Crime and Punishment

[Anonymous No.17361610]

I think the only flaw in this book is the accidental death of a second person. His ideology and his biological nature are in discord. He lives to realize that he can not will his ideas into being, because he can not change what he is. This would be pure and perfect if everything went exactly according to his plan. But with how it's written, his despair can be attributed to the fact that it went wrong.

[Anonymous No.17361625]

It deflates the impact of what he goes through. Because what if everything had gone right? Would everything just have turned out fine, no lesson learned?

[Anonymous No.17361638]

>>17361610
You can't find perfection, everything he wrote was for a specific reason but we are unable to see the purpose of killing a second person. My guess would be because he had to sacrifice another life in order to be able to kill more in the future and get rid of all those he hated like the old lady.

[Anonymous No.17361695]

>>17361638
>everything he wrote was for a specific reason but we are unable to see the purpose of killing a second person
I didn't mean to say that I understand his work better than dosto does. I want to understand why, because from my current perspective it does seem like a flaw.

>My guess would be because he had to sacrifice another life in order to be able to kill more in the future and get rid of all those he hated like the old lady.
Thanks, that's a very good explanation. However, the doubt still remains because the woman was not someone that maybe ever needed to be killed? Everything about her is painted in a positive light. If this is something about the necessity of (valued) casualties/undeserving victims or something about how life doesn't turn out the way you want it makes sense, but is less interesting in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.17361731]

>>17361695
>the woman was not someone that maybe ever needed to be killed?
She was kind and sweet but in my opinion he wanted to show that once you kill the first person you are unable to stop, either because of fear or something else. Also it's a good way to shock the reader and keep him hyped till the end of the book.

[Anonymous No.17361738]

I suppose from a dramatical point of view it is very important. The shock and anxiety is greatly enhanced and becomes real for the reader. Perhaps it's necessary in order to increase the force of the novel and the impact both on the reader and raskolnikov. It's such a sudden change. But I still believe it takes away from the core idea, even if the book is better off for it.

[Anonymous No.17361792]

>>17361731
>once you kill the first person you are unable to stop, either because of fear or something else
Ah, now I start to see it. It works with the original idea because he loses control over himself. Even if he does not want to kill her in reasoning, his nature is dominant. It shatters his beliefs. He kills because he fears, an emotion sprung from his nature. Thoughts up to that point are useless, he only reacts. In that sense it's actually a great thing that she is kind and sweet indeed. Otherwise he could have justified it in his own mind afterwards. Now he lives having experienced the worthlessness of his reasoning in the face of his nature. Thank you anon, I appreciate the novel even more now (might be my favourite book, it has changed my life).

[Anonymous No.17361839]

>>17361792
It's also my favorite by far but I just started reading with these non stop confinements. Can't wait to read The Brothers Karamzov and his other novels ! Have fun anon, keep reading.