The author's position and the form of its identification F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
Roman F.M. Dostoevsky was published in 1866. The plot of the work is a murder committed by former student Rodion Raskolnikov, and the investigation of this crime. Describing life at that time, Dostoevsky raises various problems. One of them is man and society.
Many of Dostoevsky's heroes are obsessed with the idea of searching for the meaning of life and trying to break out of the circle of contradictions in life. We are obsessed with the desire to change Raskolnikov’s life. Exploring the tragedy of the fate of the humiliated, Dostoevsky tries to “find a person in a person,” as he notes in his notebooks. This desire of the author is expressed in his attitude towards the characters, towards the events that he depicts in the novel. And this position is primarily the view of a realist. Dostoevsky himself said: “I am only a realist in the highest sense, that is, I depict all the depths of the human soul.” This true realism is manifested in the deep psychologism of the narrative. The writer’s pain for humiliated people, crushed by life, merges with their pain and resentment. However, he does not dissolve in his heroes; they exist independently, independently. The author is only trying to get to the bottom of things human character, to expose the passions that torment his heroes. Dostoevsky acts as a thorough researcher of all “movements of the human soul,” but he does this in different situations in different ways, never expressing their direct assessment. He describes in detail the poor quarter of St. Petersburg where Raskolnikov lives, his walks along the Sennaya, and it becomes clear that this part of St. Petersburg is near and dear to the author.
Describing in detail all the shades of Raskolnikov’s changing state, Dostoevsky still leaves the reader the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Very often his descriptions contain hints and guesses. From the very first meeting, Raskolnikov appears as a man obsessed with an idea, tormented by an internal struggle. The uncertainty of the hero's mental state creates a feeling of tension. Raskolnikov's monologues intensify the forebodings. Reflecting on the letter received from home, he seems to be entering into a conversation with his sister and mother, their intonations are so clear.
Scene after scene, new faces are brought into the action. And if at the beginning of the novel the author leads us to Raskolnikov’s theory with outlines, unfolding it in the form of an article written by Rodion, then as the plot develops, this idea is discussed, evaluated by other characters, and subjected to the strongest test. Raskolnikov, feeling that he is dying, painfully searches for a way out. A rebellion is brewing in him, but an individualistic rebellion, associated with the theory according to which strong individuals have the right to violate human laws, even transgressing through blood, and have the right to rule over the weak, who are considered “trembling creatures.”
The image of Raskolnikov is not without charm. He is honest and kind, prone to compassion. He worries about his mother, loves his sister, is ready to help the unfortunate doomed girl who struck him with her appearance, worries about the fate of the Marmeladovs. Convincing himself that the death of the old woman will save thousands of lives, he cannot cope with his troubled conscience. Mental vulnerability exacerbates Raskolnikov’s suffering; he gradually begins to think about how harmful his theory is. Can a strong personality break the law if he condemns himself and his loved ones to moral suffering? At first it seemed to him that if the right of the strong exists, if the world, divided into oppressors and oppressed, groans from injustice, then he has the right to break the laws of society. But could not. And he couldn’t, because the crime alienated him from people, because he didn’t kill the old woman, but he killed the principle, “he killed himself.” Raskolnikov could not stand the test to which he subjected himself, and this was his salvation. Shocked by the generosity and mental strength Sonya Marmeladova, Raskolnikov turns out to be able to get closer to moral resurrection.
Dostoevsky poses the question of whether such a person has the right to go to extremes - to kill another person, and decides in the negative - he cannot, because this is necessarily followed by punishment - moral, internal suffering.
Carrier moral ideal Dostoevsky is Sonya Marmeladova. He believes that a person who serves other people stands very high morally. His heroine, by the will of fate, found herself in an extreme state of decline. But for us, Sonya is pure, sublime, because she does everything driven by one feeling - the desire to save her loved ones, even at such a cost.
According to Dostoevsky, social evil can be defeated if people do not cause each other suffering and build happiness on the misfortune of others. A person experiencing suffering will not harm others. The author poses the problem of goodness and inner harmony, which a person can achieve through suffering.
Dostoevsky poses another problem - the problem of man's ability to moral rebirth. Raskolnikov, having gone through suffering, under the influence of Sonya, approaches the threshold of moral rebirth. That is why the investigator, proposing a confession, asked whether he believed in the legend of Lazarus, whom Christ resurrected.
Dostoevsky's position in relation to the heroes is deeply humane. He sympathizes with his heroes, stands up for their right to be people, for a right that is deprived by a society where money rules. But Dostoevsky does not see ways to change social conditions; he seeks a way out in the moral improvement of his heroes; he sees the path to happiness through suffering. But the most important thing is that he was able to express his great humanism, his high preaching of kindness and compassion for people, his pain for man in his books, and in this his moral position writer, classic of Russian and world literature.
Bibliography
To prepare this work, materials from the site http://ilib.ru/ were used
Many of Dostoevsky's heroes are obsessed with the idea of finding the meaning of life and trying to break out of the circle of life's contradictions. Raskolnikov is obsessed with the desire to change the world. Exploring the tragedy of the fate of the humiliated, Dostoevsky tries to “find a person in a person,” as he notes in his notebooks. This desire of the author is expressed in his attitude towards the characters, towards the events that he depicts in the novel. And this position is primarily the view of a realist. This true realism is manifested in the deep psychologism of the narrative. The writer’s pain for humiliated people, crushed by life, merges with their pain and resentment. However, he does not dissolve in his heroes; they exist independently, independently. The author only strives to penetrate into the essence of human character, to expose the passions that torment his characters. Dostoevsky acts as a thorough researcher of all movements of the human soul, but he does this in different situations in different ways, never expressing his direct assessment.
Describing in detail all the shades of Raskolnikov’s changing state, Dostoevsky still leaves the reader the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Very often his descriptions contain hints and guesses. From the very first meeting, Raskolnikov appears as a man obsessed with an idea, tormented by an internal struggle. The uncertainty of the hero's mental state creates a feeling of tension. It is important that the hero does not even in his thoughts call murder murder, but replaces this word with the definitions “this”, “business” or “enterprise”, which shows how much his soul, albeit unconsciously, is afraid of what is planned.
Scene after scene, new faces are brought into the action. And if at the beginning of the novel the author leads us to Raskolnikov’s theory with hints, then unfolding it in the form of an article written by Rodion, then as the plot develops, this idea is discussed, evaluated by other characters, and subjected to the strongest test. Raskolnikov, feeling that he is dying, painfully searches for a way out. A rebellion is brewing in him, but an individualistic rebellion, associated with the theory according to which strong individuals have the right to violate human laws, even transgressing through blood, and have the right to rule over the weak, who are considered “trembling creatures.”
The image of Raskolnikov is not without charm. He is honest and kind, prone to compassion. He worries about his mother, loves his sister, is ready to help the unfortunate doomed girl who struck him with her appearance, worries about the fate of the Marmeladovs. Convincing himself that the death of the old woman will save thousands of lives, he cannot cope with his troubled conscience. Mental vulnerability exacerbates the hero’s suffering; he gradually begins to think about how harmful his theory is. Can a strong personality break the law if he condemns himself and his loved ones to moral suffering? At first it seemed to him that if the right of the strong exists, if the world, divided into oppressors and oppressed, groans from injustice, then he has the right to break the laws of society. But could not. And he couldn’t because the crime alienated him from the people, because he didn’t kill the old woman, but he killed the principle, “he killed himself.” The fact that Raskolnikov literally fell ill after his deed clearly expresses the author’s position: murder is disgusting to human nature. Raskolnikov could not stand the test to which he subjected himself, this was his salvation. Shocked by the generosity and spiritual strength of Marmeladova, Raskolnikov is able to approach moral resurrection. Dostoevsky poses the question whether such a person has the right to go to extremes - to kill another person, and answers it negatively: he cannot, because this is necessarily followed by punishment - moral, internal suffering.
The bearer of Dostoevsky's moral ideal is Sonya Marmeladova. The writer believes that a person who sacrifices himself to save other people stands very high in morally. His heroine, by the will of fate, found herself in an extreme state of decline. But for us, Sonya is pure, sublime, because she does everything driven by one feeling - the desire to save her loved ones, even at such a cost.
According to Dostoevsky, social evil can be defeated if people do not build happiness on the misfortune of others. A person experiencing suffering will not harm people. The author poses the problem of goodness and inner harmony, which a person can achieve through suffering.
Dostoevsky poses another problem - the problem of man's ability to moral rebirth. Raskolnikov, having gone through suffering, under the influence of Sonya, approaches the threshold of moral rebirth. That is why the investigator, proposing a confession, asked whether he believed in the legend of Lazarus, whom Christ resurrected.
Dostoevsky's position in relation to the heroes is deeply humane. He sympathizes with his heroes, stands up for their right to be people, for a right that is deprived by a society where money rules. And, in my opinion, Dostoevsky does not see the point in changing social conditions; he seeks a way out in the moral improvement of his heroes; he sees the path to happiness through suffering.
Many of Dostoevsky's heroes are obsessed with the idea of finding the meaning of life and trying to break out of the circle of life's contradictions. Raskolnikov is obsessed with the desire to change the world. Exploring the tragedy of the fate of the humiliated, Dostoevsky tries to “find a person in a person,” as he notes in his notebooks. This desire of the author is expressed in his attitude towards the characters, towards the events that he depicts in the novel. And this position is primarily the view of a realist. This true realism is manifested in the deep psychologism of the narrative. The writer’s pain for humiliated people, crushed by life, merges with their pain and resentment. However, he does not dissolve in his heroes; they exist independently, independently. The author only strives to penetrate into the essence of human character, to expose the passions that torment his characters. Dostoevsky acts as a thorough researcher of all movements of the human soul, but he does this in different situations in different ways, never expressing his direct assessment.
Describing in detail all the shades of Raskolnikov’s changing state, Dostoevsky still leaves the reader the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Very often his descriptions contain hints and guesses. From the very first meeting, Raskolnikov appears as a man obsessed with an idea, tormented by an internal struggle. The uncertainty of the hero's mental state creates a feeling of tension. It is important that the hero does not even in his thoughts call murder murder, but replaces this word with the definitions “this”, “business” or “enterprise”, which shows how much his soul, albeit unconsciously, is afraid of what is planned.
Scene after scene, new faces are brought into the action. And if at the beginning of the novel the author leads us to Raskolnikov’s theory with hints, then unfolding it in the form of an article written by Rodion, then as the plot develops, this idea is discussed, evaluated by other characters, and subjected to the strongest test. Raskolnikov, feeling that he is dying, painfully searches for a way out. A rebellion is brewing in him, but an individualistic rebellion, associated with the theory according to which strong individuals have the right to violate human laws, even transgressing through blood, and have the right to rule over the weak, who are considered “trembling creatures.”
The image of Raskolnikov is not without charm. He is honest and kind, prone to compassion. He worries about his mother, loves his sister, is ready to help the unfortunate doomed girl who struck him with her appearance, worries about the fate of the Marmeladovs. Convincing himself that the death of the old woman will save thousands of lives, he cannot cope with his troubled conscience. Mental vulnerability exacerbates the hero’s suffering; he gradually begins to think about how harmful his theory is. Can a strong personality break the law if he condemns himself and his loved ones to moral suffering? At first it seemed to him that if the right of the strong exists, if the world, divided into oppressors and oppressed, groans from injustice, then he has the right to break the laws of society. But could not. And he couldn’t because the crime alienated him from the people, because he didn’t kill the old woman, but he killed the principle, “he killed himself.” The fact that Raskolnikov literally fell ill after his deed clearly expresses the author’s position: murder is disgusting to human nature. Raskolnikov could not stand the test to which he subjected himself, this was his salvation. Shocked by the generosity and spiritual strength of Marmeladova, Raskolnikov is able to approach moral resurrection. Dostoevsky poses the question whether such a person has the right to go to extremes - to kill another person, and answers it negatively: he cannot, because this is necessarily followed by punishment - moral, internal suffering.
The bearer of Dostoevsky's moral ideal is Sonya Marmeladova. The writer believes that a person who sacrifices himself to save other people stands very high morally. His heroine, by the will of fate, found herself in an extreme state of decline. But for us, Sonya is pure, sublime, because she does everything driven by one feeling - the desire to save her loved ones, even at such a cost.
According to Dostoevsky, social evil can be defeated if people do not build happiness on the misfortune of others. A person experiencing suffering will not harm people. The author poses the problem of goodness and inner harmony, which a person can achieve through suffering.
Dostoevsky poses another problem - the problem of man's ability to moral rebirth. Raskolnikov, having gone through suffering, under the influence of Sonya, approaches the threshold of moral rebirth. That is why the investigator, proposing a confession, asked whether he believed in the legend of Lazarus, whom Christ resurrected.
Dostoevsky's position in relation to the heroes is deeply humane. He sympathizes with his heroes, stands up for their right to be people, for a right that is deprived by a society where money rules. And, in my opinion, Dostoevsky does not see the point in changing social conditions; he seeks a way out in the moral improvement of his heroes; he sees the path to happiness through suffering.
The novel "Crime and Punishment" is called by many critics polyphonic, polyphonic. The polyphony of the novel lies in the fact that each of its characters acts as a separate personality who has already formed his own views. Thanks to this independence, they enter into an argument with each other and try (with a greater or lesser degree of persistence) to assert the right to exist for their idea. It is noteworthy that the author’s voice does not stand out from the general chorus in the novel, but sounds on an equal basis with everyone else. Only Dostoevsky's heroes
First of all, it is worth noting that the novel lacks the traditional test of love. Of course, it cannot be said that this feeling is not mentioned at all on its pages; in fact, there is even love triangle(Dunya - Luzhin - Svidrigailov). But in reality, most likely, it appears as a detail necessary for the development of the plot in the direction desired by the author.
They give the reader the first hint of how the author treats them, depending on how attractive or, conversely, unattractive they turned out to be. Appearance as a whole speaks not so much of character as of a certain financial (social) position. Actually, many pages are devoted to the characters; Dostoevsky outlines them in detail, often using descriptions of situations in which the characters appeared. Here one can observe a peculiar contrast between social status and views: for example, Svidrigailov is a rich man, but follows the principle of permissiveness; Sonya, being at the lowest level of poverty, adheres to the idea of forgiveness.
Like Gogol, Dostoevsky pays a lot of attention to interior details. Here they talk about poverty and in general are indicators of lifestyle. So, for example, according to repeated comments from visitors, Raskolnikov’s room resembled more a coffin or a box than a human dwelling. The oppressive walls and ceiling serve as a reminder of the constraining circumstances, that Raskolnikov has withdrawn into himself and does not see anything around him. In contrast to this one, Sonya’s room is quite large, but this is “compensated” by the irregularity of its shape: one corner is sharp, the other is obtuse, which symbolizes the abnormality, the ugliness of her existence. But what is probably most striking is the room in which the Marmeladov family lives - a corner fenced off with a curtain. It is curious that Svidrigailov, philosophizing on the topic of the other world, imagined a dark room with sciences in the corners.
As depicted by Dostoevsky small details it is easy to recreate the image of St. Petersburg - St. Petersburg of his time. The city becomes akin to a living creature (like Gogol in " Petersburg stories", in Pushkin's " Bronze Horseman"), evil and gloomy. Thus, Dostoevsky to some extent justified the heroes, shifted most guilt on their living conditions. Hence the motif of illness that is so common, hence the heterogeneity of time space (time sometimes stretches, sometimes contracts). The loose composition of the novel also adds to the chaos: the presence of extra-plot elements that take you into the past, a narrative-memory. He also painted the St. Petersburg landscape in gloomy colors: eternal dust, dirt, stuffiness, houses of gray and yellow flowers– and all this is accompanied by the constant incessant noise of the street.
It is not surprising that the reader learns about Raskolnikov’s theory itself, its essence, closer to the end of the novel. This is not only an intriguing technique; Dostoevsky probably sought to create a background for her understanding, and as dark as possible. Theory is the main component of the novel and, as already mentioned, St. Petersburg took a significant part in its birth. He created all the conditions to deprive a person of the opportunity to realize himself anywhere, and in addition - the lion's share of selfishness. This is how the idea of the permissiveness of some and the uselessness of others arises, the division of people into “higher” and “lower”, into “Napoleons” and “trembling creatures”. This theory is not unfounded and, as we know, was not invented by Dostoevsky, but taken almost in its natural form from life. However, the writer does everything to convince the reader of her fallacy. The idea of Raskolnikov in the novel is opposed by the idea (or rather, the worldview) of Sonya Marmeladova. Dostoevsky himself is believed to have been quite religious person, and therefore the Christian principle of humility and patience should be close to him. In this way, the writer expressed his attitude towards Raskolnikov’s theory - through solidarity with a person who does not share it.
The second point about Raskolnikov that is worth paying attention to is his momentary but sincere emotional outbursts. Dostoevsky does not at all deprive his hero positive traits, therefore, situations like the one when Raskolnikov, desperately trying to save a drunken girl from the clutches of a “fat dandy,” gives a policeman the money he really needs, turn out to be, in a way, false notes in the harmonious (in his opinion) “melody” of the theory. In addition, misfortunes constantly fall on the head of the “blasphemer” and the criminal (ideological, which, in Porfiry Petrovich’s opinion, is extremely important), he experiences inhuman tension every minute, suffers and, finally, becomes disappointed in himself. The epilogue of the novel is extremely important for understanding the author’s position. It is he who is the focus of Dostoevsky’s characterization to Raskolnikov. The hero was firmly convinced of the correctness of his idea and, most importantly, that he himself belonged to the category of “Napoleons”. What does he come to in the epilogue? How his recovery from illness is shown is the collapse of his former beliefs, and not just a collapse, but sincere confidence in their falsity. It seems that human nature itself protests against his theory - a theory that contradicts all laws, both judicial and divine. The main thing in proving the inconsistency of the theory was that it was not the author who did it, but life itself, as it were. This was extremely important for Dostoevsky. Expressing his opinion throughout the work, the writer naturally considered it to be the only true one, and therefore it was not he who had to pronounce it in the form of a moral, but the problem itself (i.e., Raskolnikov’s theory) should “crumble.” Dostoevsky, it seems, was convinced of the possibility of atonement for guilt through suffering and therefore refused the role of judge, leaving life to solve all problems according to Christian teaching.
And for a long time I will be so kind to the people,
That I awakened good feelings with my lyre...
A. S. Pushkin
“Crime and Punishment” is considered one of the most socially oriented novels by F. M. Dostoevsky. The writer convincingly shows that capitalism creates a large gap between the poor and the rich and divides people. That is why Dostoevsky explores an important ethical problem - the problem of the equal value of all people despite their actual inequality.
Poor student Raskolnikov, trying to help all people, puts forward a theory about law strong personality in the name of a high goal to transgress the moral laws of society. And he not only puts forward, but also wants to prove in practice to himself and others that he himself belongs to the chosen ones. For this, Raskolnikov contemplates and commits a crime - he kills the old money-lender. But then he begins to be tormented by pangs of conscience and does not know how to take advantage of the fruits of his villainy.
Behind Raskolnikov’s words about the good of humanity, the idea of Napoleon clearly emerges - the idea of one chosen one, standing above humanity and prescribing his laws to it. Dostoevsky poses the question: is it acceptable for one person (or group of people) to arrogate to himself the right to be a “benefactor of humanity”? The old pawnbroker is a symbol of evil for Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky describes her without any sympathy: a tiny, dry old woman, about sixty years old, with a small pointed nose... Her blond, slightly gray hair was greasy with oil.” But is it permissible, for the sake of the happiness of the majority, to destroy the minority, even if it is the only old woman who is of no use to anyone? Raskolnikov answers: yes. And Dostoevsky to everyone artistic content the novel says: “no” - and consistently refutes Raskolnikov’s self-will.
Where does the author see the fallacy of Raskolnikov’s theory? From the point of view of utilitarian morality, it is difficult to argue against it. So that the state has more happy people, we need to raise the general level of prosperity, everyone should get rich, care about personal gain, without thinking about love for other people.
Indifference to human life dangerous and deadly to society, so murder should inspire fear normal people. Raskolnikov demands freedom from this fear for the chosen few of humanity who can break the law for the sake of people’s happiness. Rodion himself wants to protect the humiliated and insulted. But Dostoevsky shows that if he becomes a person to whom everything is allowed, he will inevitably end up with contempt for these disadvantaged people, for the “trembling creatures.” This theory is inhumane, Dostoevsky tells us. After all, if you allow yourself to kill despicable “little people,” you will inevitably fall on the same level as Svidrigailov, who committed crimes simply out of boredom. Moreover, Rodion Raskolnikov cannot fully endure the role of a superman - he feels sorry for the Marmeladov family, the drunk girl on the boulevard, and feels guilty before his mother and sister. The fate of Svidrigailov is one of the possible fates of Raskolnikov. It is not for nothing that he comes to the police to confess precisely after Svidrigailov’s suicide.
Dostoevsky shows how in Raskolnikov there is an internal struggle between conscience and reason. After all, he still considers his theory to be correct and only himself to have failed the test. Dostoevsky believed that human nature resists any arguments of reason if they run counter to it. Indeed, although Raskolnikov does not feel remorse, he feels cut off from all people, even from his mother and sister. He is a particle of the world that cannot feel himself above the world. Material from the site
Dostoevsky wrote his novel after hard labor, when his revolutionary convictions gave way to religious ones. His search for truth, denunciation of the unjust structure of the world, dreams of the happiness of mankind were combined with disbelief in the violent remaking of the world. He believed that under no social system it is possible to completely avoid evil; the world will be saved not by revolution, but by the moral improvement of every person. Therefore, Raskolnikov is saved by Sonya Marmeladova, who helps him take the path of religious repentance and purification of the soul through suffering. Only love, symbolized by Christ, can save the world.
Today, from the heights of the 21st century, we understand that Christianity, in the name of which terrible atrocities were sometimes committed, is not for everyone and is not always salvation. But we are grateful to the genius of Dostoevsky, who opened up important aspects for us human soul and debunked the inhuman theory of “permissiveness.”
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
- Australasian position on crime and punishment
- position on the novel crime and punishment
- author's position Crime and Punishment
- essay on the topic “I killed you, not the old lady”
- author's position in the novel crime and punishment