After his confession to Sonya, Crime and Punishment's Raskolnikov attempts to explain the reasoning behind his murder. This segment of the novel highlights the fundamental irrationality of Raskolnikov's seemingly logical reasoning. It also depicts Raskolnikov's fragmented thinking, his lack of self-awareness and understanding, and Sonya's role in getting him to confront his crime in the hopes of achieving an emotional and intellectual honesty that will set the stage for his final redemption. Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Conflicting explanations for the motives of Raskolnikov's murder His first explanation is that he simply wanted to rob the pawnbroker for his money. He then rejects this explanation by pointing out that he really neither needed nor wanted this money. He didn't steal out of hunger, and although he wanted to help his mother, he didn't steal for his family. It is also worth remembering that he treats money casually, having given money to three other people: a drunken girl, Marmeladov, and Katerina Ivanovna. Plus, he didn't even look at the pawnbroker's bag after stealing it and doesn't even know if it contains money. Finally, he knows that this explanation is false because it does not adequately account for his current suffering and guilt: "If I had killed them only because I was hungry...I would now be...happy!" » (413) In search of a more adequate explanation, he offers the unnecessarily abstract statement: "I have a wicked heart" (414). Realizing that he must come up with something more substantial and detailed, he concludes that he committed the crime to see if he could be like Napoleon in asserting his will and going beyond conventional limits. His next vain explanation is that he stole the money so he could support himself through college without having to depend on the sacrifices of his mother and sister. He readily embraces this explanation, even though he had previously rejected the idea that he committed the murder for money or out of concern for his family. When Sonya wonders if this explanation is sufficient, Raskolnikov randomly gives the additional excuse that he ultimately only killed a "lice". Subsequently, he advances the incoherent explanation that his wickedness and the deprivation of his material environment had led him to a murderous state of mind. After rejecting this line of thinking, Raskolnikov ultimately decides to characterize the motive for his murder as an attempt to test his theory of the Extraordinary Man. He says he wanted to assert his intellectual superiority and his right to reign over ordinary men by daring to kill. For each explanation, Raskolnikov oscillates dramatically between certainty and uncertainty. He confidently says that he killed the pawnbroker to rob her, "of course," but he dismisses it almost immediately, saying, "That's not quite true" (413). Regarding his explanation that he is evil, he tells Sonya, “Take note of that, it can explain a lot of things” (414). Then, in the same paragraph, he dismisses it: “All that is not that” (414). His fluctuations are so extreme that he manages to reject and defend the same hypothesis in one fell swoop: “You see for yourself that it's not that!… yet it's the truth” (416). Then he eagerly clings to Napoleon's explanation, exclaiming: "Why not, after all!" …since that’s how it is! (415). Despite the immense confidence with which he begins each explanation, the "Why not, after all" betrays the insecurities that ultimately undermine each one. He continues by confirming: “It isprecisely how it happened” (415). He uses the word “precisely” as if he had clearly defined and concluded the exact reasons for his assassination. Despite his intellectual commitment to precision and carefully formulated correctness, his thoughts appear as a hopelessly confused set of contradictions. He cannot grasp the complexity and irrationality of his motive for murder, although it was a motive that he had meticulously and rationally premeditated. Nor can he admit his intellectual limitations in his understanding of himself. Thus, Raskolnikov clings desperately to anything that could pass for a coherent and satisfactory explanation. He admits the absurdity of his explanation of Napoleon, calling it "nonsense, almost pure chatter" (415), only to replace it with the equally dubious explanation that he wanted the lender's money on wages can support himself at university. He concludes, “Well, that’s all” (416), implying that he has succeeded in explaining everything in his final comprehensive explanation. Once again, he rejects it by saying: “All that is not that… There are very different, very different reasons here! (416). Raskolnikov anxiously grasps for the next viable explanation that comes to mind: "He did it again...as if an unexpected turn of thought had struck him and woken him up again." “Better… suppose…” (417). In describing his explanation of how wickedness and madness lead him to murder, he inserts three sentences in parentheses to stabilize and support his shaky new hypothesis. These parenthetical interjections also serve to indicate how fragmented, confused, and discordant Raskolnikov's thoughts are. Raskolnikov claims he has an adequate explanation, but simply can't articulate it. He asks, tearing up: “What am I going to tell you? » (414). He can't put his chaotic thoughts into words: "I have to speak now, and I don't even know where to start" (414). Every time he manages to say something, he says in defeat and frustration, "Again, I'm not saying it right!" (417). He dismisses everything he says as "chatter", utterances executed incoherently or repetitively without any meaning, or "nonsense", words or language containing no meaning or conveying no meaning. intelligible idea. Despite his best efforts to clearly describe the motivations for his murder, Raskolnikov only succeeds in expressing discordant and sloppy half-conceptions. His attempts to think and articulate an adequate explanation require extreme mental effort. The narrator mentions several times that Raskolnikov speaks "thoughtfully." Raskolnikov also “sometimes stopped and began to think again,” or “shut up and thought for a long time” (415). When offering an explanation, Raskolnikov gives the impression “that he was speaking as if by heart” (416), because he had pre-formulated this explanation through careful and careful thought. He fails to simply "tell [Sonya] frankly" (415) why he committed the murder because, instead of admitting his intellectual defeat, he goes through an interminable and deceptive thought process to devise convincing rationalizations . He often has to “reconsider,” rethink his explanation over and over again by revising it, rejecting it, and replacing it. When he "remembers himself", he is actually remembering the fragmented and dualistic parts of his schizophrenic personality, while also remembering all of his equally confused and incongruous thoughts. After all this mental effort, Raskolnikov admits his failure, saying: “Ah, what a stupid thing to come out with, eh? (413). Despite all theconfidence and the value he places on his intellectual abilities and his rational thinking, a feeling of helplessness and futility invades him: "In a sort of helplessness, he dragged himself to the end of his story and gave up the head” (416). Without feeling or passion, through intellect and reason, he “drags” himself towards forced explanations. The mental burden on him even manifests itself physically when Raskolnikov periodically lowers his head, holds his head and eventually develops a headache. The narrator tells us that "a terrible helplessness manifested itself through his agitated state of mind" (417).Passive-abusive relationship between Sonia and RaskolnikovRaskolnikov faults Sonya for all the anguish and frustration he experiences while trying to find an explanation. After all, it is she who demands that he understand his crime. He begs her: “Stop it, Sonya!” (412) and "Don't torment me, Sonya!" (413). Rather than confront the problem, he wants to ignore it and put it aside. He hastens to give his explanations with reckless excess of confidence and concludes: “Okay, but that’s enough! (416). But each time, he realizes that Sonya doesn't understand or doesn't believe his explanation, which throws him once again into the excruciating process of suppressing the truth from himself. Sonya sees that Raskolnikov “understands nothing, simply nothing. ! » (418). She believes that honesty with himself will allow him to recognize his sin, which will prepare him for confession. Confession is necessary for suffering, which in turn is necessary for redemption and return to God and society. However, Raskolnikov struggles to bear the weight of emotional and intellectual honesty, as well as the suffering it promises to inflict. He reacted harshly to Sonya's references to forced labor in Siberia and "he suddenly felt that it was heavy and painful to be loved" (422). Because Sonya passively forces him to confront his crime, he periodically begins to torment her. Every time he can't find an explanation, he starts lamenting that he already came to her. Sonya meekly accepts the suffering he transmits to her. When Raskolnikov tells Sonya, “You won't understand any of this” (414), she declares that she will make every effort to try to understand. Ironically, he himself does not understand what he is saying and what was the real motive for the murder of the pawnbroker. He simply projects his own confusion, bewilderment, and perplexity onto Sonya. He attributes his inability to articulate an explanation to Sonya's inability to understand. He figures that since she wouldn't understand anyway, he doesn't have to offer an explanation. Sonya, as the novel's Christ figure, readily accepts Raskolnikov's projection of suffering, shame, and despair. Sonya's incitement ends up launching Raskolnikov into voluntary reflection. He admits, “I'm lying Sonya…I've been lying for a long time” (416), thus opening the possibility that by recognizing his intellectual dishonesty, he will realize the true nature of his crime. Once she manages to force the issue, he stops fighting with her and starts fighting with himself. In fact, “he no longer cared whether she understood or not” (418). His dialogue with her almost turns into a monologue. He essentially begins conversing with himself, an act that is consistent with his schizophrenia and internal struggle between dual personalities. Raskolnikov eventually concluded that the extraordinary man theory was his motivation for the murder. He admits that all of his other excuses, from wanting money to worrying about his family, are all secondary rationalizations designed to hide the "real" reason for his crime. He remembers that when he was considering.1992