Stroke of fate? Mere chance? Divine will?

[Gladys]

"But I think that everyone understand that novel in his own way. And probably everyone is right.

Such a postmodern viewpoint makes no sense to me. Since Dostoevsky intended to tell one, unified story, perceptive readers (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Buddhist) will eventually see through his eyes. The rest is fantasy.

according to Orthodox Christianity teachings

I found your Orthodox perspective fascinating and convincing, particularly as Dostoevsky and most Russians were Orthodox. I am less convinced that Dostoevsky is actively espousing Orthodoxy in the novel.

For instance, 'Lizaveta's kind of death IS a martyr’s death' while true within Orthodoxy, may not have relevance to the novel. Or does 'martyrdom' explain the strange lack of guilt Raskolnikov seems to feel for Lizaveta's murder? Similarly, where's the textual evidence for 'When person is too much deep in sin...God ends a person's life to stop its degradation'. Where is the evidence that God's 'acting was in directing all that in the best way for their salvation'? Scripture only says, ‘all things work together for good to them that love God’. Nevertheless, your Orthodox flavour alters little the story's interpretation, is quite intriguing, and provides insight into how many Russians may have understood the novel.

Sonia, like the three Marys at the foot of the cross, gives and gives and gives some more. You are right in saying that death has major consequences for the characters in both 'The Brother Karamazov' and here. While Raskolnikov's murders had a major impact on the lives of others, I am unconvinced the murders led to 'renewal and salvation'. They all have many years still to live, whether to salvation or damnation.

And what about the Dounia and Razumihin? It a marriage between Raskolnikov's clone and reason personified.

As Razumihin says, Douna and Raskolnikov coalesce in the way they think – like twins. Razumihin's name implies a pragmatic common-sense, which the more passionate 'twins' may lack. He is a moderating influence, the voice of reason.

[Miner]

""For instance, 'Lizaveta's kind of death IS a martyr’s death' while true within Orthodoxy, may not have relevance to the novel. Or does 'martyrdom' explain the strange lack of guilt Raskolnikov seems to feel for Lizaveta's murder?""

Yeah, that's good remark about Raskolnikov lack of guilt. But I think it's a matter of psychology. That time was very turbulent for him and he was overwhelmed with too much informations, mixed feelings, it was chaos in his head and heart, and maybe that fact, how much it is terrible what he did, didn't reached to his heart yet. But I am sure that later that fact hitted him like a hammer and that he felt truly repentance.

[Gladys]

Well put!

My only reservation hinges on the extent to which Raskolnikov 'felt truly repentance'.

[Miner]

""My only reservation hinges on the extent to which Raskolnikov 'felt truly repentance'."""

Yes you are right, it is not for sure that later he felt truly repentance. Maybe he didn't. But that lack of guilt is precise indicator in what state was his heart. You can see in many parts of book that he is person with great empathy and compassion. It is like he was trying to deny that virtues in himself. Like that situation with young girl when he defended her so passionate, and then he changed his mood:

""At that moment something seemed to sting Raskolnikov; in an instant a complete revulsion of feeling came over him.

"Hey, here!" he shouted after the policeman.

The latter turned round.

"Let them be! What is it to do with you? Let her go! Let him amuse himself." He pointed at the dandy, "What is it to do with you?"

The policeman was bewildered, and stared at him open-eyed. Raskolnikov laughed.""

But he again started to feel sorry for her.

I think he was confused with those his stupid shallow theories about Napoleon kind of people and all that. Like it was some kind of fight in his heart between supermen/Napoleon view on the life against Christian compassion and mercy. And like, that fight continued and after he surrended himself to the police. Maybe that is the reason for lack of repentance at that time. Maybe he was intentionaly stopping that repentence to reach his heart, specially because he knew that he would realise that that murder it was not just terrible but it was very TERRIBLY STUPID too. And that stupidness of all that hurted him very much. But I think that later his virtues won in his heart and that he swollowed his pride, admitted to himself what he did, and let repentance to reach to his heart. After all, there wasn't evidence against him but he surrended himself to the police and admitted murder.

But even if he never got the courage to let repentance reach his heart, I think that he knew that that lack of it is very very wrong.

[Gladys]

Like it was some kind of fight in his heart between supermen/Napoleon view on the life against Christian compassion and mercy.

The passage, in which Raskolnikov defends the drunk girl from the fat dandy, begins with, "Hey! You Svidrigaïlov! What do you want here?" and ends with the reflection:

A certain percentage, they tell us, must every year go . . . that way . . . to the devil, I suppose, so that the rest may remain chaste, and not be interfered with. A percentage! .......... But what if Dounia were one of the percentage!

His 'supermen/Napoleon view' of life is compromised by 'great empathy and compassion' - traits lacking in the genuine 'superman' Svidrigaïlov.