Friendship in the novel is a crime and punishment. "Crime and Punishment". Razumikhin: characterization. Errors and experience

Friendship and enmity are the natural states of a person living in society. He starts close relationships with people he likes, but with some people around him, communication develops into mutual hostility. It is impossible to say whether this is good or bad, it is important that conflict situations do not fill a person's life from beginning to end, and friendship does not turn into betrayal and disappointment. True, circumstances do not always develop in our favor, therefore, on our path in life, we are forced to say goodbye to friends and acquire enemies. But it also happens that we create enmity ourselves without objective reasons. Such a feeling is worthy of any condemnation.

Many thinkers have pondered this topic. The novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky comes to my mind, where the protagonist Raskolnikov conflicts with Luzhin, his sister's betrothed. Their views on life do not coincide at all: one is ready for any sacrifices for the sake of universal happiness, the other claims that a whole caftan is better than a torn shirt, in other words, he is not going to share with his neighbors. One is a fanatical philanthropist, the other is a rational egoist. These people are doomed to enmity. Circumstances have developed so that Dunya (Raskolnikov's sister) is getting married of convenience in order to help the family. That is, her chosen one, a wealthy person who achieved everything himself, could not by nature have the same sublime feelings as a romantic brother and sister. If he was consistent with them in everything, he would not be successful. They will never be able to understand each other, because materialists and idealists stand on opposite sides of the barricade. This means that the reasons for the conflict that arose lie in the very act of Dunya: she should not have made such a sacrifice and brought a completely alien in spirit to the family. But the constrained circumstances of convinced romantics make them financially dependent on Luzhin. This enmity is predictable, inevitable and natural. There is nothing wrong with it, like a growing tree or a sharp gust of wind. These are the realities and it is impossible to avoid them.

But in the same work there are examples of hostility, unconditioned by circumstances, contrived and artificial. These are the feelings that Raskolnikov had for the old woman-pawnbroker. He thought that such "spiders" hinder general prosperity and for the good of everyone else should be destroyed by "those who have the right." Later, he repented of his beliefs, but at that time he felt hatred for the victim, explained only by abstract reasoning. He himself is not an evil person and was not capable of taking someone's life. Therefore, he began to artificially incite enmity in himself, reasoning his conscience with cold conclusions. If the hero deliberately forced himself to harden himself against the old woman, then we can say that no circumstances and decrees of evil fate compelled him, he himself is guilty of creating a conflict. The terrible consequences of such a contrived enmity unfold before the reader. She is ugly and low, because she is not peculiar to the human race. This is an unnatural feeling that one must learn to recognize and suppress.

Thus, relying on the reflections of the great classic of Russian literature, I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to live without conflicts, but unnecessary quarrels must be avoided, since they poison our existence, as it was in the history of Raskolnikov. Enmity in oneself does not need to be cultivated and equated with mission, because even the happiness of the whole world is not worth the tears of a baby.

What is the basis of the friendship between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin in Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment"? and got the best answer

Answer from Elena Ladynina [guru]
Dmitry Prokofievich Razumikhin, former student, friend of Raskolnikov. Strong, cheerful, intelligent guy, sincere and spontaneous. Deep love and affection for Raskolnikov explain Razumikhin's concern for him. Falls in love with Dunechka, proves his love with his help and support. Marries Duna.
The novel "Crime and Punishment" shows two completely opposite paths of life that any person can follow. Two people, similar to each other in social status, in age, find different solutions to the same problem. Razumikhin tries to see the positive sides in his life and live in peace. And Raskolnikov is not at all satisfied with his life. He wants something different, not very well aware of what exactly.
The novel is openly controversial with the views of Chernyshevsky. According to the author's plan, Razumikhin was supposed to be the saving hero that Rakhmetov appears in "What is to be done?" They are similar in the manifestation of strength, both students. "Razumikhin was still the same: kind, tall ... he was also so remarkable that for some unknown time he could not eat at all and endure the extraordinary cold ..." Rakhmetov limits his needs and torments himself out of the experiment (he is rich). Razumikhin - out of need (poor).
Unlike Rakhmetov, Razumikhin is an enemy of any theory, easily starts novels, goes to an institution to see Laviza. He is critical of the pre-reform order, loves the new youth. Razumikhin believes that materialists kill life, they mortify the human soul.
The philosophy of Razumikhin's small affairs is contrasted with the philosophy of the Cause of Raskolnikov, in it one can feel the polemic with the "special" appointment of Rakhmetov. Razumikhin is a Russian bogatyr who "descended to a boy," spending gigantic forces to support his neighbor. He looks into the soul of every person, and sees that Luzhin is hopeless, but that such a murderer as Raskolnikov can be "restored" and brought back into the circle of human brotherhood. He always comes to the rescue in difficult times. And always with reason. To create the initial capital, Razumikhin joins his money with the Lunins: "And why, why bring a piece past your mouth! Little by little we will start, we will reach a big one, at least we will feed ourselves on what will be, and in any case we will return our own", Razumikhin can become a husband and faithful friend. But, most likely, a romantic half-Slav will turn into a capitalist, devoted to his growing "business." Dostoevsky pushed Razumikhin into the background. Raskolnikov could not help the Razumikhin sell books, this is too empty an occupation for him.
The basis of friendship is at the beginning of the answer. Further - a comparison of these heroes.

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

Hey! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: What is the basis of the friendship between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin in Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment"?

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was written by FM Dostoevsky in the 1860s. There are plenty of ideas and underpinnings in it, but the author's main goal was to advance a theory about two types of people: "ordinary" and "extraordinary". The former did nothing significant in their lives, while the latter were ready for anything to stay in history. The writer attributed to them, for example, Napoleon, as evidenced by the reflections of the protagonist. Raskolnikov Rodion Romanovich is a proud and strong personality.

He lives in a rented apartment in St. Petersburg and barely makes ends meet. He was forced to leave law school due to lack of money. He owns the idea of ​​"two categories of people", which he published in the newspaper. According to his theory, some people had the right to kill others, as they were from the "superior" race. However, the reason for the murder of the old woman-pawnbroker was not this, but something completely different. First, the young man was very disappointed in life and in general poverty.

Secondly, on the eve of his crime, he received a letter from his mother, in which she wrote about the humiliation of Dunya in the house of the Svidrigailovs and that Luzhin, a man with a low soul, to whom Raskolnikov was disgusted, expressed a desire to marry the girl. Thirdly, so the little room in which the main character lived could evoke only the darkest thoughts. Although, it is noteworthy that the murder of the pawnbroker was not included in his plans. He heard this idea in a restaurant from strangers.

In the course of the development of the plot, we see that the hero repents of what he has done, but again for his own personal reasons. He regrets that he cannot protect Dunya from Svidrigailov, that he brought little benefit to the Marmeladov family, that he devoted little time to his only good friend Razumikhin. In order to correctly reveal the character of the hero, Dostoevsky raised the theme of friendship and enmity in his novel. Luzhin and Svidrigailov are antipodes and at the same time doubles of Raskolnikov.

Both characters are negative. The first is terribly calculating and vain. He moved to St. Petersburg in order to practice law and take a place in high society. He chose Dunya as a bride only because the girl is poor and does not even have a dowry, and accordingly, she will not claim anything more. The writer gives an ambiguous characterization to Svidrigailov. On the one hand, he ruined the life of Marfa Petrovna and wanted to do the same with Dunya. On the other hand, he is kind to the children of Katerina Ivanovna.

Razumikhin, despite the fact that he is the complete opposite of Raskolnikov, is his only devoted friend. The nobility of this hero is at least indicated by the fact that he promises to take care of Duna and not give her offense to Svidrigailov. Sonechka Marmeladova also sacrifices a lot for the sake of Raskolnikov, even knowing the truth about his crime. She leaves Petersburg to be close to her friend even when he is already a recognized convict.

Raskolnikov and Razumikhin

Reflections on the heroes of Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment"

The juxtaposition of two poor students, who found themselves in the same position in a big city, deprived of connections, the possibility of decent earnings, essentially lonely, but who perceived this situation differently, did not lead me to the idea that Razumikhin should be cited as an example to Raskolnikov. One became embittered and decided to commit a crime, while the other did not. But it’s not that simple.

The novel shows how a healthy and strong physically and mentally person can endure a lot, and an initially fragile painful nervous one can break down. Go crazy, commit suicide, fixate on an obsession, and cross the line. Raskolnikov's reactions to everything that happens to him are the reactions of a sick person. He's not crazy. But as a result of the tests of poverty and injustice, his nervous system comes into a state of increased painful irritability towards everything and everyone, and as a result - again, painful anger. Dostoevsky, not being a physician, uses words such as "fever," "delirium," "fever," and most importantly, "monomania."

It would seem that from the point of view of such a "hero" as Razumikhin, the circumstance is not so important - a small inconvenient room in which Raskolnikov has to live. For a healthy person, this "test" is like water off a duck's back. For Raskolnikov, it becomes one of the reasons for the development and progression of a painful condition. He feels in this room as in a coffin, as if he had already died. Behind a certain line of naturalness and normality. And a cold had already settled in his soul before the crime, he was internally dead.

Days, nights, weeks, months of lonely living in this room with the inability to even eat normally. And talk to someone.

If the novel speaks of hard labor in such a way that it did not differ much from his usual student life, then one can imagine HOW this life was as long as three years, and for the psyche it is a huge period. Only in prison there is no need to spend so much money and go into debt, tormented by the inability to earn, now this miserable minimum of life is at the expense of the state. And when he was a student, he sometimes did not have a minimum.

Monomania, which they talk about in the novel, is fixation on one thought, idea, the inability to be distracted, to think about something else. Monoman looks for confirmation or refutation of his idea in everything that he sees and hears. He subconsciously thinks that the whole world is just waiting for him to move from theory to practice, to decide on something. Proved that he is not a weakling.

And for people by nature frail, sickly it is very typical. They are proud and do not like to feel incapable of anything. A truly strong, mighty person does not need to prove anything in such an absurd way. A patient with the psychology of Raskolnikov does not want to feel like a worthless creature dependent on the mercy of others.

Therefore, he is only angry with the good-natured Razumikhin with his desire to help. Luzhin, with his frank desire to look like a benefactor of the family, hates in advance (although later it turned out that Raskolnikov turned out to be intuitively right about him). His sister and mother, with their desire to sacrifice everything for the sake of their "Rodenka", enrage him. He despises himself for the fact that, like Razumikhin, he cannot easily relate to temporary inconveniences, lack of funds, humiliation of his position, and falls into such despair that he never dreamed of, and really gets sick.

Had Raskolnikov been stronger, healthier and more resilient, he would have had less arrogance. Subconscious anger at one's own powerlessness generates irritation at those who want to help others, a desire to belittle them. He wants to be strong, but desire alone is not enough. He was "unlucky" - even his sister, being a woman, is healthier, more enduring, more balanced than himself. A person cannot choose his psychophysics, strength and poise are either given to him from birth, or not given. The desire to be strong and the inability to become one is the true tragedy of Raskolnikov. The courage that he demonstrates in other situations also borders on pain, as if in this way he challenges everyone, wanting, again, to PROVE something.

It would seem that a more rational person, understanding his nature, realizes even before committing a crime that the consequences of this are beyond his capacity. With his painful sensitivity to endure suspicions, interrogations, jokes, hints ... and this is not to mention remorse. Raskolnikov, comparing himself with Napoleon and others, easily, without hesitation, depriving others of life, could not beforehand not understand that, with all his desire, he could not equal all this with them. But he's a man. Extremely proud, as is typical of gifted natures, but devoid of power. The mere thought of his weakness should have made him desperate and embittered even more. Psychologically, this is very reliable.

I am far from condemning Raskolnikov and extolling Razumikhin. If the latter were the main character of the novel, it would be boring to read it. Painful, broken, contradictory natures are more interesting to study. And it was not by chance that Dostoevsky made these the main objects of research. Razumikhin was "lucky" to be born with a stable psyche and a healthy body. In addition to natural kindness, he has a "healthy" thick skin - the ability to perceive life's hardships carelessly, easily, jokingly.

Sonya is my favorite of all the female heroines of Dostoevsky, because she has an absolutely captivating and convincing simplicity and clarity. And the lack of theatricality. And only next to such a meek, humble, submissive and gentle, devoid of sharp corners, a woman could soften and feel like a strong Raskolnikov. But the understanding of strength and courage for a religious person is not a riot, but a public confession. And realizing that if he decides to do this, he will look like a hero in Sonya's eyes, Raskolnikov no longer perceives such a step as if he “surrendered” and “chickened out”, on the contrary, this is martyrdom. With all the publicly expressed contempt for public opinion Raskolnikov, it is important how he looks and how his actions are perceived. He needs surprise and admiration, as, indeed, many men.

But to confess is one thing, and to repent from the heart is quite another. Raskolnikov confessed, but did he repent? That's a very difficult question. Repentance is rejected by him as a manifestation of WEAKNESS. Recognition that he is a "trembling creature." And, perhaps, because he killed not only the old woman, but also her meek sister Lizaveta, the feeling of guilt was immediate, not speculative, he really felt the horror of what he had done.

Up to the last pages of the novel, Raskolnikov is arrogant, irritable, angry, and in this Dostoevsky did not sin against psychological truth. And no matter how the author himself wanted to lead him to the gospel truth, he could feel that it would no longer be Raskolnikov, but some other person. Complete repentance is spoken of as if it might happen someday.

In hard labor, Raskolnikov sees a dream: microscopic creatures appeared that entered the bodies of people, and people who took them into themselves became obsessed. Dostoevsky uses the words "possessed" and "crazy." “But never, never did people consider themselves as smart and unshakable in truth, as the infected thought. They have never considered their sentences, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions and beliefs more unshakable, ”the author writes. Again, medicine would confirm this - people possessed by mania find support in their obsession and feel like higher beings with superpowers. Thus, weak people gain self-confidence, which they lacked in the usual state.

Raskolnikov, for all his incredible arrogance, who, according to Dostoevsky, fell ill with pride, it is most difficult and painful to accept himself as he is, not strong either in body or spirit. Those in need of help and benefits from others. And unable to withstand, survive, rise alone. But still, no matter how humiliating it is for the protagonist, it is probably better to still be weak and dependent than a criminal.

Although for people of his type, forgiving themselves a crime is not as difficult as forgiving themselves weakness. But it is not his fault, it is a natural given.

Svidrigailov, perhaps, expresses the opinion of the author when he says: “This is a city of half-madmen. If we had sciences, then doctors, lawyers and philosophers could do the most precious research on St. Petersburg, each in his own specialty. There are few places where there are so many gloomy, harsh and strange influences on the soul of a person, as in St. Petersburg. What are the climatic influences alone! Meanwhile, it is the administrative center of all of Russia, and its character should be reflected in everything. "

Reviews

I know that such a "theme" is floating in the air - the opposition of Raskolnikov and Razumikhin. It would never have occurred to me myself to compare or contrast them.
Raskolnikov is proud, ambitious (he probably was until difficult conditions broke him), sensitive, as they say, complexly arranged.
Razumikhin is a simple good "friendly" guy. A completely different person.

I would, like Raskolnikov, feel buried alive in a grave, living in a bad room, incredibly humiliated and all that jazz. People like Razumikhin are very far from me in real life.

Dostoevsky brings the matter to a crime, and, unlike some, I do not at all think that he is sinning against the truth in this. It could have come to this. And so in reality, the stories of all kinds of Raskolnikovs, only without murder, can be seen all the time: these are the stories of people who are seriously suffering from the collapse of their illusions, from the inability to rise socially, from the kind of injustice to themselves and others (first of all to themselves, perhaps , but can anyone be blamed for this?). And this despite the fact that, if you put the Razumikhins in their place, they would live for themselves and would still think that they have a very good life. So what follows from this? Nothing, except that everything is from a different test.
The most stupid argument in an attempt to prove something to a person suffering from his deplorable situation, and at the same time the most frequently encountered: "But here I am in your place ..." Empty. He is not you, and you are not him.

Among the eternal values, friendship has always occupied one of the very first places. But everyone understands friendship in their own way. Someone is looking for benefits in friends, some additional privileges in obtaining material benefits. But such friends before the first problem, before the trouble. It is no coincidence that the proverb says: "friends are known in trouble." But the French philosopher M. Montaigne argued: "In friendship there are no other calculations and considerations, except for itself." And only such friendship is real.

In Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, an example of such friendship is the relationship between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin. Both law students, both living in poverty, both seeking additional earnings. But at one fine moment, infected with the idea of ​​a superman, Raskolnikov drops everything and prepares for "business." Six months of constant self-examination, searching for a way to cheat fate knock Raskolnikov out of the usual rhythm of life. He does not take translations, does not give lessons, does not go to classes, in general, does nothing. And yet, in difficult times, his heart leads him to a friend. Razumikhin is the complete opposite of Raskolnikov. He works, spins all the time, earning a penny, but these cents are enough for him to live and even have fun. Raskolnikov seemed to be looking for an opportunity to leave the “path” he had taken, because “Razumikhin was still remarkable because no setbacks ever embarrassed him and no bad circumstances, it seemed, could pin him down.” And Raskolnikov is crushed, driven to an extreme degree of despair. And Razumikhin, realizing that a friend (although Dostoevsky insistently writes "friend") in trouble no longer leaves him until the very trial. And at the trial he acts as a defender of Rodion and cites evidence of his spiritual generosity, nobility, testifying that "when he was at the university, from his last means he helped one of his poor and consumptive university friend and almost supported him for six months." The term for double murder was cut by almost half. Thus, Dostoevsky proves to us the idea of ​​God's providence, that people are saved by people. And let someone say that Razumikhin was not a loser by getting a beautiful wife, a friend's sister, but did he think about his own benefit? No, he was completely absorbed in caring for a person.

In IA Goncharov's novel Oblomov, Andrei Shtolts is no less generous and caring, who has been trying all his life to pull his friend Oblomov out of the swamp of his existence. He alone is able to lift Ilya Ilyich off the couch, to give movement to his monotonous philistine life. Even when Oblomov finally settles with Pshchenitsyna, Andrei makes several more attempts to lift him off the couch. Learning that Tarantiev and the manager of Oblomovka actually robbed a friend, he takes matters into his own hands and puts things in order. Although this does not save Oblomov. But Schtolz honestly fulfilled his duty to a friend, and after the death of an unlucky childhood comrade, he takes his son for upbringing, not wanting to leave the child in an environment that is literally dragged into the mud of idleness, philistinism.

M. Montaigne argued:

In friendship, there are no other calculations and considerations, except for itself.

Only this kind of friendship is real. If a person who calls himself a friend, suddenly starts asking for help, currying favor, or for the service rendered, he starts to settle scores, they say, I really helped you, but what did I do for me, give up such a friend! You will not lose anything except an envious look, an unfriendly word.