Here are some questions for Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment:
1.) Why does Raskolnikov feel that killing the pawnbroker is justified?
2.) What role does conscience play in the book? Why does he feel compelled to hint to others about his crime?
3.) What of the accidents of chance that move the plot. Raskolnikov overhearing when the pawnbroker will be out or the man leaving his post at the door at the opportune moment? Or even the idea for the crime again coming from an overheard conversation? All of this seems to add to Raskolnikov’s anguish.
4.) Raskolnikov had the courage to do what others only talked about, but was this the right thing to do for him and his family? Does the end justify the means? Why or why not?
5.) What is your favorite part of the book? Why?
1.) He mistakenly thinks that more good will come out of it. I believe he is testing himself to see if he is a ‘Napolean’.
2.) He seems intent both on obscuring his crime and intimating it, almost an attraction/repulsion scheme in the grand psychological Dostoevskian style.
3.) Life continues for Raskolnikov even though he is immobilized by his crime. His Mother and sister arrive, Razhumin continues to be preoccupied with him, etc.
4.) No because then anything goes and results in the defenestration of heirarchy and coherency (i.e. goals can not be subordinate, the ends becomes the means, etc.)
5.) I guess that my favorite part of the book is the interplay of the different characters and how their ideologies clash and entwine.
In response to #4, I think one of the central themes of the book is nihilism. I think that what i said in #4 is reiterated via allegory near the last pages in R’s dream. “He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague…All were to destroyed except a very few chosen…these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth… They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good.”
Question: Do you think it’s possible to be a "Napoleon’? In real life – if Raskolnikov exists – can such a man get away from the psychological consequences that Raskolnikov went through?
Secondly, do you think Raskolnikov was looking for punishment? Even before commiting the murder do you think he desired punishment (I think he felt guilty before he had commited the murder). Furthermore, perhaps the murder was an excuse to give himself in order to be punished? Through punishment he establishes a connection to society for he is withdrawn from society in the begining of the novel – the crime is his connection to society.
Finally, I think that punishment fills a need – it’s a craving that some of us feel and look for. My question is why do we feel the need to be punished? And would we if this wasn’t fiction?
Though I’ve read the book 3 years ago it’s still feels very fresh in my mind. A vivid scene that I recall is Raskolnikov in the Market where he proclaimed the lonliest place to be was a crowd. And my fravorite scene was when the prosecutor told Raskolnikov that he thought he was guilty and walked him through his thoughts on why he thought so.
Good Questions!
I don’t think one can be an Ubermenschen or Napolean in the true sense of the word. It would be all liberty with no justice. Such souls always get ostracized from society and end up lamenting, “Able was I, ere I saw elba.” I look at the torture I endure just for being different from the masses and know that if I were to inflict harm also, I would meet with vengeance, enmity, and envy.
But, while it is true that, “No man is an island”; to the extent that he is, he is a man (or woman).
I never even considered if Raskolnikov was looking for punishment, but now that you mention it, I believe he was. I think every Napolean must at least realize that they will be punished and in some circumstances (the Marquis De Sade comes to mind) the punishment even fuels their ambitions more. But I believe that Raskolnikov was essentially a person who felt for the woes of others (witness his incessant giving of alms to others even though living in poverty himself) and people like that often end up on someone else’s cross.
Expiation perhaps, a kind of longing for the struggle, a willingness to be punished for those one loves?..
I had to revive this thread because I enjoy Dostoevsky’s writing (although, thus far I have only read Crime and Punishment, and Notes From The Underground - so forgive and forget [forget will suffice] if I’m missing something).
I’m unsure whether Raskolnikov believes he was justified (or rather justification has little to do with the act). I understand that he tries to rationalize it, and at one point, dismisses remorse by relating the pawnbroker to a useless extortionist (<-may not be an accurate word, but hopefully I’ve conveyed the idea). There is, of course as Marshall has mentioned, the idea that he is attempting to test himself against his model of Napolean, and whether he dares have this strength. If I remember correctly, he sometimes questions himself if he should kill again. It is tempting to label him a murderer, but what of these other instances? He would have to be considered non-violent in action when he chose not to kill (as he had demonstrated his ability to do so previously). If he had not killed before, he could not have been non-violent in action.
There’s far more potential for discussion, but I’ll just move on to my favourite parts. My understanding of Raskolnikov was heavily influenced by the vivid dream he had near the beginning of the book, which took him back to a tavern where the rabble beat a horse to death. I also had to laugh at how Raskolnikov played his arguments - constantly measuring his opponent to beat them at their own game. The conversation of daring with Sonia (I thiink) was also an amusing interpretation of history. There was also points of the tendency for the masses to destroy, but later exalt their martyrs.
Thats all for now,
Cheers