Parallels Between Raskolnikov, the Underground Man, and Dostoevsky

          After reading Notes from the Underground, this book is making a lot more sense now, the common themes and ideas that Dostoyevsky presented are highly evident in the way Raskolnikov is acting. Either Raskolnikov is supposed to be a representative of the underground man, in that he acts and thinks very similarly, or Dostoyevsky cannot help but write himself into all of his characters, and it would make sense seeing how well he can capture the insane societal outcast character. The main point of comparison between Raskolnikov and the underground man is the fact that Raskolnikov spent so much time planning out and trying to exact his revenge, only to be met with indecision and doubts. He also regrets every time he performs something as a man of action was, as he did when he murdered the women. Even though he had planned the whole thing he cannot deal with the fact that he had actually done something. Also, Raskolnikov exhibits the same wariness towards the concept of “the wall” in the way that he both seeks to confess about his crimes, yet he constantly shies away from the absoluteness of the punishment.  Then there is the whole debate in notes from the underground about the fact that one can truly enjoy being punished because it confirms their existence. It seems that Raskolnikov is not quite entirely over-conscious, it seems as if he fades in and out of periods of consciousness, which would explain why his rambles are somewhat random. Yet he still exhibits the idea of a mouse under the floorboards in the way that he seems to look down on those in power, even though he is well aware of just how low he is in society.  Yet there is a part of Raskolnikov’s personality that is different from the underground man so far, unless we have not discussed it yet, and that is the whole Napoleonic adoration that Raskolnikov has and his theories of “great men.” His definition of great men almost perfectly parallels the idea of the “man of action” in notes from the underground, the fact that they are able to charge towards a goal no matter what is put in their way. Yet in this case, that type of man is being praised for that ability which is not the same for the underground man, who seems to hold content for these “men of action.” Personally, I think the relationship of these two characters and what it entails about the author would make for an interesting thesis, but I will have to wait until the complete analysis of the underground man to choose.