What is everyone's opinion on the Epilogue?

So i just finished reading Crime and Punishment for the first time today and I loved every second of it. It was a brilliantly written novel that almost perfectly balanced character and story.

I just have what i think is an interesting question which could lead to a good discussion possibly. Do you think the novel is better with or without the epilogue at the end?

Personally I think the novel is best without the epilogue. I feel that Roskolnikov's confession is a more fitting end to the novel. I like the fact that upon finishing the book (minus the epilogue) there was some ambiguity which made me enjoy the ending more. Upon reading the epilogue i felt that questions that didn't really need to be answered were answered. This is just my initial thought and i'd be more than happy to debate about this tomorrow once i have time to sleep on in and decide for sure my opinion, but until then I'm interested in getting some other opinions on the epilogue as to whether or not it was really needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus X-2112

Upon reading the epilogue i felt that questions that didn't really need to be answered were answered.

---

I'm sure the questions that Dostoevsky, himself, wished to probe are those posed by the epilogues. Certainly, other of his novels I've read have cryptic but fascinating final pages.

I suspect major subtlety lies in the character of Sonia ("Little mother Sofya Semyonovna") and, to a lesser extent, Svidrigaïlov. Very interesting is:

All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.

There is a Biblical allusion in "They had another seven years to wait." Also interesting is: "Life had stepped into the place of theory and something quite different would work itself out in his mind."

I loved the epilogue! Personally, I'm a fan of happy endings and it was great to know that Sonya brought about Raskolnikov's final conversion. I thought that the story was more complete with the epilogue and that the ambiguity isn't really necessary here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishpixieb

...it was great to know that Sonya brought about Raskolnikov's final conversion.

---

But, conversion to what exactly?

Raskolnikov dreams of a "terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia" where just a "few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people". This and the repeated reference to seven strongly evoke a Biblical eschatology. What does a new heaven and a new Earth mean for Raskolnikov?

Quote:

---

He did not open it [the New Testament] now, but one thought passed through his mind: "Can her convictions not be mine now? Her feelings, her aspirations at least. . . ."

---

I liked it, it was a good settling epilogue after the dramatic conclusion of the book

From a personal standpoint, I didn't like the epilogue, simply because I could relate to the beginning-Raskolnikov more than the ending-Raskolnikov. But I do see how it was a logical/fitting ending for Dostoevsky to put in.