Crime And Punishment Forum

Crime And Punishment

Forum

great book

>>By ElanVital (Saturday, 11 Oct 2003 03:10)

Discussion #1: Is Crime and Punishment's Raskolnikov "an extraordinary man" as his article defends, or is he simply insane?

Discussion #2: Is Raskolnikov a victim or the victimizer?

>>By Farie Child (Friday, 17 Oct 2003 00:48)

re # 1-i think that raskolnikov had the potential to be extraordinary but couldnt overcome the psychic consequences of his actions.i'm a bit fuzzy here cuz its been awhile since i read it,but i felt he was undone by his innate decency.i think one of the biggest factors in his descent into madness was the conflict between what he believed himself to believe,and what he actually believed.
re#2-both and neither.he was a victim of his own desire to turn an abstract philosophical position into a concrete reality featuring himself as the example.he was not a victim of society,history,or any other external forces.r.'s problems were entirely of his own making,as are most alleged victims,and the exploration of this is one of the things which make this one of the greatest novels of all time.he was a victimizer of the pawn lady and her sister but not of the rest of the characters who blame him for their problems.and back to the first discussion for a moment,ive always felt it was the murder of the innocent[from his point of view] sister which caused his inability to accept his crime.

>>By goddog (Friday, 17 Oct 2003 03:02)

This reminds me of a quote from the novel that "he will suffer if he feels sorry for his victim." i personally believe that he didn't suffer because he felt sorry for the pawnbroker and her sister, but because he so miserably retched for himself. And I noticed that he hardly ever referred to Lizaveta, her sister. I don't think he actually accepted that he killed her too...

>>By Farie Child (Saturday, 18 Oct 2003 00:12)

i dont think he did feel sorry for the victims but that didnt keep him from feeling guilty.and much of his mental strain ,i still believe, came from the conflict between that guilt, and a feeling of acomplishment that in turn kindled a pride which he couldnt share.but it might all come down to the poisonous results of secrecy and alienation.

>>By goddog (Sunday, 19 Oct 2003 16:05)

I agree - Raskolnikov's downfall resulted from pride, secrecy and allienation, all of which were completely self-inflicted.

Another worthwhile discussion is the role of women throughout the novel, and how they are directly linked to the theme of poverty. I've wondered many times as well if Raskolnikov would have killed the pawnbroker were she not a woman. Would the same hate have burned in him, the same desire to conquer had she been a man with the same personality and position in society?

>>By Farie Child (Sunday, 19 Oct 2003 18:14)

hadnt thought of that, but choosing a victim which he felt was physically inferior to him may have been the first indication that he was to weak to be the 'extraordinary man'he craved being

>>By goddog (Sunday, 19 Oct 2003 21:07)

and i still believe raskolnikov wanted to be 'good'.his attempts to help people,in particular the drunk[marmeladov?] and his family,show this.he was very empathic to other people's suffering.

>>By goddog (Monday, 20 Oct 2003 00:13)

yes, it is his first instinct to express empathy, but then always immediately afterwords regrets having done so. For example, he tries to help the poor drunk girl (name never mentioned) from being sexually harassed by a rich stalker and his forst impression is to call a police man to the scene. he then changes his mind and says to leave the girl alone, the man can have her if he wants, and he regrets having given the police man any money to gove to the girl. Another example is when he goes with Marmeladov to his home and leaves money for the family on the dresser. As soon as he leaves he questions why he left so much money with them. When he gave Katerina's daughter Polenka money for Marmeladov's funeral he again makes a gift of money, but regrets having done so after the fact. He became so absorbed in his own suffering that he repeatedly and instinctively gave of himself, but then regreted the act of kindness, for it was a personal loss. Could this be because he was innately selfish? or because the murders he had committed reminded him that he had to hold on to every last possession, symbolic of retaining his claim of innocence?

>>By Farie Child (Wednesday, 22 Oct 2003 00:07)

The discussion board is currently closed.