Crime And Punishment By Dostoevsky

In the novel Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, suffering is an
integral part of every character\'s role. However, the message that Dostoevsky
wants to present with the main character, Raskolnikov, is not one of the

Christian idea of salvation through suffering. Rather, it appears to me, as if
the author never lets his main character suffer mentally throughout the novel,
in relation to the crime, that is. His only pain seems to be physical sicknes.

Raskolnikov commits a premeditated murder in a state of delirium. He ends up
committing a second murder, which he never ever wanted to be responsible for. He
kills Lizaveta, an exceedingly innocent person. But does the author ever remind
us of the murder at any time in the novel again? Not in the physical sense of
the crime itself. The reader doesn\'t hear about how heavily the murders are
weighing on his heart, or how he is tormented by visions of the crime. He
doesn\'t feel the least bit guilty about having committed the crime, only his
pride\'s hurt. He doesn\'t mention the idea of the pain that might arise from
recurrent visions of the crime. Raskolnikov never again recalls the massive
amounts of blood everywhere, the look on Lizaveta\'s face when he brings down the
axe on her head. These things clearly show that the crime isn\'t what might cause
him suffering, or pain, it is something else. After Raskolnikov is sent off to

Siberia, he doesn\'t feel remorseful. His feelings haven\'t changed about his
crime, he feels bad at not being able to living up to his own ideas of
greatness. He grows depressed only when he learns of his mother\'s death.

Raskolnikov still hasn\'t found any reason to feel remorse for his crimes. He
takes Siberia as his punishment, because of how annoying it is to go through all
these formalities, and ridicularities that it entails. Yet, he actually feels
more comfortable in Siberia than in his home in St. Petersburg. It\'s more
comfortable, and has better living conditions than his own home. But he isn\'t
free to do whatever he likes. But this does not contradict what I\'ve said
before. He doesn\'t view Siberia as suffering, but he does view it as punishment,
because he would rather not have to go through seven years in his prison cell.

His theory of the extraordinary, and the ordinary is something he has to follow
and adhere to . His necessity to suffer is a part of his necessity to fulfill
his unknown criteria to be extraordinary. His suffering, if any, is purely
superficial. The idea of suffering has to be heartfelt and well-specified.

Raskolnikov\'s suffering is never spoken about, mainly because there is none.

Even Raskolnikov views his turning himself in as a blunder, because he couldn\'t
take the heat. It is obvious that Raskolnikov never seems to be in a pit of
despair from all the suffering he has to face from the effect of the murder. One
might argue that Raskolnikov\'s illnesses arise from his guilt and remorse for
the crimes, but that doesn\'t appear possible. Since the character never cites
the murder for his sickness. In fact, Raskolnikov fell immediately sick after
committing the murder. How could he struck by guilt five seconds after
committing the murder when he hasn\'t even had a chance to see what events have
just occurred? There is not a single instance when Raskolnikov, or the author
for that matter, ever cite the dramatic effect of the murders on Raskolnikov\'s
conscience for his terrible illness. Nothing in the novel would even imply that
he feels remorse about committing the murders, it is just a silly idea that has
been implanted in people\'s minds and the seed has spread too rapidly, without
analization.It is incredibly obvious that all the so-called pain and suffering
that Raskolnikov feels is untrue, silly, and backed by no support. It would be
incredulously moronic to attempt to view it from another point of understanding.

People are entitled to their own opinions but the beliefs of the at error
majority should not overbear the beliefs of the correct minority. Acceptance of
a theory without analysis of it is ignorance.