Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladov (Sonya)
Sonya is a major character who, like Raskolnikov, has a dual purpose in the story and acts as a transgressor by crossing the line between morality, and immorality. Sonya is a timid girl and the daughter of Marmeladov. She is extremely devout and devoted to her family as seen by her inherent life-sustaining job of prostitution. Her sacrifice of prostituting herself for the sake of her family is made even more poignant by the fact that it would not be necessary were her father able to control his drinking habit. Initially scared of the half-delirious Raskolnikov, Sonya, in her infinite capacity for understanding, begins to care deeply about him. When she learns of his crimes she acts concerned for his soul and mental well-being and even goes to the extent of urging him to confess. But there is a crucial difference between their transgressions between morality and immorality that Raskolnikov is unwilling to acknowledge. She sins for the sake of others (her family), whereas he sins for no one but himself. Sonya illustrates important social and political issues that were of concern to Dostoevsky, such as the treatment of women, the effects of poverty, the importance of religious faith, and the importance of devotion to family.
Virginia B. Morris, an english professor at John Jay College in New York, specifically focused on Sonya’s relation to Raskolnikov. In this way, he emphasizes the theme of self-absorption that is projected by Raskolnikov and reflected by contradictions with other characters. Sonya is one of these contradictory, or dual, characters. Virginia B. Morris analyzed Sonya in this way: “Her soul is pure even though her body is defiled. Sonia has become a prostitute because her father is a drunk, unable to support his family. But, miraculously, she seems untouched by her experience, although she acknowledges the brutal truth that life on the street has only three possible outcomes: suicide, madness, or corruption. It is because she is sinful that Raskolnikov is able to confide in her; but it is because she believes in God that she is able to help him. She is in the best position to understand the split in his character, because she is intimately connected with both sides of it. He befriends her family at the time of her father's death, and he defends her against a false charge of theft. Yet he has killed her friend Lizaveta, the pawnbroker's sister, and he continually reminds her of the misery of her life and the uselessness of her sacrifice.” Virginia B. Morris’ interpretation of Sonya in relation to Raskolnikov is shown primarily through her religious background and her contradiction in how she handles her internal anguish. Dostoevsky stresses Sonia's belief in the power of suffering. She is fervent in her belief in God and trusts that he will reward her misery. If there will be positive results, she can tolerate her shame and perhaps even welcome it. The novel affirms her faith, at least to some extent. By the end of Crime and Punishment, Sonia's brother and sisters have been placed in a good orphanage; she is able to leave her life as a prostitute; and Raskolnikov repents and is redeemed. Virginia B. Morris mentions how Dostoevsky’s intentions for Sonya’s character must be taken into account. Because there is nothing in the text that is critical of Sonia, a reader must recognize that Dostoevsky meant her to be the chief exemplar of goodness in the novel. Deciding whether she is believable or likable is one thing. Discussing how she fits into Dostoevsky's view of the world is another. While Raskolnikov seems very modern in his anguish and alienation, Sonia seems old-fashioned and limited. These contradicting ideas that we saw in our reading groups analysis seemed to be just tension between characters. But after reading Morris’ interpretation we realize now that it is an emphasis on the thematic connection between Raskolnikov and self-absorption.
Virginia B. Morris, an english professor at John Jay College in New York, specifically focused on Sonya’s relation to Raskolnikov. In this way, he emphasizes the theme of self-absorption that is projected by Raskolnikov and reflected by contradictions with other characters. Sonya is one of these contradictory, or dual, characters. Virginia B. Morris analyzed Sonya in this way: “Her soul is pure even though her body is defiled. Sonia has become a prostitute because her father is a drunk, unable to support his family. But, miraculously, she seems untouched by her experience, although she acknowledges the brutal truth that life on the street has only three possible outcomes: suicide, madness, or corruption. It is because she is sinful that Raskolnikov is able to confide in her; but it is because she believes in God that she is able to help him. She is in the best position to understand the split in his character, because she is intimately connected with both sides of it. He befriends her family at the time of her father's death, and he defends her against a false charge of theft. Yet he has killed her friend Lizaveta, the pawnbroker's sister, and he continually reminds her of the misery of her life and the uselessness of her sacrifice.” Virginia B. Morris’ interpretation of Sonya in relation to Raskolnikov is shown primarily through her religious background and her contradiction in how she handles her internal anguish. Dostoevsky stresses Sonia's belief in the power of suffering. She is fervent in her belief in God and trusts that he will reward her misery. If there will be positive results, she can tolerate her shame and perhaps even welcome it. The novel affirms her faith, at least to some extent. By the end of Crime and Punishment, Sonia's brother and sisters have been placed in a good orphanage; she is able to leave her life as a prostitute; and Raskolnikov repents and is redeemed. Virginia B. Morris mentions how Dostoevsky’s intentions for Sonya’s character must be taken into account. Because there is nothing in the text that is critical of Sonia, a reader must recognize that Dostoevsky meant her to be the chief exemplar of goodness in the novel. Deciding whether she is believable or likable is one thing. Discussing how she fits into Dostoevsky's view of the world is another. While Raskolnikov seems very modern in his anguish and alienation, Sonia seems old-fashioned and limited. These contradicting ideas that we saw in our reading groups analysis seemed to be just tension between characters. But after reading Morris’ interpretation we realize now that it is an emphasis on the thematic connection between Raskolnikov and self-absorption.
Porfiry Petrovich
Porfiry Petrovich is the magistrate in charge of investigating the murders Raskolnikov committed. He has a shrewd understanding of criminal psychology and is exquisitely aware of Raskolnikov’s mental state at every step along the way from the crime to the confession. He is Raskolnikov’s primary antagonist, and, though he appears only occasionally in the novel, his presence is constantly felt.
Porfiry represents the authority of the state, or the law, in his pursuit of Raskolnikov Although Porfiry does "solve" the case by deducing that Raskolnikov is guilty, his skills as a detective are not of primary interest to Dostoevsky. Rather, Dostoevsky concentrates on the duel of wills between Porfiry and Raskolnikov as Virginia B. Morris quotes as being “two brilliant and egotistical men with very different ideas about what is important in life”. Porfiry is the only character who is Raskolnikov's intellectual equal, and the only one who understands the complex motives for his crime. The ironic, mocking tone he uses to talk to Raskolnikov reminds some readers of the arrogance Raskolnikov himself shows other people. Virginia B. Morris focuses on Porfiry’s nature and its relation to Raskolnikov’s character: “The investigator's emphasis on psychological analysis as a way of detecting criminals is almost as revolutionary as Raskolnikov's belief in crimes of principle. The major difference between them is that Porfiry's theory stresses the social good, while Raskolnikov's means social anarchy. Some critics suggest that Dostoevsky intends Porfiry to represent Russian solutions to Russian problems in contrast to the Western European sources of Raskolnikov's mistaken theories.” What Morris is saying is that Dostoevsky shows Porfiry opposed to both the legal and the moral transgressions of Raskolnikov's crime. He isn't that interested in putting the criminal behind bars; instead, he's committed to getting Raskolnikov to admit the error of his ways. He embodies Dostoevsky's belief that punishment that is imposed on a criminal does little good if the man himself rejects his own guilt. This thematic connection of course is brought upon by the emphasis on Raskolnikov’s character and self-absorption.
Porfiry represents the authority of the state, or the law, in his pursuit of Raskolnikov Although Porfiry does "solve" the case by deducing that Raskolnikov is guilty, his skills as a detective are not of primary interest to Dostoevsky. Rather, Dostoevsky concentrates on the duel of wills between Porfiry and Raskolnikov as Virginia B. Morris quotes as being “two brilliant and egotistical men with very different ideas about what is important in life”. Porfiry is the only character who is Raskolnikov's intellectual equal, and the only one who understands the complex motives for his crime. The ironic, mocking tone he uses to talk to Raskolnikov reminds some readers of the arrogance Raskolnikov himself shows other people. Virginia B. Morris focuses on Porfiry’s nature and its relation to Raskolnikov’s character: “The investigator's emphasis on psychological analysis as a way of detecting criminals is almost as revolutionary as Raskolnikov's belief in crimes of principle. The major difference between them is that Porfiry's theory stresses the social good, while Raskolnikov's means social anarchy. Some critics suggest that Dostoevsky intends Porfiry to represent Russian solutions to Russian problems in contrast to the Western European sources of Raskolnikov's mistaken theories.” What Morris is saying is that Dostoevsky shows Porfiry opposed to both the legal and the moral transgressions of Raskolnikov's crime. He isn't that interested in putting the criminal behind bars; instead, he's committed to getting Raskolnikov to admit the error of his ways. He embodies Dostoevsky's belief that punishment that is imposed on a criminal does little good if the man himself rejects his own guilt. This thematic connection of course is brought upon by the emphasis on Raskolnikov’s character and self-absorption.
ARKADY IVANOVICH SVIDRIGAILOV
Svidrigailov is one of the most enigmatic characters in Crime and Punishment. Dostoevsky leaves little doubt as to Svidrigailov’s status as a villain. But all of Svidrigailov’s crimes, except for his attempted rape of Dunya, are behind him. We witness Svidrigailov perform goods deeds, such as giving money to the family of his fiancée, to Katerina Ivanovna and her children, and to Dunya. Although he is a violent and sneaky individual, Svidrigailov possesses the ability to accept that he cannot force reality to conform to his deepest desires. In this regard, he functions as a foil to Raskolnikov, who can accept only partially the breakdown of his presumed “superman” identity. During our analysis we only focused on Svidrigailov's contradictions to Raskolnikov as tension between characters. But Virginia B. Morris’ interpretation through Svidrigailov's relation to Raskolnikov shows how it serves a greater purpose in thematic connection.
Because this is Raskolnikov's story, each of the other characters is considered in relation to him. While Svidrigailov's life and death are dramatic in themselves, their importance to the novel lies in what they tell you about Raskolnikov. Like Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov is a criminal. He too is troubled by vivid, terrifying dreams: dead characters haunt him, as they do Raskolnikov. The striking moment when the two meet occurs just as Raskolnikov wakes up from reliving in his dream the murder of the pawnbroker. Svidrigailov doesn't waste any time telling him they are "birds of a feather," an idea he repeats frequently. Virginia B. Morris interprets Svidrigailov in this way: “Like Raskolnikov, he seeks love from a woman who has shown pity for him and who, he believes, will save him from death. In his case the woman he loves- with a great sexual passion- is Raskolnikov's sister Dunya. Unlike Sonia, Dunya spurns her lover's advances. She is repulsed by him, and when he finally understands how much she hates him, he kills himself. In contrast, Raskolnikov's love for Sonia truly is his salvation. Another similarity between them is that Svidrigailov is generous with his money. Like Raskolnikov, he is the benefactor of the needy, in particular of the Marmeladovs. Despite the similarities, most readers finally conclude that the differences between the men are more important. For one thing, Svidrigailov is decadent. You might forgive his having been in prison for debt and having allowed a woman to buy his way out. But he is also a child molester, a man who can barely control his passions. While he argues that he seeks out Dunya as his salvation from evil and boredom, it seems much more likely that he is primarily interested in sexual satisfaction. Many readers are repelled by the fact that he tries to buy her love by threatening to betray her brother as a killer.” What Morris is trying to convey is that Svidrigailov isn't a totally evil, despicable character. His decision to commit suicide has tragic elements because he's so totally abandoned. He evokes pity from many readers, although they are able to see that he has invited his own destruction. As you read the scenes in which he appears, you can see that Dostoevsky strikes between the hateful and the pathetic parts of his character. His similarities and differences to Raskolnikov only reinforce his role as a foil. He implicitly shows Raskolnikov’s most obvious traits, and thus emphasize Dostoevsky’s craft in conveying the theme of self-absorption.
Because this is Raskolnikov's story, each of the other characters is considered in relation to him. While Svidrigailov's life and death are dramatic in themselves, their importance to the novel lies in what they tell you about Raskolnikov. Like Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov is a criminal. He too is troubled by vivid, terrifying dreams: dead characters haunt him, as they do Raskolnikov. The striking moment when the two meet occurs just as Raskolnikov wakes up from reliving in his dream the murder of the pawnbroker. Svidrigailov doesn't waste any time telling him they are "birds of a feather," an idea he repeats frequently. Virginia B. Morris interprets Svidrigailov in this way: “Like Raskolnikov, he seeks love from a woman who has shown pity for him and who, he believes, will save him from death. In his case the woman he loves- with a great sexual passion- is Raskolnikov's sister Dunya. Unlike Sonia, Dunya spurns her lover's advances. She is repulsed by him, and when he finally understands how much she hates him, he kills himself. In contrast, Raskolnikov's love for Sonia truly is his salvation. Another similarity between them is that Svidrigailov is generous with his money. Like Raskolnikov, he is the benefactor of the needy, in particular of the Marmeladovs. Despite the similarities, most readers finally conclude that the differences between the men are more important. For one thing, Svidrigailov is decadent. You might forgive his having been in prison for debt and having allowed a woman to buy his way out. But he is also a child molester, a man who can barely control his passions. While he argues that he seeks out Dunya as his salvation from evil and boredom, it seems much more likely that he is primarily interested in sexual satisfaction. Many readers are repelled by the fact that he tries to buy her love by threatening to betray her brother as a killer.” What Morris is trying to convey is that Svidrigailov isn't a totally evil, despicable character. His decision to commit suicide has tragic elements because he's so totally abandoned. He evokes pity from many readers, although they are able to see that he has invited his own destruction. As you read the scenes in which he appears, you can see that Dostoevsky strikes between the hateful and the pathetic parts of his character. His similarities and differences to Raskolnikov only reinforce his role as a foil. He implicitly shows Raskolnikov’s most obvious traits, and thus emphasize Dostoevsky’s craft in conveying the theme of self-absorption.
Avdotya ROmanovna (Dunya)
Dounia is strong and steady, young and beautiful, intelligent and educated. Yet, she isn't the best judge of character. She learns over the course of the novel, though. In some ways Dounia is a device used to drive the plot forward. Her relationships with Luzhin and Svidrigaïlov create most of the novel's subplots and contribute to Raskolnikov's decision to murder the pawnbroker.
In other ways she is much more than a plot device. She represents a less depressing view of Russia and the Russian people than we often get in the novel. She grows as a character in a less ambiguous way. Instead of being in a relationship to save someone (Svidrigaïlov), or to escape poverty (Luzhin), she finds a genuine friend, companion, and husband in Razumikhin, a man who loves her brother as much as she does and who understands what she's gone through.
In other ways she is much more than a plot device. She represents a less depressing view of Russia and the Russian people than we often get in the novel. She grows as a character in a less ambiguous way. Instead of being in a relationship to save someone (Svidrigaïlov), or to escape poverty (Luzhin), she finds a genuine friend, companion, and husband in Razumikhin, a man who loves her brother as much as she does and who understands what she's gone through.
Razumikhin
Throughout the whole book, Razumikhin is an extremely sociable person. First off, he is gentlemanly and respectful, which appeals to many people. He has a very magnetic personality. For instance, in the following quote it shows how hospitable he is to Sonia when he first meets her. “. . . Razumikhin, who had been sitting one of Raskolnikov’s three chairs, close to the door, got up allowed her to enter.”(Page. 203) Also, later in that paragraph, he ends up moving to a seat next to Raskolnikov so that it is easier for her to sit down and be comfortable. Being welcoming and hospitable, could add to Razumikhin’s sociability, because it’s a great way to meet new people. Another thing that makes him sociable, is the fact that every time he meets a new character within that day, they tend to automatically like him, no matter the current condition. Specifically in the situation when he first meets Pulcheria Raskolnikov, because at first impression she thought he was a lying, cheating, scumbag. However, he proves himself to her by helping Raskolnikov when he falls ill.
Razumikhin also is very dedicated and trustworthy. He keeps his word no matter how ridiculous or demanding the situation. For instance, when he promised to take care of Raskolnikov and report back to Dunia and Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov within the next hour, while completely drunk. The following quote shows Dunia’s belief in him. “God has sent this gentleman to our aid, though he has come from a drinking party, we can depend on him I assure you. And all that he has done for Rodya…” (Page. 175) Being trustworthy and dedicated is a great characteristic to have, Razumikhin takes it a little too far sometimes and risks himself out of selflessness. He also is very persistent when it comes to getting what he wants. “Some idea, some hint, as it were let slip, something awful, hideous, and suddenly understood on both sides…” (Page. 267) In this quote Raskolnikov finally cracked and let enough slip to let Razumikhin understand that he was the murderer, which was exactly what Razumikhin wanted to know. Having a persistent personality is another contributor to being a dedicated and trustworthy person.
Razumikhin also is very dedicated and trustworthy. He keeps his word no matter how ridiculous or demanding the situation. For instance, when he promised to take care of Raskolnikov and report back to Dunia and Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov within the next hour, while completely drunk. The following quote shows Dunia’s belief in him. “God has sent this gentleman to our aid, though he has come from a drinking party, we can depend on him I assure you. And all that he has done for Rodya…” (Page. 175) Being trustworthy and dedicated is a great characteristic to have, Razumikhin takes it a little too far sometimes and risks himself out of selflessness. He also is very persistent when it comes to getting what he wants. “Some idea, some hint, as it were let slip, something awful, hideous, and suddenly understood on both sides…” (Page. 267) In this quote Raskolnikov finally cracked and let enough slip to let Razumikhin understand that he was the murderer, which was exactly what Razumikhin wanted to know. Having a persistent personality is another contributor to being a dedicated and trustworthy person.
Luzhin
Luzhin is a complete villain. Well, actually, an incomplete one, by dint of his completeness. That's a fancy way of saying he's a flat character. A complete villain, like Svidrigaïlov, has some hint of goodness, some small act of love that challenges our perceptions.
Luzhin doesn't. He really does want to marry a poor girl so that he can turn her into a slave. He only wants Dounia as a trophy wife, because he thinks he can completely dominate her. (We hear this straight from his mind in the sections for his point of view.) Part of his flatness is because he drops completely out of the plot after Andrey Semyonovitch saves Sonia from Luzhin's dastardly plan. Is this a flaw in the novel, a result of the intense deadlines Dostoevsky faced? (See "In A Nutshell" for more on that.) We can only speculate.
The novel is complicated enough without having to deal with a climactic Luzhin scene. Since he's human, we can still imagine that life will force him to change and stop being so nasty and critical and snobby – and to stop taking advantage of women. But who knows? Maybe he won't change. Or maybe he's a Svidrigaïlov in training and his change will come in another ten or so years.
Luzhin doesn't. He really does want to marry a poor girl so that he can turn her into a slave. He only wants Dounia as a trophy wife, because he thinks he can completely dominate her. (We hear this straight from his mind in the sections for his point of view.) Part of his flatness is because he drops completely out of the plot after Andrey Semyonovitch saves Sonia from Luzhin's dastardly plan. Is this a flaw in the novel, a result of the intense deadlines Dostoevsky faced? (See "In A Nutshell" for more on that.) We can only speculate.
The novel is complicated enough without having to deal with a climactic Luzhin scene. Since he's human, we can still imagine that life will force him to change and stop being so nasty and critical and snobby – and to stop taking advantage of women. But who knows? Maybe he won't change. Or maybe he's a Svidrigaïlov in training and his change will come in another ten or so years.