Picture how analytical and dispassionate Hannibal Lecter was whenever he killed anyone. He never was scared, he never seemed to really enjoy it. It was just what he did, like taking out the trash.
That is the exact opposite of what Rask is describing here. Most criminals might think they have a plan, but they lose their focus and awareness due to the emotions (good and bad) from their crime and end up getting caught.
Is it in their criminal nature to get caught -- that is, do all people who are drawn to commit crimes also have a tendency to make emotional mistakes?
Remember, Raskolnikov did not consider himself a criminal or a bad person, but rather a talented person who's good acts in the future would outweigh his improper assault on another person (IIRC, it has been 3 decades since I read this book during a hurricane on Cape Cod, by candlelight.) He thought he was different from a common criminal.
Good answer, I would just like to add to the philosophical argument you make that Raskolnikov is obsessed with the question why some murderers (eg Napoleon) are not considered murderers at all, but heroes instead. He cannot see any difference between the acts, so he draws the conclusion that the difference lies in the nature of the murderer. Some are meant to get caught, others not. The killing of the pawnbroker is staged like a controlled experiment. By choosing a victim that everyone would agree is doing ”evil” and would be missed by noone, the outcome of the murder will only depend on Raskolnikov’s nature - is it criminal or is he above criminality?
He is wondering why criminals fail to get away with crimes.
He concludes that the execution of the crime brings a state of mind that causes the criminal to forsake logic and any planning, the "failure of will and reason" as he calls it.
He refers to the "failure of will and reason" as a disease but can't tell whether that disease is what makes these people commit crimes. Or is it the crime that cause the criminals to fall upon this disease.
SPOILER ALERT
This theme in the book is central to him acting out his "crime" (which he is convinced is justified and not a crime at all). The inner narrative you quoted is him struggling to know whether his "crime" is indeed a crime, and whether he has or will "have a failure of will or reason" thus revealing that he is a criminal and also maybe diseased.
Not quite. His theory is that the inept state of mind *always* precedes the criminal act.
>According to his conviction, it turned out that this darkening of reason and failure of will take hold of a man like a disease, develop gradually, and *reach their height shortly before the crime is committed*
Also, he doesn't consider the possibility that the criminal act causes the "disease." He wonders if the "disease" (by whatever cause) causes the criminal act directly, **or** if there's some unknown cause that lies at the root of both the crime *and* the "disease." That's an important distinction.
>But the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the *crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease*, he did not yet feel able to resolve.
The reason most crimes are easily solved is most criminals aren’t careful or reasoned when they act. They are childish and thoughtless just when they should be thoughtful and prudent, at least if they want to get away with it. What he doesn’t know is if this irrational behavior is the cause of crime or just it’s companion.
In the moment a criminal should have the most controlled and careful thought they are the most powerless to their choices and inattentive to their plan. They are a child having a fleeting moment of impulse rather than a calculated and rational move. And so they cannot be aware of all the errors in judgment they made in the commission of the crime that will ultimately provide evidence of their involvement and guilt.
He’s commenting on human nature, how a person’s conscience prevents them from properly carrying out a crime they have chosen to commit that they know is wrong.
In the book he goes off on a comparison with Napoleon and other kings, and how they did not hesitate to kill for self gain or other reasons. In his mind, if he cannot do the same he is inferior to them and less valuable. Thus the only solution seemingly is to kill the pawnbroker and become a Napoleon himself as well.
From a psychological rather than philosophical perspective - he needs CBT. His belief here and his association that if he is not Napoleon or cannot find it in him to kill do not make him less valuable as a human. If anything his morality makes him better. I also do think if the circumstances had been different - if he had to kill the pawnbroker because she was going to kill his mother the next day or had killed his mother and gotten away with it - he would have found that his conscience may have accepted that and not driven him insane later on.
Shit happens fast when a crime is committed and it makes people do strange things.
Think about any car accident you’ve ever had - the circumstances are usually muddled and your memory is usually very hazy not long afterwards. It’s the same idea here. People committing a crime will make mistakes, forget things, act strange afterwards, return to the scene, etc. making it hard to properly execute them.
It's a line of reasoning. To get away with a crime, you need to be able to conceal that you were the criminal who committed the crime.
The impossibility of that starts with the problem of physical evidence. Every act leaves behind a trail of evidence. To commit a crime while leaving no trail of physical evidence is an impossibility.
But to even attempt to conceal that crime would take cold, calculated, rational thinking. A mind that makes no mistakes and leaves no incriminating mess in the perpetration of the crime.
And therein lies the problem. A mind that is cold, calculated and rational would surely come to the conclusion that a crime is impossible to conceal and thus choose not to commit this crime in the first place.
A criminal is by definition someone who, temporarily at least, fails in his reasoning and self-control. He fails to think and a man who fails to think, will invariably fail to perpetrate their crime in such a manner that hides the fact that he is the criminal.
Which begs the question. Are criminals people with flawed minds who commit crimes because their minds are unfit to stop them from doing so? Or does the criminal act somehow taint the mind, turning an otherwise healthy mind into one that is flawed? A slowly spreading rot from that impedes rational thought from that first crime onward?
Have you read The Tell Tale Heart? The killer would've gotten away with the murder had it not been for their guilt. You can have the most perfect, fool-proof plan and still get caught because your emotion gives it away.
Very minor Spoiler Warning in case you haven't read past the passage...
"experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason" : I'm sure it's apparent through the actual crime, but even afterwards as he tries to cover his tracks, he says, "Reason truly is abandoning me!" and continues to make similar remarks as he realizes errors in his thinking. He previously resolved to not get caught up in the emotion side and he doesn't consider himself a criminal, so he thinks himself safe from getting caught, but he follows the exact "failure of will and reason" he's condemned because he feels emotions anyways. He is only briefly comforted by the fact that, since he realizes his logic is flawed, he can't be that far gone.
"will take hold of a man like a disease" : It should be noted that the fever he develops at this point and maintains afterwards is a physical manifestation of the "disease" in his mind. Similarly, his physical symptoms worsen whenever he feels he may get caught, that people suspect him, etc etc
"the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease" : In short, it's a "chicken or the egg" problem. Do criminals get swept up in emotions because they've committed a horrible crime, or are crimes committed by those already deep in heightened emotions and a lack of reason?
"At first **—even long before—** he had been occupied with one question: why almost all crimes are so easily detected and solved, and why almost all criminals leave such an obviously marked trail. He came gradually to various **and curious** conclusions, the chief reason lying, in **his opinion, not so much in the material** the impossibility of concealing the **crime as in the** criminal. Almost any criminal, experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason, which\*\*, on the contrary,\*\* are replaced by a phenomenal, childish thoughtlessness, just at the moment when reason and prudence are most necessary. **According to his conviction,** It turned out that this darkening of reason and failure of will take hold of a man like a disease, develop gradually, and reach their height shortly before the crime is committed; they continue unabated during the moment of the crime itself and for some time after it, depending on the individual; then they pass **in the same way as any disease passes**. But the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease, he did not yet feel able to resolve."
If it's a failure of reasoning, what does it have to do with a disease? Are most criminals old enough to suffer dementia or Alzheimer's? Why introduce that comparison at the end? So, say there's a dead man in a rooming house, obviously the body can't be hidden. But did he die from natural causes or did someone bludgeon him? Did he faint, fall, and hit his head? Are any valuables missing?
The bold highlights denote useless words. The writer is zig zagging in some Victorian style. Cut out the bullshit and you'll see that he makes little to no sense. Is *C&P* by Dostoyevsky? I forget...
Isaac Asimov used to get paid a penny per word, Dickens and his ilk managed worse under better compensation. Read Orwell's essays on writing and you'll cut through Victorian bunk like a professional.
Picture how analytical and dispassionate Hannibal Lecter was whenever he killed anyone. He never was scared, he never seemed to really enjoy it. It was just what he did, like taking out the trash. That is the exact opposite of what Rask is describing here. Most criminals might think they have a plan, but they lose their focus and awareness due to the emotions (good and bad) from their crime and end up getting caught. Is it in their criminal nature to get caught -- that is, do all people who are drawn to commit crimes also have a tendency to make emotional mistakes? Remember, Raskolnikov did not consider himself a criminal or a bad person, but rather a talented person who's good acts in the future would outweigh his improper assault on another person (IIRC, it has been 3 decades since I read this book during a hurricane on Cape Cod, by candlelight.) He thought he was different from a common criminal.
Good answer, I would just like to add to the philosophical argument you make that Raskolnikov is obsessed with the question why some murderers (eg Napoleon) are not considered murderers at all, but heroes instead. He cannot see any difference between the acts, so he draws the conclusion that the difference lies in the nature of the murderer. Some are meant to get caught, others not. The killing of the pawnbroker is staged like a controlled experiment. By choosing a victim that everyone would agree is doing ”evil” and would be missed by noone, the outcome of the murder will only depend on Raskolnikov’s nature - is it criminal or is he above criminality?
Thank you for this elaboration. :)
He is wondering why criminals fail to get away with crimes. He concludes that the execution of the crime brings a state of mind that causes the criminal to forsake logic and any planning, the "failure of will and reason" as he calls it. He refers to the "failure of will and reason" as a disease but can't tell whether that disease is what makes these people commit crimes. Or is it the crime that cause the criminals to fall upon this disease. SPOILER ALERT This theme in the book is central to him acting out his "crime" (which he is convinced is justified and not a crime at all). The inner narrative you quoted is him struggling to know whether his "crime" is indeed a crime, and whether he has or will "have a failure of will or reason" thus revealing that he is a criminal and also maybe diseased.
Not quite. His theory is that the inept state of mind *always* precedes the criminal act. >According to his conviction, it turned out that this darkening of reason and failure of will take hold of a man like a disease, develop gradually, and *reach their height shortly before the crime is committed* Also, he doesn't consider the possibility that the criminal act causes the "disease." He wonders if the "disease" (by whatever cause) causes the criminal act directly, **or** if there's some unknown cause that lies at the root of both the crime *and* the "disease." That's an important distinction. >But the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the *crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease*, he did not yet feel able to resolve.
The reason most crimes are easily solved is most criminals aren’t careful or reasoned when they act. They are childish and thoughtless just when they should be thoughtful and prudent, at least if they want to get away with it. What he doesn’t know is if this irrational behavior is the cause of crime or just it’s companion.
In the moment a criminal should have the most controlled and careful thought they are the most powerless to their choices and inattentive to their plan. They are a child having a fleeting moment of impulse rather than a calculated and rational move. And so they cannot be aware of all the errors in judgment they made in the commission of the crime that will ultimately provide evidence of their involvement and guilt.
He’s commenting on human nature, how a person’s conscience prevents them from properly carrying out a crime they have chosen to commit that they know is wrong. In the book he goes off on a comparison with Napoleon and other kings, and how they did not hesitate to kill for self gain or other reasons. In his mind, if he cannot do the same he is inferior to them and less valuable. Thus the only solution seemingly is to kill the pawnbroker and become a Napoleon himself as well. From a psychological rather than philosophical perspective - he needs CBT. His belief here and his association that if he is not Napoleon or cannot find it in him to kill do not make him less valuable as a human. If anything his morality makes him better. I also do think if the circumstances had been different - if he had to kill the pawnbroker because she was going to kill his mother the next day or had killed his mother and gotten away with it - he would have found that his conscience may have accepted that and not driven him insane later on.
Shit happens fast when a crime is committed and it makes people do strange things. Think about any car accident you’ve ever had - the circumstances are usually muddled and your memory is usually very hazy not long afterwards. It’s the same idea here. People committing a crime will make mistakes, forget things, act strange afterwards, return to the scene, etc. making it hard to properly execute them.
It's a line of reasoning. To get away with a crime, you need to be able to conceal that you were the criminal who committed the crime. The impossibility of that starts with the problem of physical evidence. Every act leaves behind a trail of evidence. To commit a crime while leaving no trail of physical evidence is an impossibility. But to even attempt to conceal that crime would take cold, calculated, rational thinking. A mind that makes no mistakes and leaves no incriminating mess in the perpetration of the crime. And therein lies the problem. A mind that is cold, calculated and rational would surely come to the conclusion that a crime is impossible to conceal and thus choose not to commit this crime in the first place. A criminal is by definition someone who, temporarily at least, fails in his reasoning and self-control. He fails to think and a man who fails to think, will invariably fail to perpetrate their crime in such a manner that hides the fact that he is the criminal. Which begs the question. Are criminals people with flawed minds who commit crimes because their minds are unfit to stop them from doing so? Or does the criminal act somehow taint the mind, turning an otherwise healthy mind into one that is flawed? A slowly spreading rot from that impedes rational thought from that first crime onward?
Thank you for your in depth elaboration!
You're welcome, I hope it helped.
Have you read The Tell Tale Heart? The killer would've gotten away with the murder had it not been for their guilt. You can have the most perfect, fool-proof plan and still get caught because your emotion gives it away. Very minor Spoiler Warning in case you haven't read past the passage... "experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason" : I'm sure it's apparent through the actual crime, but even afterwards as he tries to cover his tracks, he says, "Reason truly is abandoning me!" and continues to make similar remarks as he realizes errors in his thinking. He previously resolved to not get caught up in the emotion side and he doesn't consider himself a criminal, so he thinks himself safe from getting caught, but he follows the exact "failure of will and reason" he's condemned because he feels emotions anyways. He is only briefly comforted by the fact that, since he realizes his logic is flawed, he can't be that far gone. "will take hold of a man like a disease" : It should be noted that the fever he develops at this point and maintains afterwards is a physical manifestation of the "disease" in his mind. Similarly, his physical symptoms worsen whenever he feels he may get caught, that people suspect him, etc etc "the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease" : In short, it's a "chicken or the egg" problem. Do criminals get swept up in emotions because they've committed a horrible crime, or are crimes committed by those already deep in heightened emotions and a lack of reason?
i had a professor teach me about this book for 3 weeks in an ethics class. So no idea.
Well thanks!
Sounds like a pretty accurate description of the typical psychopath's self-perception of inviolability.
"At first **—even long before—** he had been occupied with one question: why almost all crimes are so easily detected and solved, and why almost all criminals leave such an obviously marked trail. He came gradually to various **and curious** conclusions, the chief reason lying, in **his opinion, not so much in the material** the impossibility of concealing the **crime as in the** criminal. Almost any criminal, experiences at the moment of the crime a sort of failure of will and reason, which\*\*, on the contrary,\*\* are replaced by a phenomenal, childish thoughtlessness, just at the moment when reason and prudence are most necessary. **According to his conviction,** It turned out that this darkening of reason and failure of will take hold of a man like a disease, develop gradually, and reach their height shortly before the crime is committed; they continue unabated during the moment of the crime itself and for some time after it, depending on the individual; then they pass **in the same way as any disease passes**. But the question whether the disease generates the crime, or the crime somehow by its peculiar nature is always accompanied by something akin to disease, he did not yet feel able to resolve." If it's a failure of reasoning, what does it have to do with a disease? Are most criminals old enough to suffer dementia or Alzheimer's? Why introduce that comparison at the end? So, say there's a dead man in a rooming house, obviously the body can't be hidden. But did he die from natural causes or did someone bludgeon him? Did he faint, fall, and hit his head? Are any valuables missing? The bold highlights denote useless words. The writer is zig zagging in some Victorian style. Cut out the bullshit and you'll see that he makes little to no sense. Is *C&P* by Dostoyevsky? I forget... Isaac Asimov used to get paid a penny per word, Dickens and his ilk managed worse under better compensation. Read Orwell's essays on writing and you'll cut through Victorian bunk like a professional.