I Am Man, Hear Me Roar

An analysis of Raskolnikov’s character in Crime and Punishment. *Beware, contains spoilers*

One of the most interesting things I found about this novel was the idea of the “extraordinary man” and how the idea led a man to murder, and another man to a life of impropriety. No longer are people created in equality, but rather, we have the “ordinary” people that stay within societies boundaries, and the “extraordinary” people that
have the right to step outside those boundaries when their conscience wishes for it. Of course, very few people think this today, what with the Declaration of Independence stating: “…all men are created equal…” and the Bill of Rights granted to each person in the United States. Dostoevsky takes a stand against this theory by illustrating the dire consequences it can have on two men, in a world where the status of man seems unclear; he demonstrates the absurdity of the theory by showing how it either destroys one’s life by isolating the person, or makes one’s own life meaningless.

Raskolnikov defines the “extraordinary man” by having “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 fulfillment of his idea.” In which case, a man cannot commit crime simply to satisfy his own whim, but must if it benefits the advancement of society. It sounds very pretty, especially if it is oneself that is singled out; but it upsets the laws of nature. All humans have the ability to go against their instincts, and reason to the truth—by observing Raskolnikov’s theory, one denies the dignity of another human being. However, Raskolnikov blinds himself to this argument because he wants the power that “…is only vouchsafed to the man who dares to stoop and pick it up…I wanted to have the daring…and I killed her.” Tragic, no? He murdered for the sake of his ego, so that he could feel important. Everyone deserves self-confidence, but not to the degree of murder—for the result is only that “he had cut himself off from everyone and from everything at that moment.” His failure deemed him not extraordinary, and his self-pity cut him off from the ordinary. He isolates himself first form his family, then from his prison mates, and then form Sonia. He failed to reach the top, so he fell to rock bottom. He no longer believed in himself, so why should he believe in others? However, as Razumihin so beautifully put, “That’s man’s one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth!.” The truth that Raskolnikov comes to is love—his love of Sonia brings him back to the same plane that everyone else resides on, back to his humanity, away from the extraordinary man, and allows him to live his life.

 Svidrigailov, on the other hand, does not wish to prove himself extraordinary like Raskolnikov, but choose the life of the extraordinary man as a way to place himself above moral laws. In his life, “Reason is a slave of passion…” Essentially, he blocks out his conscience so that he may look on everything with pleasure, mainly prostitutes or any other woman unfortunate enough to cross his path. The horrible part of this lies in his refusal to recognize the consequences of his actions, which numbs him to the harm that results from his actions. Some say our choices define us, and if so, Svidrigailov clearly states where his choice will lie: “Nothing in the world is harder than speaking the truth and nothing easier than flattery.” He lives a life of deceit and falsehood, and Dostoevsky criticizes this style of life by showing that nothing good comes from it: when Dounia so completely rejects Svidrigailov, even going as far as to fire a shot at him, he realizes the worthlessness of his life—he has lived a life without love and now will never have it.

Dostoevsky ultimately uses this novel to make a political argument that the “extraordinary man” lives a tragic life either utterly alone, or thoroughly meaningless. It is a central theme to the novel that many conversations circle around. Repeatedly the question comes up—why does a man commit a crime? Though the “extraordinary man” theory soundly answers the question, it does not justify the crime. Dignity is sacred and easily insulted, and one must be prepared to face the grim consequences of the conscience and the law.