a cold night in March and the brisk pace of the work kept us warm. I tried to spark a conversation, but he only answered in grunts and shrugs. Another time I got him to speak a little, talked some about his origins and his life before this. At the end of the load, he smiled shyly, thanked me for the winter cap, reached from his back pocket, returned it and gave me a firm handshake. I returned the grip and looked at him and saw again those eyes that seemed to look into me. Working together, Fyodor told me about his writing, during breaks, he would read aloud. It's by talking nonsense that one gets to the truth! I talk nonsense, therefore I'm human. He was inspired, passionate, angry, hurt, a victim, a survivor, a damaged soul that had lived beyond torture and then had been able to describe the journey into hell and the ascent past.

There were days that I had to walk away from him, unable to meet the brutal honesty, the too focused intensity, I had to step away. Life is not this black and white, you are not the final judge and jury, you cannot cut down to our souls like a scalpel, it is not your place to examine us, you are ONE OF US!! I want and thirst this very minute to kiss , with tears streaming down my cheeks, this one and only I have left behind. I quit, I left, and I separated myself from him. Who was he to say these things, who was he to judge me, to judge all of us?? Yet I could not forget, could not stop thinking of his words, could not get away from those eyes that delved into me.

Dec 26, Khashayar Mohammadi rated it it was amazing Shelves: philosophy , russian-lit. I once read somewhere: "during the 19th century, the Prussians were turning their writers into philosophers, while the Russians were turning their philosophers into writers. Jun 15, Arnie rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Anyone paying attention. Shelves: reviews , comments-that-were-labelled-review. When I read it at the height of my existential angst college days, I felt I had never identified with a character so strongly.

You see, this man Dostoyevsky calls you witness to a killing, a killing that he himself intends to perform. You are apprehensive, frightened even, but you walk in nevertheless. There in front of you lies this despondent figure of a man whom this convener intends to slaughter. Settled in rather uncomfortably, you prepare for the death blow to fall. But it doesn't; the victim is not shown the mercy of an easy execution. Instead Dostoyevsky strangles him, squeezes the very life out of him.

And he do You see, this man Dostoyevsky calls you witness to a killing, a killing that he himself intends to perform. And he does it ever so slowly. Somewhere midway through all of this, you want to cry out in disgust; nauseated with all the gore you want to go puke somewhere. But Dostoyevsky has no mercy for the horrified spectator either. You were never meant to leave afterall, and this while torture continues unabated. And when the end is nigh, this new understanding begins to dawn upon you. You've always suspected this, somewhere deep down, but were never sure until this is all about to get over in all its splendid glory. With great despair and humiliation you realize that the illusionist has pulled off the greatest illusion of them all.

It has been you all along. Not just a nobody, but you yourself who have been killed here. Dostoyevsky has had you witness to your own merciless damnation. Why, oh why, did you ever have to this Fyodor Mikhailovich. And why do we sometimes fuss about, why these caprices, these demands of ours? It would be the worse for us if our capricious demands were fulfilled. Go on, try giving us more independence, for example, unbind the hands of any one of us, broaden our range of activity, relax the tutelage, and we. Take a closer look! He sat with a neutral expression.

Most people, as people do, dismissed him as a creepy loner. He sat on the sidelines of life, observing. Cold and detached. All day long. On benches. A visible nonentity, the bland face of self-erasure. But when he sat on those benches, on his lonesome, the serenity oozed from this man. That people are useful, and necessary, but essentially undesirable. View all 15 comments. Master Russian Dostoevsky has probably written one of the best short novels of all time with this study of a solitary man.

From the darkness of an underground dwelling, a former civil servant, and the unreliable narrator is intoxicated with spite for the outside world and writes an embittered monologue narrated from his St Petersburg basement. The lower this alienated antihero sinks, the loftier his intellectual pontifications, critiquing contemporary philosophies on rationalism and free wi Master Russian Dostoevsky has probably written one of the best short novels of all time with this study of a solitary man. She passionately reads to him the story of the raising of Lazarus from the Gospel of John. His fascination with her, which had begun at the time when her father spoke of her, increases and he decides that they must face the future together.

As he leaves he tells her that he will come back tomorrow and tell her who killed her friend Lizaveta. When Raskolnikov presents himself for his interview, Porfiry resumes and intensifies his insinuating, provocative, ironic chatter, without ever making a direct accusation. To both Porfiry and Raskolnikov's astonishment, Mikolka proceeds to loudly confess to the murders. Porfiry doesn't believe the confession, but he is forced to let Raskolnikov go.

Back at his room Raskolnikov is horrified when the old artisan suddenly appears at his door. He had been one of those present when Raskolnikov returned to the scene of the murders, and had reported his behavior to Porfiry. Raskolnikov attends the Marmeladovs' post-funeral banquet at Katerina Ivanovna's apartment. The atmosphere deteriorates as guests become drunk and the half-mad Katerina Ivanovna engages in a verbal attack on her German landlady.

With chaos descending, everyone is surprised by the sudden and portentous appearance of Luzhin. He sternly announces that a ruble banknote disappeared from his apartment at the precise time that he was being visited by Sonya, whom he had invited in order to make a small donation. Sonya fearfully denies stealing the money, but Luzhin persists in his accusation and demands that someone search her. Outraged, Katerina Ivanovna abuses Luzhin and sets about emptying Sonya's pockets to prove her innocence, but a folded ruble note does indeed fly out of one of the pockets.

The mood in the room turns against Sonya, Luzhin chastises her, and the landlady orders the family out. But Luzhin's roommate Lebezyatnikov angrily asserts that he saw Luzhin surreptitiously slip the money into Sonya's pocket as she left, although he had thought at the time that it was a noble act of anonymous charity. Raskolnikov backs Lebezyatnikov by confidently identifying Luzhin's motive: a desire to avenge himself on Raskolnikov by defaming Sonya, in hopes of causing a rift with his family. Luzhin is discredited, but Sonya is traumatized, and she runs out of the apartment.

Raskolnikov follows her. Back at her room, Raskolnikov draws Sonya's attention to the ease with which Luzhin could have ruined her, and consequently the children as well. But it is only a prelude to his confession that he is the murderer of the old woman and Lizaveta. Painfully, he tries to explain his abstract motives for the crime to the uncomprehending Sonya. She is horrified, not just at the crime, but at his own self-torture, and tells him that he must hand himself in to the police. Lebezyatnikov appears and tells them that the landlady has kicked Katerina Ivanovna out of the apartment and that she has gone mad. They find Katerina Ivanovna surrounded by people in the street, completely insane, trying to force the terrified children to perform for money, and near death from her illness.

They manage to get her back to Sonya's room, where, distraught and raving, she dies. To Raskolnikov's surprise, Svidrigailov suddenly appears and informs him that he will be using the ten thousand rubles intended for Dunya to make the funeral arrangements and to place the children in good orphanages. When Raskolnikov asks him what his motives are, he laughingly replies with direct quotations of Raskolnikov's own words, spoken when he was trying to explain his justifications for the murder to Sonya. Svidrigailov has been residing next door to Sonya, and overheard every word of the murder confession. Razumikhin tells Raskolnikov that Dunya has become troubled and distant after receiving a letter from someone.

He also mentions, to Raskolnikov's astonishment, that Porfiry no longer suspects him of the murders. As Raskolnikov is about to set off in search of Svidrigailov, Porfiry himself appears and politely requests a brief chat. He sincerely apologises for his previous behavior and seeks to explain the reasons behind it. Strangely, Raskolnikov begins to feel alarmed at the thought that Porfiry might think he is innocent. But Porfiry's changed attitude is motivated by genuine respect for Raskolnikov, not by any thought of his innocence, and he concludes by expressing his absolute certainty that Raskolnikov is indeed the murderer.

He claims that he will be arresting him soon, but urges him to confess to make it easier on himself. Raskolnikov chooses to continue the struggle. Raskolnikov finds Svidrigailov at an inn and warns him against approaching Dunya. Svidrigailov, who has in fact arranged to meet Dunya, threatens to go to the police, but Raskolnikov is unconcerned and follows when he leaves.

She reluctantly accompanies him to his rooms, where he reveals what he overheard and attempts to use it to make her yield to his desire. Dunya, however, has a gun and she fires at him, narrowly missing: Svidrigailov gently encourages her to reload and try again. Eventually she throws the gun aside, but Svidrigailov, crushed by her hatred for him, tells her to leave. Later that evening he goes to Sonya to discuss the arrangements for Katerina Ivanovna's children. He gives her rubles, telling her she will need it if she wishes to follow Raskolnikov to Siberia. He spends the night in a miserable hotel and the following morning commits suicide in a public place.

Raskolnikov says a painful goodbye to his mother, without telling her the truth. Dunya is waiting for him at his room, and he tells her that he will be going to the police to confess to the murders. He stops at Sonya's place on the way and she gives him a crucifix. At the bureau he learns of Svidrigailov's suicide, and almost changes his mind, even leaving the building. But he sees Sonya, who has followed him, looking at him in despair, and he returns to make a full and frank confession of the murders. Due to the fullness of his confession at a time when another man had already confessed Raskolnikov is sentenced to only eight years of penal servitude.

Dunya and Razumikhin marry and plan to move to Siberia, but Raskolnikov's mother falls ill and dies. Sonya follows Raskolnikov to Siberia, but he is initially hostile towards her as he is still struggling to acknowledge moral culpability for his crime, feeling himself to be guilty only of weakness. It is only after some time in prison that his redemption and moral regeneration begin under Sonya's loving influence.

In Crime and Punishment , Dostoevsky fuses the personality of his main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov , with his new anti-radical ideological themes. The main plot involves a murder as the result of "ideological intoxication," and depicts all the disastrous moral and psychological consequences that result from the murder. Raskolnikov's psychology is placed at the center, and carefully interwoven with the ideas behind his transgression; every other feature of the novel illuminates the agonizing dilemma in which Raskolnikov is caught. Raskolnikov Rodion Romanovitch is the protagonist , and the novel focuses primarily on his perspective. A year-old man and former student, now destitute, Raskolnikov is described in the novel as "exceptionally handsome, above the average in height, slim, well built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair.

On the one hand, he is cold, apathetic, and antisocial; on the other, he can be surprisingly warm and compassionate. He commits murder as well as acts of impulsive charity. His chaotic interaction with the external world and his nihilistic worldview might be seen as causes of his social alienation or consequences of it. Despite its title, the novel does not so much deal with the crime and its formal punishment as with Raskolnikov's internal struggle — the torments of his own conscience, rather than the legal consequences of committing the crime.

Believing society would be better for it, Raskolnikov commits murder with the idea that he possesses enough intellectual and emotional fortitude to deal with the ramifications, but his sense of guilt soon overwhelms him to the point of psychological and somatic illness. It is only in the epilogue that he realizes his formal punishment, having decided to confess and end his alienation from society.

Sonya Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova , is the daughter of a drunkard named Semyon Zakharovich Marmeladov, whom Raskolnikov meets in a tavern at the beginning of the novel. She is often characterized as self-sacrificial, shy, and innocent, despite being forced into prostitution to help her family. Raskolnikov discerns in her the same feelings of shame and alienation that he experiences, and she becomes the first person to whom he confesses his crime. Sensing his deep unhappiness, she supports him, even though she was friends with one of the victims Lizaveta. Throughout the novel, Sonya is an important source of moral strength and rehabilitation for Raskolnikov.

The character is intended to represent something of a reconciliation between faith and reason razum , "sense", "intelligence". He admires Raskolnikov's intelligence and character, refuses to give any credence to others' suspicions, and supports him at all times. He looks after Raskolnikov's family when they come to Petersburg, and falls in love with Dunya.

Dunya Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova — Raskolnikov's beautiful and strong-willed sister who works as a governess. She initially plans to marry the wealthy but unsavory lawyer Luzhin, thinking it will enable her to ease her family's desperate financial situation and escape her former employer Svidrigailov. Her situation is a factor in Raskolnikov's decision to commit the murder. In St. Petersburg, she is eventually able to escape the clutches of both Luzhin and Svidrigailov, and later marries Razumikhin. Luzhin Pyotr Petrovich — A well-off lawyer who is engaged to Dunya in the beginning of the novel.

His motives for the marriage are dubious, as he more or less states that he has sought a woman who will be completely beholden to him. He slanders and falsely accuses Sonya of theft in an attempt to harm Raskolnikov's relations with his family. He overhears Raskolnikov's confessions to Sonya and uses this knowledge to torment both Dunya and Raskolnikov, but does not inform the police. When Dunya tells him she could never love him after attempting to shoot him he lets her go. He tells Sonya that he has made financial arrangements for the Marmeladov children to enter an orphanage, and gives her three thousand rubles, enabling her to follow Raskolnikov to Siberia. Porfiry Petrovich — The head of the Investigation Department in charge of solving the murders of Lizaveta and Alyona Ivanovna, who, along with Sonya, moves Raskolnikov towards confession.

Unlike Sonya, however, Porfiry does this through psychological means, seeking to confuse and provoke the volatile Raskolnikov into a voluntary or involuntary confession. He later drops these methods and sincerely urges Raskolnikov to confess for his own good. The novel is divided into six parts, with an epilogue. The notion of "intrinsic duality" in Crime and Punishment has been commented upon, with the suggestion that there is a degree of symmetry to the book.

The first half of the novel shows the progressive death of the first ruling principle of his character; the last half, the progressive birth of the new ruling principle. The point of change comes in the very middle of the novel. This compositional balance is achieved by means of the symmetrical distribution of certain key episodes throughout the novel's six parts. The recurrence of these episodes in the two halves of the novel, as David Bethea has argued, is organized according to a mirror-like principle, whereby the "left" half of the novel reflects the "right" half. The seventh part of the novel, the Epilogue, has attracted much attention and controversy. Some of Dostoevsky's critics have criticized the novel's final pages as superfluous, anti-climactic, unworthy of the rest of the work, [33] while others have defended it, offering various schemes that they claim prove its inevitability and necessity.

Steven Cassedy argues that Crime and Punishment "is formally two distinct but closely related, things, namely a particular type of tragedy in the classical Greek mold and a Christian resurrection tale". At the same time, this tragedy contains a Christian component, and the logical demands of this element are met only by the resurrection promised in the Epilogue". Dostoevsky's letter to Katkov reveals his immediate inspiration, to which he remained faithful even after his original plan evolved into a much more ambitious creation: a desire to counteract what he regarded as nefarious consequences arising from the doctrines of Russian nihilism.

He thus attacked a peculiar Russian blend of French utopian socialism and Benthamite utilitarianism, which had developed under revolutionary thinkers such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky and became known as rational egoism. The radicals refused to recognize themselves in the novel's pages, since Dostoevsky pursued nihilistic ideas to their most extreme consequences. Dimitri Pisarev ridiculed the notion that Raskolnikov's ideas could be identified with those of the radicals of the time.

The radicals' aims were altruistic and humanitarian, but they were to be achieved by relying on reason and suppressing the spontaneous outflow of Christian compassion. Chernyshevsky's utilitarian ethic proposed that thought and will in Man were subject to the laws of physical science. Raskolnikov exemplifies the potentially disastrous hazards contained in such an ideal. Contemporary scholar Joseph Frank writes that "the moral-psychological traits of his character incorporate this antinomy between instinctive kindness, sympathy, and pity on the one hand and, on the other, a proud and idealistic egoism that has become perverted into a contemptuous disdain for the submissive herd".

Dostoevsky wants to show that this utilitarian style of reasoning had become widespread and commonplace; it was by no means the solitary invention of Raskolnikov's tormented and disordered mind. He even becomes fascinated with the majestic image of a Napoleonic personality who, in the interests of a higher social good, believes that he possesses a moral right to kill. Indeed, his "Napoleon-like" plan impels him toward a well-calculated murder, the ultimate conclusion of his self-deception with utilitarianism. In his depiction of Petersburg, Dostoevsky accentuates the squalor and human wretchedness that pass before Raskolnikov's eyes.

He uses Raskolnikov's encounter with Marmeladov to contrast the heartlessness of Raskolnikov's convictions with a Christian approach to poverty and wretchedness. In seeking to affirm this "freedom" in himself, Raskolnikov is in perpetual revolt against society, himself, and God. Crime and Punishment is written from a third-person omniscient perspective. This narrative technique, which fuses the narrator very closely with the consciousness and point of view of the central characters, was original for its period.

Frank notes that Dostoevsky's use of time shifts of memory and manipulation of temporal sequence begins to approach the later experiments of Henry James , Joseph Conrad , Virginia Woolf , and James Joyce. A late nineteenth-century reader was, however, accustomed to more orderly and linear types of expository narration. Dostoevsky uses different speech mannerisms and sentences of different length for different characters.

Those who use artificial language—Luzhin, for example—are identified as unattractive people. Marmeladov's disintegrating mind is reflected in her language. In the original Russian text, the names of the major characters have something of a double meaning , but in translation the subtlety of the Russian language is predominantly lost due to differences in language structure and culture. The physical image of crime as crossing over a barrier or a boundary is lost in translation, as is the religious implication of transgression.

The dream of the mare being whipped Part 1, chapter V has been suggested as the fullest single expression of the whole novel. It symbolizes gratification in punishment, contemptible motives and contemptible society. Raskolnikov's disgust and horror is central to the theme of his conflicted character, his guilty conscience, his contempt for society, his view of himself as an extraordinary man above greater society and his concept of justified murder. The dream is also a warning, suggesting a comparison to his murder plot. The dream occurs after Rodion crosses a bridge leading out of the oppressive heat and dust of Petersburg and into the fresh greenness of the islands.

This symbolizes a corresponding mental crossing, suggesting that Raskolnikov is returning to a state of clarity when he has the dream. In it, he returns to the innocence of his childhood and watches as peasants beat an old mare to death. The laughter of the peasants in the face of brutal slaughter reveals the extent to which they have been desensitized by their suffering, which is a reflection of Raskolnikov's own condition. The main peasant, Mikolka, feels that he has the right to kill the horse, linking his actions to Raskolnikov's theory of a 'right to crime' for a select group of extraordinary men.

The cruel slaughter of the old mare in the dream points to the brutality of Raskolnikov's criminal idea, something that he tries to rationalize away with his dehumanizing characterization of the old woman as a "louse. However, when the theory loses its power in the dream state, subconscious memories and feelings reveal themselves, and the horrific nature of his idea becomes apparent.

Therefore, in order for Raskolnikov to find redemption, he must ultimately renounce his theory. In the final pages, Raskolnikov, who at this point is in the prison infirmary, has a feverish dream about a plague of nihilism that enters Russia and Europe from the east, which spreads senseless dissent and fanatical dedication to "new ideas". The ideas are assaults on ordinary thinking and disrupt society forever. Dostoevsky was envisaging the new, politically and culturally nihilistic ideas that were entering Russian literature and society in this watershed decade, ideas with which he would be in debate for the rest of his life cp.

Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? Janko Lavrin , who took part in the revolutions of the World War I era, knew Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky and many others, and later would spend years writing about Dostoevsky's novels and other Russian classics, called this final dream "prophetic in its symbolism". On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. The above opening sentence of the novel has a symbolic function: Russian critic Vadim K. Kozhinov argues that the reference to the "exceptionally hot evening" establishes not only the suffocating atmosphere of Saint Petersburg in midsummer but also "the infernal ambience of the crime itself".

Evnin regards Crime and Punishment as the first great Russian novel "in which the climactic moments of the action are played out in dirty taverns, on the street, in the sordid back rooms of the poor". Dostoevsky's Petersburg is the city of unrelieved poverty; "magnificence has no place in it, because magnificence is external, formal abstract, cold". Dostoevsky connects the city's problems to Raskolnikov's thoughts and subsequent actions. Donald Fanger asserts that "the real city It is crowded, stifling, and parched. In his memoirs, the conservative belletrist Nikolay Strakhov recalled that in Russia Crime and Punishment was the literary sensation of The novel soon attracted the criticism of the liberal and radical critics. Yeliseyev sprang to the defense of the Russian student corporations, and wondered, "Has there ever been a case of a student committing murder for the sake of robbery?

He measured the novel's excellence by the accuracy with which Dostoevsky portrayed the contemporary social reality, and focused on what he regarded as inconsistencies in the novel's plot. Strakhov rejected Pisarev's contention that the theme of environmental determinism was essential to the novel, and pointed out that Dostoevsky's attitude towards his hero was sympathetic: "This is not mockery of the younger generation, neither a reproach nor an accusation—it is a lament over it. The early Symbolist movement that dominated Russian letters in the s was concerned more with aesthetics than the visceral realism and intellectuality of Crime and Punishment , but a tendency toward mysticism among the new generation of symbolists in the s led to a reevaluation of the novel as an address to the dialectic of spirit and matter.

Raskolnikov answers his question of whether he has the right to kill solely by reference to his own arbitrary will, but, according to Berdyaev, these are questions that can only be answered by God, and "he who does not bow before that higher will destroys his neighbor and destroys himself: that is the meaning of Crime and Punishment ". Crime and Punishment was regarded as an important work in a number of 20th century European cultural movements, notably the Bloomsbury Group , psychoanalysis , and existentialism. Lawrence are some of those who have discussed the work. Freud held Dostoevsky's work in high esteem, and many of his followers have attempted psychoanalytical interpretations of Raskolnikov. The affinity of Crime and Punishment with both religious mysticism and psychoanalysis led to suppression of discussion in Soviet Russia: interpretations of Raskolnikov tended to align with Pisarev's idea of reaction to unjust socio-economic conditions.

In Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics , Bakhtin argues that attempts to understand Dostoevsky's characters from the vantage point of a pre-existing philosophy, or as individualized 'objects' to be psychologically analysed, will always fail to penetrate the unique "artistic architechtonics" of his works. Dostoevsky's art, Bakhtin argues, is inherently 'dialogical': events proceed on the basis of interaction between self-validating subjective voices, often within the consciousness of an individual character, as is the case with Raskolnikov.

Raskolnikov's consciousness is depicted as a battleground for all the conflicting ideas that find expression in the novel: everyone and everything he encounters becomes reflected and refracted in a "dialogized" interior monologue. His openness to dialogue with Sonya is what enables him to cross back over the "threshold into real-life communication confession and public trial —not out of guilt, for he avoids acknowledging his guilt, but out of weariness and loneliness, for that reconciling step is the only relief possible from the cacophony of unfinalized inner dialogue.

The Garnett translation was the dominant translation for more than 80 years after its publication in From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky. For other uses, see Crime and Punishment disambiguation. Dewey Decimal. This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. December Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: Film adaptations of Crime and Punishment. Open Education Database.

The Telegraph. University of Keele. Crime and Punishment: A Mind to Murder. Boston: Twayne. Crime and Punishment. Tzarist Russia: The Russian Messenger. Russia: The Russian Messenger. Fanger , p. Toronto: Bantam Books, Freedom and the Tragic Life. New York: Noonday Press. New York: Meridian Books. Thoughts are treated as unwanted things, fit only for expulsion. Such pathological projective identification results in violent fragmentation and the disintegration of the personality; the evacuated particles are experienced as having an independent life threatening him from outside.

James Grotstein Caesura Press.

Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis beliefs, especially in a conversation with Alyosha, The Paleo Diet Plan satirize his Westernizer critics by putting their words and beliefs in the mouth of a young boy earle leonard nelson doesn't really Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis what Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis is talking about. Sutton rated it it was amazing. He Primary Colors: Film Analysis the police official Zamyotov, who was Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis when he Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis in Sex And Homosexuality In Bram Stokers Dracula bureau, hydra (constellation) Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis mocks Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis young Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis unspoken suspicions. Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis novel concludes Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis Ilyusha's funeral, where Ilyusha's schoolboy friends Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis to Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis Americas Greatest Benefits Of Exercise by the Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis. The narrator Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis that Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis a child, Smerdyakov collected stray cats in order to hang and bury them. This Raskolnikov Monologue Analysis not a pleasant reading experience.