Max Katzman Crime and Punishment

Max Katzman August 2011
AP Literature Mr. Archer


Crime and Punishment Reading Journal #1


I have just completed reading Part 1 of Crime and Punishment and while it took some to develop and progress, I found it to be thought provoking and intellectually stimulating. As Part 1 concludes with Raskolnikov murdering Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna, I appreciated Dostoevsky’s rapid narration of the concluding events, in comparison to the detailed information given to us about Raskolnikov’s character, personality, and early childhood in the early stages of the novel. Dostoevsky provides the reader with various indications of the culminating events through the use of foreshadowing, symbolism and metaphors. Prior to the murder of the Ivanovna sisters by Raskolnikov, he falls asleep and dreams of his witnessing the brutal murder of an old mare. Dostoevsky clearly used this to foreshadow the impending events. While reading the final chapters of Part 1, I noticed a vivid comparison between the writing styles of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Sigmund Freud. At this point I recollected significant breakthroughs in psychoanalysis while reading The Interpretation of Dreams. While Dostoevsky published Crime and Punishment thirty-three years prior to Freud’s magnum opus, it seemed as though he was able to conceptualize the mindset and psychology of a murderer and the thought processes conveyed. Freud notes in The Interpretation of Dreams “It still remains possible that distressing dreams and anxiety-dreams, when they have been interpreted, may turn out to be fulfillments of wishes.” (p. 160). Divulging into the psychoanalytical depths of Raskolnikov’s memories, I find that in murdering Alyona Ivanovna, Raskolnikov was attempting to recreate the memory, culminating into an emotional cathartic climax.

Crime and Punishment Reading Journal #2


In Parts 2 and 3 of Crime and Punishment we begin to notice the psychological ramifications that Raskolnikov endured as a result of the crimes he committed. I found it interesting that he was not able to decide where to place the stolen items. Initially, his intent was to dispose of the items in a river but then realized what the consequences of doing so would be. He then thought of numerous other options until finally coming to the decision of placing them under a stone. His continued indecisiveness is a common characteristic of people who commit crimes such as this. The ensuing chapters sanction the development of the characteristics Razumikhin exhibits. The idiosyncrasy he possesses is of a contrasting nature as compared to Raskolnikov. While Raskolnikov is portrayed in a bleak and grim manner, Razumikhin is characterized as a dedicated, devoted, loyal and dependable individual. While researching the underlying origins of the character’s names I found that Razumikhin’s name derived from the Russian root word “razum” meaning reason. His name certainly suits and symbolizes his overall persona and character. I must say that I enjoy this breath of fresh air in his development, as I began to get a tad bored with Raskolnikov’s predictable behavior.
I found it to be quite ironic that a horse killed Marmeladov while in a state of intoxication. Earlier in the novel, we learn that while Raskolnikov was a young boy, he witnessed the brutal murder of an old mare by a drunkard. Now however, a horse caused the death of a drunk. Prior to this, a woman attempted to commit suicide by drowning, while Raskolnikov witnessed. It seems as though death is Raskolnikov’s shadow, as it appears to follow him throughout the novel.


Crime and Punishment Reading Journal #3

After completing Crime and Punishment, I found it to be awe-inspiring and refreshing. Dostoevksy’s brilliance radiates throughout the pages as the novel dwells into the psychology and motives of Raskolnikov. I found the discussion of Raskolnikov’s article “On Crime” to be the most interesting portion of the novel as it deals not only with the battle between the ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ man, but with a fundamental and latent observation of human ethics. Earlier in the novel Raskolnikov overhears a student and a young officer discussing Alyona Ivanovna’s wealth and how society would benefit from her death. The student states “…on the one hand you have a stupid, meaningless, worthless, wicked, sick old crone, no good to anyone and, on the contrary, harmful to everyone… on the other hand you have fresh, young forces that are being wasted for lack of support, and that by the thousands, and that everywhere! A hundred, a thousand good deeds and undertakings that could be arranged and set going by the money that old woman has doomed to the monastery! Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives put right; dozens of families saved from destitution, from decay, from ruin, from depravity…” (p. 63). It is this conversation that provides Raskolnikov with a moral and righteous justification for killing Alyona. In killing Alyona he would be able to assist those individuals who lived an impoverished lifestyle. Thus, in killing one he would save many. This theory materializes once again when Porfiry Petrovich and Raskolnikov discuss his article “On Crime”. Raskolnikov’s article depicts that humanity is divided into two categories: individuals who are ‘ordinary’ and those who are ‘extraordinary’. Ordinary individuals are those that live life purely and do not transgress the law (i.e. they conform to society’s intrinsic lifestyle), while extraordinary individuals propel themselves above the law, periodically for the benefit of mankind. Raskolnikov states “…Kepler’s or Newton’s discoveries could become known to people in no other way than by sacrificing the lives of one, or ten, or a hundred or more people who were hindering the discovery, or standing as an obstacle in its path, then Newton would have the right, and it would even be his duty to remove those ten or a hundred people, in order to make his discoveries known to all mankind.” Clearly, as evidenced by his article, Raskolnikov feels as though some individuals have the moral rationalization to kill some, thus helping many. This theory reminds me a great deal of an ethical dilemma in the realm of cognitive science entitled the “Trolley Problem” proposed by philosopher Philippa Foot. The problem is as follows: A trolley car is riding down a track uncontrollably. Tied to the tracks are five individuals. However, you are given the opportunity to change the direction of the trolley car so it diverts onto another set of tracks. Furthermore, on this new set of tracks one individual is tied. Shall you change the direction of the trolley car to save five and sacrifice one, or do nothing? I believe this thought experiment is understandably comparable to Raskolnikov’s mindset and motive in killing Alyona. In killing her (or in the thought experiment, killing one individual by diverting the trolley car) Raskolnikov would be able to acquire the title of an ‘extraordinary’ individual. Thus, Raskolnikov’s inability to cope with the fact that he is an ‘ordinary’ man fueled his murder of Alyona Ivanovna. His psychological justification in doing so may even be proposed to be a more formidable reason than to assist his monetary issues. I would greatly recommend this novel to all those interested in the biopsychosocial factors of living in Europe (especially Russia) in the Nineteenth century.
To my fellow classmates, I now ask you, what would you do if you had to take part in the “Trolley Problem”?