Oddly, the
talking point that I found important in class was on the quiz and hardly in the
following discussion at all. Dr. Stogdill’s sixth question regarding Pyotr
Petrovich Luzhin being “a bad guy” or “the worst guy” seemed to spark some
debate that we hardly explored. In fact, I remember the class almost divided in
half on the issue.
Originally, when Luzhin was first
introduced in the novel, many of us were not necessarily sympathetic towards
his character, but understood where he was coming from. We believed he somewhat
had Dunya’s best interest at heart and wanted to lift her and her family out of
their poverty and into a happier life. However, as the story developed, Luzhin
changes and becomes a much more negative character. In the last chapter,
Luzhin’s roommate, Andrei Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov, outs Luzhin for
planting a one hundred rouble note on Sonya to frame her as a thief. This
childish ploy truly cements Luzhin as a villainous character, but how bad is
he?
This
question leads to the crux of the debate. Who is worse, Raskolnikov or Luzhin? Since
the opening of the story, we have known that Raskolnikov is a murderer. Can a
sequence of terrible acts like those Luzhin committed in the past chapters add
up to something worse that the killing of human beings? While murder is hard to
ignore, we must look to the text for answers. Sonya, one of the most pure
characters in the story, looks past the horrific actions of Raskolnikov in Part
V Chapter IV. She hears him out, listening to his reasoning of wanting to
transgress the moral codes of society and demonstrate that he is extraordinary
compared to other people. She sympathizes, but tells him that he must confess
to the public and to God in order to gain any sort of peace. She gives
Raskolnikov a cross pendant like the one she wears, and promises that she will
always be there for him. Is Sonya’s forgiveness valid, or does the murder of
the landlady and her sister forever place Raskolnikov’s character as the lowest
in the story, below even that of Luzhin?
I'm not so sure there there exists such a thing as degrees of right and wrong, or even of right and wrong in the first place. Everyone Dostoevsky has described in the novel, down to the last character, is depicted as having his or her own base intentions or motives: of what concern is comparing these various vile deeds? Rather than weighing between different evil characters by some contrived standard of "the good," it might be more productive to call into question the entirety of the concept of moral perfection. If we are all evil, murderers and liars at our root, then a prior concern should be defining each individuals' personal standard of morality in order to elucidate which ethical model we can best live with.
ReplyDeleteSince Raskolnikov is the main character, the narrator, and the character through which our viewing lens as the reader is tinted with, we are meant to sympathize and even forgive Raskolnikov and simultaneously denounce Luzhin. Our viewpoints are directed through Sonya, who acts as a pivot for most of the novel's morality. Sonya, that symbol of purity, who is willing to forgive and follow a murderer and yet is attacked by Luzhin's malice, is meant to cast Pyotr as a villain. However, looking at the two objectively (or with reason, if you will), they are one and the same. Both believe themselves to be superior to those around them. Both are willing to sacrifice those they believe to be "louses" in order to further their own selfish causes. Both attempted to attack innocents (though Raskolnikov succeeded with Lizaveta whereas Luzhin failed with Sonchechka). And both, therefore, should logically be equally contemptible.
ReplyDeleteNeither Raskolnikov nor Luzhin is a likable character, and it is difficult for me to judge whether one is particularly worse than the other. I agree with Henry's points about the narrator intending for us to sympathize with the antihero and view Luzhin as the bad guy, and I do agree that the similarities between the two are striking. The starkest commonality between them, in my opinion, is their self-serving motives. Many times, they claim that their deeds, whether good or evil, are meant to benefit others; however, most of the benefit usually falls on Raskolnikov and Luzhin themselves. Raskolnikov claims in chapter IV that he killed the women for the money to help his family and get through university in addition to removing a "louse" from society, but these are all lies; he finally exclaims, "I killed for myself!" We've talked extensively about Luzhin's selfishness as we'll in class. Because both Raskolnikov and Luzhin commit horrid deeds in the name of their own self interests under the pretext of helping others, they are both totally immoral, and thus Sonya's unconditional forgiveness of Raskolnikov is unwarranted.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Raskolnikov is a better person than Luzhin because his actions are purely based off his morality while Luzhin's are based off his economy. Raskolnikov is moved by the words people say, like when he notices Luzhin's vocabulary and diction, or the acts of kindness they show, like with Sonya and Polenka. On the other hand, Luzhin cares about the status of people, trying to court Sonya and judging Raskolnikov on his apartment, in order to manipulate them, like with Sonya. Despite Raskolnikov's murder he is still a better than Luzhin based on his moralistic views.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe act of weighing Raskolnikov's acts against Luzhin's gets at the heart of the debate about the ambiguity of our moral framework. It's already difficult to measure each character's "badness" given the multitude of "morally unsound" acts that have occurred in the book, so to cast either as the "worst" individual is pretty much impossible. That being said, the structure of the novel itself makes it easier to see Raskolnikov in a slightly more positive light; I don't think that perspective is the biggest problem (as we see a lot of Luzhin's deplorable qualities when Raskolnikov is absent), but rather the simple fact that Raskolnikov is the protagonist pushes us to agree with him more often.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel that this question is a bit biased; by already establishing implications that "murder is wrong," calling Raskolnikov's acts horrendous while passing barely any judgment on Luzhin, and pushing the entire focus of this moral battle on Raskolnikov's actions being "better or worse" than Luzhin's, there is an inherent moral framework set up to lean in Luzhin's favor.
Based purely on actions with no thought to the mind behind them, I will concede that Luzhin is the "worst" of the two. However, as each of the characters have pointed out in their own way, it is the mind and thoughts behind the actions that determine the "goodness." No matter how much we may or may not like it, the world is not black and white, and we can not characterize someone's actions without knowing the intent. Raskolnikov's actions, the murders, were terrible, but his primary intent was founded in self-interest with minimal stepping on others (beside one or two pesky murders). Luzhin's actions, basically everything we have seen him do, were also founded on self-interest, but he neither cared that he was hurting others, nor did he seem to profess any regret. I firmly believe that we have seen regret for Lizeta's murder in Raskolnikov in Part 5, whereas Luzhin has showed no true regret. In short, I think that Sonya's somewhat forgiveness of Raskolnikov is justified, and Luzhin's character is below that of Raskolnikov's.
ReplyDeleteMeant to concede that Raskolnikov was the worst of the two in first sentence. Oops. Freudian slip!
DeleteI would agree with Lev in saying that Dostoevsky defies what we think of as "wrong" and "right" or "bad" and "good," and the idea that these characters can fall easily into such categories seems illogical to me. Yes, Dostoevsky writes Raskolnikov as the protagonist - he /is/ the protagonist - and we are meant to follow his struggles. I do not think Dostoevsky is weighing one character's actions against the other's - he is not telling us that because Raskolnikov killed two women he is bad and he is not telling us that because Luzhin acts rather despicably and pompously he is bad. Dostoevsky has no reason to create some sort of moral balancing act with the most contemptible, vile deeds; instead, he uses the characters to express ideas and philosophies, and in comparing the acts that Luzhin and Raskolnikov take, he sets about exploring why one's motives, and therefore being, is more reputable than the other's. If one wishes to measure the "vileness" of these characters on an empirical level, doing so by their deeds, especially through the lens of our own moral code, avoids what Dostoevsky wants to examine. He wants to rope us in and flip our moral code upon its head. Raskolnikov's actions, vile in our traditional view, should be examined through his own way of thinking, not ours.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the sentiments echoed by those above. The point of Crime and Punishment is not to compare the deeds of characters through a traditional moral lens; rather, I think Dostoyevsky wants the reader to see the individual complexities that drive different people to do different things. I do, however, think Dostoyevsky sees some fault in the ideas of both Luzhin and Raskolnikov, but never makes a definitive judgment on either character, especially not from a moral standpoint (essentially, I think Dostoyevsky wants to make it clear that we should not use moral conventions to judge anyone because at the end of the day we are all powerless before the underlying forces of human nature, or the gratuitous). Sonya's "forgiveness" of Raskolnikov is, at least in my view, more of an expression of Dostoyevsky's belief in suffering as salvation rather than Sonya's forgiving him for a morally "reprehensible" act.
ReplyDeleteRaskolnikov is by far the worst of the two. In the moments in which he is "gratuitous" he may show a side of himself that is kinder and compassionate, but this is cancelled out by the side of him that is proud, arrogant, and a murderer that he lets take control. Luzhin is a bad guy, there is no denying that, but so far basically everyone in the book possesses bad or shady qualities that makes me dislike them. Luzhin takes advantage of a poor woman, but he does so in order to make up for insecurities about himself. Although this does not excuse his actions in framing Sonya or in tattling to Pulcheria about Raskolnikov giving away money, I think he is much more justified in his defense mechanisms (as bad as they may be) than Raskolnikov is in murdering two women. For me, it is that point that simply cannot be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to pick a worse one, I'd pick Luzhin because we have yet to see any kindness within him. However, I agree with points made above that neither Raskolnikov nor Luzhin are meant to represent to different tiers of "badness." Luzhin represents capitalism, a stark contrast between the utopian communist Leb. Raskolnikov, true to his name, represents different ideas at different times: nihilism or the ubermench. Sonya might represent religion or faith. All of these characters have faults, and Raskolnikov and Luzhin are obviously extremely flawed. However, instead of declaring their faults as an indication of their morality, I think Dostovesky is attempting to explore every idea/movement floating around Russia, and because there is no perfect idea/govt/principle, there are no perfect characters.
ReplyDelete~~evan
I believe Nicky and the others above are correct in noticing that Dostoyevsky intentionally makes it difficult for us to judge the characters and decide who's crime is worse. Although the author creates this sense of doubt in his readers, I still feel Raskolnikov has committed the greater evil. Luhzin lies and mistreats others, which is undoubtedly wrong. But his transgressions, make him a jerk, but not necessarily evil. I've pointed this out before but I would like to return to the fact that Raskolnikov is an axe murderer. It's pretty hard to top that.
ReplyDelete