The Triumvirate welcomes you!
"The term triumvirate (from Latin, "of three men") is commonly used to describe a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals" (Wiki).
Why did Raskolnikov murder the pawnbroker? Support your responses with evidence from the novel please.
29 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I am the first to post?! Are the planets aligned in some special way today?!
I think Raskolnikov's motives for killing the pawnbroker were more selfish that utilitarian. He wanted to prove to himself that he was part of the "superman" group in his society. To me it seems that his utilitarian reasoning is somewhat of a defense mechanism that he uses to protect himself from the responsibility of murder. "Justifying" his action enables him to feel okay about the crime, as opposed to weakened by guilt like an ordinary person would be.
I think like Sean said that Raskolnikov comforts his unlawful and unethical actions by his theory of a “superman”. His been having this “plan” for a while; his has even written about it. After he over heard the student and the officer calling in the restaurant his thought was supported and it boosted up his confidence in actually making this idea come true. The student said, “‘This old woman’s money, which is going to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousands of lives could be put on the right path, dozens of families rescued from poverty, from ruin, from collapse, from decay, from the venereal wards of the hospitals-all this with her money! Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare.’” (Part I – 6) Raskolnikov believes that he was meant to over hear his conversation (“a kind of prefiguration, a sign…”) rather than mere coincidence.
I agree with Sean, justification is the only thing that keeps Raskolnikov from NOT murdering the pawn broker, and also keeps him from confessing about the murder earlier in the story.
In part 1 chapter 6, Raskolnikov's desire to murder the pawnbroker is finally revealed. The narrator talks about how, "When [Raskolnikov] saw the old woman for the very first time, before he knew anything special about her, he conceived for her an insurmountable disgust." In addition to this, "She gave him two 'paper' rubles," which probably disappointed and offended him.
Although he initially keeps himself from carrying out his plan, he seems to break his restraint when he overhears the student ranting to the officer in the bar. He speaks of the pawnbroker in a demeaning fashion and rants about how terribly "stupid, senseless, insignificant, and bad-tempered" she is. The coincidence is too great, and he takes it as a sign that his desire to kill her, which he once described as "disgusting, filthy, lousy, foul" and "nonsensical" may not be so absurd. He realizes that he is not the only person in the world who views her this way, and this feeds his desire to continue with his plan.
Sean mentions that Raskólnikov wanted to prove he was part of the superman group of society. Unfortunately, Sean didn't elaborate too much on this "superman group." Thankfully Porfíry Petróvich read Raskólnikov's article and is willing to explain; "...it was not that part of your article that interested me so much, but an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion 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... "In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary." (3.V.G)
The most obvious reason Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker was out of desperation for personal financial need. He was weakened by a poisoned environment, incredible poverty and horrible health. All of these could have added to the impulse to kill and built upon his already weakened state of being.
However, I also believe that Raskolnikov is a slightly more rational and intelligent man than one who would simply plot the seemingly perfect murder due to physical discomfort and misfortune. No, he seems to be acting out of the hopes that his crime will prove something to the rest of society. Raskolnikov is somewhat narcissistic (though maybe that’s not the best word to describe it) in the sense that he believes his existence is much more meaningful, his suffering is beneficial to the entire world because he is so significant. This is how he justifies his actions.
I also think it is important to know Nietzsche’s main idea that mankind is divided into two groups. “Active people are usually deficient in the higher activity, I mean the individual activity. They are active as officials, merchants, scholars, that is, as a species, but not as quite distinct separate and single individuals; in this respect they are idle. It is the misfortune of the active that their activity is almost always a little senseless. For instance, we must not ask the money making banker the reason for his restless activity, it is foolish. The active roll as the stone rolls, according to the stupidity of mechanics. All mankind is divided, as it was at all times, and is still, into slaves and free men; for whoever has not two thirds of his day for himself is a slave, be he otherwise whatever he likes…” Anyways, I sort of just threw that last one out there with the hope that someone might expand on it… I don’t know.
Lauren, from what work of Nietzsche's my I find your quote?
Nietzsche, at the moment he went insane, was said to have suddenly begin weeping seeing a horse being beaten by its master and then embraced it falling onto his knees ... Reenacting the scene from Dostoevsky's book.
I'm presently searching for the place where Raskolnikov discovers he is not a 'Napoleon' and that he could not have killed without remorse...
The influence of Western ideas is a very important part, and even the very cause, of Raskolnikov's motives.
It's almost communist in the way he targets the lady doing much harm to society - the pawnbroker is an extremely selfish Capitalist.
Lauren; Raskólnikov did not murder for financial gain. In Raskólnikov's eventual trial, "The lawyers and the judges were very much struck, among other things, by the fact that he had hidden the trinkets and the purse under a stone, without making use of them, and that, what was more, he did not now remember what the trinkets were like, or even how many there were. The fact that he had never opened the purse and did not even know how much was in it seemed incredible. ...Finally some of the lawyers more versed in psychology admitted that it was possible he had really not looked into the purse, and so didn’t know what was in it when he hid it under the stone. But they immediately drew the deduction that the crime could only have been committed through temporary mental derangement, through homicidal mania, without object or the pursuit of gain." (Epilogue.I.G)
Instead, in one of if not the last meeting between Porfíry and Raskólnikov, Porfity implies that Raskólnikov murdered to prove his theory when Porfíry remarks that "It’s as well that you only killed the old woman. If you’d invented another theory you might perhaps have done something a thousand times more hideous." (6.II.G)
Roaskolnikov evidently wanted to be a hero, like Napoleon. Napoleon, the one responsible for millions of deaths over 20 years, was treated like an emperor; a GREAT man. Raskolnikov thought he could save his society from the evil oppression of the pawn broker - it was to many extents an experiment to see if he could be a hero some day like Napoleon: a GREAT leader who kills without the slightest pang of conscience.
But, by killing the Capitalist of society, Rodion Romanovich had to inevitably kill Lizaveta; the innocent, religious sufferer who is an "active" person, according to Nietzsche(thank you Lauren). Nietzsche's "active" members of society are the pegs who naturally fit into the holes designed for them by those who run society: the Capitalists. By killing the Capitalist, Raskilnikov also kills the innocent "active" contributers to society. And he never realizes that until he confesses his wrong and suffers in Siberia a realization: that violence is not the answer to Capitalist oppression as 19th century communists thought it was.
Here is Raskolnikov's response in PART 6, CHAPTER 6 to his sister after Sonia has convinced him to repent. He is still not convinced that his acts were a crime.
---"Crime? What crime?" he cried in sudden fury. "That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!... Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that a crime? I am not thinking of it and I am not thinking of expiating it, and why are you all rubbing it in on all sides? 'A crime! a crime!' Only now I see clearly the imbecility of my cowardice, now that I have decided to face this superfluous disgrace. It's simply because I am contemptible and have nothing in me that I have decided to, perhaps too for my advantage, as that... Porfiry... suggested!"
"Brother, brother, what are you saying? Why, you have shed blood?" cried Dounia in despair.
"Which all men shed," he put in almost frantically, "which flows and has always flowed in streams, which is spilt like champagne, and for which men are crowned in the Capitol and are called afterwards benefactors of mankind. Look into it more carefully and understand it! I too wanted to do good to men and would have done hundreds, thousands of good deeds to make up for that one piece of stupidity, not stupidity even, simply clumsiness, for the idea was by no means so stupid as it seems now that it has failed.... (Everything seems stupid when it fails.) By that stupidity I only wanted to put myself into an independent position, to take the first step, to obtain means, and then everything would have been smoothed over by benefits immeasurable in comparison.... But I... I couldn't carry out even the first step, because I am contemptible, that's what's the matter! And yet I won't look at it as you do. If I had succeeded I should have been crowned with glory, but now I'm trapped."---
It's almost as if he forgets completely about Lizaveta, the Christian sufferer who is guilty of only being enslaved by the Capitalist pawn-broker. It's obvious he didn't want the money(capital); he just wanted to get rid of the object(capital) that gave the pawn-broker the power to enslave so many members of society, including him.
I also agree with Connor in that Raskolnikov didn't murder for money. In part 5 chapter 4, Raskolnikov's dialogue with Sonia shows that he didn't kill the pawnbroker for money or just for the murder.
Sonia asks him "was it to help your mother? Was that it?" but Raskolnikov responds with, "No, Sonia, no...I was not very hungry... I did want to help my mother, but... but that wasn't quite it... Don't torture me, Sonia!"
Even though he says that he murdered the woman to "rob her", here you can see hesitation in this conversation.
Also, later in the conversation Raskolnikov says, "but that money... I don't even know whether there was any money, though' he added thoughtfully. 'I took a purse from her neck ..." "but I didn't look inside it."
Again, he hesitates when he answers Sonia's questions.
I think that the reasons why the murder was committed can be broken down as such:
1. Misanthropy = Raskolnikov's distrust and hatred of humanity and those around him fuels his egocentrism and selfishness. It also gives him a feeling of superiority that he describes in the article that the detective brings to his attention. For this reason, he felt that it was an act of heroism on his part to murder the pawnbroker.
2. Displacement: Instead of taking responsibility for his state, Raskolnikov chooses to neglect an introspective approach and rather search his surroundings for something to blame and remove, which in this case became the pawnbroker.
3. Intellectual Victory = Going from thinking to acting is a really popular theme in most stories. I think if any of you like plays, you should read "Dirty Hands" by Sartre. Connor, after reading the second part of your post, I think you would like this short play and it goes along with your "murder to prove point" analysis directly.
I have a question in relation to this that I was curious about. How important is the murder really in this novel? Is the crime itself as important as the punishment?
Raskolnikov murdered Alyona because of his selfish motives. In his eyes, she was a "tiny, dried-up old crone, about sixty, with sharp, spiteful little eyes and a small, sharp nose..." Also, she gave him what he thought was a horrible deal on his silver watch. Now, I know this is a somewhat foolish reason, but I believe it was a contributing factor, knowing Raskolnikov's mentality...
Anyways, I would have to say that I agree with what others have said about Raskolnikov's beliefs; that certain people (himself included) "have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them" To him, this philosophy warranted a seemingly utilitarian task-- the murder of Alyona simply because he viewed her as mere "louse" in a society desperately in need of reform. However, his selfish motives were the actual reason he decided to commit the murder. Whether he actually committed the murders out of spontaneity or premeditated measures is debatable. Sure there was planning with the ax, the loops in the coat and other things like them, but it seemed so "spur of the moment," and developed rather quickly. I believe he murdered them, then became incredibly flustered with his decision and ultimately needed to find any justification possible to maintain any form of sanity. What makes me say this is his ultimate realization that HE himself falls short of his "superman" philosophy, thus proving the murders to be entirely unwarranted.
From the beginning of the book, Raskolnikov has this theory that he is almost like a "superman". So I agree with Sean. Raskolnikov even considers the pawnbroker as worthless and describes her as "disgusting, filthy, lousy, foul". He kills the pawnbroker because it's almost like he wants to prove his theory... If he is truly above the law, then he can do anything he wants to do. And what else is there that is a bigger crime than killing another person? It might have helped that he also overheard that the woman would be alone that one day until 7.
Also, I know that he doesn't kill the pawnbroker because of money. Although Raskolnikov is in debt to his landlord, and he even says to Sonia, ""No, Sonia, No he muttered, turning away and hanging his head. "I was not so hungry... I certainly did want to help my mother, but... thats not the real thing either... Don't torture me, Sonia."" Here Raskolnikov shows that it was not the money.
I agree with Sean and everyone else who said that Raskolnikov killed Alyona Ivanovna because he wanted to prove his "heroic" ability to himself. I think it was more of a internal justification that he needed. He didn't have much friends, so he wasn't proving to society, but as many have brought up the article, he wanted to prove a point. In Part 3, Chapter 5, Porfiry introduces Raskolnikov's ideas of society crime; that society is split into two groups of people, the "extraordinary" and the "ordinary." Raskolnikov seems to identify himself as one of the "extraordinary" who can dismiss the law and pretty much do as he wishes. This is his justification for his actions. He believes that he is free from consequence and conscience, and therefore is able to commit a murder that is, in his mind, something good for the community. He targets the old pawnbroker because she is "stupid, senseless, insignificant, and bad-tempered," and without her greed society would be better off.
We know he is not doing it solely for financial gain because he treats the items, such as the earrings that he drops on the way out, as superfluous objects, leaving them hidden away under a large boulder for the duration of the novel. And in fact (if I’m not mistaken) he, being in a frenzied state of panic, nearly forgets to take anything from the pawn-broker’s living quarters.
The word “torment” appears continuously throughout C & P. Rodion, for some reason, is severely unhappy, constantly feeling as if something, or some extraneous factor is tormenting him. These immense feelings--anguish, agony, and sorrow--manifest themselves physically, and can literally be seen within his character. In the early part of the novel, Raskolnikov enters a tavern where he sees a drunk man, Marmeladov, who utters, “in your face I read, as it were, a certain sorrow. I read it when you entered, and therefore, I addressed YOU at once.” (I-I) Right away, we know that Rodya is not all-together-and-with-it. And something troubles him. These emotions constantly eat away at him and bring him to question his future actions:
“…but can it be, can it be that I will really take an axe and hit her on the head and smash her skull…slip in the sticky warm blood, break the lock, steal, and tremble, and hide, all covered with blood? Lord, can it be?………But what’s wrong with me?” (I-V)
He clearly has a conflicted conscience. He seems unsure of what to do. Yet he continues on with the murder.
Raskolnikov is a very intellectual, smart man--as Nima previously pointed out regarding an “Intellectual Victory.” After reading his mother’s letter, which completely “torment[s] him,” violent thoughts surge through his head, and even though his face is wet with tears, a heavy and spiteful smile eventually overruns his grief (I-IV). At the same moment, he realizes he must get out of his horrid little cupboard-like apartment; “his eyes and mind crave more space…” ( ) This could stand for something very literal--we all know his apartment was deathly small--but it could also be very symbolic of his wanting, craving nature. The desire for something more.
I think Raskolnikov felt confined and trapped by the society he was part of, in many ways alienated from all of humanity. In more ways than one, Rodion believed that he himself was superior or considered greater than the common man, and in that line of thought, believed he had greater privileges than most. He felt that he had the authority and power to decide whether or not a person should live or die, not his to decide. Like many have said before me, Rodion thought himself to be an “Ubermensch” or extraordinary man. I think, in part, he was trying to prove this theory/philosophy…
Regarding Alex’s “spur of the moment” comment, I agree, and feel it’s important to note that the murder did not come easily to Rodion. He was extremely apprehensive before, and afterwards feels a great amount of guilt, which manifests itself physically in the form of fever and constant sickness. I think it would be fair to say that the guilt suffered by Rodya, a self-proclaimed superman, simply eluded Napoleon.
“I knew very well I could never endure it, so why have I been tormenting myself all this while? Even yesterday, yesterday, I realized I could not fully endure it. So what is this now? Why have I DOUBTED all along.” (I-V)
Do you all really think he did it because he “hated” humanity? Or because he truly believed that--clouded by his egocentricity--he could “better” humanity? Or a little bit of both?
We know he was in desolate financial condition when he decided to kill the pawnbroker. By killing her he saught to make some easy, fast cash to pay off his debts. This is the obvious, indisputable motive. This motive alone was not sufficient to convince himself that what he was doing was acceptable, so he rationalized his plan by convincing himself that it was for the greater good. SHe would no longer be a burden on her sister, and he could give her unused money to people like himself, who needed it. This rationalization crossed his mind when he overheard some strangers talking in a pub, in chapter 2. Of course, his act was truly selfish and not for the greater good at all, for he would not have dreamed of it unless he needed the money, plus he just hordes it all in paranoia anyway.
"...it seemed so "spur of the moment," and developed rather quickly. I believe he murdered them, then became incredibly flustered with his decision and ultimately needed to find any justification possible to maintain any form of sanity. What makes me say this is his ultimate realization that HE himself falls short of his "superman" philosophy, thus proving the murders to be entirely unwarranted."
--I agree, Alex! I was thinking the same thing. He oscillates back and forth between a feeling of extreme guilt and a feeling of responsibility. It's ironic because his effort to remain sane seems to have the opposite effect....
I think Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker because he was disgusted by her demeanor and greed, which made him determined to kill her to "better" society. Raskolnikov developed a strong hatred of her the first time he saw her. He was even more convinced, in a bar, when he overheard a conversation between a student and an officer describing the old woman as a hateful parasite. Also, they argued that humanity would be better off if she were killed and her wealth distributed among the poor. These ideas echoed Raskolnikov's own thoughts, and he was struck by the coincidence of hearing them spoken by someone else. This made him realize that it was his "duty" to kill Alyona.
Also, I thought it was interesting that before he committed the murder he was disgusted by his gruesome dream. It conveys that Raskolnikov is not heartless and insane, but has two very distinct minds. One which is rational and abstract and thinks that others believe the same as him, while another part, emotional and compassionate.
Raskolnikov's guilt does not originate out of his killing the pawn-broker but of his murdering Lizaveta. In his mind she was not not supposed to be there when he squashed the "parasite"(thank you elizabeth) and so his theory is never truly tested out. However, we see here that Doestoevsky spins the story so Lizaveta's murder was almost inevitable which goes to show that when one is in the mindset of the murderer, one cannot reason clearly and attacks like a deranged brute. Murder, revolution even(if we look at it symbolically), as a way of solving society's problems is shown to be fundamentally flawed as it unleashed the brute within us all.
Think Kurtz, think Prince Hamlet, Claudius.... think Robespierre, think Napoleon, Hitler, the American public even, all blinded and insensitized by the fog of war, murder and death; all because murder is the easiest way of attaining one's goals.
There can't be a sole reason for killing the pawnbroker, as everyone else has explained that there are multiple different reasons. But it had to be a combination of all that you all said; he has an 'extraordinary' complex, she was incredibly dislikable and I'm fairly sure that taking the money and objects was an afterthought that he just acted on the heat of the moment, then didn't know what to do with it once he had it.
Wasn't there a conversation he eavesdropping in earlier before he committed the murder about how lousy this woman was? It was like there was his mental state of where he was struggling with himself to do or not to do this murder, and these people are justifying him by repeating back how awful this woman is. Combine that with how his mother told him about how his sister is getting married and how terrible he thinks his life is, and you have a man who's not all right in the head. Could it be there was a moment where he just wanted control back in the events of his life while thinking he was serving a more unique and special purpose? It could be that, inwhich case irony would strike hugely, because he needed to lose control to do the murder, right?
I read through Erik's posts and a few others and I kept getting struck by the idea that Raskolnikov isn't a power hungry devil. Atleast from my impression, he murdered the pawnbroker because she was of "use to no one" and only made others angry. Even though it was premeditated, he did it almost in a state of delirium. I could see that this murder makes him feel like he has some control over his life, but I don't think he was trying to prove he was an elite. After the murder he never justifies it by assuming he's of the elite. The rest of the novel is the panicked thoughts of a man who knows he has wronged (yet isn't sorry about it...)
I truly do not think that Raskolnikov murdered Alonya for her money or for the sole purpose of stealing things for a profitable gain. I also do not think that he murdered her in revenge or because she took many precious things from him. I think that Raskolnikov murdered her with the thought that he was doing a good deed for the people of St. Petersburg. That sounds crazy, yet throughout the book he always tends to pity and financially help people who seem to be suffering. He might have actually thought that by getting rid of this woman he could save this city from its despair and darkness that surrounded so many people. He probably reasoned with himself until he came to that conclusion as he tends to analyze and found this murder as a type of solution that in his eyes made a difference in the community.
When I looked at the reasons why Rodyon killed the pawnbroker, I saw it like the layers of an onion.
I think at the surface, Raskolnikov wants to make his world, society, a little better by ridding it of a despicable person like the pawnbroker. A little deeper, the motivation comes from his want to prove his superiority over humanity, a superman. But I think the deepest, most compelling reasons for the murder can be better understood and explained by the philosophy of nihilism. I did some research on nihilism, and Rodyon's actions, I think, fall under a class of moral nihilism. The philosophy holds a perspective that there is no right or wrong, there is no true basis for absolute morality. But I think its important to look at how this philosophy is borne in rodyon as well. He lives in a completely degenerate world, where he doesn't have any money, no food, a crappy life, basically a part of the dregs of society... but he's smart enough to understand things outside his class. I think his life, the detachment he feels, is the reason he ascribes to this ethical nihilism, a truly rational viewpoint. With this philosophy, the justification for killing someone takes a completely independent vantage point, as there is no basis to make it right, or wrong, or good, or bad. From this he looks at the utilitarian point of view that killing her would only help society in general, and being great as he is, he would be above the law and have no reason not to do it.
But I think this is really an immature justification for committing the crime. And I think a major part of the book looks at Rodyon's growth, ultimately leading to him asking forgiveness. I think Rodyon has a deeply hurt pride, mostly because of living in such shitty conditions, and that warps his view. I thought this factor of pride did one major thing, and that was to magnify what he saw was a utilitarian, rational decisions, mostly because he didn't consider, or care, for the other factors, pushing aside morality and ethics.
As with anything, thinking too much on a subject matter can cause anxiety. Raskolnikov lets his worries over money fester to the point that he begins considering an extreme alternative. Perhaps his obsessive thoughts about killing the old pawn broker started out harmless enough, but the idea became more enticing the more he thought about it. The weight from thinking about it became too much and Raskolnikov resolved to act on impulse.
There are several methods for justification that Raskolnikov uses and the one that I have not yet seen mentioned is Raskolnikov's belief in some form of predestined fate set before him to murder the old widow.
Raskolnikov's thought of murder is first reinforced when he overhears a man and a police officer speaking hypothetically about killing the same woman. Later he passes Lizaveta in the street and hears the time at which she will be out of the apartment. This "seemed to him as if it were a sort of predetermination of his fate." (Pt. 1 ch.5)
Raskolnikov justifies committing murder by somewhat believing that fate is responsible.
I think that his family's financial oppression underlies all the reasons why Raskolnikov committed the murder. Like Lauren said, his family's financial burden lead to his frenzied and tortured state of mind,which began weakening him to the point that he saw murder as a solution to help his situation . Raskolnikov knew that his mother and sister were sacrificing too much for him and that he needed to sacrifice himself to forbid his beloved sister form marrying an evil, selfish man to help Raskolnikov with his studies. The realities and questions of how he would help his family had begun to “grip and rend his heart,” (p. 1, ch. 3, 40. His “present anguish had its first beginnings; it had waxed and gathered in strength, it had matured and concentrated, until it had taken form of a fearful, frenzied and fantastic question, which tortured his heart and his mind,” (p. 1, ch. 3, 40). From a psychological standpoint, his state of oppression and helplessness caused by the financial burden gave rise to many psychological problems, distorting his reasoning.However, Raskolnikov couldn’t decide whether his mental disease, “gave rise to the crime, or whether the crime from its particular nature is accompanied by something of the nature of disease,” (p.1, ch. 5, 64). Nonetheless, this murder was Raskolnikov's way of sacrificing himself for his family.
The understanding that he needed to sacrifice himself for the good of his family burdened him. Like everyone else has mentioned, Raskolnikov believed that the murder was a heroic act. Not only would he be able to help his family with Aloyna's money, but he also believed that he was getting rid of this, “stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman, not simply useless but doing actual mischief, who ha[d] not an idea what she [was] living for herself,” (part 1, ch.5, 58). The discussion of the two young men at the tavern reflected his very own thoughts that, “would not one tiny crime by wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” (p. 1, ch.5, 59). He rationalized at the time that that he was like Sonia, who was committing a crime for the good of others, and not for selfish reasons. He saw that “his design was ‘not a crime,” 64, and like the young men in the tavern said, it was, “one death, and a hundred life in exchange,” (p. 1, ch. 5, 59).
"I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right … that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep … certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity)." (raskolnikov) (466/967)
I thought this was a great example of how he disregarded societal norms and creates a completely arbitrary moral foundation to justify his actions, coupled with his idea that he is a champion of society, and is compelled to act in its benefit.
I understand what Sean and many are saying about Raskolnikov's motive, and perhaps it is correct. He was in a financial rut and had no where to turn. He had thought about it of course, and reasoned that it would also to st. petersburg good if she were gone. I think what drove Rskolnikov to come up with the idea of murdering the pawnbroker was ultimately selfish, but through reasoning, began to believe that he would be doing a good deed. His confused thoughts perhaps brought him to his delirious state that Natalie's talking about.
If Raskolnikov murdered Alyone Ivanovna for personal financial gain, why would he have buried his loot? Though there many possible reasons for the crime the one I like the most is the one outlined in his article. What is really interesting, however, is that while the crime is being committed, it just "happens" to Raskolnikov. As written in my book, Raskolnikov takes no actions but actions are taken on him. An outside force is controlling him, and this is compounded by the fact that he keeps finding clues that this crime should be committed by him (passive). His ability to think sharply--which he hasn't been able to and shouldn't be able to because of his living circumstances-- is another example of this transformation at the time of the crime. The crime was committed for a higher purpose and by a higher power than Raskolnikov.
The main crime of this novel, that of Raskolnikov murdering Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, is one fraught with many explanations. Raskolnikov seems to be mentally unstable form the beginning of the novel, grasping on to dear life the last hope he has; his past as a student. However, he is still swayed by the thoughts of others, and these serve as some sort of brainwashing, causing him to carry out actions that would normally be suppressed by his inner conscience. Murdering Alyona and Lizaveta is one of these actions. Raskolnikov has heard on the street that Alyona is a worthless old woman, one who makes life miserable for hordes of people. Furthermore, In Part 6, Chapter 6, Raskolnikov states, "That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!... Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that a crime?" Thus, he believes internally after the murder that he did the right thing. I believe that he thought similarly before the murder as well. These thoughts of his, coupled with the things he heard out on the street, helped him to make the judgment to kill the pawnbroker. Thus, I believe that the action was far more psychological and based on his rage at the moment rather than any desire for personal gain.
29 comments:
I am the first to post?! Are the planets aligned in some special way today?!
I think Raskolnikov's motives for killing the pawnbroker were more selfish that utilitarian. He wanted to prove to himself that he was part of the "superman" group in his society. To me it seems that his utilitarian reasoning is somewhat of a defense mechanism that he uses to protect himself from the responsibility of murder. "Justifying" his action enables him to feel okay about the crime, as opposed to weakened by guilt like an ordinary person would be.
All be bak like Aahnold.
I think like Sean said that Raskolnikov comforts his unlawful and unethical actions by his theory of a “superman”. His been having this “plan” for a while; his has even written about it. After he over heard the student and the officer calling in the restaurant his thought was supported and it boosted up his confidence in actually making this idea come true. The student said, “‘This old woman’s money, which is going to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousands of lives could be put on the right path, dozens of families rescued from poverty, from ruin, from collapse, from decay, from the venereal wards of the hospitals-all this with her money! Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare.’” (Part I – 6) Raskolnikov believes that he was meant to over hear his conversation (“a kind of prefiguration, a sign…”) rather than mere coincidence.
I agree with Sean, justification is the only thing that keeps Raskolnikov from NOT murdering the pawn broker, and also keeps him from confessing about the murder earlier in the story.
In part 1 chapter 6, Raskolnikov's desire to murder the pawnbroker is finally revealed. The narrator talks about how, "When [Raskolnikov] saw the old woman for the very first time, before he knew anything special about her, he conceived for her an insurmountable disgust." In addition to this, "She gave him two 'paper' rubles," which probably disappointed and offended him.
Although he initially keeps himself from carrying out his plan, he seems to break his restraint when he overhears the student ranting to the officer in the bar. He speaks of the pawnbroker in a demeaning fashion and rants about how terribly "stupid, senseless, insignificant, and bad-tempered" she is. The coincidence is too great, and he takes it as a sign that his desire to kill her, which he once described as "disgusting, filthy, lousy, foul" and "nonsensical" may not be so absurd. He realizes that he is not the only person in the world who views her this way, and this feeds his desire to continue with his plan.
Sean mentions that Raskólnikov wanted to prove he was part of the superman group of society. Unfortunately, Sean didn't elaborate too much on this "superman group." Thankfully Porfíry Petróvich read Raskólnikov's article and is willing to explain;
"...it was not that part of your article that interested me so much, but an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion 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...
"In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary." (3.V.G)
The most obvious reason Raskolnikov murdered the pawnbroker was out of desperation for personal financial need. He was weakened by a poisoned environment, incredible poverty and horrible health. All of these could have added to the impulse to kill and built upon his already weakened state of being.
However, I also believe that Raskolnikov is a slightly more rational and intelligent man than one who would simply plot the seemingly perfect murder due to physical discomfort and misfortune. No, he seems to be acting out of the hopes that his crime will prove something to the rest of society. Raskolnikov is somewhat narcissistic (though maybe that’s not the best word to describe it) in the sense that he believes his existence is much more meaningful, his suffering is beneficial to the entire world because he is so significant. This is how he justifies his actions.
I also think it is important to know Nietzsche’s main idea that mankind is divided into two groups. “Active people are usually deficient in the higher activity, I mean the individual activity. They are active as officials, merchants, scholars, that is, as a species, but not as quite distinct separate and single individuals; in this respect they are idle. It is the misfortune of the active that their activity is almost always a little senseless. For instance, we must not ask the money making banker the reason for his restless activity, it is foolish. The active roll as the stone rolls, according to the stupidity of mechanics. All mankind is divided, as it was at all times, and is still, into slaves and free men; for whoever has not two thirds of his day for himself is a slave, be he otherwise whatever he likes…” Anyways, I sort of just threw that last one out there with the hope that someone might expand on it… I don’t know.
Lauren, from what work of Nietzsche's my I find your quote?
Nietzsche, at the moment he went insane, was said to have suddenly begin weeping seeing a horse being beaten by its master and then embraced it falling onto his knees ... Reenacting the scene from Dostoevsky's book.
I'm presently searching for the place where Raskolnikov discovers he is not a 'Napoleon' and that he could not have killed without remorse...
The influence of Western ideas is a very important part, and even the very cause, of Raskolnikov's motives.
It's almost communist in the way he targets the lady doing much harm to society - the pawnbroker is an extremely selfish Capitalist.
Erik, sorry I should have specified earlier. That quote is from the first part of "Human, All Too Human".
Here you go:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Human_All-Too-Human
Lauren; Raskólnikov did not murder for financial gain. In Raskólnikov's eventual trial, "The lawyers and the judges were very much struck, among other things, by the fact that he had hidden the trinkets and the purse under a stone, without making use of them, and that, what was more, he did not now remember what the trinkets were like, or even how many there were. The fact that he had never opened the purse and did not even know how much was in it seemed incredible. ...Finally some of the lawyers more versed in psychology admitted that it was possible he had really not looked into the purse, and so didn’t know what was in it when he hid it under the stone. But they immediately drew the deduction that the crime could only have been committed through temporary mental derangement, through homicidal mania, without object or the pursuit of gain." (Epilogue.I.G)
Instead, in one of if not the last meeting between Porfíry and Raskólnikov, Porfity implies that Raskólnikov murdered to prove his theory when Porfíry remarks that "It’s as well that you only killed the old woman. If you’d invented another theory you might perhaps have done something a thousand times more hideous." (6.II.G)
FURTHER MORE:
Roaskolnikov evidently wanted to be a hero, like Napoleon. Napoleon, the one responsible for millions of deaths over 20 years, was treated like an emperor; a GREAT man. Raskolnikov thought he could save his society from the evil oppression of the pawn broker - it was to many extents an experiment to see if he could be a hero some day like Napoleon: a GREAT leader who kills without the slightest pang of conscience.
But, by killing the Capitalist of society, Rodion Romanovich had to inevitably kill Lizaveta; the innocent, religious sufferer who is an "active" person, according to Nietzsche(thank you Lauren). Nietzsche's "active" members of society are the pegs who naturally fit into the holes designed for them by those who run society: the Capitalists. By killing the Capitalist, Raskilnikov also kills the innocent "active" contributers to society. And he never realizes that until he confesses his wrong and suffers in Siberia a realization: that violence is not the answer to Capitalist oppression as 19th century communists thought it was.
Here is Raskolnikov's response in PART 6, CHAPTER 6 to his sister after Sonia has convinced him to repent. He is still not convinced that his acts were a crime.
---"Crime? What crime?" he cried in sudden fury. "That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!... Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that a crime? I am not thinking of it and I am not thinking of expiating it, and why are you all rubbing it in on all sides? 'A crime! a crime!' Only now I see clearly the imbecility of my cowardice, now that I have decided to face this superfluous disgrace. It's simply because I am contemptible and have nothing in me that I have decided to, perhaps too for my advantage, as that... Porfiry... suggested!"
"Brother, brother, what are you saying? Why, you have shed blood?" cried Dounia in despair.
"Which all men shed," he put in almost frantically, "which flows and has always flowed in streams, which is spilt like champagne, and for which men are crowned in the Capitol and are called afterwards benefactors of mankind. Look into it more carefully and understand it! I too wanted to do good to men and would have done hundreds, thousands of good deeds to make up for that one piece of stupidity, not stupidity even, simply clumsiness, for the idea was by no means so stupid as it seems now that it has failed.... (Everything seems stupid when it fails.) By that stupidity I only wanted to put myself into an independent position, to take the first step, to obtain means, and then everything would have been smoothed over by benefits immeasurable in comparison.... But I... I couldn't carry out even the first step, because I am contemptible, that's what's the matter! And yet I won't look at it as you do. If I had succeeded I should have been crowned with glory, but now I'm trapped."---
It's almost as if he forgets completely about Lizaveta, the Christian sufferer who is guilty of only being enslaved by the Capitalist pawn-broker. It's obvious he didn't want the money(capital); he just wanted to get rid of the object(capital) that gave the pawn-broker the power to enslave so many members of society, including him.
I also agree with Connor in that Raskolnikov didn't murder for money. In part 5 chapter 4, Raskolnikov's dialogue with Sonia shows that he didn't kill the pawnbroker for money or just for the murder.
Sonia asks him
"was it to help your mother? Was that it?" but Raskolnikov responds with, "No, Sonia, no...I was not very hungry... I did want to help my mother, but... but that wasn't quite it... Don't torture me, Sonia!"
Even though he says that he murdered the woman to "rob her", here you can see hesitation in this conversation.
Also, later in the conversation
Raskolnikov says, "but that money... I don't even know whether there was any money, though' he added thoughtfully. 'I took a purse from her neck ..." "but I didn't look inside it."
Again, he hesitates when he answers Sonia's questions.
I think that the reasons why the murder was committed can be broken down as such:
1. Misanthropy = Raskolnikov's distrust and hatred of humanity and those around him fuels his egocentrism and selfishness. It also gives him a feeling of superiority that he describes in the article that the detective brings to his attention. For this reason, he felt that it was an act of heroism on his part to murder the pawnbroker.
2. Displacement: Instead of taking responsibility for his state, Raskolnikov chooses to neglect an introspective approach and rather search his surroundings for something to blame and remove, which in this case became the pawnbroker.
3. Intellectual Victory = Going from thinking to acting is a really popular theme in most stories. I think if any of you like plays, you should read "Dirty Hands" by Sartre. Connor, after reading the second part of your post, I think you would like this short play and it goes along with your "murder to prove point" analysis directly.
I have a question in relation to this that I was curious about. How important is the murder really in this novel? Is the crime itself as important as the punishment?
Raskolnikov murdered Alyona because of his selfish motives. In his eyes, she was a "tiny, dried-up old crone, about sixty, with sharp, spiteful little eyes and a small, sharp nose..." Also, she gave him what he thought was a horrible deal on his silver watch. Now, I know this is a somewhat foolish reason, but I believe it was a contributing factor, knowing Raskolnikov's mentality...
Anyways, I would have to say that I agree with what others have said about Raskolnikov's beliefs; that certain people (himself included) "have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them" To him, this philosophy warranted a seemingly utilitarian task-- the murder of Alyona simply because he viewed her as mere "louse" in a society desperately in need of reform. However, his selfish motives were the actual reason he decided to commit the murder. Whether he actually committed the murders out of spontaneity or premeditated measures is debatable. Sure there was planning with the ax, the loops in the coat and other things like them, but it seemed so "spur of the moment," and developed rather quickly. I believe he murdered them, then became incredibly flustered with his decision and ultimately needed to find any justification possible to maintain any form of sanity. What makes me say this is his ultimate realization that HE himself falls short of his "superman" philosophy, thus proving the murders to be entirely unwarranted.
From the beginning of the book, Raskolnikov has this theory that he is almost like a "superman". So I agree with Sean. Raskolnikov even considers the pawnbroker as worthless and describes her as "disgusting, filthy, lousy, foul". He kills the pawnbroker because it's almost like he wants to prove his theory... If he is truly above the law, then he can do anything he wants to do. And what else is there that is a bigger crime than killing another person? It might have helped that he also overheard that the woman would be alone that one day until 7.
Also, I know that he doesn't kill the pawnbroker because of money. Although Raskolnikov is in debt to his landlord, and he even says to Sonia, ""No, Sonia, No he muttered, turning away and hanging his head. "I was not so hungry... I certainly did want to help my mother, but... thats not the real thing either... Don't torture me, Sonia."" Here Raskolnikov shows that it was not the money.
I agree with Sean and everyone else who said that Raskolnikov killed Alyona Ivanovna because he wanted to prove his "heroic" ability to himself. I think it was more of a internal justification that he needed. He didn't have much friends, so he wasn't proving to society, but as many have brought up the article, he wanted to prove a point. In Part 3, Chapter 5, Porfiry introduces Raskolnikov's ideas of society crime; that society is split into two groups of people, the "extraordinary" and the "ordinary." Raskolnikov seems to identify himself as one of the "extraordinary" who can dismiss the law and pretty much do as he wishes. This is his justification for his actions. He believes that he is free from consequence and conscience, and therefore is able to commit a murder that is, in his mind, something good for the community. He targets the old pawnbroker because she is "stupid, senseless, insignificant, and bad-tempered," and without her greed society would be better off.
We know he is not doing it solely for financial gain because he treats the items, such as the earrings that he drops on the way out, as superfluous objects, leaving them hidden away under a large boulder for the duration of the novel. And in fact (if I’m not mistaken) he, being in a frenzied state of panic, nearly forgets to take anything from the pawn-broker’s living quarters.
The word “torment” appears continuously throughout C & P. Rodion, for some reason, is severely unhappy, constantly feeling as if something, or some extraneous factor is tormenting him. These immense feelings--anguish, agony, and sorrow--manifest themselves physically, and can literally be seen within his character. In the early part of the novel, Raskolnikov enters a tavern where he sees a drunk man, Marmeladov, who utters, “in your face I read, as it were, a certain sorrow. I read it when you entered, and therefore, I addressed YOU at once.” (I-I) Right away, we know that Rodya is not all-together-and-with-it. And something troubles him. These emotions constantly eat away at him and bring him to question his future actions:
“…but can it be, can it be that I will really take an axe and hit her on the head and smash her skull…slip in the sticky warm blood, break the lock, steal, and tremble, and hide, all covered with blood? Lord, can it be?………But what’s wrong with me?” (I-V)
He clearly has a conflicted conscience. He seems unsure of what to do. Yet he continues on with the murder.
Raskolnikov is a very intellectual, smart man--as Nima previously pointed out regarding an “Intellectual Victory.” After reading his mother’s letter, which completely “torment[s] him,” violent thoughts surge through his head, and even though his face is wet with tears, a heavy and spiteful smile eventually overruns his grief (I-IV). At the same moment, he realizes he must get out of his horrid little cupboard-like apartment; “his eyes and mind crave more space…” ( ) This could stand for something very literal--we all know his apartment was deathly small--but it could also be very symbolic of his wanting, craving nature. The desire for something more.
I think Raskolnikov felt confined and trapped by the society he was part of, in many ways alienated from all of humanity. In more ways than one, Rodion believed that he himself was superior or considered greater than the common man, and in that line of thought, believed he had greater privileges than most. He felt that he had the authority and power to decide whether or not a person should live or die, not his to decide. Like many have said before me, Rodion thought himself to be an “Ubermensch” or extraordinary man.
I think, in part, he was trying to prove this theory/philosophy…
Regarding Alex’s “spur of the moment” comment, I agree, and feel it’s important to note that the murder did not come easily to Rodion. He was extremely apprehensive before, and afterwards feels a great amount of guilt, which manifests itself physically in the form of fever and constant sickness. I think it would be fair to say that the guilt suffered by Rodya, a self-proclaimed superman, simply eluded Napoleon.
“I knew very well I could never endure it, so why have I been tormenting myself all this while? Even yesterday, yesterday, I realized I could not fully endure it. So what is this now? Why have I DOUBTED all along.” (I-V)
Do you all really think he did it because he “hated” humanity? Or because he truly believed that--clouded by his egocentricity--he could “better” humanity? Or a little bit of both?
We know he was in desolate financial condition when he decided to kill the pawnbroker. By killing her he saught to make some easy, fast cash to pay off his debts. This is the obvious, indisputable motive. This motive alone was not sufficient to convince himself that what he was doing was acceptable, so he rationalized his plan by convincing himself that it was for the greater good. SHe would no longer be a burden on her sister, and he could give her unused money to people like himself, who needed it. This rationalization crossed his mind when he overheard some strangers talking in a pub, in chapter 2. Of course, his act was truly selfish and not for the greater good at all, for he would not have dreamed of it unless he needed the money, plus he just hordes it all in paranoia anyway.
"...it seemed so "spur of the moment," and developed rather quickly. I believe he murdered them, then became incredibly flustered with his decision and ultimately needed to find any justification possible to maintain any form of sanity. What makes me say this is his ultimate realization that HE himself falls short of his "superman" philosophy, thus proving the murders to be entirely unwarranted."
--I agree, Alex! I was thinking the same thing. He oscillates back and forth between a feeling of extreme guilt and a feeling of responsibility. It's ironic because his effort to remain sane seems to have the opposite effect....
I think Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker because he was disgusted by her demeanor and greed, which made him determined to kill her to "better" society. Raskolnikov developed a strong hatred of her the first time he saw her. He was even more convinced, in a bar, when he overheard a conversation between a student and an officer describing the old woman as a hateful parasite. Also, they argued that humanity would be better off if she were killed and her wealth distributed among the poor. These ideas echoed Raskolnikov's own thoughts, and he was struck by the coincidence of hearing them spoken by someone else. This made him realize that it was his "duty" to kill Alyona.
Also, I thought it was interesting that before he committed the murder he was disgusted by his gruesome dream. It conveys that Raskolnikov is not heartless and insane, but has two very distinct minds. One which is rational and abstract and thinks that others believe the same as him, while another part, emotional and compassionate.
Raskolnikov's guilt does not originate out of his killing the pawn-broker but of his murdering Lizaveta. In his mind she was not not supposed to be there when he squashed the "parasite"(thank you elizabeth) and so his theory is never truly tested out. However, we see here that Doestoevsky spins the story so Lizaveta's murder was almost inevitable which goes to show that when one is in the mindset of the murderer, one cannot reason clearly and attacks like a deranged brute. Murder, revolution even(if we look at it symbolically), as a way of solving society's problems is shown to be fundamentally flawed as it unleashed the brute within us all.
Think Kurtz, think Prince Hamlet, Claudius.... think Robespierre, think Napoleon, Hitler, the American public even, all blinded and insensitized by the fog of war, murder and death; all because murder is the easiest way of attaining one's goals.
There can't be a sole reason for killing the pawnbroker, as everyone else has explained that there are multiple different reasons. But it had to be a combination of all that you all said; he has an 'extraordinary' complex, she was incredibly dislikable and I'm fairly sure that taking the money and objects was an afterthought that he just acted on the heat of the moment, then didn't know what to do with it once he had it.
Wasn't there a conversation he eavesdropping in earlier before he committed the murder about how lousy this woman was? It was like there was his mental state of where he was struggling with himself to do or not to do this murder, and these people are justifying him by repeating back how awful this woman is. Combine that with how his mother told him about how his sister is getting married and how terrible he thinks his life is, and you have a man who's not all right in the head. Could it be there was a moment where he just wanted control back in the events of his life while thinking he was serving a more unique and special purpose? It could be that, inwhich case irony would strike hugely, because he needed to lose control to do the murder, right?
I read through Erik's posts and a few others and I kept getting struck by the idea that Raskolnikov isn't a power hungry devil. Atleast from my impression, he murdered the pawnbroker because she was of "use to no one" and only made others angry. Even though it was premeditated, he did it almost in a state of delirium.
I could see that this murder makes him feel like he has some control over his life, but I don't think he was trying to prove he was an elite. After the murder he never justifies it by assuming he's of the elite. The rest of the novel is the panicked thoughts of a man who knows he has wronged (yet isn't sorry about it...)
Such a complex psyche.
I truly do not think that Raskolnikov murdered Alonya for her money or for the sole purpose of stealing things for a profitable gain. I also do not think that he murdered her in revenge or because she took many precious things from him. I think that Raskolnikov murdered her with the thought that he was doing a good deed for the people of St. Petersburg. That sounds crazy, yet throughout the book he always tends to pity and financially help people who seem to be suffering. He might have actually thought that by getting rid of this woman he could save this city from its despair and darkness that surrounded so many people. He probably reasoned with himself until he came to that conclusion as he tends to analyze and found this murder as a type of solution that in his eyes made a difference in the community.
When I looked at the reasons why Rodyon killed the pawnbroker, I saw it like the layers of an onion.
I think at the surface, Raskolnikov wants to make his world, society, a little better by ridding it of a despicable person like the pawnbroker. A little deeper, the motivation comes from his want to prove his superiority over humanity, a superman. But I think the deepest, most compelling reasons for the murder can be better understood and explained by the philosophy of nihilism. I did some research on nihilism, and Rodyon's actions, I think, fall under a class of moral nihilism. The philosophy holds a perspective that there is no right or wrong, there is no true basis for absolute morality. But I think its important to look at how this philosophy is borne in rodyon as well. He lives in a completely degenerate world, where he doesn't have any money, no food, a crappy life, basically a part of the dregs of society... but he's smart enough to understand things outside his class. I think his life, the detachment he feels, is the reason he ascribes to this ethical nihilism, a truly rational viewpoint. With this philosophy, the justification for killing someone takes a completely independent vantage point, as there is no basis to make it right, or wrong, or good, or bad. From this he looks at the utilitarian point of view that killing her would only help society in general, and being great as he is, he would be above the law and have no reason not to do it.
But I think this is really an immature justification for committing the crime. And I think a major part of the book looks at Rodyon's growth, ultimately leading to him asking forgiveness. I think Rodyon has a deeply hurt pride, mostly because of living in such shitty conditions, and that warps his view. I thought this factor of pride did one major thing, and that was to magnify what he saw was a utilitarian, rational decisions, mostly because he didn't consider, or care, for the other factors, pushing aside morality and ethics.
As with anything, thinking too much on a subject matter can cause anxiety. Raskolnikov lets his worries over money fester to the point that he begins considering an extreme alternative. Perhaps his obsessive thoughts about killing the old pawn broker started out harmless enough, but the idea became more enticing the more he thought about it. The weight from thinking about it became too much and Raskolnikov resolved to act on impulse.
There are several methods for justification that Raskolnikov uses and the one that I have not yet seen mentioned is Raskolnikov's belief in some form of predestined fate set before him to murder the old widow.
Raskolnikov's thought of murder is first reinforced when he overhears a man and a police officer speaking hypothetically about killing the same woman. Later he passes Lizaveta in the street and hears the time at which she will be out of the apartment. This "seemed to him as if it were a sort of predetermination of his fate." (Pt. 1 ch.5)
Raskolnikov justifies committing murder by somewhat believing that fate is responsible.
I think that his family's financial oppression underlies all the reasons why Raskolnikov committed the murder. Like Lauren said, his family's financial burden lead to his frenzied and tortured state of mind,which began weakening him to the point that he saw murder as a solution to help his situation . Raskolnikov knew that his mother and sister were sacrificing too much for him and that he needed to sacrifice himself to forbid his beloved sister form marrying an evil, selfish man to help Raskolnikov with his studies. The realities and questions of how he would help his family had begun to “grip and rend his heart,” (p. 1, ch. 3, 40. His “present anguish had its first beginnings; it had waxed and gathered in strength, it had matured and concentrated, until it had taken form of a fearful, frenzied and fantastic question, which tortured his heart and his mind,” (p. 1, ch. 3, 40). From a psychological standpoint, his state of oppression and helplessness caused by the financial burden gave rise to many psychological problems, distorting his reasoning.However, Raskolnikov couldn’t decide whether his mental disease, “gave rise to the crime, or whether the crime from its particular nature is accompanied by something of the nature of disease,” (p.1, ch. 5, 64). Nonetheless, this murder was Raskolnikov's way of sacrificing himself for his family.
The understanding that he needed to sacrifice himself for the good of his family burdened him. Like everyone else has mentioned, Raskolnikov believed that the murder was a heroic act. Not only would he be able to help his family with Aloyna's money, but he also believed that he was getting rid of this, “stupid, senseless, worthless, spiteful, ailing, horrid old woman, not simply useless but doing actual mischief, who ha[d] not an idea what she [was] living for herself,” (part 1, ch.5, 58). The discussion of the two young men at the tavern reflected his very own thoughts that, “would not one tiny crime by wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” (p. 1, ch.5, 59). He rationalized at the time that that he was like Sonia, who was committing a crime for the good of others, and not for selfish reasons. He saw that “his design was ‘not a crime,” 64, and like the young men in the tavern said, it was, “one death, and a hundred life in exchange,” (p. 1, ch. 5, 59).
"I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right … that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep … certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity)." (raskolnikov) (466/967)
I thought this was a great example of how he disregarded societal norms and creates a completely arbitrary moral foundation to justify his actions, coupled with his idea that he is a champion of society, and is compelled to act in its benefit.
I understand what Sean and many are saying about Raskolnikov's motive, and perhaps it is correct. He was in a financial rut and had no where to turn. He had thought about it of course, and reasoned that it would also to st. petersburg good if she were gone. I think what drove Rskolnikov to come up with the idea of murdering the pawnbroker was ultimately selfish, but through reasoning, began to believe that he would be doing a good deed. His confused thoughts perhaps brought him to his delirious state that Natalie's talking about.
If Raskolnikov murdered Alyone Ivanovna for personal financial gain, why would he have buried his loot? Though there many possible reasons for the crime the one I like the most is the one outlined in his article. What is really interesting, however, is that while the crime is being committed, it just "happens" to Raskolnikov. As written in my book, Raskolnikov takes no actions but actions are taken on him. An outside force is controlling him, and this is compounded by the fact that he keeps finding clues that this crime should be committed by him (passive). His ability to think sharply--which he hasn't been able to and shouldn't be able to because of his living circumstances-- is another example of this transformation at the time of the crime. The crime was committed for a higher purpose and by a higher power than Raskolnikov.
The main crime of this novel, that of Raskolnikov murdering Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna, is one fraught with many explanations. Raskolnikov seems to be mentally unstable form the beginning of the novel, grasping on to dear life the last hope he has; his past as a student. However, he is still swayed by the thoughts of others, and these serve as some sort of brainwashing, causing him to carry out actions that would normally be suppressed by his inner conscience. Murdering Alyona and Lizaveta is one of these actions. Raskolnikov has heard on the street that Alyona is a worthless old woman, one who makes life miserable for hordes of people. Furthermore, In Part 6, Chapter 6, Raskolnikov states, "That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!... Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that a crime?" Thus, he believes internally after the murder that he did the right thing. I believe that he thought similarly before the murder as well. These thoughts of his, coupled with the things he heard out on the street, helped him to make the judgment to kill the pawnbroker. Thus, I believe that the action was far more psychological and based on his rage at the moment rather than any desire for personal gain.
Post a Comment