Body Paragraph : Superiority

If one had to choose between a single person being killed or a thousand people getting killed, usually one would feel morally obligated to choose the single person. However, things get more complicated if that single person was someone like Albert Einstein or George Washington. It proves that humans are valued differently based on their “productivity” or conceived importance even though in the end all people die. Raskolnikov was dealing with a great internal conflict if he was important enough to be able to live even though others had to die. He continuously compared himself to Napoleon, because he viewed Napoleon as one of the people who’s single life was worth more than other’s lives. In one of Raskolnikov contemplations he said, “I didn't kill a human being, but a principle!” (page 261), which shows that when he killed Alyona Ivanova, he wasn't completely doing it for money or because he was mentally ill. He did it to prove something to himself that there is superiority when it comes to human lives, and he is more superior than other people. However, like the narrator from Notes From the Underground, Raskolnikov is conflicted as to if he really is superior or not. On page 261 he says, “is it that I am perhaps viler and more loathsome than that the louse I killed” because he is no longer sure that he can justify his murder, even though he tried to “pick out the most useless one”, referring to Alyona Ivanova. There is a concept of “bloodshed in the name of consciousness” that Porfiry brought up from one of Raskolnikov’s controversial articles that Raskolnikov was previously sticking to and giving his life up for. Like the narrator from NFTU Raskolnikov sees himself as both inferior and superior, or how Raskolnikov put it “ordinary and extraordinary” (page 247). By being extraordinary, one has rights that the ordinary men do not have simply because of their titile. The extraordinary people “have a right to commit any crime and transgress the law in any way” (page 247). This is how Raskolnikov justifies his right to kill Alyona Ivanova because he is simply “extraordinary” and she is “ordinary”. There are many times when people hear of celebrities or extremely wealthy people have less severe  punishments than regular everyday people. Whether one thinks that it is due to those people being able to get better lawyers or really the legal system is less harsh on more “important” people, its not a phenomenon that is far from reality. Raskolnikov thought it was okay to kill Alyona Ivanova to create that separation that he is an extraordinary person and that she was ordinary, and that should make the murder valid and not worthy of a punishment. 

comment on Jessica's

Overall I really liked Jessica's post. The amount of detail and quotes she inputed into her paper really supported her argument. I really like when you describe the scenario of when Raskolnikov committed the crime. I also like how you describe why he killed Lizaveta. She was a witness and could have ran to the police and told them that he killed the pawn broker lady.

term paper 3

Wendell Pfeffer

English

            It isn’t out of the norm for a human being to act violently towards another in a natural environment, but in a modern society that behavior is quelled to an extent with laws and punishments. If a person adheres and acts in their natural behavior they will be severely punished if caught. Unfortunately for Raskolnikov these punishments have become a reality because he acted within his own natural behavior. He killed Lizaveta and the old pawnbroker lady and can now be possibly thrown into a Siberian prison for the rest of this life. The idea of being locked up separate from his family and friends is really causing Raskolnikov to live with fear. He is trying his best to conceal this fear but it hasn’t been going well for him. Every time he is with people he asks questions about the murder in a strange way almost making it seem that he was the one that committed them. I understand what Raskolnikov is trying to do here. He wants to let people know that he doesn’t know anything about the murder and instead wants to make it seem that he is eager to find out the details to the crime. But instead of accomplishing this, people are now somewhat contemplating the reasons behind his erratic behavior. This type of behavior is demonstrated when Raskolnikov goes and retrieves his personal items from Porfiry. It was suppose to be a quick and easy encounter with the chief of police, but instead turned into a bad scenario. Raskolnikov turned pale and made it apparent that he did something wrong. As a result Porfiry became suspicious and began to question him indirectly about the murder. The sole purpose of those questions were to see if he would react naturally to them but he unfortunately did not. In the end Porfiry justifications were solidified and Raskolnikov state of mind worsened. Raskolnikov now realized that he was in trouble because the person in charge of the crime now thinks that he is the culprit. I don’t know why Raskolnikov decided to visit Porfiry. Raskolnikov knew that his physical state was in bad condition but yet decides to visit the person that could land him in jail. Things could have gone much differently for Raskolnikov if he hadn’t done this or if he acted naturally. Porfiry could have ignored Raskolnikov or maybe could have wrongfully blamed someone else for  the crime.

Comment on Davis

    I brought up the same topic on the body paragraph that I wrote today. As I read the book I wondered if Raskolnikov's actions were intended for strictly evil purposes or if he truly was trying to help out the poor in need. After looking back at Svidrigailov's crimes I realized that Raskolnikov is not your typical criminal. While Svidrigailov decided to commit suicide as an "easy way out" Raskolnikov decided to confess in order to make amends with the old pawnbroker as well as God to relieve himself of his guilt yet at the same time taking full responsibility of his actions.

Body Paragraph 2

       A while after Raskolnikov commits the murder of the old pawnbroker, a strange man named Svidrigailov appears in Raskolnikov's apartment as Raskolnikov wakes up from a nap. The man is very vague throughout the first conversation they have but Raskolnikov is immediately aware that Svidrigailov somehow knows something about his secret. As the two continue to get to know each other Raskolnikov learns about Svidrigailov's true personality. Svidrigailov tries to tell Raskolnikov that they both have something in common; they both have an impure and immoral past behind them. Svidrigailov even states, "Wasn't it true when I said we were both apples from the same tree?" (Dostoevsky 290). Regardless of the sinful past they both share in common, there is a crucial difference between the two men. All of the sinful acts that Svidrigailov has carried out were for his own selfish pleasure and entertainment, while Raskolnikov's main motive to kill the pawnbroker was to take a stand for the poor people in the community who were not being helped. Yet, as Raskolnikov continues to spend time with Svidrigailov he brings out Svidrigailov's evil and darkness onto his own self. This continues to push Raskolnikov further away from God as well as eternal salvation. Eventually Raskolnikov realizes the negative impact Svidrigailov has on him and turns to Sonya once again for advice. Sonya depicts the complete opposite of Svidrigailov and gives off a contrasting impact towards Raskolnikov's life. At first Raskolnikov decides to turn to Sonya because she is a sinner as well. Raskolnikov accuses Sonya of being a sinner because she is a prostitute. Although her actions are considered a sin in the eyes of society, Sonya results to giving up her body in order to keep her family alive. She carries out these actions in the most selfless way possible and maintains a strong belief in her faith throughout her entire life. When Raskolnikov turns to her for help she encourages him to do the same thing in order to finally reach salvation. Sonya is able to bring back humility into Raskolnikov's life. With her help Raskolnikov has turned to a life of love and hope, leaving behind his prideful attitude. He accepts his actions as sinful and is prepared to accept all consequences fully aware that afterwards he will finally be forgiven by God and relieved of all guilt. Unlike Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov did not intend to seek salvation. After a series of nightmares reliving his past and a forceful rejection from Dunya, Svidrigailov finally realized the ruthless criminal he really is. While Raskolnikov sought to obtain forgiveness and rebuild his relationship with God, Svidrigailov resulted to committing suicide. Because of Sonya, Raskolnikov was able to avoid this path. Regarding the cowardly actions Svidrigailov committed in order to escape his inner guilt and pain and Raskolnikov's brave confession in order to finally obtain salvation depict the two different extremes of living with a guilty conscious and a life full of sin.

Raskolnikov paper

Mirroring Raskolnikov’s psyche shift, Alyona and Lizaveta’s apartment metamorphosed. No longer was the atmosphere peaceful, the walls clean, and the floor boards polished. Blood stained floorboards lied beneath his feet. Decapitated corpses occupied the space. Walls painted with blood. Taking his time to wash off the stolen axe and his hands, Raskolnikov started to “forget himself” and focused on things that did not matter (98). No longer in touch with reality, he does not act as if he is in a crime scene and begins to obsess over little details such as the blood stains on his socks because the “simple feeling of horror and revulsion at what he had done” sent him into a dream-like state (98). The longer he waited to flee the apartment the more absent minded Raskolnikov became. In analyzing this scene further, there is no sign of forced entry, showing that the victim knew the murderer and willingly allowed them into their home. Research has shown that when a murderer uses a “weapon of opportunity” from the crime scene it signifies that a positive relationship has turned sour in the heat of the moment (Kauflin, 2011). In this instance, however, the murder weapon, the axe, was brought to the crime scene and the murder was not act of rage in the spur of the moment but was premeditated. Even though the crime scene does not suggest revenge since nothing seemed to be stolen, it truly was revenge because Raskolnikov was “pushed to the brink by the victim”, Alyona to murder Lizaveta (Kauflin). Dr. Kauflin explains that revenge is deduced from crime scene analysis when items are stolen, there is a sign of forced entry, and the victim is stabbed from behind. Raskolnikov felt threatened that his crime would not be taken as an extraordinary act if Lizaveta went to the police. He could not allow his unpunishable act to be classified as a crime due to a possible witness. His act of murdering one forced Raskolnikov to murder the other in order to protect his identity. Based on the crime on the crime scene, an investigator would never come to the conclusion that the murder was out of an Napoleon mind set, since nothing was left at the scene of the crime by Raskolnikov to give a message to the investigators. The crime scene had no meaning that matched Raskolnikov’s “logical” mindset.

Term Paper

Soon after Raskolnikov comes to the realization that the guilt is taking over his life in a way that he can no longer function properly, he tries to rid himself of the guilt in several ways. The first of these manners in which Raskolnikov tries to make himself feel less culpable of a clearly cold-blooded murder, is justification of this act. Still not able to admit to anybody else what he has done, a clear indicator that he knows what he has done is not culturally nor morally acceptable, Raskolnikov begins to explain why he committed the crime in the first place. He almost tries to portray himself as a Robin Hood-like character riding the world of one less greedy individual. This brings up a question that readers begin to contemplate throughout the rest of the book, was what Raskolnikov did so wrong? He claims that the old woman was greedy and the money that she made could have fed at least “one hundred hungry families”. On one hand, Raskolnikov is right that that the woman was a greedy individual, but was it his choice to decide how she spent or didn’t spend her money? And if he did not like how she chose to live her life, dis she deserve to die? He clearly knows that what he did was wrong, despite the fact that he tries again and again to justify it. If he didn’t think that there was anything wrong with what he had done, he wouldn’t run from the police, he would be proud of leaving the world with one less curmudgeon, and he without question would not be in the mental state of delusion that he is in for nearly the entire novel. Raskolnikov tries time and time again to prove to himself that what he did was justifiable, but any attempts at convincing himself of this belief appear to be ineffective as he continues throughout the book with delusions of which are seemingly brought on by the heavy burden that guilt brings when it sets itself within a person’s mind. As he begins to come to the realization that what he did was actually wrong, he stops fighting his delusional state. Instead, he almost seems to embrace the fact that he has become psychotic. From what readers can gather when Raskolnikov talks to himself, out loud and in his mind, he seems to be getting worse and worse in terms of mental status. Comparing him with Razumikhin, nearly the exact opposite of Raskolnikov, allows readers to show ow fully this guilt has taken hold of Raskolnikov’s mind. It seems that Razumihkin is a representation of what Raskolnikov once was, and one bad decision has driven him to a point where it is imaginable to think he could have ever been different.