Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 121 KB, 200x307, Crimeandpunishmentcover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12499746 No.12499746 [Reply] [Original]

I've just finished this bad boy, and the epilogue left me puzzled. Raskolnikov was immoral because he didn't regret the murder, suffered for a while (but not in a good way because he was still not regretful), then got reborn. So if suffering selflessly is the key to salvation, how did Raskolnikov manage to get reborn without suffering selflessly even for a moment? This is obviously something to do with Sonia, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
Was he saved because
-Sonia suffered in his place;
-He felt bad for her and that caused him to selflessly suffer;
-Something else?

>> No.12499817

>>12499746
didn't he find God? or something.

>> No.12499852

>>12499817
He was an atheist, then he found God. I'm asking why that happened, and I'm assuming it's not just love and something related to Christianity.

>> No.12500200

>>12499852
Wasn't because of those delusions and dreams he had while being hospitalized in Siberia? It's been a long time since I read the book but didn't he basically dream of a future where everyone acted just like him and realized how horrible it was? And so it would not make sense that if his acting was truly of "superior man" (or whatever he called it in his thesis) that a world where everyone was superior would be so much worse than it currently is.

>> No.12501570

>>12499746
>So if suffering selflessly is the key to salvation

Where is this from?
Also the epilogue is not necessary for Raskolnikov since the 'seed' of faith has been planted when he chose not to commit suicide.

>> No.12502599

>>12500200
That dream explains why you shouldn't be a nihilist or a commie or whatever, but seeing it shouldn't absolve you from committing a murder.
>>12501570
>Where is this from?
From the title. It's already obvious that from a Christian standpoint, one needs to suffer to be forgiven. There are many characters in the book who are suffering, but the ones who are suffering for selfish reasons get nowhere. One of the most sinful characters, Sonia, suffers selflessly throughout the book and is made to be into a holy character (even performing resurrection on Raskolnikov at the end).
>epilogue is not necessary for Raskolnikov
I agree. Still, I'm curious about what triggered his latent faith to surface.

>> No.12502622

>>12499746
>help a brainlet out
I don't remember there being so many masochistic faggots on /lit/ in the old days. Every time I come here I see threads where people are saying "hey guys I'm really dumb uwu please help me understand". Is this really how people talk to each other now?

>> No.12502627

>>12499746
He did regret the murder you absolute pleb, he thought that he was a man above morals like napoleon and he wouldn't feel contempt( the ubermench) but turns out this does not exist and those men were pychos, a deviation from how a human being should be: humble in relationship with god.

>> No.12502675

just spoil the book you fucking faggot

>> No.12503221

>>12502599
Sorry I was just hung up on the word selflessly, which I don't get how you get from the title of the book, but whatever. And of course I know that suffering is a huge part of the book, are you implying spending time in a Russian labour camp isn't suffering?

But as I said, when he is walking through st. Petersburg contemplating suicide, the fact that he rejects that shows a repudiation of his theory and acceptance of faith, although it's subconscious. Look at his dialogue with his mother right after this hoppende. If you remember his thougths when it comes to Sonya and why she goes on living you'll see that taking your own life can be a 'logical' decision within his nihilistic worldview. There is also a huge rainstorm (first time in the book when it's not blazing hot) which symbolises that a change has taken place. Hope this made sense.

>> No.12503246

>>12503221
*happend
Also saying that Sonya 'performs a resurrection' seems very strange to me.

>> No.12503479

>>12503221
There were other guys in the same labor camp that can appreciate Sonia for who she is and are repulsed by Raskonikov, so suffering after you have committed a crime doesn't make you a good person. You need to suffer in a particular way (saying this as an interpretation). I will read the rainy parts again.
>>12503246
It's foreshadowed in Raskolnikov asking her to read the story of Lazarus. Also the timeline is (plans murder)-9 months passes-(commits murder)-9 months pass-(punishment begins)-9 months pass-(rebirth)
The timeline thing I've read about but it makes a lot of sense. My problem with the resurrection story is that Raskolnikov has no agency in his salvation (which may be what was intended)

>> No.12503533

>>12503479
>appreciate Sonya and are repulsed by Raskonikov
And?
>so suffering after you have committed a crime doesn't make you a good person
Who says it does?
Also that timeline is not correct lol and doesn't explain how Sonya 'performs a resurrection'

Maybe this passage will help
>He suffered too from the question: why had he not killed himself? Why had he stood looking at the river and preferred to confess? Was the desire to live so strong and was it so hard to overcome it? Had not Svidrigaïlov overcome it, although he was afraid of death?

>In misery he asked himself this question, and could not understand that, at the very time he had been standing looking into the river, he had perhaps been dimly conscious of the fundamental falsity in himself and his convictions. He didn’t understand that that consciousness might be the promise of a future crisis, of a new view of life and of his future resurrection.

>> No.12503538
File: 2.70 MB, 4032x3024, EF95D4CF-2C99-489D-A14E-024818B7969D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12503538

Do any anons know why my copy of Crime and Punishment has this on the front cover? Is it a publisher?

>> No.12503578
File: 471 KB, 551x550, payne.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12503578

>>12502675
why did you keep reading after the first sentence?

>> No.12503742

>>12503533
>Who says it does?
The book tells about a bad kind of suffering (Svidrigaïlov, Marmeladov's wife) and good kind of suffering (Sonia, Dunya to some extent by agreeing to marry Luzhin). The comparison is impled, at least to me.

>his future resurrection
come on now

>> No.12503787

>>12503742
I really don't understand your point about suffering. Why do you compare Marmeladovs wife's suffering to that of a psychopathic pedophile? And again If I have made myself unclear: It doesn't matter how or when Raskolnikov has his change or resurrection because it is inevitable, but I agree that it's sort of contrived.

>> No.12503824

>>12503787
They are both suffering, but their suffering brings no good to other people. Svidrigaïlov is literally haunted by his guilt but he is still making fun about it, and Marmeladov's wife is suffering because of her pride more than anything. I can see why you find the connection weak though.

>It doesn't matter how or when Raskolnikov has his change
It matters to me because I'm trying to find out how I can change myself in a similar way (i.e. I'm LARPing)

>> No.12503866

>Raskolnikov was immoral because he didn't regret the murder
I would argue that he began to suffered (and regret) the murder even before he committed it. He became crazy, ill and drove all of his friends and family away.
Even though he liked to believe that he was a superior person (I forget the term used) above morality, who could commit murder for the greater good he couldn't beat his inherent nature. I believe in the epilogue in the comes to terms with that reality as he finally accepts God. Though I do think it is rather abrupt, I have heard it was meant to be much longer but Dosto was forced to shorten the book.

Svidrigailov is another character who believes he is above morality (which is why he is so fond of Raskolnikov) but again he has to come to terms with it.

I suggest you watch a few lectures related to it as there are many themes and comparables you'll have missed with one read through.

>> No.12503883

>>12503824
>Marmeladov's wife is suffering because of her pride more than anything
I disagree completely. Shes suffering because she was 'forced' to marry Marmeladov who fucking drinks up all their money, which makes them live in fucking awful poverty. Pluss that she has to care for three small children while being consumptive. How is this selfish suffering? Your definition of what is and isn't right suffering seems bizarre.

>change myself in a similar way
Try reading the bible

>> No.12503894

>>12503866
>Svidrigailov is another character who believes he is above morality

Svidrigailov doesn't believe in anything. He's a psychopathic, manipulative pedophile.

>> No.12503917

>>12503883
She's as bad as Marmeladov. Even after he's dead and Sonia keeps bringing in a lot of money, she's making everything x10 harder for everyone by trying to keep up appearances. I'm not even sure how much of their earlier misery was of Marmeladov's doing.

>Try reading the bible
Feels like a really cucked thing to do when you're not coming from a Christian background

>> No.12503933

>>12503894
>He's a psychopathic, manipulative pedophile.
Exactly... For someone to believe it is okay to do that he must believe he is above social and moral constructs. He believes he is capable of doing anything wants without consequence, similar to Raskolnikov but he isn't concerned with the greater good, he just thinks he has the right to because he's better than everyone else. However, even he is tormented by it all and tries to drink and party to escape it. I believe he feels that if he could save Raskolniknovs sister, it will make up for it and give his life meaning as she in turn would save him but once he has given up this pursuit he finally kills himself to end his suffering once and for all. He definately doesn't accept God or redemption like Raskolniknov but he is plagued with the suffering that come with his actions.

>> No.12503955

>>12503917
>She's as bad as Marmeladov. Even after he's dead and Sonia keeps bringing in a lot of money, she's making everything x10 harder for everyone by trying to keep up appearances. I'm not even sure how much of their earlier misery was of Marmeladov's doing.

Jesus Christ anon, you are one heartless motherfucker. How can you even compare them? It's entirely his fault for drinking and stealing everything, even her fucking clothes. Also keep in mind that she loses her mind completely after his death and she dies a few days later so not sure where you're getting the idea that she spends Sonyas money (She actually spends the money from Raskolnikov). The relationship between Sonya and Katarina is one of the most touching things in the novel imo.

>reading the Bible seems cucked
I can't really help you when it comes to your wish to change lol

>> No.12503981

>>12503933
>Exactly... For someone to believe it is okay to do that he must believe he is above social and moral constructs

Conjecture on your part. It can also just be that he doesn't feel empathy which makes him a psychopath. If what you say is true it would be reflected in his thougths when the reader get to follow him around when walks through st. Petersburg.

>> No.12503984

>>12503933
>>12503894
Svidrigailov just realizes his sociopathic actions can satisfy his body but not his heart. Also he appears to be a bit religious despite denying it, and fears the consequences of his actions in the afterlife. It isn't until he does a few good deeds that he think's he's paid back for his previous wrongdoings, and has no regrets in killing himself.

>> No.12504005

>>12503955
>Jesus Christ anon, you are one heartless motherfucker
case in point :(

Eh I was planning to read it one day, better sooner I guess. I hope Dostoevsky is not right and I don't need pure GF for salvation or I swear to God

>> No.12504030

>>12504005
I don't think you really got the novel. Maybe you should try reading it again sometime. Im not even sure what you want? Are you a rapist or something?

>> No.12504051

>>12504030
Even though I have power to do good, I'm using it for selfish reasons. I'm ruthless to myself and other people. I can't do these with a clear conscience, but I don't know how to change either.

>> No.12504053

>>12502622
If you ask a question then people call you stupid. It's like saying >inb4

>> No.12504119

>>12504051
You'll grow up and you'll either find a wife or a boss that will eventually straighten you up. Being a cunt doesn't really get you far after college.

Also you people need to be careful about drawing parallels with Rashkolnikov, considering the state of late 19th century Russia and your first world communities.

>> No.12504131

>>12504119
it doesn't help that I'm a boss and can do whatever the fuck I please and people take it

>> No.12504169

>>12504131
If you're not over 40, you still have time to grow out of it. If your business is successful and booming then you're beating yourself over nothing.

Also having a kid changes a person a lot. I knew a lot of hot shots back in the day that nowadays, after having a kid, they seem either responsible or the average depressed uncle that drinks himself to death after work. I don't know if if the kid itself changed them or the responsibility that comes with it, but just enjoy your rebellious years while they last. You seem like an intelligent enough dude that won't just become one of those creepy relatives that don't seem self aware.

>> No.12504268

>>12503981
>>12503984
I don't see how either of what you are saying contradicts my statement but I don't think he was a psychopath/sociopath persay. I believe Dosto wanted to draw parallels between him, Raskolnikov and Marmeladov as different flavours on the same theme.

>> No.12504282

>>12504131
If you're as you say then you will lose good workers and attract shitty ones. If your business is a business of one then you lose out of sales/referrals. People like people who are good to them and will reciprocate. Whether you need to learn this the hard way or the easy way is another matter.

>> No.12504338

>>12504268
>I believe Dosto wanted to draw parallels between him, Raskolnikov and Marmeladov as different flavours on the same theme.
And which theme is that?

If Svidrigailov really thought he was 'above morals' or whatever shouldn't this be reflected in his thougths or dialogue?
Also Svidrigailovs main purpose in the story is to be the villain, of course that doesn't mean he cant have important thematic functions, which imo concerns depravity and suicide. Again I don't know how you can read his parts and not think he's not a psychopath lol. He shows no remorse or regret for any of the many crimes he has committed. What do you think of his plan of getting married to that young girl then pimping her out? His brutal rape which make a girl commit suicide (huge deal in Orthodoxy) plus his heavily implied pedophilia and murder?
How is that character comparable to Raskolnikov lol

>> No.12504354

>>12504282
I don't see how Marmladenov fits that theme. He was just a moron piece of shit. If the theme you're talking about is personalities liable towards nihilistic ideas, I still don't see how you can argue for Marladenov.

>> No.12504381

>>12504338
I always saw him as reflection of what would happen if Raskolnikov got away with the murder and didn't meet Sonya. Even Svidrigailov mentions how Raskolnikov one day might be quite the smart scoundrel. Svidrigailov was basically the character idolized in Raskolnikov's article, but he didn't realize it until his nightmares in prison. You could even see Svidrigailov carry the same guilt that eventually drove him to suicide.

>> No.12504421

>>12504381
>I always saw him as reflection of what would happen if Raskolnikov got away with the murder and didn't meet Sonya
Why? Raskolnikov isn't a fucking degenerate, he hates Svidrigailov with all his heart, they have nothing in common.
Also please explain how Svidrigailov is like Napoleon or Ceasar lol

>> No.12504443

>>12504169
I know I have time, but it's not getting any better. Maybe it's not that of a big deal I guess.

>>12504282
I'm not an asshole, I just know how to get my way. That's as destructive to a man as a hot body to a woman.

I don't like blogging here, I'm out, thanks anons

>> No.12504455

>>12502627
>He did regret the murder you absolute pleb, he thought that he was a man above morals like napoleon and he wouldn't feel contempt( the ubermench) but turns out this does not exist and those men were pychos, a deviation from how a human being should be: humble in relationship with god.
this

this

jesus christ op are you retarded?

>> No.12504514

>>12504421
>Also please explain how Svidrigailov is like Napoleon or Ceasar

That's literally the point of the book. If Raskolnikov got away with the murder he would have killed and robbed again, and then again, and again. Once he was poisoned by the success, he wouldn't know when to stop. All the guilt he had for the murder was overshadowed by his failure to get away with the crime. It was the start of his collapse into degeneracy. It was never about him doing one crime to set himself up. It was about proving to himself he's capable of greatness, which is ironic considering he would just end up like Svidrigailov. Do you think 5 years down the line at the first trouble, he wouldn't think, "well that crime sure worked out fine, why wouldn't I try it again".

The point of the book wasn't "if you don't get away with a crime, you should seek religion, because you're a failure, unlike Napoleon", it was that crime would just lead down a path of self destruction.

>> No.12504535

>>12504338
Svidrigailov's actions have very little bearing to the actual story, particularly after he gets to St. Petersburg. If he is just a villian psychopath then what would be the purpose of spending so much time detailing his existence other than to show that Raskolnikov's sister has struggled and was willing to struggle further for his sake? You can correct me if I am wrong but there is nothing that I can think of which influences the other characters in a meaningful way to change the outcome of the story.

Dostoevsky argues for an objective morality, and that no man, whether with good intentions (Raskolnikov), bad intentions (Svidrigailov) or neutral intentions (Marmladenov) can escape from as it is inherent in their nature. Nihilism and Atheism are secondary themes but the belief that morality doesn't matter does go hand in hand with these beliefs.

>> No.12504538

>>12504514
>That's literally the point of the book
No it's not.
Infact Raskolnikov's braindead 'might is right' theory has very little to do with the overall meaning. Again please explain how Svidrigailov is like Napoleon or Muhammed and how Raskolnikov would have become a complete degenerate if hadn't been caught. Keep in mind he does not have any sexual thoughts or desires through the novel.

>> No.12504553

>>12504535
>Svidrigailov's actions have very little bearing to the actual story, particularly after he gets to St. Petersburg.

Do you know what stakes are in relation to a plot? It's baffling that you can say he has very little meaning to the story.

>> No.12504583

>>12504538
You're basing the Raskolnikov's character on his one crime and the supposed intentions of it (either his stupid theory or that he's poor as fuck). Even if we take out Svidrigailov out of the argument, you can still see in Raskolnikov's nightmare how eventually his nihilistic views of the world would lead him and the rest around him to destruction. The story wasn't about Raskolnikov's alternative reality where he gets away with the murder and continuous his fall into degeneracy, but Dosto wanted to show what would happen if he did and Svidrigailov is a reflection of that, one that Raskolnikov doesn't pick on (for the sake of him holding to his theories), but to the reader that should be obvious. During his first few crimes Svidrigailov was probably scared to death, just like Raskolnikov, but eventually became numb to that, and just saw it as a guaranteed success of getting what he wants. The downside of that is that guilt finally caught up to him. The intentions don't excuse the crime.

>> No.12504600

>>12504535
>You can correct me if I am wrong but there is nothing that I can think of which influences the other characters in a meaningful way to change the outcome of the story.

To follow up on this: what happens in the story when Svidrigailov kills himself? How does Raskolnikov learn of this? What does he do next? This is absolutley critical for the narrative.

>> No.12504699

>>12504583
>You're basing the Raskolnikov's character on his one crime and the supposed intentions
I am basing his character on his thougths and feelings which make up most of the book.
>take Svidrigailov out
Well you seem unable to do this.
>Svidrigailov is a reflection of this
This seems like such a fucking huge leap taking into account Raskolnikovs character.
>downside...guilt finally caught up to him
Svidrigailov displays no form of guilt or remorse. He is haunted, yes but there are no form of reflection. In fact there are no thougths about any ideas at all. Again the comparison doesn't make any sense.

>> No.12504727

>>12504583
>>12504699
Another post.
I do however agree that Svidrigailov can be seen as symbol of depravity, especially inner depravity as it relates to the book.

>> No.12504853

>>12504699
>Svidrigailov displays no form of guilt or remorse
What is his conversion with Raskolnikov about the afterlife and being punished for the way you live? What is him letting Dunya escape? What is his nightmare in the hostel? What is him fearing death if he's nihilistic in nature?

Dosto makes it so obvious you are suppose to see Svidrigailov as reflection of Raskolnikov that he literally takes the place of Raskolnikov as a main character for a few chapters. For fuck sake he has the same fucking nightmares of guilt Raskolnikov has.

Svidrigailov constantly relates to the boy, he keeps talking how they'll get along, how they are the same. Raskolnikov is in denial the entire time, he's unable to draw the similarities between him and Svidrigailov, because he thinks intentions matter, just like you. He's in denial his theory won't lead him to becoming like the ideal he holds for Napoleon, but that he'll become what he hates. Raskolnikov can't relate to Svidrigailov, because he justifies his crime with his intentions, but in prison he eventually realizes he's wrong.

You can argue Luzhin is a piece of shit that has no guilt and Raskolnikov is unable to relate to him, but definitely not for Svidrigailov.

>> No.12505132

>>12504553
I do think he is meaningful for the reasons I’ve cited but if he’s denying my conclusion then I see no purpose of him. Should he just be a random sociopath which no relation to Raskolnikov world view then I do see him as pointless as none of his actions after he gets to St. Petersburg influence the other characters in a meaningful way.

>> No.12505164

>>12504853
I’m glad someone else isn’t a retard who just thinks Svidrigailov was just a random villain added in to increase the word count.

>> No.12505187

>>12504853
>What is him letting Dunya escape?
He didn’t rape her, wow such a display of guilt and remorse
>What is his nightmare in the hostel?
As I said Svidrigailov is haunted, by ghosts and visions when hes awake and nightmares when he sleeps which is why he decides to commit suicide. HOWEVER HE NEVER FUCKING THINKS OR REFLECTS ON WHY HES HAUNTED. This is what Ive been trying to tell you.
>What is him fearing death if he's nihilistic in nature?
Didn't know being a nihilst made impervious to fearing death. If he feared death this would also be reflected in his thoughts BEFORE HE FUCKING KILLS HIMSELF
>Svidrigailov constantly relates to the boy, he keeps talking how they'll get along, how they are the same
You realize what Svidrigailov purpose is? First he needs Raskolnikovs help then to make sure he stays out of his way. He does this by manipulation and flattery. Hes a deciver. Nowhere in the book are they fucking bonding.
>because he thinks intentions matter, just like you
Excuse me? Of course intentions matter, take for example Svidrigailov's act of 'penance' by giving the girl he was going marry then pimp out money.
>Raskolnikov can't relate to Svidrigailov, because he justifies his crime with his intentions, but in prison he eventually realizes he's wrong.
>For fuck sake he has the same fucking nightmares of guilt Raskolnikov has.
Raskolnikov dreamt of child prostitutes and rape victims?
>takes the place of Raskolnikov as a main character for a few chapters
Plenty of reasons for this, and I say again Svidrigailov is a very important character but he does not represent what could happen to Raskolnikov because there is no indication that if, should he get away with the crime would it lead to life of utter degeneracy since Raskolnikovs heart is so fucking good (this is what the novel is about if you're curious). This thing has come along away since we started that it's getting close to my views that Svidrigailov represent inner depravity and encompasses the very important theme of suicide. My problem is that he's not a mirror or reflection of Raskolnikov, but he stills represents a path which Raskolnikov could have taken which is suicide.

>> No.12505204

>>12505132
Do I really have to spoonfeed you the entire story? And for gods sake cant Svidrigailov represent other themes than the one you had especially in mind? The fact that Svidrigailov kills himself has a monumental effect on narrative as Raskolnikov hears of this and still decides to confess!
>>12505164
I never said that Svidrigailov is just a moustace twirling villain dumbfuck

>> No.12505221

You are dumb
Read the last part of the drunk guy monologue and then re-read the epilogue
And yes he did regret killing and he thinking that he doesn't regret is one of the beuties of the books

>> No.12505420

>>12505187
Damn the whole book really went over your head, didn't it. Your reading comprehension is terrible. You probably think Raskolnikov was somehow justified because of his intentions, despite all his inner monologue being that of a mad man in denial that can feel the walls closing on him.

It took Svidrigailov one conversation to relate to Raskolnikov's deeply disturbed nature. It took Porfiry one conversation to be sure he's the murder. He was already on his way to becoming Svidrigailov. There's a reason they said Raskolnikov has two choices: giving himself in or bullet to the head (i wonder which other character shot himself in the head). I mean Raskolnikov literally realizes this when Petrovich tell him about the suicide. But why am I wasting my time, it's obvious you either read the book a really long time ago, or are a complete brainlet.

>> No.12505525

>>12505420
>You probably think Raskolnikov was somehow justified because of his intentions, despite all his inner monologue being that of a mad man in denial that can feel the walls closing on him
No why would I?
>It took Svidrigailov one conversation to relate to Raskolnikov's deeply disturbed nature. It took Porfiry one conversation to be sure he's the murder.
I dont understand what this has to do with the argument?
>He was already on his way to becoming Svidrigailov
If you mean suicide then yes. If you mean a depraved psychopathic pedophile then no.
>There's a reason they said Raskolnikov has two choices: giving himself in or bullet to the head (i wonder which other character shot himself in the head). I mean Raskolnikov literally realizes this when Petrovich tell him about the suicide.
You are very confused about what I think or don't think about the novel. All I have said and Im getting fucking tired of saying it: RASKOLNIKOV WILL NEVER TURN INTO SVIDRIGAILOV AND SVIDRIGAILOV IS NOT A FUCKING CHAMPION OF RASKOLNIKOVS THEORY LIKE YOU SAID HE IS NOT SOMEONE WHO THINKS HES ABOVE MORALS AND CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS YOU UTTER RETARD

>> No.12505551

why the hell does this board not have IDs I can barely make sense of this shit show

>> No.12505591

>>12505525
That's exactly the basis of Raskolnikov's theory. How he thinks people who are able to commit crime that is justified by the greater good are truly great people who can change the world. But that's wrong. Dosto was obviously taking a shot at the socialistic groups of 19th century russia that justified political murder because of their ideas (and if you read Demons you know that's exactly who he's targeting).

Also Svidrigailov obviously had guilt. I dunno why you keep bringing the haunted shit. Like do you think Dostoevsky just put a ghost in his book to be cute? That's obviously Svidrigailov inner guilt haunting him. His nightmares in the hostel was him being disgusted by his own crimes now that he found a moment of mental realization after the Dunya scene. He even went out of his way to give all of his money to his underage wife and Sonya to help Raskolnikov (him obviously realizing Raskolnikov is on his way of becoming like him and didn't want him to go trough the shit he just did). He even says to Sonya, Raskolnikov has two ways, giving up and owning to his crime before he begins his real downfall or bullet to the head, which is what he already had in mind for himself, and knew Raskolnikov would eventually get to this point too.

All of this doesn't seem like a mindless psychopath that doesn't have a single drop of guilt. He was just a sociopath in denial about his evil, but all the guilt came back after the Dunya attempted rape.

>> No.12505612

>>12505591
Also to add the haunted shit since I just reread my post and I realized it sounds like I believe there is an actual ghost. Svidrigailov is insane in some way that keep from reaching mental clarity to realize his crime. Raskolnikov was also going fucking insane.

>> No.12505622

Fuck sake, so depressed atm. I read this book summer of last year and already I'm forgetting characters' names. And I really enjoyed it as well. I read up quite a lot about it. Can someone remind me what the point of Dimitri prokovitch razumihin was? Was he just the opposite of Raskolnikov?

>> No.12505630

>>12505622
on this note, does forgetting story elements depress anyone else? it's sad.

>> No.12505708

>>12505204
I’m convinced you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and are just parroting an online critic because the reading comprehension of my posts are piss poor.

>> No.12505740

>>12505591
>That's exactly the basis of Raskolnikov's theory. How he thinks people who are able to commit crime that is justified by the greater good are truly great people who can change the world. But that's wrong. Dosto was obviously taking a shot at the socialistic groups of 19th century russia that justified political murder because of their ideas (and if you read Demons you know that's exactly who he's targeting).

Dear god allmighty. Raskolnikov's theory that there are a selct few people who are way above the average has the right to commit crimes in order to further society and bring new ideas. People like your Napoleons and Ceasars. He is not talking about fucking pedophiles and cardsharks like Svidrigailov. Do we agree on this?

Next there seems to be the issue of guilt and remorse. What I mean when I say haunted instead of guilt is that Svidrigailov does not think about his crimes or conduct. He doesn't cry or show emotion, in fact he starts thinking about completely nonsensical things like the tea he just drank or the weather. He dreams about being gnawed by rats and child prostituets and ruminates on the river. Is this how a normal person thinks? Just compare his vacious thougths with those of Raskolnikov's who is fucking devestated by what he has done. Did this make more sense?

>> No.12505757

>>12505708
Excuse me but who the fuck are you? Please state you arguments again, this thread is becoming messy

>> No.12505891

Svidrigailov is a sane aristocrat you fucking toddlers. And Dostoevsky fucked child prostitutes and was a gambler. This book is not for you.

>> No.12506027

>>12505740
Obviously they are not the same at the point in time of the book, but he represents the outcome of someone living with the Napoleon mindset. Delusions of grandeur leading to a life of evil and sin.

Of course Raskol thinks only of Napoleon and Caesar, but so do the card sharks and pedophiles when they are justifying their own actions.

>> No.12506107

>>12506027
>Obviously they are not the same at the point in time of the book, but he represents the outcome of someone living with the Napoleon mindset. Delusions of grandeur leading to a life of evil and sin.
>Of course Raskol thinks only of Napoleon and Caesar, but so do the card sharks and pedophiles when they are justifying their own actions.

So it's impossible to just be a psychopath? Everyone who acts selfish or sins has to subscribe to a nihilistic worldview? Are you saying every single criminal is a proponent of this mindset?
I'm not trying to be coy but in my opinion Raskolnikov theory is above else 'the great man theory' before a simply nihilistic one.

>Of course Raskol thinks only of Napoleon and Caesar, but so do the card sharks and pedophiles when they are justifying their own actions.

Do they really? I don't think so.

>> No.12506932

>>12506107
You obviously have a different mindset than what Dostoevsky had in mind. It's alright to have different opinion than what the author thought was right, but you're straight up missed the point of the book.

>> No.12506991

>>12505740
>who is fucking devestated by what he has done

Except that Raskolnikov doesn't want to surrender to the police not because of guilt, but because he doesn't admit that according to his theory he's a failure. Raskolnikov is not really a good person, but his not inherently evil. He's just confused man that filled his head with retarded ideas. He had some strange dreams too, like the horse getting killed, and the police detective stomping his land owner's head. He was a pretty sick dude.

>> No.12507076

>>12506932
>You obviously have a different mindset than what Dostoevsky had in mind. It's alright to have different opinion than what the author thought was right, but you're straight up missed the point of the book.

Well I am more than happy to change my mind, but I havent been convinced by any argument in this thread. And I have not stated what I believe the book is about so how can you say that Ive missed the point?

>>12506991
Devasted was a poor choice of word, what I meant was more like terrorised or wretched.

>Raskolnikov is not really a good person
Wrong, and this is the deeper meaning of the book.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action