Crime and Punishment: Raskolnikov's Motives For Killing

  In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, one of the primary themes of the story as a whole becomes the question of what motivated Raskolnikov to kill Aliona Ivanovna. This question arises many times in the novel, not only by the other characters but by Raskolnikov as well. Many potential reasons for the "crime" (which Raskolnikov considers to be a misnomer) are introduced throughout, which complicates the already tentative reasoning behind his actions and causes his motives to become even more unclear.

          The supposition that primarily arises is that he murdered the pawnbroker as a means to increase the wealth of his poverty-stricken family; however, Raskolnikov himself has an internal debate as to whether this was in fact the reason, but comes to the eventual conclusion that it was not.

          A more probable explanation for the murder is ironically introduced not by Raskolnikov but by Peter Petrovich Luzhin during his first meeting with Raskolnikov, when he explains his revolutionary concept of "loving himself above all else," that "in acquiring weatlth solely and exclusively for myself [Luzhin], I am acquiring, so to speak, for everyone, and helping to get my neighbor a little more than a torn coat..." (p. 145). This theory is intriguing because it expands upon an idea that Raskolnikov had previously overheard from a conversation between two gentlemen in a tavern playing pool, when one of them hypothetically stated, "'Kill her [Aliona Ivanovna], take her money and with the help of it devote yourself service of humanity and the common good'" (p. 66). It can be safely assumed that Raskolnikov abided by a similar philosophy, for during his meeting with Peter Petrovich he ignores Razumikhin's protests and points out that "if you carry out logically the theory you [Luzhin] were advocating just now, it follows that people may be killed..." (p. 147), which startles Petrovich. All this makes it likely that Raskolnikov did in fact kill the woman for the good of society, but the entire idea is rendered futile when he fails to utilize her items and none of her wealth ends up being used for the common good in spite of his efforts.

          Raskolnikov's philosophy of ordinary v. extraordinary individuals in society seems to most closely reflect his motives for killing the pawnbroker; he believes that those who transcend the law are extraordinary and are essential to the recreation of the human race, whereas those who abide by the law (or falsely assume they are extraordinary) are merely ordinary. However, he does not know which class he belongs to in this scenario, and actually is troubled by this uncertainty throughout the remainder of the novel. It is notable that during his second interview with Porfiry Petrovich, Porfiry describes the determining characteristics of a a guilty man who suffers from agony and guilt; in doing so he describes perfectly the condition that Raskolnikov is currently in, and it is likely that Porfiry himself is very much aware of it: "'Why, they are all sick, nervous, irritable! . . . And then how angry they all are!'" (p. 324), followed by a paranoia-inspired outburst on Raskolnikov's part. From this it can be theorized that Raskolnikov belongs merely to the "ordinary" class since his state of mind was so predictable at this point and because it was so easy for Porfiry to "play cat and mouse" with him.

          Additionally, Raskolnikov had no trouble in thoroughly explaining his article's message to Porfiry, but had great difficulty in reasoning his murder to Sofia Semionovna. He gave a number of explanations, but his best defense was that "'whoever is strong in mind and spirit will have power over them. Anyone who is very daring is right in their eyes. He who despises most things will be a lawgiver among them and he who dares most of all will be most in the right'" (p. 396). Raskolnikov says this, and yet he was not daring; yes, he murdered the pawnbroker, but was extremely hesitant and tentative in doing so.

          In actuality, he had no revolutionary cause to kill the woman. "'I . . . I wanted to have the daring . . . and I killed her. I only wanted to have the daring, Sonia! That was the whole cause of it!'" (p. 397). Raskolnikov's true intention in murdering Aliona Ivanovna was presumably, therefore, to determine whether he belonged to the ordinary or extraordinary class established by his article, the result being that he was ordinary because he only did it "to have the daring" that characterized the extraordinary group and thereby attempt to become extraordinary. In the end, even when he is in prison, Raskolnikov refuses to see the murder as a crime because he proclaims it was needed for the common good, yet no actual benefit came of it; thus, his motives for it become almost irrelevant.

The Scarlet Letter: Analysis of Hester Prynne

                In The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the narrator classifies Hester Prynne as a sinner worthy of being put to shame, but it is difficult to determine whether this is the actual belief of the narrator or merely a description of the multitude's attitude towards her within the novel. However, she is frequently revealed as a symbol of darkness and Pearl a symbol of light: "The Governor, throwing open the leaves of the great hall window, found himself close to little Pearl. The shadow of the curtain fell on Hester Prynne, and partially concealed her" (p. 99). "'Mother,' said little Pearl, 'the sunshine does not love you. It runs away and hides itself, because it is afraid of something on your bosom'" (p. 165). These implications suggest, notwithstanding Pearl's title as a "demon child," that Pearl is a chance at redemption for Hester and the minister; her kiss "breaks [Hester and the minister's] spell" (p. 229) and allows them to escape the vengeful wrath of Roger Chillingworth, which supports this theory. Moreover, Hester is at one point referred to as the equivalent of a ghost who wishes to remain in her haunting place. This places an entirely new perspective in the narrator's analysis of Hester's character and implies that his conception of her may in fact be quite negative, with little Pearl indeed being her only hope for redemption.

              Assuming that Hawthorne and the narrator are of separate minds - that is, the narrator conceptualizes the story and Hawthorne gives the historical/religious background - it is recalled that Hester defies all the Puritan customs that were extant at the time. At every instance when a religious reference is made, Hester exemplifies an opposition to it. In the novel, as Hester's ability to change her nation is expanded upon, she is compared to Anne Hutchinson and it is explained that, if she were to become a recreational prophetess, she would have suffered a similar fate of being executed. This reflects Hawthorne's views more so than the invented narrator, so he likely believed that she deserved to be tortured and not praised or sympathized. 

               The opinion of the community towards Hester is especially interesting, because it seems to vastly drift back and forth between shame and sympathy throughout the story, a concept which the narrator actually expands upon. During Hester's first hour of ignominy standing on the scaffold, the multitude is prepared to sentence her to death and even proclaims that Scripture would allow it as a consequence; yet, as the narrator states, years later the people "had quite forgiven Hester for her frailty; nay, more, they had begun to look upon the scarlet letter as the token, not of that one sin, for which she had borne so long and dreary a penance, but of her many good deeds since" (p. 147). Not only that, but at this point Hester is classified as a saint and, as aforementioned, is believed by the majority to have the potential to change an entire nation for the better. Such a drastic change in the multitude's conception of Hester's predicament is referred to by the narrator as an example of human nature leaning more towards pity than anything else, or at least not permanently resorting to hatred and ridicule. Subsequently, however, the people's shame in Hester's scarlet letter is renewed as the foreigners arrive in the marketplace - perhaps, it can be inferred, as punishment for Hester's attempt to rid herself of the letter in the forest - as the horrific symbol "flames" upon her bosom once again. Moreover, many years later, "the scarlet letter ceased to be a stigma which attracted the world's scorn and bitterness, and became a type of thing to be sorrowed over, and looked upon with awe, yet with reverence too" (p. 234), almost precisely the same attitude with which it was received prior. This pattern shows that the multitude experiences opposite feelings towards Hester at some point or another, which is appropriate since the letter itself is shameful but is so beautifully embroidered that even Pearl considers it a token worthy of praise.

               As for Hester Prynne herself, her scarlet letter tortures her more so than the people, regardless of whatever the people's tentative attitude towards her may happen to be. The most frequent comparison mentioned is the novel is that the letter is a "flaming" symbol that "glows like a red flame in the dark" (p. 216) and burns through Hester Prynne's bosom as long as it remains there, a concept which she herself abides by and so is consumed by evil, at least in her own mind. The evil eats away at the minister as well, and is evident by his placing his hand over his heart, notably to the point that it becomes uncontrollable. Hester and the minister alike, however, do not believe that they have committed the greatest sin, but rather the physician Chillingworth, who takes consistent jabs at the minister's spirituality and relies on Hester's scarlet letter to torture her equally. Whether or not Chillingworth is truly the greater sinner in this scenario is up to the reader.

                My own thoughts concerning Hester virtually reflect her own; I don't believe that her actions were punishable by death as the people commanded, nor do I believe that she was to go unpunished. Although, I don't think that Chillingworth was entirely in the wrong for agitating the clergyman; Hester shouldn't have been the only sufferer. It's true that the anguish of not admitting to his sin disturbed and tortured the minister to no end, but in my viewpoint that is not the equivalent of a physical reminder (the scarlet letter). Such a cursed token seems, to me, an unbearable feat when compared to merely having the sin in one's memory and not being prone to public humiliation. Therefore, I thought that the physician's additions to the preacher's agony were fitting, but only because it allowed him and Hester suffer equally, which was actually the physician's goal.

          Undoubtedly, Hester Prynne's character is thoroughly evaluated and the positives and negatives are both equally identified. The reader's interpretation of the woman varies with the reader, however. The physician, for example, is classified as a "dark and terrible old man" (p. 229) for having been vengeful and distorting the clergyman's spirituality, but the reader may consider his actions as a reasonable response to Hester's adultery against him; comparatively, a different reader may agree that Chillingworth was foul and praise Hester for being with the clergyman instead. Such views vary depending solely upon the values of the reader and their own assessment of every infinitesimal detail that is given about Hester, Chillingworth, and the minister, for it is all vital to both comprehending and thoroughly judging their character as well as the situation in its entirety.