Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky takes the reader into the mind of a murderer as he commits his crime and faces the consequences. The novel grapples with many philosophical questions and challenges to accepted ideas of right versus wrong. Many scholars agree that Dostoevsky incorporated the personalities of the people in his life into his characters and made these characters address the issues he faced, such as the existence of God. "Champion after champion [Dostoevsky] was sent to the bloody field, to struggle with life, as he himself claimed, even to the point of death" (Murry 4). These “champions” he has sent to “contest” his philosophical questions include Raskolnikov, a murderer, and the seemingly unsympathetic Svidrigaylov. Svidrigaylov seems so unlikable because of the stories from his past that precede his appearance. Svidrigaylov's character illustrates two concepts: what Raskolnikov would have been like if his superman theory had worked for him, and that a person who does not care about good and evil can do both extraordinary good and extraordinary evil. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Raskolnikov is a charming former scholar who aspires to power. When we first meet him, he is obsessed with a task he is considering: "he even knew how many steps were from his door" (Dostoevsky 3). (We find out later that the task is the murder of a pawnbroker, Alena.) He kills her to try to prove that he is an “extraordinary” man. According to Raskolnikov's superman theory, there are some “extraordinary” men who must allow themselves to break the laws that inhibit their ideas (Dostoevsky 249). We hear about Svidrigaylov long before he actually enters the story. Our first impression of him is less than favorable to say the least. Raskolnikov's mother writes him a letter telling him that if he told the "torments" his sister Dunya had suffered at the hands of Svidrigaylov, Raskolnikov would "throw everything away and come home" to help him (Dostoevsky 28). Throughout the book we learn that Svidrigaylov simply does what he wants, regardless of public opinion. Dostoevsky made Raskolnikov and Svidrigaylov similar to illustrate Raskolnikov's superman theory with both his success and failure under comparable conditions (Santangelo 4). Raskolnikov realizes that Svidrigaylov is his counterpart (“[his] emphatic denial is proof enough… he protests too much” [Jones 8]), and observes Svidrigaylov with fascination (Santangelo 4). He sees himself and the future of his theory in their shared “will to power” (Leatherbarrow 4) and their belief in the “right to cross all limits” (Santangelo 4). He and Svidrigaylov respect Dunya (Jones 9), Raskolnikov as a sister, and Svidrigaylov as evidenced by the “instant of terrible, silent struggle” in his soul when she tells him that she can never love him (Dostoevsky 477). Svidrigaylov even says that he “can inspire only the deepest respect even for such an absolutely bad character as” himself (Dostoevsky 453). Both Raskolnikov and Svidrigaylov are afraid of death, and both cross a moral line by committing deliberately violent acts: Raskolnikov kills Alena and Svidrigaylov beats his wife Marfa (Leatherbarrow 12). Although Raskolnikov and Svidrigaylov have much in common, they have one key difference: Svidrigaylov succeeds where Raskolnikov fails. Raskolnikov cannot free himself from mortality, and before resorting to Christianity, he had to constantly rationalize everything he did. He cannot exemplify his own theory because he does not have thestrength to free oneself from the ideas of virtue and goodness. His final confession shows that he has both of these ideas, but he needs neither to be the "existential hero" (Bloom 36-37). Svidrigaylov, however, refuses to submit to any will other than his own. Throughout the novel, he engages in what some might call “debauchery” simply because he sees no reason to “put any restraints on [himself]…if [he has] any inclination for [this]” (Dostoevsky 451); he plays cards and, when married, seduces his servants. He chooses to recognize himself and his will, rather than some power outside of himself, because that is what he knows (Murry 3). Svidrigaylov has freed himself completely from casuistry and does not feel the need to base his life on the demonstration of any theory, neither that of Raskolnikov nor that of a religion (Bloom 37). For Dostoevsky Raskolnikov has the importance of a simple puppet compared to the significance of his other creation, Svidrigaylov. Svidrigaylov is the enhanced and complete Raskolnikov (Murry 4). Raskolnikov's theory stated that extraordinary people must allow themselves to proceed with actions that may not be socially or legally accepted. While Raskolnikov tries to allow himself to kill Alena without remorse, Svidrigaylov cheats on and beats his wife and drives a servant to suicide without a single sign of guilt. “Raskolnikov's will is too weak to strive for complete omnipotence,” thus Dostoevsky manifests his doubts about God and his “exploration of the nature of evil” in Svidrigaylov (Murry 1). The question of whether crime and punishment exist is not answered by Raskolnikov (for whom "perhaps suffering was enough... even if Dostoevsky leaves the proof of this for another story"), but rather by the stronger and infinitely more complex Svidrigaylov (Murry 4). Svidrigaylov is the true hero of Crime and Punishment; he has the strength to achieve what Raskolnikov could not. Svidrigaylov is the embodiment of what Raskolnikov could have been but never was (Murry 3). Raskolnikov recognizes "his superman" in Svidrigaylov's "moral independence... [and] in his contempt for accepted laws" (Leatherbarrow 13). Svidrigaylov is the “existential success” (Bloom 36). He feels no remorse (his “conscience is perfectly clear” regarding Marfa's death [Dostoevsky 270]) and sees no deeper meaning in life than fun. Raskolnikov wants the absolutely free autonomous will that Svidrigaylov has (Santangelo 4). Svidrigaylov does evil because something inside himself told him not to. He knows that to achieve complete freedom, every such instinct must be crushed, and unlike Raskolnikov, he finds within himself the audacity to do so (Murry 3). Svidrigaylov achieves complete freedom, which does not necessarily connote happiness, but is freedom nonetheless (Bloom 37). In his existential success, Svidrigaylov went beyond the limits of casuistry. “He went beyond good and evil… [and] wanted his will to be omnipotent. Nothing will be forbidden to him... He will not deceive himself by having even the vague semblance of a right on his side. It is his right; the other can only take away from him” (Murry 3). Svidrigaylov is completely free from good, evil, shame and prejudice (Santangelo 4); it is simply “open…to every possible experience in the universe” (Jackson 4). Svidrigaylov is a reflection of the universe, containing within itself the most extreme good and the most extreme evil without condemning either (Jackson 4). He can then do what some consider the ultimate evil by happily inflicting pain on innocents (Jackson 5-6) without any remorse and continuing to appear as normal as any other person (Jackson 5). When Raskolnikov accuses him of killing Marfa, Svidrigaylov believes he is defending himself by sayingwho "only gave her a couple of blows with a horse stick, and it didn't leave even a mark" (Dostoevsky 270). The reader's first impression of him is that he is the epitome of all evil (before he appears in the middle of Raskolnikov's nightmare, we hear that he killed his wife, perhaps abused a little girl, and attempted to seduce Dunya ), but this is only because “the deliberate action of evil is portentous to our minds.” The reader assumes that he is evil because he does bad things, “yet this monster does good with the same impartiality.” He saves Sonya and Marmeladov's orphans, frees Dunya when she is completely at his mercy despite loving her passionately, and financially assists a young girl he barely knows, without asking for anything in return. He is not evil with an inclination towards good deeds, nor is he good with an inclination towards evil. It is exclusively his will, undivided against itself (Murry 3). Having nothing beyond his own will, however, Svidrigaylov cannot imagine anything outside of himself, including a greater purpose or meaning than life (Santangelo 4). He wanted it all, and therefore he experienced it all, and “death is the last matter that, having not been faced, must be felt” (Murry 4). This is where he and Raskolnikov differ. When Svidrigaylov says that Raskolnikov can commit suicide or go to Siberia, “he has effectively identified the choices facing the wretched young man.” Raskolnikov chooses one option, and his "alter ego" Svidrigaylov chooses the other (Connolly 2) because it is the practical example of the "superman theory". Having crossed moral boundaries, he does not distinguish between good and evil, and therefore can do a lot of both. Bibliography Bloom, Harold, Ed. Fyodor Dostoevsky. Broomall: Chelsea House Publishers, 2003. Connolly, Julian. “An Overview of Crime and Punishment.” Exploring Novels, Gale, 1998. Literature Resource Center. January 25, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet /LitRC?locID=lac57609&stab=512&ASB2=AND&docNum=H1420002019&ADVSF1=connolly&ADVST1=CN&bConts=261&vrsn=3&ASB1=AND&ste=74&tab=2&tbst=asrch&n = 10&ADVST3=NACox, Gary . "Part 4." In Crime and Punishment: A Mind to Kill. Pp.81-97. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990. Literature Resource Center. April 9, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/LitRC?locID=lac57609&ADVST2=KA&srchtp=adv&c=15&stab=512&ASB2=AND&ADVSF2=svidrigailov&docNum=H1420071232&ADVSF1=dost&ADVST1=NR&bConts=2638 43&vrsn=3&ASB1=AND&ste=74&tab=2&tbst = asrch&ADVST3=NADostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and punishment. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1981. Gibian, George. "Traditional Symbolism in Crime and Punishment". PMLA, vol. LXX, n. 5, December 1955, pp.970-96. Literary Resource Center. December 1, 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&dcoll=gale&locID=lac57609&c=l&ste=47&DT=Criticism&n=10&frmknp=1&docNum=H1420002015Jackson, Robert Louis. "Introduction: The Clumsy White Flower." Inter of the 20th century. Crime and Punishment Ed. Eaglewood Cliffs Prentice-Hall, 1974. Jones, Malcolm V. "Crime and Punishment: Transgression and Transcendence." Dostoevsky: The Romance of Discord, pp.67-89. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1976. Literature Resource Center. 9 April 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/LitRC?locID=lac57609&ADVST2=KA&srchtp=adv&c=5&stab=512&ASB2=AND&ADVSF2=svidrigaylov&docNum=H1420071226&ADVSF1=dost&ADVST1=NR&bConts=514&vrs n=3&ASB1=AND&ste=74&tab=2&tbst = asrch&ADVST3=NAleatherbarrow, William J. “Fyodor Dostoevsky”. Twayne's World Author Series Online. New York: GK Hall &Co., 1999. Previously published in paperback in 1981 by Twayne Publishers. Literary Resource Center. January 25, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.=514