to anonymous

[lilly]

The character from "The Stranger" which you called "The Outsider," his name is Meursault. Also, Sonia is only a literal prostitute. She's sacrificing herself for the good of her family. In fact, by sacrificing and having good heart, she's figuratively a saint. And it would be indeed relevant to take advice from a saint.

[Unregistered]

Sonya was clearly a good and religious woman. Her being a prostitute had nothing to do with her giving in to sin and everything to do with self sacrafice. Your question should not be would you take advice from a prostitute, but would you sacrafice yourself - become a prostitute - to save the lives of your starving family. Also, if you were a murderer why would you be judging a prostitute? It was the complete torment of Sonya that she was a prostitute as it was the complete torment of Raskolnikov's torment that he was a murderer. A large aspect of this book is salvation from our sins --- that is where Siberia comes in. Dostoevsky reflected his political and religious views in this novel and I highly doubt he tagged anything in there for his readers - he was in fact a Christian.

[DaScouser]

I think anonymous you are confusing psychology with reality. I do not think Rodya considerd himself in any way a 'Superman', he just attempts to live his live to either extreme without conforming to either. He desires to have a fortune straight off or nothing, yet he is never without funds. This aspect is a continual source of irritation for me, there are many instances where money just appears from Rodya's pockets. Even though he has the desire to change his material position he prefers to give his money away, or utilise it in autonomous forms; mechanically passing an eating house and deciding he is hungry. This is more akin to nihilism than psychosis or Superman theory.<br><br>I think you should read The Devils before you consider that a nihilist will 'just give up and commit suicide'. Its not really that simple. If we take Camu's 'The Outsider', that guy just gave up and readjusted freedom to suit his own consciousness. Both he and Rodya have killed, but in the Outsider the murderer (who's name escapes me, begins with M) accepts his crime and his containment so feels no remorse for his actions; as Satre said, somewhat: 'he who accepts containment accepts freedom'. But for Rodya he does feel guilt and remorse for his crime which becomes the punishment, he desires to be caught immediately in book two, but slowly starts to accept he may have planned, executed and avoided detection in his bid to live his life free from religious or moral authority. Besides would you take religious or moral advice from a prostitute? this bothers me somewhat, and I consider Dostoevsky's hand was forced in many ways to make the conclusion morally acceptable for his readers' tastes. Indeed the part in Siberia was tagged on, but I think the turning of the screw begins way before this episode.