Talk:Rodion Raskolnikov

==Plot?=

I find it somewhat odd that there is a section headed "Plot" which lays out the plot of the novel Crime and Punishment, of which Raskolnikov is a character. Is this an article about the character Raskolnikov or is it about the novel itself? The article's title suggests the former in which case the plot section is perhaps not out of place, but certainly poorly headed and introduced. Where is the distinction between discussion of the novel as a whole and discussion of the character, with his name's allusions to the Raskol sect and other elements of Russian history? --APDEF (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
It's not correct to describe Raskolnikov as 'following the Nietzschean theory of a "superman"', as Crime and Punishment was written in 1866, when Nietzsche was 22, before he had published any of the works which made this idea famous.

Certainly they both fit into the same literary and philosophical climate of the time, but the wording I quoted suggests Nietzsche was Raskolnikov's model, which he could not have been. If anything, it was Napoleon, which Raskolnikov makes frequent reference to in the text. --Saforrest 19:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. TheMidnighters 21:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Russian speakers: please a little help
I was wondering how Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov is written in Russian. Is there any Russian speaker who can help me? --Dacxjo 14:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Russian, but with a little educated Googling, I found that it is Родион Романович Раскольников. --Saforrest 17:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Confessed to Porfiry?
I thought that Rodion intentionally did not confess to Porfiry, he instead confessed to the rambunctious lieutenant Ilya Petrovich. Is this right? If so, it should be fixed. Fhornrudd 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism vs. Nietzschean 'Superman'
While it has been a while since I read the book, I believe Safforest is right. It was my understanding that Raskolnikov was wrestling with a variation of the basic utilitarian premise - that of the greatest good for the greatest many - whereby he believed that committing an evil or immoral act which would make possible some greater good, would be outweighed by the greater good. Raskolnikov's idea was that he commit murder, an evil act, but would be enabled to do great things when delivered of his poverty by the money he gained through the act. When he actually realized his plan and is faced with the stark horror of what he has done, he was unable to rely on the mechanical reasoning process of the utilitarian moral calculus.

The ideas of Bentham and his followers were disseminated widely by the mid 19th century, including Russia where Jeremy Bentham and his brother had enjoyed a connection to Catherine the Great in the late 18th century. As such, the book includes a commentary on the acceptance of western ideas in the Russian milieu. Raskolnikov's moral quandary is a sort of working through the ramifications of the new ideas of the West which had been sought out and cultivated by Peter the Great and Catherine as Russia expanded and modernized.

It appears that Raskolnikov was unable to live with his too simplistic utilitarian rationale once he had to live with the real consequences of his actions, rather than being unable unable to fulfil his destiny as the superman.

--Nichomachus (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Grand Failure of Lacking Conviction
"His grand failure is that he lacks the conviction he believed to accompany greatness and continues his decline into madness" is stated in the article.

Someone had asked for a citation, but this was one of, if not the central point of the character and the book. I thought reading the book would make this point obvious, so I deleted the request for citation. I don't think there's any question about this particular point.

I loved this article. Great job, whoever wrote it. 74.196.117.56 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome?
Analysing his behaviour, I think Raskolnikov may have an aggressive form of Asperger's syndrome. Anybody agree? --194.81.33.7 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that if this is opinion, novel research, or otherwise unreferenceable, then other people's agreement on the matter is irrelevant from the point of view of Wikipedia, which is not a discussion forum (See: Wikipedia is not a forum). Jimjamjak (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yo soy asperger y he vivido las mismas cosas que este personaje, podría hablar más al respecto, pero creo que sería mucho profundizar. Yo entiendo hasta los pensamientos de este personaje. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.223.192.73 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Social ineptitude, neurosis
"he is also socially inept and neurotic" I see that someone has already flagged this as requiring a citation. I'm inclined to agree with this request, as I think that his social behaviour is not necessarily best described as inept. I hardly profess to being an expert on either his character or behaviour, but the existing description struck me as not entirely accurate.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

addition: film adaptations
I just wanted to add to the film adaptations the 1935 Joseph von Sternberg version with Peter Lorre: did I do this right? I can't sign correctly as I do not remember my sign in: 74.220.78.75 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Lucy Kemnitzer

"In other media" section
I am not sure if the references to Raskolnikov in other works are notable or not. If we take a better known fictional character, such as Prince Hamlet, would we expect a list of all the other media referencing him? I think not, partly because the list would be absurdly long, and partly because it could be considered as "cruft" and would detract from the encyclopedic value of the article. I'm not clear on the Wikipedia guidelines for this: any (ideally referenced) opinions? Jimjamjak (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Motive for killing Alyona Ivanovna
In the book, Raskolnikov states clearly in a conversation with Sonya that the main motive for his murder was to either validate or disprove his identity as an "extraordinary man"...it is not, as is implied in the article, to use Alyona Ivanovna's money for good causes, though Raskolnikov says that if he were truly a great man he would have done so and absolved his crime via that route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.84.124 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How is the idea of rebirth not supported in the text?
Just how isn’t the idea of rebirth supported in the text? I’d say the lines, also cited in the article, — ‘the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life’ — clearly indicate a rebirth, a renewal. Whether or not he’s repentant — which it seems to me he is, but that’s an argument for another time — in ‘gradual regeneration’ and an ‘initiation into a new unknown life’ the idea of rebirth is clearly there. RocksInMyDryer (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)