Written by the same author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, the two main characters from “Crime and Punishment” and “Notes from Underground” displays similar qualities. Both characters are corrupted in their ways thinking, which indicates their nihilistic behavior. Although these two characters can be considered nihilists, their behaviors can be classified as ethical, or moral, nihilism. These two characters also relates to one another in terms of inconsistency, individualism and self-justification.
Despite of the excerpt from “Notes from Underground”, David Denby’s article, “Can Dostoevsky Still Kick You in the Gut? , provides a more detailed analysis of the book. Raskolnikov, from “Crime and Punishment”, and the underground man, from “Notes from Underground”, demonstrates identical nihilistic nature, and other qualities. One of the most noticeable thing about both characters is their personalities, or traits. According to Denby, the character from “Notes” is “A self-regarding, truculent, miserable, paralyzed man. ” He cannot stop from humiliating himself and others around him. Raskolnikov, although he does not humiliate himself, is also a sick, egotistical, aggressive, and depressed man.
Likewise, they both live in St. Petersburg as stated by Denby: “What the two fictions share is a solitary, restless, irritable hero and a feeling for the feverish, crowded streets and dives of St. Petersburg… “. Furthermore, the author describes the city as “an atmosphere of careless improvidence, neglect, selfneglect, cruelty, even sordidness. It is the modern city in extremis. ” Therefore, the personalities of both characters are a reflection upon the dreadful atmosphere of St. Petersburg. They evelop similar personalities as they live in the same corrupted city. As a reflection, their characteristics demonstrate nihilistic behavior, and in this case, they express ethical nihilism.
Both characters reject ordinary standards and morals; good and evil are ambiguous, and they are pressured both socially and emotionally. ” … I am eking out my days in my corner, taunting myself with the bitter and entirely useless consolation that an intelligent man cannot seriously become anything; that only a fool can become something. as indicated in this quote, the underground man believes that “an intelligent man” is incapable of becoming prominent. “Yes, sir, an intelligent nineteenth century man must be, is morally bound to be, an essentially characterless creature; and a man of character, a man of actionan essentially limited creature. “, the quote is an elaboration on the character’s previous statement; he defines “an intelligent man” that is contrary to the norm. Correspondingly, “The old woman was only an illness…. I was in a hurry to overstep…. didn’t kill a human being, but a principle! “, as stated in the novel, Raskolnikov has a different moral perspective on humans too.
Being a killer, to justify his actions, Raskolnikov considers his victim as “an illness” and “principle”; she was merely a human to him. They both possess distinct views on humans, contrasting the standard moral. Furthermore, the underground man and Raskolnikov can be identified as subjective and self-justifying. Their behaviors can be questioned morally, as equivalent to both of the character’s ethical nihilistic beliefs.
For instance, the underground man stated: “Why, the whole point, the vilest part of it, was that I was constantly and shamefully aware, even at moments of the most violent spleen, that I was not at all a spiteful, no, not even an embittered, man. That I was merely frightening sparrows to no purpose, diverting myself. “. To justify his obscure act, he claims not to be “spiteful”, although he harassed petitioners without a clear motive. Identically, stated by Raskolnikov: “The old woman was only an illness…. I was in a hurry to overstep…. I didn’t kill a human being, but a principle!
I killed the principle, but I didn’t overstep, I stopped on this side…. I was only capable of killing. “‘; the quote illustrates Raskolnikov’s justification. To excuse his own immoral act, Raskolnikov implies his murder as a principle rather than a human that he had slaughtered. Ambiguity arises from both the characters’ acts and as well as their selfjustification. Additionally, both of the main protagonists express a great sense in individualism, amplifying their nihilism. They are not afraid to convey their own individual beliefs and interests.
Living past forty is indecent, vulgar, immoral! … who lives past? I’ll tell you who does: fools and scoundrels. “, the underground man furiously states his opinion. He strongly opposes those who is older than forty; he considers them as “fools and scoundrels. “. His opposition may come from his own fear of aging older as he is forty himself. Moreover, another example is stated in Denby’s article, “He rails against everything that the [Crystal Palace] building represents-industrial capitalism, scientific rationality, and any sort of predictive, mathematical model of human behavior. “.
Acknowledging the opposing views of the norm, the underground man disagrees with the symbolism of the Crystal Palace; he does not admit acceptance toward the innovations of society. Similarly, Raskolnikov states: “‘Yes, that’s what it was! wanted to become a Napoleon, that is why I killed her … “. Rationally, Raskolnikov says that his reason for his slaughter is to be like Napoleon, while reasoning himself to Sonia. He, too, was not afraid to reveals his enigmatic thought. Individualism is expressed by both characters in several ways in with their novels; signifying their superiority over the moral and social standards.
Another identical behavior of both of the main characters lies in their inconsistency. Inconsistency is a result of their murky states of mind. According to Denby, he notes that: “The underground man taunts his listeners, apologizes, criticizes himself, then gets aggressive, then collapses again. “. Pointed out by Denby, the underground man expresses a wide range of behaviors. He does not heavily shows only a particular behavior. In the same way as the underground man, Raskolnikov’s inconsistency is indicated in the following quote, “The old woman was only an illness….
I was in a hurry to overstep…. I didn’t kill a human being, but a principle! I killed the principle, but I didn’t overstep, I stopped on this side…. I was only capable of killing. “. As the quote was stated before, it also demonstrates Raskolnikov’s unstable mind. He provides several reasons and argues against himself to justify himself; uncertain on his act of murder. Their inconsistency is illustrated by their esoteric frames of mind. To conclude, both character has numerous identical characteristics and behaviors; including their nihilistic beliefs.
It is their ethical nihilism that makes them unique, from society; and similar to one another. Nonetheless, this nihilism leads to the development of the two protagonists’ behaviors of inconsistency, individualism and self-justification. The underground man’s nihilism leans toward interpretations on social behaviors and accomplishment. While, Raskolnikov demonstrates his nihilism through his crime of murder. Despite the differences, they complement one another as they live under the corrupt roofs of St. Petersburg; hence their sordid mentality.
