Final Draft of Term Paper Blog (Alexia Barrios)

Alexia Barrios

Mr. Shapiro

Period 2

May 5, 2014

Dissection into the Alienation of Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment

Fyodor Dostoevsky is a highly regarded Russian novelist whose literary works are influenced by a variety of topics based on the corrupt political and social atmosphere that was 19^th century Russia. Dostoevsky’s early view of the world was shaped by his experiences with social injustices and the overall tragic events that occurred throughout his life. It can be argued that he himself was somewhat alienated from society as he became active in socialist circles that were against the current political reforms that were occurring during that time period, as they consisted of a small group of people. His joining of such groups and his political opinions is what lead to his arrest as him along with others were illegally printing and distributing social propaganda. One of his most rewarded literary works is Crime and Punishment, a novel that is a psychological analysis of the main character, Rodion Ramonovich Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov believes in the capability that certain “great men” have the ability to disregard the moral code as well as those set up by society in order to commit crimes that would accomplish a certain task that they find committing such a crime would be justifiable. It then can be argued that in reality he is simply attempting to logically justify his “evil thoughts” about the disliked pawnbroker who which he later murders in cold blood justifying this gruesome event as one that was necessary and that would benefit society since he has now eliminated an unwanted and evil presence. Raskolnikov, due to social, environmental and psychological aspects that are expressed within in the novel, had become alienated from society. This alienation stems from psychological aspects such as his superiority complex and growing guilt and from the environment of St. Petersburg, which was inhabited by those whom he considers far more inferior then him, and

             Several different aspects and sources of Raskolnikov’s alienation are introduced throughout the novel, one of the many being the social aspect of it, which is the first that is introduced. “He was so immersed in himself and had isolated himself so much from everyone that he was afraid not only of meeting his landlady but of meeting anyone at all.” (Dostoevsky, 3) Here Dostoevsky openly addresses and introduces his isolation from society and demonstrates the alienation that began at the beginning of the novel and progressively becomes worse as the guilt causes him to detach himself more and more from society. Originally, his alienation stemmed from his superiority complex in which he saw himself as superior to all those who also inhabited the city of St. Petersburg and supported by his belief in the idea of a “superman”. This concept of a “superman” is one that is brought up in his article, The Crime. This article discusses the rationale behind committing crimes and the article definitely is an embodiment of Raskolnikov’s personal beliefs on the subject and it suggests “that there are certain persons who can…that is, not precisely are able to, but have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes and that the law is not for them.” (Dostoevsky, 246) This argument that certain people or “extraordinary men” are above humanity and have the right to break the law and violate certain moral codes, such as murder, is one that in my opinion proves once again that Raskolnikov possess a superiority complex. Another contributing factor would be his physical appearance. Dostoevsky approaches the character of Raskolnikov in an interesting manner as he leaves the character nameless for some time but provides some clues as he describes him to be “exceptionally handsome, above average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful darks eyes and dark brown hair.” (Dostoevsky, 1) His physical appearance as well as his personal philosophy foster his proud and contemptuous nature, as well as someone who is emotionally detached from humanity and overly conscious.

From the beginning of the novel his air of superiority is evident due to the manner that he speaks and views those who reside in the city. Throughout the novel he continually describes them to be inferior, evaluating both beauty and the manner in which they dress, and in their intellectual capabilities. Due to this, he is unwilling to make any lasting connections with those who live alongside him since he finds himself to be to great of a person to socialize with those whom he views as much lower than himself. This can be considered somewhat ironic on Raskolnikov’s part since he judges those who are in poverty when in reality he is in the same financial state as those who he criticizes so harshly. Also, the fact that he views himself as a “superman”, or a person who is extraordinary in sense that they are above the moral rules that govern humanity, is a factor in which he justifies his alienation as though it almost compels him to do so. As the plot develops, it also comes to light his inability and unwillingness to create and sustain healthy relationships with those who are trying to help him. As he becomes more secluded and inwardly drawn into his guilt and psychological torment he pushes away his sister Dunia, his mother Pulcheria Alexandrovna, and one of his closest friends Razumikhin, as they try to help him both before the murders as his family sent him money and Razumikhin attempted to find him an occupation as well as during his tumultuous psychological state afterwards.

An aspect of committing such a vicious crime that Raskolnikov seemed to have overlooked was the psychological turmoil that consisted of intense guilt followed by the semi-delirious state that it threw him in. Shortly after the murders are committed, it is visible that Raskolnikov’s previously strong mental state begins to deteriorate due to his guilt and he enters a “strange period” (Dostoevsky, 417) where “it was as though a fog had fallen upon him and wrapped him in a dreary solitude from which there was no escape” (Dostoevsky, 417). His once lucid thoughts become sporadic and nonsensical as he falls deeper and deeper into delirium as he struggled whether or not to confess to the murders. There are several moments throughout the novel in which he comes so close to confessing, but then retracts himself or teases with the person to whom he was about to confess to.

“Something was happening to him, something entirely new, sudden and unknown. It was not that he understood, but he felt clearly with all the intensity of sensation that he could no longer appeal to these people in the police office with sentimental outbursts, or with anything whatsoever; and that if they had been his own brothers and sisters and not police officers, it would have been utterly out of the question to appeal to them in any circumstance of life. He had never experienced such a strange and awful sensation. And what was most agonizing was…a direct sensation, the most agonizing of all the sensations he had known in his life.” (Dostoevsky, 103)

This quotation, which was thought made by Raskolnikov in Part II Chapter I, illustrates Raskolnikov’s realization on the topic that his murdering of Alyona and Lizaveta has resulted in his complete isolation from society. This alienation and separation of himself from the society in which he lives in was one that began with his superiority complex, but the isolation grew much more once the murders were committed and the guilt and mental turmoil began to take over. The completion of murders in a sense finalized his separation, as he has now truly crossed over the lines and broken whatever ties he had left to humanity. His guilt only grows more intense as the novel continues, thus causing the separation between himself and society to grow as he becomes unable to hold conversations without sounding as though he is a lunatic. This alienation increases along with his guilt to the point where he completely removes himself from his family and friends when it comes near to him confessing to Sonya near the end of the novel.

The city of St. Petersburg is represented by Dostoyevsky to be filthy and overly crowded by a variety of low class citizens as drunks who “completed the revolting misery of the picture” (Dostoevsky, 2) along wit the women force their children out on the streets to beg for money, such as Sonya’s mother. This clutter and chaos that is St. Petersburg is one that is directly correlated with Raskolnikov’s mental state as he comes near the time of confessing as all the negative factors of the city “all worked painfully upon the young man’s already overwrought nerves.”(Dostoevsky, 2) This negative image that Dostoevsky presents plays a vital role in the alienation of Raskolnikov as well. Through Raskolnikov’s eyes the city is presented to be infest with drunkards, molesters, and other vile creatures, all of which he believes to be much lower than himself. This belief directly correlates with his superiority climax and his overall alienation from society. Due to the fact that such vile creatures inhabit the city, he does not associate himself with any of them and finds himself continually disgusted by the mere sighting of such creatures.

Along with the physical state of the city, the weather plays a pivotal role in his alienation due to the behavior that is produces. Most of the novel is set during the feverish heat of July and August and Dostoyevsky continually points out the excruciating heat that is being emitted. The first line of the novel introduces the weather as well as Raskolnikov by declaring, “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. bridge” (Dostoevsky, 1) This “exceptionally hot” weather that is being described can be considered the perfect setting for a piece that has to do with murder, aggression, guilt, and mental delirium. It has been shown through several different channels such as literary works like The Stranger and psychology in general that weather, specifically warm weather, plays a distinct role in raising the temperaments of people. Psychology has shown that extreme heat raises temperate and as a result promotes acts of aggression and violence. It usually causes a spike in crime, especially if the weather is that of extreme heat as described by Dostoyevsky in the first line of the novel. This ties in with his alienation throughout the novel as it causes him to enter a feverish state of mind several times and throws him into a state of mental delirium in which he pushes away Razumkhin, Dunia, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, and others who are close to him. 

            Dostoevsky being the highly regarded Russian novelist that he is successfully created a complex character that exemplifies his own personal philosophies and life experiences. Being that he was a member of socialist circles that worked against the current Russian government he was part of an elitist group of men, which automatically makes him an isolated member of society similar to Raskolnikov. Their alienation from society both stemmed from their personal philosophies on morality, government, and society as a whole. The heart of the plot in Crime and Punishment is the psychological torment that Raskolnikov experiences due to his internal struggle between his philosophy and the unrelenting amount of guilt that drives him to want to confess. This innate struggle ultimately leads to his alienation from society as the philosophy revolving around certain “extraordinary men” and is the driving force behind his logical justification for committing the murders and it was the initial reason for his isolation. This philosophy that he adopted, fed his superiority complex, which only intensified his isolation as the novel progressed since he continuously found himself to be far superior to those around him. Along with the psychological and social aspects presented in the novel, environmental aspects such as the weather played a role in that it affected his behavior, enacting a more aggressive Raskolnikov than originally presented. Whether he was trying to do good or bad, his alienation was an aspect of this journey that was inevitable and only when he was removed from such an environment and of the guilt, was he able to begin his reintroduction into society with the help of Sonya.  

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Crime and Punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.

Final Draft and Works Cited

Luisa Maggioni

Mr. Shapiro

AP English Lit/ P. 2

5/5/2014

        Crime and Punishment Term Paper

Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of the most prolific writers in Russia’s history. He is best known for his works that criticized the state of the Russia he lived in. He focused mostly on the social, economic, humanitarian, and political factors of the time period he was in. When he wrote one of his more famous novels, Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky was in the late 1860’s  St. Petersburg. Czar Alexander II had just come into power at this time after the Crimean War, and was a liberal man whom began reforms within the government, the military, the judiciary, and in education (“History of St. Petersburg”, 2001). His reforms called for twenty-three million serfs to be emancipated while St. Petersburg was a prominent economic center, which resulted in complete havoc and poverty. Thousands of people were sent to prison in Siberia during this turbulent time (“Crime and Punishment Setting”, 2008). Ironically, Dostoevsky himself spent some time exiled to Siberia after being in the military. In his novel, Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky portrays a character who isolates himself from society around him and performs both acts of extreme cruelty and on the contrary, of great compassion. The question posed to the reader through these contradicting actions is the mental sanity of this character, named Raskolnikov. Is Dostoevsky portraying Raskolnikov as a sociopath, or is he using him to depict his doubts on the goodness of humanity and the effects of being an outcast of a strict society?

Raskolnikov, the protagonist yet “bad guy” of Crime and Punishment, is a young man who is a complete outcast, rejected from society out of his own will. He isolated himself from his surroundings to live in a disgusting, old, one bed room apartment all out of his own decision. Just from that, one can immediately pick up that Raskolnikov is not entirely “normal”. He is a very contradicting person that has the reader utterly confused and not knowing which “side” of Raskolnikov to pick since the very first page of the novel. The horrendous act Raskolnikov commits is secretly killing two entirely innocent women with an ax, Alianova and Lizaveta. The reason behind this is dumbfounding — Alianova did not “belong” in the world anymore — she was a waste of space and time. This presents many mental problems that Raskolnikov has which will be looked at more in depth further on. 

Surprisingly, there is an extraordinary opposite side to Raskolnikov — his humaneness and generosity. This attribute throws every single reader off guard. Raskolnikov performs kindhearted deeds, the first being giving away his money of which he barely has any in the first place. At a bar, Raskolnikov meets an old, drunk man with a completely destroyed and impoverished family — Marmeladov. Marmeladov lets Raskolnikov in, telling him all his problems and what led him to be in the position he finds himself. He goes to the point of bringing Raskolnikov to his home to meet his wife and his daughter (whom worked as a prostitute to make money for the family). When Raskolnikov saw the dire conditions this family was in, he left them his money at their window without saying a word nor expecting anything in return — “As he went out, Raskolnikov had time to put his hand into his pocket, to snatch up the coppers he had received in exchange for his rouble in the tavern and to lay them unnoticed on the window. Afterwards on the stairs, he changed his mind and would have gone back” (Pt. 1, Ch. 2, Dostoevsky). This is truly remarkable about him, considering he barely has any money at all. But, the “evil” side of Raskolnikov still comes out even during his “good” deeds, once again confusing the reader. He thinks to himself he should get the money back, since the prostitute daughter can make the money, but he stops himself — “‘What a stupid thing I've done,’ he thought to himself, ‘they have Sonia and I want it myself.’ But reflecting that it would be impossible to take it back now and that in any case he would not have taken it, he dismissed it with a wave of his hand and went back to his lodging.” (Pt. 1, Ch. 2, Dostoevsky). A second virtuous act Raskolnikov performs is when he saves a drunk teenage girl from getting raped by a preying old, drunk man. He does so by calling the police and giving them money to stop the old man from touching the girl. This shows his sensitive and humane side. “‘…Raskolnikov feeling in his pocket and finding twenty copecks, ‘here, call a cab and tell him to drive her to her address. The only thing is to find out her address!’… ‘An innocent creature like that, drunk already! She has been deceived, that's a sure thing. See how her dress has been torn too.... Ah, the vice one sees nowadays! And as likely as not she belongs to gentlefolk too, poor ones maybe.... There are many like that nowadays. She looks refined, too, as though she were a lady…‘The chief thing is," Raskolnikov persisted, "to keep her out of this scoundrel's hands! Why should he outrage her! It's as clear as day what he is after; ah, the brute, he is not moving off!” (Pt. 1, Ch.4, Dostoevsky). Raskolnikov’s actions here and kind words prove that he actually is kindhearted and does think about the protection of those who are less fortunate because of their destiny — not because of their own choice. Raskolnikov’s humane side always comes out in times of genuine need.

    The question has to be answered now — is Raskolnikov is actually a sociopath, or just a person with an extreme case of superiority complex and a rough upbringing? A sociopath (antisocial personality disorder) is a mental illness “in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others” (Merrill, 2012). The characteristics of a sociopath include charm, manipulation, unreliability, insincerity, lack of remorse, egocentrism, use of alcohol (Thomas, 2013), lack of change after getting punished, difficulty controlling impulses, incapacity to form a true relationship, and more than usually lives in poor conditions (Jimeny, 2000). A sociopath is someone who shows no worry for the wellbeing of others, not even those who are close to him/her. Sociopaths are aggressive, irritable, irresponsible, impulsive, and all over the place. Males are more susceptible to this mental illness, especially if they are unemployed and of a lower social status — like Raskolnikov (Jimeny, 2000). A person with a superiority complex, on the other hand, is someone with an immense feeling of being better than, or superior, to everyone else. It is usually just a psychological defense mechanism to hide feelings of inferiority (Alfred Adler : The Inferiority and Superiority Complex, 2009). Alfred Adler, whom is most famous for doing studies on the superiority complex, states, “Behind everyone who behaves as if he/she were superior to others, we can suspect a feeling of inferiority which calls for very special efforts of concealment. It is as if a man/woman feared that they were too small and walked on their toes to make themselves taller”. This superiority complex connects with “existential reality, [and] produces people who look confident one moment and ineffectual the next, motivated one moment and apathetic the next, sober and hard-working one moment and self-indulgent and addicted the next” (Maisel, 2012).

     Raskolnikov has many of the characteristics that describe both a person with a superiority complex and a person who is a sociopath, so it is extremely difficult to decipher which of the two he is, which was Dostoevsky’s intention. Raskolnikov is similar to a sociopath in that he performs criminal acts, has ridiculous impulses, is extremely aggressive (the form in which he killed the two innocent women), does not work, is unreliable, manipulative, insincere, egocentric, and lives in poverty. But, there are so many things that differentiate him from a sociopath as well. Unlike a sociopath, Raskolnikov does show worry towards the well-being of his family members — those who are close to him. He shows this through his adamancy against his sister marrying someone who would not have been good to her, just because the family needs money. He goes out of his way to help his family and his friends, as is shown when he leaves money for Marmeladov. The good deeds Raskolnikov performs, previously described, are what set him apart the most from being considered a sociopath. A sociopath would never go out of his/her way to help someone in need. He is also able to have a somewhat meaningful relationship with another human being. He has this with Sonia, Marmeladov’s daughter. She becomes somewhat like a girlfriend to him, and he believes she is the only one who will stick by her so he treats her well. A sociopath only treats himself well. 

     Although Raskolnikov did commit the atrocious criminal act of murdering two innocent women practically “just because”, he still feels remorse for it while a sociopath would not feel any remorse whatsoever. In fact, Raskolnikov’s guilt eats him up until he has to confess to someone — Sonia. When he does tell her his crime, he justifies it that the pawnbroker was a “louse”. This is where his characteristics of superiority complex come in. “"I've only killed a louse, Sonia, a useless, loathsome, harmful creature” (Part 2, Chapter 4). Raskolnikov is more similar to a person with a superiority complex than a sociopath because Raskolnikov’s base reason for all of his atrocities are because he feels he is better and because he feels he knows best. When he murdered the pawnbroker, he did it because he believed she was useless in the world and was simply put, a horrible person. He actually thought he was doing society good by killing her and eliminating her from society. In fact, his superiority complex was so enhanced that he considered himself a hero for killing her because he believed he saved everybody a lot of negativity. Raskolnikov is very insecure, and that is seen in the conditions he lives in and how he feels when he is looked at by other people — he immediately gets paranoid and wants to basically run back to his apartment where no one sees him. He conceals these feelings of being inferior (inferiority complex) with a much stronger and more enhanced superiority complex. 

      Through Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky recreates what it means to be raised in a horrible environment (like St. Petersburg in the 1860’s) and the horrible effects it can have on a human being. Through extensive research about sociopaths and people with superiority complexes, Raskolnikov falls into the superiority complex category, with a harsh upbringing. Raskolnikov does portray many of the characteristics of a sociopath, but he shows way too many characteristics that are the opposite of what a sociopath would do, specifically feeling remorse and having a compassionate side that helps those in need. A sociopath cares simply and only about him/herself and would do anything to have his/her own pleasure. A person with superiority complex, on the other hand, commits actions, which could be atrocities, only to hide feelings of inferiority and to make him/herself feel better. Raskolnikov has superiority complex because although his actions were awful, they made him feel better because he felt like a hero having eliminated a, in his eyes, horrible human being like the pawnbroker. Crime and Punishment is not the only novel in which Dostoevsky has used a protagonist with a superiority complex — his novel Notes from the Underground is about a character who isolated himself from society due to his feelings of superiority just like Raskolnikov. These novels of his doubt the goodness of humanity and greatly study the effects that society can have on a human being and their mental sanity. 

Works Cited

"Alfred Adler : The Inferiority and Superiority Complex." CounsellingCentral. N.p., 2 Sept. 2009. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://counsellingcentral.com/alfred-adler-the-inferiority-and-superiority-complex/>.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Crime and punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.

Maisel, Eric. "The God-Bug Syndrome." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. N.p., 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-psychology/201209/the-god-bug-syndrome>.

Merrill, David. "Antisocial personality disorder." Antisocial personality disorder. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001919/#adam_000921.disease.causes>.

Shmoop Editorial Team. "Crime and Punishment Setting." Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <http://www.shmoop.com/crime-and-punishment/setting.html>.

"St. Petersburg on the road to capitalism (1840s to 1890s)." St. Petersburg, Russia on the road to capitalism (1840s to 1890s). N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <http://www.saint-petersburg.com/history/1840-90.asp>.

Thomas, M. E. . "How to Spot a Sociopath." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath>.

"sociopath definition." sociopath definition. N.p., 24 May 2000. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html>.

Works cited

Hey- sorry blogger is being weird and did not italicize "Crime and Punishment". It is really difficult to format certain things.
So my works cited:

        Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Modern Library, 1950. Print.

        Jong, Erica. Here Comes & Other Poems. Scarborough: New American Library of Canada, 1975. Print.

        Shakespeare, William, and Harold Jenkins. Hamlet. London: Methuen, 1982. Print.

Final Draft

    Within the novel Crime and Punishment, there is an extraordinary amount of internal struggle. Raskolnikov is the main subject of this conflict as there is rarely a moment where he is not contemplating his actions, trying to find a solution, or attempting to make a decision. Most of his struggle is linked to Aliona Ivanovia with the struggle he is faced with before and after murdering her. It can be said that internal struggle is one of the strongest themes of Crime and Punishment.
    The novel's entirety is difficult to completely pin down as having one key theme, but more often than it carries out the theme of internal struggle. Even individuals that are not as dark as the context of this novel will struggle with issues that plague their minds. It is not only the Sylvia Plath's and Edgar Allen Poe's that are tortured by self inquiry, but the romantics and the seemingly fulfilled people as well.
    There are many different types of internal struggle. With different situations different factors cause the mind to be thrust into a state of great torment. There are six types of internal struggle that can be greatly associated with this book, the struggles of choice, regret, control, desire, reflection, and coping. Raskolnikov is faced with each of these situations and spends quite a long time dwelling on how they should be dealt with.
    Not one person can say they have lived a single day without facing one internal struggle. The struggle does not have to be "should I murder?" it could be as simple as "should I get a drink of water?". The abundance of internal struggle people are subjected to have altered the course of social beliefs and many key events of history. The conflict of a women's place in society began in the heads of people who knew it was too controversial to admit to their thoughts. As horrific as murder is, Raskolnikov makes many interesting points in regards to justifying it. The ranting leads to action eventually. Unkempt desire gets the better of a person and they must do something in order to feel some sensation of forward movement. Raskolnikov is stuck in one place while he contemplates the murder, he is compelled to feel like he is no longer trapped in a routine. The way for him to break this is by acting on his desire. Ranting is no longer enough after a while, which can also be one of the reasons why he turns himself in at the end of the novel.
    Raskolnikov's method of reflection is not exactly unique. It is more the fact that he speaks aloud that separates him from the majority of people. That is what leads the reader and his peers to question his sanity. It is true, though many people have a hard time accepting it, that most people dwell on similar conflicts in a repetitive fashion. When people have strong beliefs they use repetition to enforce their points. Repetition can be used as means of being heard, which sometimes it appears that Raskolnikov wishes he could be.
    Crime and Punishment can be a book about longing for something or someone in a certain fashion depending how the reader looks at it. The process of analyzing literature must be done with acknowledgment that there is no singular meaning. A book can have several meanings, especially in a book with several characters like Crime and Punishment. It is not only Raskolnikov that holds the essence of longing, but practically every character. Their yearning can be seen as a weakness at some points, but at other points a self reflective attribute. Interestingly enough the novel does not give much detail on the actual action, but  instead has shorter, more distinct moments where the characters will get up and do something to shape their conflict, even if it is not what they want to do. Raskolnikov's peers can be used to capture the essence of each stage of Raskolinkov's internal struggle, as if to show that everyone has the same amount of conflict raging in their head, despite how socially acceptable these conflicts may be.
     In most instances in Crime and Punisment it all comes down to Raskolnikov finding himself having to make a choice. In regards to the abundance of these moments and their correlation to Raskolnikov's struggles it could be said that all internal struggle is a struggle between choices. Raskolnikov's most evident initial choice is whether to kill or not to kill. While this is also a desire some distinction between the desire and choice would be found in the fact that at some points, this was no longer a choice for Raskolnikov. He had to do it. At this point it is no longer a choice but something stronger, and eventually it becomes something more than a desire, it becomes something far out of his control. His body will not allow him to sit still any longer, as he must act on the unkempt desire, whether he wants to or not. This is when the situation becomes a struggle of control.
     The book draws this out in long rants about every struggle he is going through. Raskolnikov's personal torture almost seems to be put upon the reader. The reader must endure the ways that Raskolnikov unintentionally brings the element of punishment to himself. Even though the book takes place in third person and Raskolnikov is not usually speaking out loud, he is telling his story in a way not so different from someone writing in their diary. His words are possibly an attempt at understanding where he is and what he is going to do. A diary is recommended as a therapeutic means of understanding certain conflicts. The problem with Raskolnikov's rants is that, unlike a diary, he must keep them in his head. This can be a burden in regards to keeping secrets.
     In some beliefs, ranting and writing are two of the key ways of addressing this conflict. Whether it is the authors voice or not, literature written in first person typically finds the narrator dealing with their personal problems. Long speech or verse can be seen as a way of getting out a person's feelings and helping the person deal with their frustration or confusion, much like Raskolnikov does through battling himself inside and outside of his head. Many of his battles can be seen as having somewhat of a poetical composition to them (considering that poetry is not only rhyme and lyrical patterns). In that argument, it can be said that his ranting is a realistic form of a soliloquy.    
            Raskolnikov is somewhat comparable to Hamlet in his constant spoken battles. Instead of questioning whether or not he should kill himself, he is debating whether or not to kill and then what he should do about it. It is as if he is standing on stage and saying words that no one can hear, but in the real world it is perfectly plausible that someone may hear him. He is confessing his secrets out loud, but it may be that people find him insane and pass him by trying not to acknowledge him. Even Hamlet was overheard eventually.
    In common methods of writing, a character will pour out a feeling with some kind of conclusion or twist at the end. The conclusion is not always as simple as making a choice, sometimes the conclusion is to do nothing at all. The structure of Raskolnikov's rants flow the same way. He dwells on an idea, evaluates his choices, and either acts on it or saves it for later where he will rant about it again. In the same way that Raskolnikov's rants, "Evidence of Life", by Erica Jong, circles, turns and contem plates in a similar method. This poem is comparable to Raskolnikov's thought stream in the way it doubts, but defends certain ideas. The narrator, like Raskolnikov, is tied around several points, trying to make something of them. The poem dwells on what evidence there may be of life, then love, then of the speaker having love, then if there ever was love in the first place. This is much like Raskolnikov feeling irksome, questioning what is bothering him, deciding if it is the sickness, and then contemplating if he was sick to begin with. In a way both the speaker of the poem and Raskolnikov may never have answers to any of their many questions, but at the same time, it feels like they know the answer, "& if it wasn't love,/ if you called me now/ across the old echo chamber of the ocean/ & said:/ 'Look I never loved you,'/ I would feel/ a little like a fool perhaps,/ & yet it wouldn't matter." (Jong). Even though Raskolnikov feels like he knows what is to come, results still affect him. There is no escaping the impact that his actions will cause him. In his struggle it almost seems like he is not looking for an answer, but looking for anything to ramble about. It may be said that he is distracting himself from his struggles.
    Being that the central internal battle Raskolnikov has to do with the murder he commits, it is simple to tie each element of internal struggle to the situation. The most controversial aspect of his actions is the fact that he feels little remorse. Of course, it is hard for the readers to comprehend that he could not feel wrong for what he has done, but at the same time he regrets murdering Aliona's sister, Lizaveta. There is where his real regret spurns. Also, at times he is faced with the realization that certain incidents would be simpler had he not committed the crime. Because of the large amount of struggles he is faced with, it is hard to tell if most of his insanity and sickness really does come from regret. Of course, many readers would find themselves wanting most of the torture he inflicts on himself to be a means of retribution. Because of the small amount of evidence that is given to this claim, Raskolnikov is usually classified as mad and evil because he is not thinking in the way it would be socially acceptable for him to think.
In times of great internal conflict a person may struggle in thinking in socially acceptable ways. It is not to say that Raskolnikov's manner of thinking is totally justifiable, but his thoughts do have some merit to them. This brings upon the argument that there is no such thing as altruism, which would explain why Raskolnikov is less focused on others, and more focused on his own predicament. After all, he does have quite a lot to ponder on. He is trapped in his circling stages of regret, desire, reflection, coping, holding control over his actions, and determining what choice he will make. In this way he     is punishing himself, even if some of the punishment is not intentionally self inflicted.
  When the reader looks at Raskolnikov in a broader sense he can be seen as a man who wanted to do good. He can also be seen as a man who justifies his actions by claiming good intentions. Either way his self inflicted torture and constant failure can be acquainted with the idea that "Poetry does not cur    e/ the poet/ & the poet/ does not cure the world" (Jong). Raskolnikov cannot "cure" his internal struggles with his constant ramblings, and he cannot seem to do good with them either. What he has attempted to do in order to help himself or others cannot guarantee that he will be granted with what he intends. He is always stopped short by something, there is always a road block that prevents him from reaching the destination he intended. His way of coping does not help him much either. He either attempts to admit his actions to someone, or drives himself insane by once again going into his world of rambling. It is due to these elements that he may be perceived as a tragic hero, but of course tragic heroes can often be named evil.

/

Final Draft of Term Paper (Alexa)

Alexa Coots

Mr. Shapiro

May 5, 2014

Immorality, Morality, and Criminality in Crime and Punishment

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky was an incredibly talented Russian fiction writer, journalist, and publisher in the 1800s. Dostoyevsky wrote many short stories and novels but is most commonly known for his book Crime and Punishment. He had a gambling problem, suffered from epilepsy, and always experienced financial issues, and similar to the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, he was imprisoned in a Siberian prison for some time. Dostoyevsky first published Crime and Punishment in the year of 1866 where he submitted twelve monthly installments to a journal, Russki Vestnik (Russian Messenger.) According to letters translated by George Gibian, Dostoyevsky was under extreme pressure, both time and money wise, while writing Crime and Punishment. In addition to having to write and publish monthly installments of the story to the journal, Dostoyevsky had to come up with and write another novel altogether for a different publisher. That book ended up being one of his other more famous pieces of literature- The Gambler. The whole process left Dostoyevsky extremely depressed. Essentially, he was writing two books at the same time all while being broke, trying to ignore the temptations of gambling, suffering from random epileptic attacks, and grieving the death of his late wife (Shmoop Editorial Team).

The mere fact alone that he was able to complete the two novels in an orderly fashion while staying on track during all of the hardships present in his life is extremely admirable. His life troubles actually helped inspire a lot of the themes that make up Crime and Punishment. It is a complex and detailed story of criminality, morality, and guilt. Based around the main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment tells the story of an "ex-student" who acts upon "bad thoughts" he has from the beginning of the novel. After indulging in his fantasies and murdering two women, it is rather clear that Raskolnikov is guilty of his actions. In the novel, he justifies his crimes in his own way, going through different emotions and theories before he finally reaches the root cause of his action. The psychology behind Raskolnikov's character is intriguing and difficult to interpret. After robbing and murdering the pawnbroker and her sister, Raskolnikov must come to terms with his feeling, or lack of feeling, of what he just did. By the end of the novel, his remorse for the act and his motive is never fully explained. To him, the whole idea of what happened is confusing and he even goes as far as admitting that he did not understand why he killed them. His character argues that the pawnbroker added nothing to society and therefore her death is of no consequence- nobody would miss her so it basically did not matter if she were dead or alive. But throughout it all, Raskolnikov still feels guilty. The guilt itself is his true punishment for the murder. While he cannot figure out why he did it in the first place, he does know that his guilt indicates that all hope is not lost and that he is not a complete monster. Though it is evident that Raskolnikov feels immense guilt for the murders he committed, not once does he consider the possibility that what he did was immoral or wrong. Raskolnikov truly believes that his actions are noble and his crimes justified due to his suffering of an existential crisis, his psychological makeup, and his theory of "the extraordinary man."

In Crime and Punishment, there is substantial reason to believe that Raskolnikov might have been suffering from an existential crisis. An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose or value at all. Raskolnikov himself was struggling with internal issues, torn within himself between two major polar identities. In essence, he regarded himself so highly that he was mentally confined within his own philosophical thinking. He had lost the power to set his mind on something and to go out and do it. He dropped out of school, cheating himself of an education, his fiance was gone, he stopped working, and he acted as a hermit, wallowing in depression and self pity. Right from the get go it is quite evident that he is experiencing a major crisis in his life and his thoughts toward that crisis are rather depressing. He does not know how to hold himself or how to continue on; he has no definite reason for living. On the other hand, Raskolnikov wanted to be something that he so clearly was not (The Lit Quest). He did not want to be the poor, uneducated, pitiful man that he was in reality so he assumed a personality that encompassed the exact opposite. His character is perceived as a narcissistic, egotistical man who is extremely confident and sure of himself. His false confidence is completely transparent, though, due to the reader being privy to his stream of consciousness. He puts on an act for the public, but within his own mind is turmoil, insecurity, fear, and confusion. If Raskolnikov had committed the murders and experienced a change in his personality, thoughts or perspective on life after the fact, then the idea that he was suffering from an existential crisis would be irrelevant. However, it is made known from the first page of the novel that his crisis existed long before his actions of murder. He murdered the pawnbroker and her sister for no reason that he can think of. Raskolnikov murdered due to the lack of action and direction in his life (The Lit Quest). He was so deeply entrenched in his apathetic life that he desperately needed to do something, to “dare,” as he puts it: "...I wanted to dare, and I killed-  I only wanted to dare. Sonya, there is the whole reason” (Dostoyevsky 334).

Another piece of evidence to support this theory is the fact that Raskolnikov does not feel anything after he murdered. His actions did not benefit or “cure” his sense of listlessness and inaction in any way. The guilt that stems from the murders only temporarily alleviates his lack of action. It allowed him to focus on something, to blame himself for something, to worry about something that is completely separate from his own lack of motivation and self orientation. His guilt may have been relieved once he turned himself in to the authorities, but the epilogue informs the reader that he soon reverts back to his initial state of mind that we were first introduced to.  There is no escape from his existential crisis because his attempt to fix himself proved to be unsuccessful. The one time in the entire story where he experiences true redemption is when he steps away from himself and his own thinking and gives up his inherent need for control. This occurs when he learns to accept Sonya’s guidance and love. Raskolnikov finally stops thinking about himself and gives himself over to another person, subjecting himself to pain and uncertainty.  He is then able to separate himself from the polarizing despair of his identity and adopt a different view on life where he accepts the fact that nothing is realistically within his control.  The romance itself plays little to no importance to his journey of self discovery and is symbolic in the escaping of one's self. This is the one and only solution he finds to cure his primary absence of purpose that drove him to commit the murders in the first place (The Lit Quest).

On the other hand, Raskolnikov is a complex character who possesses many different traits that compliment each other but also seem to contradict each other at the same time. As with people in real life, having background information on a person and being privy to their psychology is crucial to understanding why that person behaves the way they do. One could argue that it is important to delve into the psyche of an individual to gain a basic understanding of them. In Raskolnikov’s case, the reader is not privy to much information about his life growing up. Readers are introduced to Raskolnikov’s character as a young man already struggling from internal strife with no prior history of what he was like before. This makes things a bit more difficult to understand his psychology, but Dostoyevsky includes some clues that help the reader somewhat figure things out. Raskolnikov’s name itself holds its origins in the Russian word “raskolnik,” which means to be divided or split. The significance and importance of his name alone is obvious throughout the novel in more than one scene in which readers are given a glimpse of his introspection or the examination of his own mental and emotional processes. Dostoyevsky uses introspection as a means of conveying Raskolnikov’s “inner self,” which, as stated before, is completely different than how he carries himself on the outside. He also uses Raskolnikov’s own observation of himself to emphasize his personality or multiple personalities. Through these moments of introspection, the reader is able to gain a basic understanding of Raskolnikov’s internal conflict, instability, and dual nature as a character: “...his mental powers were failing, splitting up...his mind clouding” (Dostoyevksy 97).  

In the novel, Dostoyevsky creates inherent contradictions in Raskolnikov’s theory of “the extraordinary man.” In order to show the development of his mindset, Raskolnikov had to murder the women before he completely figured himself out. At one point, Raskolnikov argued that he murdered to help rid mankind of a waste of a person, but then he later refutes that the “extraordinary man” is above mankind and is not concerned with the opinions of others. To sum it up, Raskolnikov was confused with his own ideals. He is mixing his personal emotions and thoughts with those of his theory. To him, men can only be one of two things: ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary men must subject themselves to a life in submission; they do not have the right to break the law because they are ordinary. In contrast, extraordinary men can do as they please, including transgressing the law, because they have the right to do so. What marks the difference between an ordinary and extraordinary man? Extraordinary men take whatever they want and do whatever they want in order to push civilization itself to new heights. They have the right to pass the law or any obstacles that lay in their path to fulfill their ideas that will eventually lead to the progression of the human race. If the extraordinary men took laws into consideration, they would cease to be great. It is their power and their right to surpass the common law that makes them great to begin with. They are then able to create their own new laws, and they have the right to get rid of any member of society in order to do so (Dostoyevsky). Therefore, Raskolnikov eliminates the pawnbroker and her sister because they were standing in his way by not contributing to the development of mankind. In his mind, he could use Alyona’s money to properly educate himself so he could start helping humanity. At the time of the murder, Raskolnikov was not thinking about the consequences his actions would bring. All he was concerned with was whether he could assert his will and dominance or not. In essence, Raskolnikov killed merely to prove that he was capable of doing so- to prove that his will was strong and that he did not belong in the “ordinary” category of men.  

Regardless of having a basic understanding of his character or not, it is still difficult to comprehend how he never truly considers whether what he is doing is “right” or “wrong.” His moral ambiguity makes the reader question a lot of things throughout the novel. Raskolnikov cannot simply be labeled as a “hero” or a “villain” right after the reader discovers he murdered two people because who is to say what “right” and “wrong” are in the first place? One’s moral compass is completely dependant on one’s thoughts, what they believe and what they were raised to believe. While murder is considered a treacherous act that is labeled as “wrong” in society, Raskolnikov does not perceive it as so. The murder of Alyona was not a crime in his mind, but a good deed he did to benefit the world. At the beginning of the book, Raskolnikov states that he intends to use her money for good. Also, Raskolnikov justifies his actions in his own mind with his thought that “great men” must remove difficulties in their lives in order to actually become great. He often compares himself to Napoleon, which is fitting since he shows signs of being stuck in a Napoleonic state of mind due to his false machismo that compensates for his feelings of inferiority. The fact that it is quite difficult to decide whether Raskolnikov is a moral or immoral character is central to Crime and Punishment. This debate acts as a transition from the small question, “Is Raskolnikov moral?,” to the much larger question, “What are morals?”

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.

Shmoop Editorial Team. "Crime and Punishment." Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.shmoop.com/crime-and-punishment/>.

"The Lit Quest: Why Raskolnikov Killed."The Lit Quest: Why Raskolnikov Killed. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. <http://thelitquest.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-raskolnikov-killed.html>.

Joshua Cohen Final Draft of Term Paper

Joshua Cohen

Mr. Shapiro

Period 2 AP English Literature and Composition

5 May 2014

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Split Nature in Crime and Punishment

Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a well-known Russian storywriter whose works were focused on and heavily influenced by the troubled political, social, and spiritual atmosphere of 19^th century Russia. Many of his novels held central themes and ideas which were usually directed towards the works of other Russian writers and their books. One of Dostoyevsky’s more notable books, Crime and Punishment focuses on the societal definition of good and whether the different structures in society should be broken in order to accomplish certain objectives. The main character in the novel, Raskolnikov, decides that it would be beneficial to murder a pawnbroker, based on insufficient social justifications, and his idea of ‘Great People.’ Raskolnikov believes that ‘Great People’ should be allowed to break down the rules of society if they have a goal or idea that is worth being spread. Throughout the book, Raskolnikov seems to act as though he is trying to help everybody around him, yet it is never clear that he is doing it only for the good of others. When considering the way Raskolnikov acts one can determine that his acts of generosity were out of a general need to feel in control over the suffering of others, even though his split personality contradicts itself against this statement.

Raskolnikov’s selfish nature presents itself in a range of forms throughout the novel, the most prominent way his selfishness shows is his willingness to basically murder to innocent women in order to get himself out of a financial hole he dug himself into. The main support for the idea that he only does things to feel better about himself is the dream that Raskolnikov had about the horse that was beat to death, and the effect it had on him. “The blow fell; the mare staggered, sank back, tried to pull, but the bar fell again with a swinging blow on her back and she fell on the ground like a log.” (pt. 1; ch. 5; par. 45) This is one of the quotes from the dream about the horse that Raskolnikov has, and it helps further the point being made about the helplessness of the horse and Raskolnikov in the situation. The main component of the dream is the absolute dread that he felt over the fact that he was completely hopeless and helpless to save the horse and this hopelessness had a definite impact on him. He used this aversion to helplessness to justify his killing of the pawnbroker because the pawnbroker was known to be abusive of her sister, and her sister was in a position where she was entirely helpless. Raskolnikov thought that by killing the pawnbroker, he would be able to help someone else out by getting them out of the helpless position they were in, yet it is obvious that this was merely a secondary justification for the murder, the initial being his plan to rob her. The fact that he ended up murdering the pawnbrokers sister after murdering her shows that he was not really thinking about helping her as much as he was thinking about trying to get away from the murder with the stolen items, and without getting caught. Even though Raskolnikov felt terrible about murdering the pawnbroker’s sister, he clearly saw the necessity in murdering her as well in attaining his own goals, which were so much more important than his secondary goal of helping others. This general pattern where Raskolnikov uses the justification of helping others in order to accomplish his own will repeats itself throughout the book, justifying the idea that Raskolnikov only helps others when he can truly benefit, not out of the goodness of his heart.

Another level that helps affirm the idea and fact that Raskolnikov only does good actions in order to benefit himself is the fact that many of his actions are taken in order to seemingly gain control over whoever he is helping. Many of Raskolnikov’s ideas are based around the theories and admiration of Napoleon, even his paper on ‘Great People’ used napoleon as one of the examples of a ‘Great Person’ and Raskolnikov openly states multiple times throughout the novel about how he has always looked up to the kinds of Napoleon. Also, some of the times that Raskolnikov helps people, he does so in such a way in which it could be interpreted that he is trying to gain a rise out of the fact that he is effectively in control of that person’s life. For example, when he gives money to the family in need, he seems to openly get a rise out of the fact that he is helping them survive and that he is effectively their only source of money, and their survival and well-being is based entirely on his decision of whether or not he gives them the money. Another thing that Raskolnikov does in order to seemingly prove his Napoleonic desires is the fact that he wants to be able to prove that he is different and therefore better than everybody else because he reaches over many of the societal bounds and expectations placed on people, for example, his willingness to kill to justify his goal, as he specifically stated in his paper. “Yes, that’s what it was! I wanted to become a Napoleon, that is why I killed her… Do you understand now?”(pt. 5; ch. 4; par. 112) As previously stated, he had defined Napoleon as a ‘Great Person’ and he lived his life to prove the ideas in his paper by becoming ‘a Napoleon.’ His efforts to help others also seem like an attempt for him to show that he is better than everybody else, because there is a constant theme that certain people are dressed better than him and that there are very clear distinctions in the different levels of society and that it is clear that some people are better in society. There are also multiple points in which he is verbally uncomfortable with the position he is in  in society and how he feels the need to prove he is better than everybody else, which he is able to accomplish through his decisions to help others that he deems to be in need. This is yet another way in which he is only helping others in order to help himself, instead of it being out of his own desire to help others, proving that he is much more selfish than he intentionally portrays himself to be. Yet, there are some other actions for which he cannot justify using the fact that he is trying to help himself where he is, in fact helping others out of the goodness of his heart, and some of those people are the people who eventually bring out his more humane side after he goes to prison and comes out being a changed man in the epilogue of the book.

There is one part of Raskolnikov that goes against the idea that he only cares about doing whatever only benefits himself instead of actually helping in order to help others out of the kindness of his heart. That one part is the love that he feels towards Sonia and how he actually helps her in order to help her, the only way that this can be skewed to show that he is trying to help himself is the idea that he is trying to win her heart by helping her, and is only benefitting through the physical relationship between the two. This might be assumed by some readers, especially seeing as Sonia is a prostitute and the idea of using money to gain her love is not too far out of the question. But, the way that Raskolnikov acts after leaving prison shows that, eventually, he shows true compassion for Sonia and shows a true desire to help her out of the kindness of his heart. The relationship is not even close to being a one way street in terms of affection, Sonia is actually one of the few characters that is able to see the possibility of goodness within Raskolnikov, and at first, he is actually unable to realize this fact and treats her like crap, especially considering how much she is putting aside in order to be with Raskolnikov. But there are certain occasions where Raskolnikov does throw himself at Sonia’s feet, for example: “‘I did not bow down to you [Sonia], I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity,’ he said wildly and walked away to the window.” (pt. 4; ch. 4; par. 99) Here, it shows that Raskolnikov saw Sonia as a symbol for the suffering of others, which allows him to identify with her, seeing as a main part of his character is his suffering. He does not realize until he goes to prison and is derived from his life and those surrounding him and he finally loses control over his life, and as they say, you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

After coming out of prison he finally realizes just how much Sonia loved him and just how much that he longed for her and basically allows himself to become a normal person with her. This could be considered as a realization of the fact that Raskolnikov has finally been punished for his crimes and can finally live without the fear and guilt that previously haunted him at every turn and chance. This transformation represents the loss of many of the multi-faceted aspects of feeling guilty for a crime and not being punished for it, which is what really brings home the meaning of the novel. Sonia’s perspective on Raskolnikov can be seen in multiple ways, it could be cited to show that Raskolnikov was truly good in his heart in these actions, or it can be used to show that Raskolnikov only liked her because she would put up with him and that she benefitted him by giving him an outlet. Based on his reaction at the end of the book, it is more likely that the relationship is a sign of his true nature, but, as are most of the things in this book, the relationship between the two is heavily multifaceted.

Dostoyevsky has not only presented the reader with the dilemma of how to think of Raskolnikov, but also the dilemma behind any facet of any action that anyone might take. Are they doing this for themselves, or are they considering the needs of others over the desires of their own? Are they doing the right thing in this situation? What is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in this situation? These sort of self-directed questions are the subject of many a philosopher’s debates and Dostoyevsky is able to perfectly create a character where each and every one of these questions, and an infinite variation of those questions, are absolutely screaming inside of his head. It is almost as if Dostoyevsky has been able to encapsulate the entire debate of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ within the characterization of a single character through this story. Now, when one considers the weight behind that statement, it is utterly incredible to think that Dostoyevsky was able to accomplish this complexity in only so many pages. Any paper discussing the merits of as many questions and quivering that Raskolnikov went through throughout this story would likely be longer than the book itself, which is why this paper is merely limited to this single question. Did he do it for himself, or for someone else? Even with such a simple question it is hard to find a definite answer, which seems to attest to the purpose of this novel, it is meant to leave the reader questioning the character. When considering this, the answer to this question would depend on the reader and any predispositions they may have, therefore the answer to that question, at least in this interpretation, is that Raskolnikov is more of a selfish man than his intentions may seem.  

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. Crime and punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian     

          Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.

Post # 3 (Making up for starting late)

Being that the central internal battle Raskolnikov has to do with the murder he commits, it is simple to tie each element of internal struggle to the situation. The most controversial aspect of his actions is the fact that he feels little remorse. Of course, it is hard for the readers to comprehend that he could not feel wrong for what he has done, but at the same time he regrets murdering Aliona's sister, Lizaveta. There is where his real regret spurns. Also, at times he is faced with the realization that certain incidents would be simpler had he not committed the crime. Because of the large amount of struggles he is faced with, it is hard to tell if most of his insanity and sickness really does come from regret. Of course, many readers would find themselves wanting most of the torture he inflicts on himself to be a means of retribution. Because of the small amount of evidence that is given to this claim, Raskolnikov is usually classified as mad and evil because he is not thinking in the way it would be socially acceptable for him to think.
In times of great internal conflict a person may struggle in thinking in socially acceptable ways. It is not to say that Raskolnikov's manner of thinking is totally justifiable, but his thoughts do have some merit to them. This brings upon the argument that there is no such thing as altruism, which would explain why Raskolnikov is less focused on others, and more focused on his own predicament. After all, he does have quite a lot to ponder on. He is trapped in his circling stages of regret, desire, reflection, coping, holding control over his actions, and determining what choice he will make. In this way he is punishing himself, even if some of the punishment is not intentionally self inflicted.
When the reader looks at Raskolnikov in a broader sense he can be seen as a man who wanted to do good. He can also be seen as a man who justifies his actions by claiming good intentions. Either way his self inflicted torture and constant failure can be acquainted with the idea that "Poetry does not cure/ the poet/ & the poet/ does not cure the world" (Jong). Raskolnikov cannot "cure" his internal struggles with his constant ramblings, and he cannot seem to do good with them either. What he has attempted to do in order to help himself or others cannot guarantee that he will be granted with what he intends. He is always stopped short by something, there is always a road block that prevents him from reaching the destination he intended. His way of coping does not help him much either. He either attempts to out himself to someone, or drives himself insane by once again going into his world of rambling. It is due to these elements that he may be perceived as a tragic hero, but of course tragic heroes can often be named evil.