Crime and Punishment - My name is Raskolnikov :: Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment

Wrongdoing and Punishment - My name is Raskolnikovâ â â â â â â â Clearly Raskolnikov didn't execute Alyona. Nikolai did. He admitted, isn't that right? Without a doubt, sure, I comprehend what you're stating: Raskolnikov admitted as well. Yet, clearly his admission was not a genuine admission. Raskolnikov had seen Nikolai's actual admission, and was moved to the point that he chose he'd prefer to have a go at admitting as well. What's more, one must not ignore the Christ imagery in the novel. Raskolnikov is the undeniable Christ-figure; he's poor, he's liberal, he's schizophrenic. Everything includes. Raskolnikov is Christ's subsequent manifestation yet no one understands it's Him. Sort of tragic. One ought not neglect Raskolnikov's boss man hypothesis. Nikolai, then again, is the rubbish of the earth. He's a minor character, and minor characters consistently submit murders in books. What else do they need to do? One ought not just gander at the brain research of the characters in the novel, however of the creator too. Dostoevsky wouldn't compose an anecdote about some awful killer. No. Dostoevsky was a decent Christian author. C&P is a handbook for turning into a Christian, not some homicide brain research spine chiller. Raskolnikov gives heaps of explanations behind the homicide, and it is clear from the sheer number of reasons that he gives that Raskolnikov is honest. He can't make up a reasonable intention! Nobody is tricked. I sure wasn't. Raskolnikov is unquestionably a destroyed character. He is vexed on the grounds that he can't get any work, so he chooses to confess to a homicide he thinks nothing about to make sure he can get some hard work in Siberia. Goodness, sure, he need back to the loft and addressed where the body was. Sure he could relate the whole homicide in sensible detail. These are simply happenstances, much the same as his gathering with Marmeladov. C&P was regularly scrutinized for its abuse of occurrence. Maybe the most befuddling scene in that it leads numerous unwary perusers off track is simply the genuine portrayal of the homicide. This obviously was only a fantasy. Dostoevsky was partial to dream imagery and utilized it regularly in C&P. Â So it is presently self-evident, I am certain, that Raskolnikov didn't execute Alyona, and that Nikolai did. In any case, for what reason did Nikolai slaughter Alyona? All things considered, Nikolai was an early existentialist. He just executed her for its excitement. Superior to going out to see the films.