In this post, I would like for you to discuss your thoughts on Raskolnikov and how he relates to the Superman theory, byronic heroism, and existential heroism.
Superman Theory: Raskolnikov commits his crime in order to prove his own idea of the "Extraordinary Man" theory (taken from Nietzsche & Hegel). Raskolnikov believes that all men fall into one of two categories: ordinary, and extraordinary. The ordinary man lives in submission to the law, the extraordinary man has a right to bypass the law. A man who is extraordinary possesses the knowledge to put into practice ideologies that can change civilization. So, Caesar, Napoleon, Ghandi, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, MLK; all of these men would be considered "extraordinary" due to their ability to be innovative. Extraordinary men must give back to society, even if they must break laws to do so. Raskolnikov murders the old woman because he believes that the ends will justify the means. She is a plague on society, and therefore must be removed. But, his experience of guilt directly following the act challenges his status as an extraordinary man, because in theory, only ordinary men would experience this. Read into the above philosopher's theories if you would like to know more. Then, discuss in detail your opinion of Raskolnikov. Does he fit into the extraordinary category? Why or why not? Will one even know if they do?
Byronic Hero: The byronic hero is usually isolated from society, or a wanderer. He is highly intelligent and prideful, and when his pride is challenged, he loses his identity. This hero is moody, incredibly emotional, arrogant, confident, and extremely self conscious. He is known to disagree with societal rules and morality, and does not hesitate to rebel against it. When he does rebel, he is usually unrepentant regarding it (think Heathcliffe and his pride, he would never admit regretting his decision until it was too late). The Byronic hero is the quintessential brooding "bad boy", and is, therefore, unsettling, and fascinating. It seems safe to assume that a byronic hero is often romantically involved with an innocent lover, the "light to his dark", but can never seem to live up to her goodness. Discuss your opinion, Is this the category that Raskolnikov fits? How does Sonya affect this one?
Existential Hero: Think Grendel, Grendel, Grendel! Existential heros face an existential crisis, they begin to feel as if their lives are pointless, and begin to question...why are we here? After much consideration, and usually a trip down the nihilistic road, existential heroes come to the conclusion that life is absurd, and meaningless. They create their own destiny, only themselves, "blink by blink" (Grendel). They leave the realm of nihilism and become heroic, it seems, in the decision to embrace life regardless of this absurdity. Their attitude is their choice. They find comfort in the fact that there is...nothing, and they are free to create their own universe, at will. These characters usually come off as brass, morose, disillusioned, and crazy. Does Raskolnikov find his home here? Why or why not? Did he experience an existential crisis? Dally in nihilism? Explain your thoughts.
Superman Theory:
Raskolnikov has written an article describing the difference between an extraordinary man and an ordinary man. Raskolnikov believes that the extraordinary man has "the right..that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep..fillment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity)." (pg. 247) Raskolnikov even gives an example of how this theory proves to be true. He states that "Newton would have had the right, would in fact have been duty bound..to eliminate a dozen or a hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity." (pg. 247) Now with Raskolnikov having this theory about the extraordinary man, I have come to the conclusion that he felt like he belonged in that category as well. Raskolnikov says, "I wanted to become a Napoleon (an extraordinary man), that is why I killed her.." (pg. 394) Raskolnikov describes that he has "only killed a louse, a useless, loathsome, harmful creature." (pg. 395) He also feels that he committed the murder for himself and not mankind as he says, "I didn't do the murder to gain wealth and power and to become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I just did it; I did the murder for myself, for myself alone, and whether I became a benefactor to others...And it was not the money I wanted...when I did it. It was not so much the money I wanted, but something else." (pg. 398) But with Raskolnikov committing the murder, he feels that he has helped others out as the pawn broker was a useless lady and needed to be eradicated from society. He only "killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of no use to anyone..Killing her was an atonement for forty sings. She was sucking the life out of poor people." (pg. 491) I believe that Raskolnikov fits into this category the most, simply because he himself, wrote about his theory on the extraordinary and ordinary man. Even though he experienced guilt, that is a normal thing. Everyone experiences guilt. I don't believe that that challenges the theory of the extraordinary man.
Byronic Hero:
Raskolnikov falls in love with Sonia as "they were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other." (pg. 520) The love shared between both Sonia and Raskolnikov is evident as Sonia "could not atke her eyes off Raskolnikov, feeling that in him lay her personal safety." (pg. 383) With Raskolnikov, Sonia feels safe, hence the name byronic hero because usually with heroes we, as people, feel safe with them. Towards the end of the novel, the byronic hero status arises from Raskolnikov as people state about the good deeds that Raskolnikov committed. He "got the old man into a hospital and paid for his funeral when he died. Raskolnikov had rescued two little children from a house on fire and was burnt in doing so." (pg. 509) This is the only evidence that I believe fits the byronic hero status for Raskolnikov.
Existential Hero:
Out of all 3 categories I believe that Raskolnikov fits the existential hero the least. Raskolnikov talks about nihilism on page 501 when he says, "for you, one may say, all the attractions of life 'nihil est'.." which means nothing- nihilism (existentialism). Raskolnikov also considered of drowning [himself] but as [he] looked into the water, [he] thought that if [he] had considered [himself] strong until now [he'd] better not be afraid of disgrace. This thought of suicide leans toward existentialism as he begins to feel that his life is pointless. I believe that if he would have committed suicide all evidence of him being a byronic hero and extraordinary man would have been defeated. But since he did not commit suicide, the byronic hero and extraordinary man statues are still alive.
Reply
Laurel Bell
4/8/2013 12:17:34 pm
Throughout the entire duration of this novel, I have been desperately trying to disprove Raskolnikov as an "extraordinary" man, or superman as it is listed above. It just did not work in accordance with his actions and emotions. It is true that Raskolnikov had comprised a theory that "men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary)... and men who have the gift or the talent to produce something new." (pg. 248) Does that mean that he esteemed himself as one of the extraordinary men? I believe so, but here is the catch. Extraordinary men are superior because of their keen ability to implement innovative ideas. At times the extraordinary man understands the implementation of those ideas requires surpassing the law, which is ultimately justifiable. How so? As Raskolnikov stated, there is no "official right." (pg. 247) However, there is an "inner right" (pg. 247) which one decides in "his own conscience to overstep." (pg. 247) That is where he lapsed! All of the guilt, delirium, and continuous bouts of insanity proved that Raskolnikov never believed he encompassed an inner right to overstep the law. If he were truly an extraordinary man, he would have settled the decision with his conscience and remained strong in his convictions. Sure, at that moment when he brutally murdered Aliona, he was overcome with an abnormal strength that was suddenly "born in him." (pg. 77) But in truth, that was only his attempt to test his theory and desperately achieve what he thought was certain. Once he discovered his psyche and conscience were imbalanced, his self-proclaimed identity, or theory, collapsed.