Category: Crime and Punishment

Introduction

Crimes can be different. Some people commit felonies due to despair and circumstances. Others enjoy the process and have no idea how to live differently. The difference between these two groups is the feeling of guilt. The people from the first group usually have a strong feeling of guilt, and it makes their life miserable. They subconsciously want to confess if not to law enforcement then to somebody at least. The representatives of the second group have no such feeling as their conscious concedes the right to do bad things and believe in their righteousness. However, there is a group of felons who think they can do anything and avoid punishment, but then, they cannot cope with the feeling of guilt. Rodion Raskolnikov is one of such people. Using the ingenuity of Fyodor Dostoevsky and his eternal masterpiece Crime and Punishment, the paper is going to prove the idea that the actual crime committed by Rodion Raskolnikov was the arrogance he had towards the world.

Actual Crime

The actual crime of Rodion Raskolnikov was not the fact of the double murder, intentional and conscious. It was a terrible deed by itself, but it was only the result of Raskolnikovs true crime. He is guilty of being too weak to admit his mediocrity and accept it (Dostoyevsky 103). Rodion wanted too much and had too little because, in his mind, he was too great. In reality, Rodion was just a regular young man with gigantic ambitions. On the one hand, ambitions are good since they create momentum and make people develop. On the other, Raskolnikov had not enough will to be the man he wanted to be.

He only wanted to dare according to his own words. Dostoyevsky described it as follows: & that power is only vouchsafed to the man who dares to stoop and pick it up. There is only one thing, one thing needful: one has only to dare! & I wanted to have the daring & and I killed her (739-740). It is clear that at some point, Rodion had found the courage to pick up the power he dreamt of so much. Unfortunately for him, Raskolnikov appeared to be not so outstanding as he thought he was. Sonya had made Rodion the man he was, conscious and good deep inside. This contradiction had made him so miserable that the inevitable punishment followed. Dostoyevsky depicted a man with unreasonable ambitions and goals not supported by the essence of this individual. It should be said that the author did it perfectly.

Conclusion

Summing, the paper proved the idea that the actual crime committed by Rodion Raskolnikov was the arrogance he had towards the world. Rodions problem was his inability to stick to the concept of his exceptionality and superiority over others. Such a contradiction between his conscience and arrogance has made Rodion be there where he appeared to be at the end of the novel. Raskolnikov made the wrong choice based on the wrong assumptions, so everything went wrong until then. The problem was in the lack of character strength that would help Rodion to be closer to the image he had made up in his head for himself. The inevitability of punishment, presented by Dostoyevsky, is based in this case solely on Raskolnikovs weak character and his inconsistency.

Works Cited

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Mineola: Dover Publications, 2001. Print.

The protagonist of Dostoevskys novel Crime and Punishment is a mediocre student Radion Raskolnikov, who commits a fatal crime. In the novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky shows that evil lurks in every person. Internal fears and insecurities, disappointments, poverty, and difficulties in life may catalyze the commission of a crime. Whatever are the factors that influenced Raskolnikovs crime, murder remains murder. In the same way, the greed and avarice of the old Alyona Ivanovna do not justify the commission of such a violent and severe crime. Probably, a person who is unable to influence the development of inner anger deserves pity, but by no means sympathy, nor justifying.

At the beginning of the novel, Dostoevsky portrays Raskolnikov as a fanatic who is eager to test his theory. According to Rosenshield (2020, p. 79), the student was inspired by the Great Man idea, in which actions of great men are justified by the god-like nature of their intentions. Long before the crime, Rodion Raskolnikov was trying to prove the rights of higher people to commit crimes, to reject the laws if crimes are committed in the name of a great idea. Social injustice and hopelessness had originated an absurd theory about higher and lower representatives of society in the protagonists mind. He attributed himself to the higher and, according to the theory he had the right to commit the murder.

Through the protagonists image, Fyodor Dostoevsky shows that evil and cruelty may lurk in every person. As Saner (2010, p. 12) states, people know what they are, but they do not know what they may be. Therefore, it should not be assumed that the only reason for committing a crime was adherence to the given theory. Perhaps Raskolnikov already had the inner evil that was required to commit the murder. According to Weinberg (n.d., p. 1078), peoples behavior is partly governed by their consciousness, so understanding behavior will necessarily require working out a detailed correspondence between the objective and subjective. Thus, Raskolnikovs intentions were stored deep in his subconscious and soul. Consequently, in every persons soul, there may be held eternal stigmata in the form of fear, pain, and agony, hurting which may awaken peoples cruelty and anger.

The stigma for Raskolnikov were poverty and injustice, one of the reasons for which was his future victim, an old woman Alyona Ivanovna. The woman, in his opinion, was not bringing any benefit to society, but only poisoning his life with her stinginess and heartlessness. Raskolnikov describes her in the most unpleasant terms since she was lending money at a high-interest rate. According to Dostoyevsky (2019, p. 6), she was a tiny, dried-up little old crone of around sixty, with sharp, evil-looking eyes and a short-pointed nose. In his opinion, she belonged to the lower category and, consequently, deserved to be punished. According to Neupane (2020, p.165), the protagonist murders a former pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, and his sister Elizaveta with a hope of freeing the society from corruption. By doing so, the main character eagers to reach justice and social balance in society.

The motivation for the murder, according to the villain, are good intentions. Raskolnikov believes that a hundred thousand good deeds could be done and helped, on that old womans money, hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path (Dostoyevsky, 2019, p. 63). Throughout the novel he devalues her life, deciding that her money may help other people. Intrusive thoughts arise in his head and order to kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all (Dostoyevsky, 2019, p. 63). Thereby, Dostoevsky describes how young people may get influenced by different theories and ideologies and may try to apply them before carefully and rationally analyze them.

Raskolnikov was longing to elevate violence justified by a primitive resentment, and took the first conscious step towards this, which should not be justified. However, ultimately, in the fight against inhumanity and cruelty, Raskolnikovs actions themselves are inhumane. He acts cruelly, thereby only increasing the amount of evil in society. According to Neupane (2020, p.165), he violates law of the land and moral codes to prove his extraordinary strength at the pretext of transforming society. Such a cruel and evil doing should not be justified by no means. Even though the pawnbroker was indeed a malicious old woman, it should not explain the committed crime. Raskolnikov, like every other person, has no right to decide who deserves to live in society and who does not. His negative attitude towards Alyona Ivanovna, the pursuit of a Great Man theory, nor his social status should not excuse the murder.

The senselessness of the theory and the intentions of Raskolnikov may be also proved by the fact that he did not use the pawnbrokers money for his initial goals. Instead, he hides it under a rock for fear of being taken for his crime (Neupane, 2020, p. 168). However, driven by fear, the protagonist realizes the cruelty of what he has done. One of the crucial characters who had influenced his confession was his wife, Sonia. According to Neupane (2020, p. 168), Sonia encourages Raskolnikov to go to the police and confess his crime to God and ask for forgiveness. Further, Dostoevsky describes the sufferings experienced by the criminal, thereby making him the victim of his own crime.

Throughout the novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky allegedly claims that through suffering lies the path to self-purification. Just like evil and cruelty, justice may lurk within every person. Internal punishment and remorse are the measures of a persons weaknesses and vices. Raskolnikov goes through mental agony after realizing his own mental deformity. However, the confession does not negate nor justify the fact of the murder and does not remove his guilt.

References

Dostoyevsky, F. (2019). Crime and Punishment. Independently published.

Neupane, K. (2020). Questioning the notion of Superman in Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment.Patan Pragya, 6(1), 165170.

Rosenshield, G. (2020). Crime and Punishment, Napoleon and the great man theory.The Journal of International Dostoevsky Society, 23, 78104.

Saner, R. (2010). My Fall into Knowledge.The Georgia Review, 64 (1), 9-23.

Weinberg, S. (2008). Without God. Independently Published.

Why would someone murder another? What goes through someone’s mind after committing murder? And how are murderers created? Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky tackled these questions in 1866, precisely 154 years ago, in what would become one of the most renowned books of Russian literature: ‘Crime and Punishment.’

Overview of the text

Analysis: This novel follows the story of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, a young law student in Saint Petersburg. At the start of the story, we read that he ran out of funds to continue his university studies because he lived in abject poverty. A message from his mother, Pulcheria, only adds to his misery because he realises how much his family sacrificed for his studies. After selling all that he had to a greedy, elderly lady, he became desperate to get out of his poverty, so he resolved on a plan to murder and rob her. But the impact of carrying out this act proves to be more monstrous than he thought it would have been.

Context

Analysis: This bleak portrait of Russian society at that time reflects the Dostoevsky’s life experiences and evolving ideas. As a writer who abandoned a promising military career, Dostoevsky focused on socialism and reform. He joined a group of intellectuals known as the Petrashevsky Circle to discuss revolutionary texts which were forbidden by the government. Upon being caught, Dostoyevsky and other members of this group were arrested. He was sentenced to death. Fortunately, it was only a mock execution. The next four years of his life was in a Siberian labour camp where he experience where he became pessimistic of the notions of social reform, while being interested towards religious and spiritual concerns.

Why this is a relevant choice for the course

Analysis: Crime and Punishment should be a text studied in the English ATAR course because there is a myriad of themes, issues, ideas and concepts which the author has either challenged or reinforced. When reading Crime and Punishment, I had to examine the different interpretations and perspectives of each character. I was able to do this because each character was given their own unique voice. Dostoevsky was influenced by and has influenced great thinkers of his time and of the times ahead. Because of his influence, we can easily compare his works with other prolific authors even if the work is a whole different genre. After reading the novel, I was contemplating and challenging the perspectives, values and attitudes of some characters within the text, which is what Unit 4 of the English ATAR course aims us to do. Through Raskolnikov, I had the opportunity to further learn about certain aspects of human experiences; in this case, the thoughts of a criminal. I was engaged in the ethical dilemmas that Raskolnikov faced, considered the reasons for his actions and the implications of his decisions. I have never read Russian literature before, so reading Crime and Punishment allowed me to make connections between the experiences of the characters in the novel. In the end, I was able to appreciate and empathise with the cultural beliefs, attitudes and values presented in Crime and Punishment.

Intertextual links: Connections to other texts

The works by other contemporary European authors influenced Dostoevsky’s writings when he became an author. During his exile in Siberia, the only book he had access to was the Bible, which he practically dissected during his time in the prison camp. Unsurprisingly, the Bible turned out to be profoundly influential on not only Crime and Punishment but many other of his famous works in later years. Through the novella ‘Notes from Underground,’ he put forward his conviction that utopian Western philosophies (such as those of William Godwin, who’s Mary Shelley’s father) could never satisfy the contradictory yearnings of the human soul. So basically, he challenged the philosophies of William Godwin which is what Mary Shelley did through her novel, ‘Frankenstein’. Going back to ‘Notes from Underground’, ‘Crime and Punishment’ picked up on many of the same themes in ‘Notes from Underground’. In many ways, the novel follows a familiar storyline where a promising youth is seduced and corrupted by the dangers of urban life. But its social critique cuts far more profoundly than that. Before he committed the murder, Raskolnikov rationalises that the woman’s death would be a net benefit to society not only him.

Ideas/Issues

In doing so, he reverberates the doctrines of utilitarianism socialism and egoism. He believed that his intelligence allowed him to transcend moral boundaries and commit acts such as murder. This, in turn, made Raskolnikov cut himself off from humanity.

Perspectives offered – Who is given a voice in the text? Who is privileged/marginalised? What values and attitudes are reinforced or challenged?

Conclusion

Analysis: One of the most remarkable things about ‘Crime and Punishment’ is its ability to thrill despite the shocking details of the murder being revealed in the first act. Raskolnikov’s crime is apparent, but it is through Dostoyevsky’s thrilling account of the foreboding psychological, social and physical turmoil that we learn the true nature of his crime and punishment – and the possibility of his redemption.

Introduction: The Interplay of Dreams and Guilt in “Crime and Punishment”

What are the true meaning of dreams? Why do people experience them? An Austrian neurologist from the nineteenth and twentieth century, Sigmund Freud, is the father of the Theory of Dreams. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel, Freud’s Theory of Dreams is highlighted throughout the book by revealing the characters inner secrets, desires, and problems that might have been burdening the character subconsciously; however, each of the character’s dreams tie back to one common theme: guilt.

Raskolnikov is a mentally ill man that constantly battles mentally with what is right and wrong. One thing he struggles with is the repercussions that follow with the murder of the pawn lady, until he finally confesses in the end. In order to foreshadow events to come, the author uses dreams so the reader can take a glimpse into the characters mind to see the issues they have between themselves and society.All of these segments to Freud’s theory play a key role in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. In the book, the main character, Raskolnikov, has multiple dreams that either lead up to or look back on major events that have occurred. All of these dreams have had multiple components relating to Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Dreams. Raskolnikov is a young student living in St. Petersburg, Russia that in the beginning has very anxious and introverted tendencies but also is quite awkward and taciturn with people. Throughout the characters’ progression we see that Raskolnikov shows many signs of a mental illness and would most likely be diagnosed as a psychopath. Due to his unique personality and symptoms of mental illness, the reader is given prime examples of Freud’s theory through Raskolnikov’s vivid dreams.

Freud’s Theory of Dreams: A Psychological Lens

Sigmund Freud is a credible neurologist that is most famous for his psychoanalysis of dream interpretation. This means that he studied what dreams mean both symbolically and literally. Freud explains that dreams are just your inner conscious’ desires, thoughts, and motivations. According to his theory, he believes that people are motivated strongly by sexuality or aggression, even if their outward personality does not show it; however, since many people do not show their motivations aggressively or sexually outwardly and openly, this is why these traits show up subconsciously in dreams. Freud also separates his dream theory into two separate categories: manifested and latent. In a manifested dream, this is where the person wakes up from the dream with knowledge of what happened in the dream, and latent dreams are when a person wakes up without any remembrance of their dream.

Not only did Freud believe that dreams revealed a person’s inner motives, but he also explains how “dreams are considered the guardian of sleep.” This is because dreams allow people to experience things that they fantasize about doing or accomplishing which is why sometimes people awake from dreams in order to carry out these tasks.

Later in life, Freud was referred to as the “Father of Psychoanalysis” because he started using these theories and studies to help diagnose and help people suffering from mental illnesses. He continues to describe in his theory how people who have experienced a traumatic event as a child often have anxiety in their adult lives and often the source of it is in their dreams where they symbolically relive the trauma.

The Psychic Apparatus: Id, Ego, and Superego in Dreams

What Freud calls the “Psychic Apparatus” is another big part of his dream theory. In this he breaks up the psyche into three parts: the Id, the ego, and the superego. The Id portion of the psyche, he says, is what is responsible for a person’s instincts like survival tactics and energy. Next is the ego, this part of a person’s psyche is where a person’s goals and wants are carried out in a way that is “socially acceptable.” And Lastly, a person’s superego is the part of the mind that ensures that a person lives by moral standards. The superego plays a major part when a person feels guilty, this is because when there is inner conflict between what is right and what is wrong then the superego steps in if the wrong choice is made and creates a sense of guilt.

Raskolnikov’s Inner Conflict: Dreams as Windows to the Soul

Raskolnikov’s first dream refers to when he was with his father as a young boy. In this dream, they are walking down the street together when they see a drunk man named Mikolka and his friends abuse an old horse. The horse was already pulling a load too heavy for its age and when it failed to perform, they began to beat the horse to death. As they were beating the horse, Mikolka grabbed an axe and killed the horse in front of Raskolnikov and his father. This was foreshadowing the murder of the pawn lady, Alonya Ivanova, and the next events to come. In this dream, the horse symbolizes Alonya, Mikolka symbolizes Raskolnikov’s inner evil, and the young boy symbolizes Raskolnikov’s caring and compassionate side. In the dream, Mikolka justifies that killing the horse was necessary because it was useless to society since it could not pull the heavy cart. This parallels to Raskolnikov’s thought process as to why he killed Alonya, in both situations they thought that they did no good for the world so they believed that their deaths would actually benefit the Earth. Simultaneously, Raskolinkov’s adolescent self represents his caring and compassionate side as the book states, “suddenly he leaps up and flings himself on Mikolka, striking out in a frenzy with his fists” (Dostoevsky 57). This quote represents Raskonikov’s conscious trying to fight for what is right, but unfortunately his empathetic side did not win and this is when we see Raskolnikov’s first feeling of guilt.

Raskolnikov’s second dream occurs after the murder of Alonya, the pawn lady, and the dream is surrounding the guilt that he is enduring. In his second dream, Raskolnikov watches his elderly landlady get beaten violently by Petrovich, the police officer. While this dream is similar to his first and to the actual murder of Alonya, it is very clear that this book revolves around the paroxysm and guilt of society. Another similarity between the events is the horrific detailing that the author used to emphasize the extremity of the violence. In this dream, he vividly states “never in his life heard such weird sounds – howls, wails, grinding of teeth, blows curses” (Dostoevsky 110). As he wakes up from this terribly gruesome nightmare in consternation, we see Raskolnikov experience guilt one again; however, as the guilt consumes him Raskolnikov becomes very faint and physically ill.

The Evolution of Guilt: Raskolnikov’s Dreams Over Time

Prior to Raskolnikov’s third dream, we see him frantically worrying as he thinks that Porfiry suspects him for killing Alyona, as he is walking home from the police station with his mind spiraling because he is convinced that he will be caught, he has another iteration that sends him off of the edge. As he is walking down the street, he comes across a man that approaches him and accuses him of being the murderer. When Raskolnikov finally arrives back to his house, he is very bilious as he goes to sleep. In his third dream, he relives murdering Alyona except this time, it was not the same. The second time Raskolnikov murdered Alyona, it was even more sickening than the first time, because this time she bursted into laughter and Raskolnikov was unable to kill her no matter how violent he was. “He was overcome with frenzy and began hitting the old woman on the head with all his force, but at every blow of the axe the laughter and whispering from the bedroom grew louder and the old woman was simply shaking with mirth. He was rushing away, but the passage was full of people…”(Dostoevsky 267). This quote shows that Raskolnikov has lost his fight with guilt, now even in his dreams his guilt consumes him. Even his subconscious is mocking him and laughing at him now, because he cannot accept what he did and he has now let the guilt take over his mind. It is very evident that Raskolnikov thought at first that he was an “extraordinary” man as he impudently compared himself to killers like Stalin, but as we watch his dreams progress and his mind shut down with guilt it is quite obvious that he breaks down and is not as extraordinary and anomalous as he originally believed.

Even though Freud’s psychoanalysis proves that Raskolnikov’s actions were a product of his inner wants and desires, that might not be the only case. Throughout the text, Dostoevsky also makes it obvious that Raskolnikov suffers from mental illness. The author never bluntly states what mental state that Raskolnikov is in, however, it is clear by his actions that he has psychopathic tendencies due to his violent and antisocial behavior. It is possible that Raskolnikov’s dreams and actions were a product of his mental illness, so a jump to conclusions about his desires might not be completely accurate.

Conclusion: The Moral and Psychological Implications of Dreams

Although Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Dreams does not translate to Raskolnikov perfectly, it is evident that his dreams are partially correlated to Freud’s theory. In Raskolnikov’s first dream the symbolism behind it was obvious which leads to the belief that killing the woman was one of his inner secrets that was being foreshadowed of getting carried out. In his second dream, his selfish desire for wanting the woman dead brought him great inner punishment by his own guilt sickening him through his dreams which further proves Sigmund Freud’s theory. Lastly, Freud’s theory is proven the strongest in Raskolnikov’s third dream. In this dream, his subconscious problems come out as he is mocked and laughed at in his own dream as he attempts to kill the pawn lady repeatedly. At this point his guilt has won and he is slowly drowning in his own worry and sorrow, which proves his true feelings about his actions. Throughout the book, Raskolnikov’s true thoughts about murder change and develop as his personality and character advances. In the beginning he believed that he was helping society by killing Alyona, until his inner conscious and morality stepped in and guilt set in. Crime and Punishment is a prime example of Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Dreams because it shows the characters’ desires and the punishments they face when they carry out their actions. This also relates to society today in the way that just because you wish something to be true, does not mean it is morally right and will come without consequences.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was well informed about the newest ideas and the most recent philosophical concepts of his time. Dostoevsky focuses on the human ethics which are much essential for mankind to survive on the planet with peace of mind. Ethics refers to the moral values that preside over a person’s actions. In his novel, Crime and Punishment, his characters are driven by inner emotions that were just being investigated towards the end of life. Sigmund Freud’s exploration of the psychological state of one’s mind were being published only after Dostoevsky penned studies of the mental forces that drive a person to commit certain acts which are against ethical values. As a psychologist, Dostoevsky was well ahead to Sigmund Freud. His descriptions of the inner emotions are psychologically realistic and true. Dostoevsky’s novels anticipated many ideas of Nietzsche and Freud. Nietzsche quotes: “…the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn: he belongs to the happiest windfall of my life, happier even than the discovery of Stendhal” (Bloom vii).

The manner in which the novel deal with Crime and Punishment is not exactly what one actually expects. The crime happens in the beginning and the punishment comes hundreds of pages later in the Epilogue. The real focus of the novel is not on the beginning or the end but on what lies between them, an in-depth exploration of the psyche of the criminal. The inner world of Raskolnikov, with all its doubts, deliria, second-guessing, fear and despair is the heart of the story. He experiences these feelings when he loses the basic ethics of life.

Dostoevsky is not concerned with the actual consequence of the murder but with the way the murder forces Raskolnikov to deal with tormenting guilt. He focuses so little on Raskolnikov’s imprisonment. Dostoevsky suggests that the actual punishment is much less terrible than the stress and anxiety of trying to avoid punishment. Raskolnikov’s psychology is placed in the centre and carefully interwoven with the ideas behind his transgression. Every other feature of the novel illuminates the agonizing dilemma in which Raskolnikov is caught because of his deed.

Raskolnikov’s overhearing of a discussion about killing the pawn broker from a young officer and student, solidifies his resolve to commit the murder. Rasolikov overhears the conversation: “If one were to kill her and take her money, in order with its help to devote oneself to the service of all mankind . . . one life – thousands of lives rescued from corruption and decay. One death to hundred lives – I mean, there’s arithmetic for you (80).

This is crucial to Raskolnikov’s psychology. He is extremely reluctant to kill Alyona before he overhears the conversation and truly desires to kill her after overhearing. He is simply waiting for a sign that he is fated to do so. Again he overhears that Alyona will be alone at home next evening. He senses that situation support his decision to commit the act of murder.

The protagonist has committed the crime of premeditated murder. Only one murder was actually premeditated, the one committed against Alyona. Lizaveta, her tortured sister faced an unintentional death. Rasolniov is forced to kill her when he fails to shut the door and she enters in.

In the act of committing the crime, Raskolnikov’s character swings between a cold blooded murderer and a bumbling criminal. He has the conscious of mind to clean the axe and his boots, “he kicked off his boots: ‘yes there are marks! The whole toe of the sock is saturated in blood’” (112). But he fails to close the door before murdering the old woman. His reason and will failed him at certain points in the murders. Raskolnikov successfully commits the crime, but his conscience is unable to live with himself. His ethical inner conscience torments him.

Raskolnikov at first justifies his act of killing the pawnbroker. He believes that the woman is less than a human and feels that she has no reason to live. Raskolnikov says: “. . . all I killed was a louse – a loathsome, useless, harmful louse!” (497). He thinks that he is a superior being and has a right to kill her. After carelessly killing both women, Raskolnikov realises that he did not commit a perfect crime. This devastates his ego. So he tries to cling to his self perception. He is plagued with the feeling of guilt. His guilt, combined with mistakes he made during the crime, shatter his self perception of perfection.

The criminal undergoes many struggles and conflict within his inner mind. The thought of his deed even drags him to the edge of madness. Raskolnikov is physically feverish and mentally perplexed in his panic. His horrible confusion after his crime is accompanied by physical illness. He falls in and out of fitful sleep, shivering and faints in the police station at the mention of the crime. This incident makes Ilya Petrovich to pepper him with suspicious questions.

The struggling psyche of Raskolnikov now asks the question, how he can stop the guilt? This is illustrated best in this inner dialogue: he had to put an end to all that, today, right away, once and for all because he did not want to live like that. Put an end to it- but how? By what means put an end to it? About this he had no conception. He did not even want to think of it. He drove away thoughts painfully, thought tracked him down. He only felt, he only knew, one way or another; everything had to be change. (159)

The rest of Crime and Punishment is devoted to the question, how can Raskolnikov change? He is left with nothing but guilt, fear and knawing desire for freedom from his conscience. He yearns for an ethical transformation.

The novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky was known as an advocate for the impoverished in Russian society, however he had strong criticisms to socialism and its implications. Socialism is defined as a “political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole” (Oxford Dictionary). The novel highlights the turmoil of the social exclusion of 19th century Russia’s lower class, and seems to critique the utopian vision of fixing Russian society so that everyone would be on equal footing. Dostoevsky frames his arguments throughout much of the novel through one character, Raskolnikv, in order to illustrate the reality of what it actually means to take a life rather than from the abstraction about the ethics of trading one life for the betterment of society. In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky critiques socialist St. Petersburg in his portrayal of Roskolnikov’s crime and eventual atonement.

Dostoevsky does not seem to agree with the idea that actions taken in pursuit of a better society are necessarily good. He sees in this seemingly innocent theory a potential justification for violence. One of Raskolnikov’s arguments for committing murder was that by killing Alyona he is benefiting others in society. He contends, “Crime? What crime?…That I killed a vile, pernicious louse, a little old money-lending crone who was of no use to anyone, to kill whom is worth forty sins forgiven, who sucked the life-sap from the poor – is that a crime?” (Dostoevsky 518). Dostoevsky is illustrating that despite what Rasknolnkov believed, no one in poverty benefited from the murder of the Ivanovna sisters. Dostoevsky is criticizing the utilitarian idea that Raskolnikov is doing humanity the most good by committing one simple crime. He displays this as he shows Raskolnikov grappling back and forth with his true motives for committing the murders, as Raskolnikov at one point admits, “It was not to help my mother that I killed – nonsense! I did not kill so that, having obtained means and power, I could become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I simply killed – killed for myself, for myself alone – and whether I would become anyone’s benefactor, or spend my life like a spider..should at that moment have made no difference to me” (Dostoevsky 419). Dostoevsky is pointing out that Raskolnikov’s act of violence makes no difference on the societal structure of Russia at the time, and that this utilitarian mindset is not the solution to fixing the operations of the government and class systems.

Aside from Raskolnikov, several other of the characters seem preoccupied with their social class and status, notably Katerina Marmeladov. She embodies the lower class’s jealousy of the elite’s material and extravagant lifestyle. Katerina was born into a wealthy family and fell into a life of poverty, but seems to continue to desire to prove her original noble social status. Following her husband’s death, she spends an enormous amount on the funeral reception, which could have been spent towards rent or food that her family desperately needs. Katerina wished “to show all these ‘worthless and nasty tenants’ not only that she ‘knew how to live and how to entertain’ but that she had even been brought up for an altogether different lot, that she had been brought up ‘in a noble, one might even say aristocratic, colonel’s house’ and was not at all prepared for sweeping the floor herself and washing the children’s rags at night” (Dostoevsky 378). Despite her family’s obvious poverty, she has a strong desire to show that she is still of a high social rank and status. Dostoevsky demonstrates the twisted preoccupation with class throughout the extravagant funeral feast scene, as Amalia demands that Katerina and her family vacate their apartment because they are unable to pay rent. He displays that it is impossible to fix or alter class structures by simple willpower, but rather they are ingrained in the existing structure of society.

Another one of Dostoevsky’s major critiques of socialism begins with its atheism. He believed that the spiritual nature of human beings must be addressed, while socialism tends to concern itself with man’s material needs. He argues this point while illustrating that Raskolnikov can only become truly redeemed through the help of God. When Raskolnikov murdered Alyona he “flung the crosses on the old woman’s body and rushed back into the bedroom.” He has a clear disregard for God and the concept of religion, so Dostoevsky utilizes the character of Sonya to help serve Raskolnikov’s path to rebirth and redemption. The concept of religion strongly influences Sonya throughout the novel and helps her remain strong and faithful through the horrific things she has faced throughout her life. She is eventually able to help Raskolnikov identify some sort of faith to recognize his wrongdoings and redeem himself. It is only when he reaches this place of faith and religion that Raskolnikov is able to face his punishment to eventually return to society. Dostoevsky is showing that individuals cannot reach a higher level in society through violent actions or selfish motivations and interests. Raskolnikov originally thought that he could help society by committing murder, but comes to realize at the end of the novel that he can truly help society by living a life of faith and love.

Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky takes several strong stances on his political views and attitudes towards socialism. While he did believe that the impoverished deserved access to higher economic status, he rejects the traditional socialist ideas of how this is to be achieved. Through the portrayal of Katerina Marmeladov, Dostoevsky illustrates his belief that socialists should not focus their attention on material goods or social class, but rather the importance of the individual human person and their spiritual development. The character Raskolnikov is able to achieve spiritual redemption regardless of the crime that he committed. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment exhibits his views that a better society is not achieved through materialism or an exactly equal distribution of class and money, but rather through individual spiritual and emotional healing.

In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s psychological drama, Crime and Punishment, protagonist Rodion Raskolnikov’s theorizes that there are certain extraordinary individuals in society to whom mundane laws do not apply as they are “supermen” whose primary objective is the betterment of society through any means necessary. The influences of others on the protagonist, as well as dreams, symbols, and themes function to depict Raskolnikov’s psychological progression and moral redemption through his failed pursuit of becoming a superman. Through his transformative journey, Dostoevsky shows how Raskolnikov’s fragmented stages of confession, explanation, education, and transformation help him learn that he can achieve fulfillment in life without setting himself apart from society and becoming an extraordinary individual, as well as help in clarifying the nature of Raskolnikov’s regeneration (Dauner).

A crucial component of his character, Raskolnikov’s superman theory influences much of his psychological experiences throughout the book, as they are all associated with the idea of him testing his postulation. Prior to committing the murders, Raskolnikov believes that he is an extraordinary man, thus takes the stance that he is exempt from abiding by the statutes of society and can break laws as he pleases. He suggests that “extraordinary men” including Napoleon, Lycurgus, Mahomet, and Solon: …were criminals, from the fact alone that in giving a new law they thereby violated the old one, held sacred by society and passed down from their fathers, and they certainly did not stop at shedding blood either, if it happened…that blood could help them (260).

Using this self-absorbed and egotistical mentality, he decides to commit the heinous crime of murdering Alonya, with the belief that it is merely a test to determine if he is indeed an extraordinary man who is able to transcend the obligations of morality. From the beginning, Raskolnikov tends to compare himself to other individuals; he feels that in order to amount to something meaningful during his lifetime, he must achieve the status of being an extraordinary man such as those aforementioned, thus showing how he is motivated by his societal image. Raskolnikov experiences a deluge of emotions as he debates whether or not he should kill the old crone, ultimately justifying his formulation of the crime by claiming that he is relieving society of evil. He rationalizes: Kill her and take her money, so that afterwards with its help, you can devote yourself to the service of all of mankind and the common cause: what do you think, wouldn’t thousands of good deeds make up for one tiny little crime? For one ‘ife, thousands of lives saved from decay and corruption. One death for hundreds of lives—it’s simple arithmetic! (65)

Renowned scholar of Russian literature, Edward Wasiolek suggests that Raskolnikov’s overt motivations are “…to be a benefactor of family and humanity or to be a superman exempt from the normal constraints of law…” through which “Raskolnikov seems to be saying: I did the murder because I am a special and heroic personality” (Wasiolek). Raskolnikov’s pompous mentality exhorts him to test the boundaries of morality while his belief in extraordinary men and his cognitive dissonance leads him to truly believe that what he is doing is not wrong.

In spite of his cruel intentions, Raskolnikov’s subconscious thoughts revealed within his dreams manifest his intrinsic capacity for morality. In his first dream, Raskolnikov is a young boy accompanying his father to visit the countryside. The two pass by an atrocious scene in which a drunken man, Mikolka, brutally beats his horse to the point of death. Young Raskolnikov cannot bear to see this sight and rushes in to stop Mikolka. Scholar Ruth Mortimer suggests that this dream parallels Raskolnikov’s reality, as she divulges that “Behind Mikolka’s act of violence lies the larger design of Raskolnikov’s intended murder of the old woman” (p.110) On the surface, Mikolka’s killing of the horse symbolizes an aspect of Raskolnikov’s murder plan, however delving deeper into the meaning of this dream, the main individuals, Mikolka, the horse, and young Raskolnikov, all represent certain attributes of Raskolnikov’s persona. Just like Mikolka kills his horse because he believes that it is his property, Raskolnikov seeks to assert control and power over others through his irrational crime. The horse represents Raskolnikov’s inner strife as he feels helplessly trapped and suffocated upon committing the crime. Finally, young Raskolnikov symbolizes the compassion that Raskolnikov gains towards the end of the novel, insinuating his redemption. Raskolnikov’s empathy towards the mare indicates that he possesses the capacity for emotion, despite his murderous objective. Even prior to the crime, these manifestations of Raskolnikov in his dream foreshadow the journey towards moral redemption that he will undergo as a result of his actions.

Upon murdering the old woman, Raskolnikov launches his descent to insanity, his mind completely bereft of any purity or practicality. Fully overwhelmed by emotions following his actions, Raskolnikov is unable to cope with his mental state after the fact. He questions why he actually killed the old crone, wondering to himself “…how is it that so far you…do not know what you’ve actually gained, or for what you’ve accepted all these torments and started out on such mean, nasty, vile business?”(110), as he struggles to explain what impact he actually made by killing Alonya. After he commits the murder, Raskolnikov mentally and physically cannot bear his asphyxiating guilt and isolation from those he loves, and as a result Svidrigailov’s imperviousness to moral responsibility attracts Raskolnikov, whose emotional turmoil in this clouded state of mind constantly consumes him. Tortured by the mental ostracization from his family and friends, Raskolnikov observes the painless and emotionless lifestyle that Svidrigailov lives, and almost wishes that he could live in the same manner, detached from humanity, and free from feeling guilty. Although Svidrigailov’s abhorrent description of the beating of his wife depicts his utter moral debility and depravity, as he perversely declares that “…man in general finds it extremely pleasant to be insulted…but it’s especially so with women” (283), Svidrigailov ironically declares that his “conscience is quite at rest” (282), indicating his oblivion to decency and values, and showing how Svidrigailov symbolizes the sin of living without a conscience. Raskolnikov acknowledges Svidrigailov’s lack of humanity, yet rather than condemning him, Raskolnikov envies Svidrigailov’s superman-like ability to disregard his emotions. He laughs scathingly, knowing that he can never dismiss his actions in the same egregious and self-willed way that Svidrigailov is able to. Not only does this coincide with Raskolnikov’s superman theory, as Svidrigailov appears to be an extraordinary man who is able to is unable to handle what he has done, but it also reveals how Raskolnikov realizes that he has begun to fail at becoming like one of these extraordinary men.

Raskolnikov’s dreams following the murder function to depict how he feels immediately after committing the crime and entail the long term psychological torment that he experiences for a mojority of the remainder of the novel. The second dream of the police official beating the landlady, in particular, is “imaginatively closer to his emotional experience of the crime than is the actual murder scene” (Mortimer, 112). This is because the ‘Dostoevskij’s alienated hero spontaneously reaches back into the human inventory of unconscious thought, images, and actions to create his own special meaning and sense of purpose’ (Anderson, p.2)

An intolerable, pressing need to confess and lift a burden off of Raskolnikov’s chest relentlessly torments him until his confession of the crime to Sonya, whose love symbolizes Christian modesty, enables him to achiece redemption and once again join society. As Raskolnikov regains his aptitude for emotion and ability to love, modest and pious Sonya reflects how spirituality overcomes the intellectual elements of Raskolnikov’s soul and beliefs. After the murder, accepting that suffering will be a part of his redemption, Raskolnikov “pursues the punishment of society so that he can feel victimized, and thus justified; and on a deeper level, so that by the punishment he may be…forced back into the fold of humanity” (Wasiolek, 257). He acknowledges that “all this ceaseless anxiety and all this horror of the soul could not go without consequences” (426) thus, his need to seek out suffering motivates his final confession, and his true cognizance of himself and also reflect his sense of spirit. Marking the initiation of how the Raskolnikov realizes what must be done to redeem himself in society, he abandons his objective of becoming a superman and stops trying to prove his theory. This ultimately allows his spiritual side to prevail, because his affliction and disillusionment teach him how to feel again. Raskolnikov endures the suffering that all ordinary people, whom he formerly abhorred experience, and this experience humbles him, as he reconncts with humanity which gives him a reason to live.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once stated, ‘Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience but nothing is a greater cause of suffering.’ Thus, being nothing or accomplishing nothing in life insinuates that failure is inevitable. A particular example of this is in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment; in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment there are some differences to Michael Darlow’s 1979 movie adaptation but the similarities are strikingly evident. During the exploration of the similarities and differences of the novel and the 1979 movie adaptation of Crime and Punishment, three overlapping themes will be observed. The first theme that will be examined is the setting and ways in which the book and movie are similar and different. Secondly, the theories behind the protagonist’s mindset will be explored and how these show and develop throughout the book and movie. Lastly, the protagonist’s actions in the way in which it affects the human mind will be seen.

The setting of any piece of work provides a base for any story, including the characters that populate it; In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky paints the picture of the St. Petersburg expansion and how it plays into the everyday lives of all the characters. The similarities of the setting in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment and Michael Darlow’s 1979 movie adaptation can be viewed widely to the point where there are barely any differences. Connections that arise in both the novel Crime and Punishment and the film adaptation include the period (the 1860s) in which the St. Petersburg expansion occurs, how the characters live and take part in their everyday lives and the contrast between the rich and poor with light and darkness. In the novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky paints the picture of the city with the quote

“The heat in the street was terrible: and the airlessness, the bustle and the plaster, scaffolding, bricks, and dust all about him, and that special Petersburg stench, so familiar to all who are unable to get out of town in Summer all worked painfully upon the young man’s already overwrought nerves… Owing to the proximity of the Haymarket, the number of establishments of bad character, crowded in these streets and alleys in the heart of Petersburg.”(Prt1, Ch1, Pg10)

The 1979 movie by Micheal Darlow demonstrates a view of a dirty, polluted city going through construction and modernization with drunks fighting, begging kids, and prostitutes all over the streets. The differences in the setting can be seen minorly within the book and movie as both the book and movie are very detailed in the same way, this difference can be seen in the contrast between rich and poor. In the novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky demonstrates the poor with the lack of good clothing, starvation, and irritability and the rich with lots of well-ended clothing, intellectual academics and with lots of food. At the novel beginning, the protagonist Raskolnikov is described as so badly dressed that even a man accustomed to shabbiness would not want his clothing and that he is so poor he’s been starving and shrinking for three weeks. While in the movie Micheal Darlow demonstrates the poor with lacking lights gloomeded by darkness, living in small and impoverished places and having nothing, the rich had windows filled with beautiful lights coming in huge big rooms, filled with wealth and anything they wished. Although there are some differences in setting the similarities to overtake how closely the novel and movie match, as the only main difference between the book and movie, is that the movie played with light and shadow to demonstrate differences between those people and places that are rich and those that are poor.

“That’s the thing about books. They let you travel without moving your feet.” Jhumpa Lahiri once famously said. The books—no matter what time and what year—have always something to tell, something to give and the texts are always ready to hold our hand and take us to the journey full of adventures, dreams, reality, pain, love, imagination, lessons, future, past, and many other things one can think of and one cannot think of. In general, the books might get old and worn out but the meaning, the information, and the voice the texts contain will be alive and fresh through the lane of time and the novel Crime and Punishment is no exception. Crime and Punishment depict the human psychology of a murderer and address the legal system. And these topics will never get old and its relevance to society will never fade, making the novel all time valuable text.

Fyodor Dostoevsky (11 November 1821 – 9 February 1881) was one of the greatest novelists, philosophers, and psychologists in world literature. He was born in Moscow, Russia. From his early life, he was exposed to the world of literature through fairy tales and books by Russian and foreign authors, which deepened his interest in literature (History.com Editors 2009). His works are highly impacted and shaped by the events that happened in his life. He was struck by many tragedies in his life, making his life synonyms to suffering: his mother died when he was 15, his father died when he was 17, he was sentenced to death but was pardoned at the last moment, he spent four years in a Siberian prison camp for involving with St. Petersburg’s literary circles that discussed banned books against Tsarist Russia, his brother died, his wife died, and he was facing bankruptcy in many parts of his life (Brintlinger 2016). His most famous and influential works include Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and Brother Karamazov. The acclaimed novel Crime and Punishment was published in twelve months installments in 1866 in the literary journal The Russian Messenger (Wikipedia). The book after its publication became a hit in Russia and soon spread throughout the world.

Even after 153 years, the book is beloved among the audience and it is more relevant to the world than ever. There is still value in reading the novel as it takes us to the heart of how some of the crimes are committed and what compels a person to cross the boundaries set by society and the law. The novel reflects the debate between Nature and Nurture, supporting the latter one. A poor, ex-student Raskolnikov lives alone in a small attic; he doesn’t interact with many people except his friend, and sometimes his landlady and her daughter. So, most of his lonely time, he spends imagining and creating circumstances to liberate himself from poverty and live a sound life. He makes up his own institution in his mind, caring less for society and what it has to offer or exchange, and embracing the solitude and its consequences. As his thoughts get deeper and his distance from society intense, he begins to treat himself as the representative of those people who are in similar situations as he is in and who is not able to do anything for themselves. Consequently, his focus shifts from individualism to collectivism: he treats himself as the leader of all those people—in Dostoevsky’s words, “extraordinary person”—to deliver justice to the suppressed people either by uplifting their condition or destroying the superior person who is dominating the oppressed. In this situation, no one is there to stop Raskolnikov, assist him, or guide him because he is doing everything on his own and there is less impact from the external environment. At last, his rational thoughts and intellectual ideas begin to appear clearer and more concrete to him, forcing him to kill the pawnbroker. Plus, he overhears two people talking that the pawnbroker was taking unnecessary money from the poor, which further strengthens his willpower and make him feel that he is in the right path indeed. Such ideas from the texts give us insight on a person’s nature and to what extent the external environment impacts the behavior of the person. As we are always in a constant process of knowing a person’s behavior, the reason behind their action, their mental health, such texts can be relevant and beneficial to know in depth a person’s behavior.

Also, the novel successfully shows us how crime isolates people and the other way too—isolation can cause crime. After murdering the pawnbroker, Raskolnikov avoids people as much as he can, even if it’s his mother or sister. The wave of guilty bothers him all the time. He is in a state of confusion about whether to confess or not. And the stream of fear and doubt about whether the police already know he is the murderer is lurking behind him (Martinsen 2016).

Many people after committing a crime cannot withstand the weight of their actions. Haunted by the past and dragging from the pit of salvation, sooner or later, people begin to search for the redemption of their actions and the salvation of their souls. At last, it is the love that wins the heart not the war. Likewise, Raskolnikov confesses his crime to Sonya, a prostitute, his lover, and as he calls her a representative of “all the sufferings of humanity.” Therefore, he is not an “extraordinary person” because he surrendered to the police, failing to avoid punishment for his crime. In the real world, many people blame themselves not because they committed the crime but because they couldn’t get away with the crime. They have their own logic behind their actions, which they think is always right in their eye (Samenow 2018).

Another famous debatable issue Crime and Punishment addresses is whether a first-degree charged person should be given capital punishment or not. Raskolnikov murdered two people but he was sent to Siberia for eight years instead of being executed. The issue of capital punishment raised by the novel is important and relevant today because most of countries still practice the different forms of capital punishment. On the other hand, the remaining countries rebuke the idea and favor life imprisonment instead. The novel gives an opportunity to rethink the punishment that should be given to criminals. It is trying to imply that a person murdered two people because he was having psychological issues; therefore, he should not be given harsh punishments like an execution.

Most of the cases of suicides and other criminal activities in this world are caused by the internal struggle of a person. The worst thing is other people fail to understand or even recognize their sufferings. And the person who is suffering alone had to fight with a split personality ruling inside the person’s body; eventually, they lose the battle and the unwanted action is done. Crime and Punishment prove to be one of the guiding paths for psychologists or laymen to treat and understand patients through the medium of Psychoanalysis. The novel teaches us that the basis to understanding any person’s problem is to understand their feelings, know what is bothering them recently, what fears they are enduring, check on them frequently and not allow them to live alone and be swallowed by the black hole of harmful thoughts (Wilson 2018).

The novel is extraordinarily charged with literary devices, making it a masterpiece in the world of literature. Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel, thinks of himself as an “extraordinary person”, who is above the law and moral norms of society. The novel begins the plot of Raskolnikov murdering the pawnbroker and her sister because he treated himself as an “extraordinary person” and the rest is the aftermath of the novel, where there are settings on whether he can be an extraordinary person or not. Many times, the thought of confessing to the police occurs to him, but he remains composed; however, after he met Sonya, he confesses to her. Therefore, he couldn’t be an extraordinary citizen because in the name of feelings and salvation, he confessed to Sonya and received the punishment for his crime. To make the idea of an extraordinary person clearer to the public, Dostoevsky narrates Raskolnikov’s inner thoughts in the omniscient third person. Otherwise, it would have been difficult to understand the cause and motive behind the action or what people were thinking at the same time. The bowing of Raskolnikov to the feet of God for the salvation for the murder of Lizaveta is an allegory to the Lazarus of the Bible (Gleghorn 2006).

In conclusion, though Crime and Punishment was published 153 years ago, it displays the nature and the behavior of a murderer, his internal struggles, his longing for salvation, and the punishment he receives for the crime, which is relevant today. It helps us to understand the psychology of a person, a murderer especially. Though some readers find the novel disturbing as there is murder, suffering, sex, jealousy, conflict within oneself, and complex; however, that’s the reality of the world and human behavior.

One of the most notorious hate crimes in American history titles the prominent lynching of a young 14 year old boy in the Mississippi Delta of 1955. Emmett Till reportedly flirted with a white woman while purchasing candy at a grocery store. Soon after he was kidnapped by two white men, brutally murdered, and tossed away into the Tallahatchie River. The author Timothy B. Tyson conveys the message of this horrific event as a milestone in American history. In his book The Blood of Emmett Till he describes the heinous murder itself along with its unjust trial. Through the course of his book, Tyson explicates the meaning behind the lynching that provoked protests across the country, strengthened memberships against white supremacy, and inspired people to fight for Civil Rights.

Tyson is a civil rights historian, telling the story of an event that occurred over 50 years ago. In that time many articles and several books have been published; the lynching is well known. However, Tyson revised history and added more unknown details to the Till case. He separated himself from other authors by placing the only interview ever conducted with Carolyn Bryant, the woman who made the accusations that lead to the brutal and gory death of a young boy. In that interview, he uncovered some of the untruthful accounts told in the 1955 trial. He gained access to the murder trial transcript that had only been discovered in 2005.

The 1950’s was a time full of discrimination, white supremacy, and racism. The mindset of the white public and their ability to interact with blacks was unethical. In his book, Tyson introduced readers to what it was like being a colored person in the time period. In chapters 9 and 10 he discussed the political issues of public school integration with the Brown vs. Board of education case and blacks right to vote. People who had supported public school desegregation lost their jobs, insurance policies, and were even violently threatened until they gave up. Tyson reflected upon another murder case to illustrate the treatment of any defiant blacks. This was the story of George Lee, who was shot and killed as a result of not removing his name from the voter registration list. These small examples of inflammatory political issues served as the key setting to Tyson’s book as well as the Till murder.

Overall Tyson gave readers an impeccable inquiry into the well-known tragedy of Emmett Till. However in some places the organization and telling of the event felt off. Tyson had jumped around in the beginning of his book. In early chapters, Tyson covered the death of Till and then later he was introducing the story of Till’s birth and where he had grown up. The overall telling of Till’s life may have been better displayed if it was organized chronologically. Also, Tyson had the tendency to circle around the same information. It felt as if he was retelling a lot of the story. Lastly, in his book, Tyson told the story of Emmett Till and other events going on in the time period. The extra information helped to give a background around the Till case, however some of the commentary between the main event made the book difficult get through at times.

Tyson had an exceedingly well developed a central purpose in his book to distinguish that nothing Emmett Till ever did justified what had happened to him. He directly expressed this message to readers from the very first chapter when he revealed the false accusations and that very heavy statement from Carolyn Bryant herself. Tyson went into detail of how Emmett was raised and the morals he learned from his own mother. The boy overstepped some racial boundaries, but his brutal beating and death was not a fit justification for the smart talking and whistle that he gave a white woman. Tyson’s evocative description of Till’s body further connected readers to the lynching. One example is when described Emmett as “brutally beaten beyond recognition.”

When a colored person was killed at the hands of a white man it was often overlooked far beyond the public eye and even through the court systems. However the lynching of Emmett Till was one case that could not be ignored. Several times in his book, Tyson highlighted the significance that this race case held over the Civil Rights movement. The open casket funeral and the display of Till’s brutally beaten body was an eye opening experience for the public. Emmett Till had become the inspiration for change. That same year civil rights activist Rosa Parks had Emmett on her mind when she had refused to give up her seat to a white man on a public transportation bus. The case of Emmett Till is notorious for how it galvanized the spark of the already emerging Civil Rights movement. Also, throughout his book Tyson included quotes from several people of opposing races that had further connected readers with the time period.