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 19th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment