Summer reading Assigment: Crime and Punishment Journal #3-- Claryliz

Just finished with Crime and Punishment, and I think that this is a book I will always remember. Contrary to many things that my classmates say, I think that this story has many insightful components and literary techniques that one can observe and admire. However, I do concord that many of the character's speeches were very verbose and could have been curtailed a little. Yet this could also be due to the fact that this is a translated book and not a story written in English directly. Being able to speak another language myself, I know how many things are misinterpreted and translated with a different meaning.
Even though Raskolnikov is not a typical character, I think he has a lot of compelling traits, which enlarge the curiosity of the reader throughout the story. I was indeed amazed at the character of Sofya as well. At first she seemed frail and a martyr as a cause of her family. However, these difficulties drove her to have a strong character with a compassionate heart. For instance when first told about the crime that Raskolnikov had committed she responded "'What, what have you done to yourself!'" (pg411). A common teenager, like her, would have become extremely afraid and would have run away. Yet she thought equally of the effect of the murder on the murderer as well as its effect on the victims.
I also became very intrigued by the way Raskolnikov depicted his crime. Even after much criticism and facing the realism of what he had done, he still kept explaining it with the idea that he had previously written about in the magazine. On page 415 he said, "'You see, I had wanted to become a Napoleon, that's why I killed...'". Evidently many famous historical figures, which caused a drastic change in history, were his idols, and the motives which drove him to kill. This notion that he held so strongly, reminded me of the idea conveyed in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. She also categorizes people in two factions; those that are selfish or egotist and the selfless or the second-handers, which Ralskolnikov seems to label as extraordinary and ordinary. Having read both of these books in a relatively close time period, I notice many similarities between the two; in writing style and content of ideas. Both of these books are worth the reading.