What is the meaning of Crime and Punishment!

I have finished this book and left with 100 times the amount of questions I came in with. Here is the list:

Is this the story of a man learning he is common? That he is not extraordinary like Napoleon? Is this the main theme of the book? That he failed due to his nature?
Why was his theory unsuccessful? Because he felt guilt? Because he didn’t get the funding he “wanted,” although he could have?
His theory was never disproven. Did he simply give it up based on emotion? That his theory didn’t make him happy, but Sonia did? That Sonia (love) was the reason for life and not to be extraordinary?
Did he not kill himself because he felt a little doubt and thought he would outgrow his theories?
WHY did he turn himself in?
Why did Svidrigailov kill himself?
What did the horse dream represent?
What was the relation between his theory and the dream of the infection in the epilog?
Why was Luzhin important?

If anyone can answer any of these, my mind can finally be at rest. I can't stop thinking... ahhh!!!

also, when svid sees the harlot's face in the 5 year old girl in his dream? What was that about?? SOOO MANY QUESTIONS. KILL ME! EVERY NOVEL SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ESSAY. In fact, everyone should write in essays.

Please answer! I feel im going mad just like him.. I might start killing any second... no that thought is just a plaything... oh wait. Its not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

Did he not kill himself because he felt a little doubt and thought he would outgrow his theories?

---

There's one passage where the narrator hints that unconsciously, he sees a future AFTER prison, where he could start new, redeemed. It is actually clearly expressed, trust me on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

WHY did he turn himself in?

---

1) Because he got caught, Petrovich (and, to Raskolnikoff, who at that time didn't know that Svidrigailov died, it seemed that S. would probably tell on him too) gave him an ultimatum. Raskolnikoff would rather go to prison than to leave St. Petersburg.

2) Because of Dounia and Sonia, they told him he needed to repent through suffering. He himself didn't believe that, yet he didn't want to lose the love of the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

Why did Svidrigailov kill himself?

---

He atoned for his sins. He probably did kill his wife. He repented, and then wasn't able to live with himself any more. And don't forget that his wife, before her death, completely destroyed his reputation!

It isn't made clear in the book why, but I'm pretty sure Sonia has made an impression on him when he heard her talk to Raskolnikoff. One has to consider that he stars 'atoning through good deeds' before his meeting with Douna! He gives money to Marmeladoff's children, so probably he had the thought earlier already. In fact, I suspect he might have come to St. Petersburg for the very reason of making peace with Douna and then kill himself. Dostevsky never really mentioned other intentions, though he let the reader think there were. Svidrigailov is definitely very important to the theme of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

What did the horse dream represent?

---

I don't really remember the context, but I think it represented complacency of the common people towards misery; only one guy, and little Raskolnikoff actually felt empathy towards the horse! The others were just laughing. The horse could well stand for Sonia, though that comes later in the story..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

What was the relation between his theory and the dream of the infection in the epilog?

---

See my other answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

Why was Luzhin important?

---

I assume you refer to Peter Petrovich (my version spells his last name 'Looshin'). He's just a plot device I think, the selfish villain. An opportunity for Douna to sacrifice her happiness for her family. HIs attempt to discredit Sonia emphasize her honest character, and how she still has dignity -- despite her situation.

As for Svidrigailov's dream, I think that was because of what happened with Douna. He almost molested or even raped her after she put down the gun, only with great force of will could he restrain himself from doing it. The little girl symbolizes innocence and corruption of him through lust. It fits with his backstory (his advances towards Douna when he was still married).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

He atoned for his sins. He probably did kill his wife. He repented, and then wasn't able to live with himself any more. And don't forget that his wife, before her death, completely destroyed his reputation!

It isn't made clear in the book why, but I'm pretty sure Sonia has made an impression on him when he heard her talk to Raskolnikoff. One has to consider that he stars 'atoning through good deeds' before his meeting with Douna! He gives money to Marmeladoff's children, so probably he had the thought earlier already. In fact, I suspect he might have come to St. Petersburg for the very reason of making peace with Douna and then kill himself. Dostevsky never really mentioned other intentions, though he let the reader think there were. Svidrigailov is definitely very important to the theme of the book.

---

Did he repent? Is there evidence that Svidrigailov, leading up to his suicide, acted from other than boredom, from a life devoid of meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Did he repent? Is there evidence that Svidrigailov, leading up to his suicide, acted from other than boredom, from a life devoid of meaning?

---

Hmm, interesting. The satirical way in which he kills himself indeed suggests 'boredom' and 'what the hell' as a motive for his deeds. But then again, why does he do useful things instead of other? He might as well go crazy and start burning money, or throw it into the river.. So I think there is some sense in which he tries to do good. He might not have fully repened, but the dream, and that one moment with Douna, suggests that he does feel guilt.

So he never really got over his theory, correct? He learned to live with it, but didnt leave st petersburgh because he really cared for sonia. He turned himself in to maintain relationships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

So he never really got over his theory, correct? He learned to live with it, but didnt leave st petersburgh because he really cared for sonia. He turned himself in to maintain relationships.

---

First of all I would say it is a good thread. I just finished reading Crime and Punishment three days ago.
I agree that Roskonikoff learned to live with his theory although his experiment failed. I am myself confused about one point. Did his failure prove that it really takes some special extraordinary human beings to act like Napoleon and get off with it?
As for why he turned himself in and went to Siberia, it is clear that he could have done nothing else. A bullet in the brain or seeking solace in the depth of a river was not the way out because he really loved Sonia. Otherwise he would not have told her about his crime. He did not commit suicide because he could foresee a future with Sonia after his sojourn in Siberia. I don't think it has anything to do with maintaining relationships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

Why was his theory unsuccessful? Because he felt guilt? Because he didn’t get the funding he “wanted,” although he could have?
His theory was never disproven. Did he simply give it up based on emotion?

---

Yes, his theory was not disproven. He had convinced himself that he would be justified in committing the murder because he is an extraordinary man, but he had no way of knowing how he would feel after committing the murder. After committing the murders, he is overwhelmed by emotions of fear and guilt which he had not anticipated. Though he does not lose faith in his theory, he loses his conviction to carry out the plan as he is overwhelmed by fear and guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEFEATER

Is this the story of a man learning he is common? That he is not extraordinary like Napoleon? Is this the main theme of the book? That he failed due to his nature?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aliengirl

I am myself confused about one point. Did his failure prove that it really takes some special extraordinary human beings to act like Napoleon and get off with it?

---

Raskolnikov believes that extraordinary men (like Napoleon and himself) have the right to transgress the law and the rights of ordinary men for the sake of achieving greatness. There is nothing to disprove that Raskolnikov is an extraordinary man (he has been described as being intelligent). But he has transgressed and failed and has no greatness to show for his being an extraordinary man.

I am learning a lot here. See I left this book thinking it had somehow disproved nihilism or something absolutely revolutionary. I definitely see the value in CP, but i just overestimated the value--it is what i supposed it was. If he felt no guilt though, he would have thought it worked, correct? It is a nihilist feeling guilt and suffering justice for emotional rewards, although they are not the socially correct reasons like debt to society.

The little girl I think, represents the innocence lost in poverty. Living in those horrid conditions she lost everything that was once innocent and childish. As Raskolnikov said, there is no other road for Polia ( Sonia's little sister), than prostitution. I think Svidrigailov "foresees" the terrible future for this little girl, in his dream.

Crime is any violation of a well-published and established law. Can't get simpler or more complicated than that.