By defining the difference between an ordinary man and an “‘extraordinary man,’” Raskolnikov’s meeting with Porfiry serves as a benchmark for Raskolnikov’s reflections in his conversations with Sonya, exposing his biggest flaw of rejecting the truth about his guilt. While Porfiry interviews Raskolnikov as a suspect for the murder, Raskolnikov claims an “‘extraordinary man’” can “‘allow his conscience to … step over certain obstacles,’” confirming his guilty conscience already deviates from this ideal of a superior man (259). By thinking he’s a superior man, he emphasizes his flaw of avoiding truth by trying to reject any guilty feelings despite his obvious emotional and physical sickness, which stems from thoughts about the murders. For example,
…show more content…
When Raskolnikov confesses, Sonya demands to know his intent for committing an unfathomable crime because she previously sees only the caring, charitable side of him from his charitable actions following Marmeladov’s death. Immediately, he responds with “‘to rob her, of course’” followed by telling her to “‘stop it,’” suggesting no other reasonable excuse exists to explain why a man would rob an old pawnbroker (412). Furthermore, his curt, rehearsed response remains incapable of explaining the true motivation behind turning a seemingly magnanimous man into a murderer. Unsatisfied by these answers, Sonya pushes for more explanation from him. Eventually, Raskolnikov suggests he “‘wanted to become a Napoleon,’” contradicting his later claims that he would “‘take possession of the old woman’s money, […] support [him]self at the university, and […] set up a whole new career entirely’” (415-16). With this response, Raskolnikov thinks he can quench Sonya’s thirst for the truth, which he confirms by ending his long justification with “‘enough of that’” (416). By providing an example of an influential leader, Raskolnikov thinks he reveals enough information about his extraordinary man theory to not mention its defining characteristic—stepping over his conscience. …show more content…
After opening up to Sonya, he later encounters a strong thirst for “immediate resolution” that he can't “grasp or convey in words,” emphasizing the internal struggle he faces from unresolved guilt (442). Throughout Part Six, he attempts to satisfy this hole externally by meeting with Svidrigailov and Pofiry—two people who Raskolnikov fails to connect with on a personal level. Eventually, Raskolnikov meets with Sonya and tells her that “‘only”’ she “‘know[s] what makes [him] mad,’” emphasizing the magnitude of his decision to confess and explain his motivations for the murder to her (522). Leaving her for the final time, he decides to head toward the police station for his confession and wonders if “‘it’s impossible to stop now,’” reflecting the progress Raskolnikov has made on his crucial flaw because he doesn't think he can just avoid the truth anymore (523). Even with this determined attitude, Raskolnikov lacks the courage to confess and heads back until a “desperate” Sonya “gave him a wild, wild look” that “force[s]” “a hideous, lost smile” “to his lips” (530). Reinforcing each character’s current emotional state, the “desperate” depiction of Sonya’s “look” serves as the ultimatum for a shift in his behavior. Furthermore,
When Raskolnikov confesses, Sonya demands to know his intent for committing an unfathomable crime because she previously sees only the caring, charitable side of him from his charitable actions following Marmeladov’s death. Immediately, he responds with “‘to rob her, of course’” followed by telling her to “‘stop it,’” suggesting no other reasonable excuse exists to explain why a man would rob an old pawnbroker (412). Furthermore, his curt, rehearsed response remains incapable of explaining the true motivation behind turning a seemingly magnanimous man into a murderer. Unsatisfied by these answers, Sonya pushes for more explanation from him. Eventually, Raskolnikov suggests he “‘wanted to become a Napoleon,’” contradicting his later claims that he would “‘take possession of the old woman’s money, […] support [him]self at the university, and […] set up a whole new career entirely’” (415-16). With this response, Raskolnikov thinks he can quench Sonya’s thirst for the truth, which he confirms by ending his long justification with “‘enough of that’” (416). By providing an example of an influential leader, Raskolnikov thinks he reveals enough information about his extraordinary man theory to not mention its defining characteristic—stepping over his conscience. …show more content…
After opening up to Sonya, he later encounters a strong thirst for “immediate resolution” that he can't “grasp or convey in words,” emphasizing the internal struggle he faces from unresolved guilt (442). Throughout Part Six, he attempts to satisfy this hole externally by meeting with Svidrigailov and Pofiry—two people who Raskolnikov fails to connect with on a personal level. Eventually, Raskolnikov meets with Sonya and tells her that “‘only”’ she “‘know[s] what makes [him] mad,’” emphasizing the magnitude of his decision to confess and explain his motivations for the murder to her (522). Leaving her for the final time, he decides to head toward the police station for his confession and wonders if “‘it’s impossible to stop now,’” reflecting the progress Raskolnikov has made on his crucial flaw because he doesn't think he can just avoid the truth anymore (523). Even with this determined attitude, Raskolnikov lacks the courage to confess and heads back until a “desperate” Sonya “gave him a wild, wild look” that “force[s]” “a hideous, lost smile” “to his lips” (530). Reinforcing each character’s current emotional state, the “desperate” depiction of Sonya’s “look” serves as the ultimatum for a shift in his behavior. Furthermore,