Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment can be read as an ideological novel because these generally represent the social, economic, and political concerns of a culture. Dostoyevsky puts an interesting spin on this genre by examining society through the eyes of a criminal and, instead of looking at the ways in which society and culture work, exploring the ways in which they fail. It also refutes many culturally dominant ideologies, including utilitarianism and nihilism, and in doing so leaves room for the emergence of a pre-existential novel, in which the anti-hero Raskolnikov must suffer the consequences of his choice. Raskolnikov is an existential character, particularly because, in the chain of choices that make up his life, he is faced with only one major decision. Ultimately, the choice he makes is wrong despite the logic behind it, and the resulting stress and tension causes him great pain. Furthermore, in an attempt to satisfy his own worldly desires, he tries to follow the principles of utilitarianism and predetermination, struggling to use them as justifications for his actions and goes against his own existence by attempting to adopt nihilistic attitudes. Despite his efforts, it is evident through a series of dreams that all of these concepts are failing him: utilitarianism collapses, he loses faith in predetermination, and nihilism becomes impossible. Ultimately, he finds himself unable to escape the consequences of his own actions. Crime and Punishment thus becomes one of the first great existential and psychological novels. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get an original essay An interesting feature of Crime and Punishment as an ideological novel is that conventional social logic and morality are reversed for Raskolnikov in the to the extent that he is able to justify and commit his crime while simultaneously judging and condemning the evils of the other characters. Moreover, the evils he perceives – with the exception of those of Svidrigalov – are not traditionally considered immoral evils. For example, Sonya and Dunya's self-sacrifice would generally be considered a noble characteristic. However, it is interesting to note that in terms of Raskolnikov's existential view, self-sacrifice becomes the greatest crime of all. Elements of the psychological novel come into play as Dostoyevsky traces Raskolnikov's thought process throughout the conception, commission, and repercussions of his crime. Specifically, Raskolnikov's dreams function to reflect his various psychological states regarding the murder; he fails in his attempts to use popular philosophical, social, and political ideologies to rationalize his crime, and in the end he is left with only his psychological suffering. There are a total of three dreams, each involving the violent beating of a person or animal in front of a crowd. In the first dream, a modest drunken peasant beats a horse. The crowd has a mixed reaction to the beatings; some disapprove, some just watch, and some participate in the beating; Raskolnikov, although only a child in the dream, actively tries to stop the beating. In the second dream, the deputy superintendent beats Raskolnikov's landlady. The crowd watches and is uniformly shocked, but no one attempts to intervene, including Raskolnikov. In his third dream, Raskolnikov beats the old woman he murdered before the eyes and laughter of passers-by. The three dreams are preceded either by thought,or by the presence of Razumikhin, who can be said to represent honesty, innocence and morality in the novel. We can think that this coincidence comes from the fact that Razumikhin came to symbolize Raskolnikov's conscience protesting against his attempts to justify his crime; therefore, Raskolnikov becomes more and more annoyed with Razumikhin. Razumikhin's unwavering faith in Raskolnikov's inherent goodness is repugnant to Raskolnikov, especially after he commits his crime. Before his first dream, Raskolnikov plans to go see Razumikhin, who is described as "remarkable for never taking any of his failures to heart and never allowing himself to be unduly dejected by any circumstance, no matter how difficult" (70). Raskolnikov initially rejects the idea of ​​going to see him: “The question of why he was now going to see Razumikhin worried him more than he thought; he was anxiously trying to find a disturbing meaning in this, it seemed, quite ordinary action” (71). He then decides to postpone his trip to Razumikhin until he has committed the murder. At the idea of ​​murder, he is horrified and decides not to commit it. It is then that Raskolnikov's first dream occurs, after walking around thinking about both the murder and the possibility of going to Razumikhin for financial help. In the dream, Raskolnikov (as a young boy) sees an angry peasant in a crowd whipping an old mare and beating her with a hatchet until she dies. Young Raskolnikov is horrified, especially since the peasant insists that the mare is his “property” and that he can do whatever he wants with her (76). Raskolnikov's reaction to the mare's beating strongly contradicts his intentions to commit murder. After waking up, he is reaffirmed in his own horror at the idea of ​​murder. He said to himself: “Good God!... is it possible that I really take a hatchet and hit her in the head with it... is that possible? (78). In this way, the dream symbolizes Raskolnikov's divided psyche. The stress for Raskolnikov in this situation becomes the conflict between his somewhat weak moral sense and his idea that, as Porfiry says, "some people... have every right to commit all sorts of enormities and crimes and that 'they are, so to speak, above the laws' (275). Porfiry further develops Raskolnikov's ideas between the ordinary and the extraordinary. Raskolnikov defends his ideas with utilitarianism: "...the extraordinary man has the right - not an officially recognized right, of course - to allow his consciousness to overcome certain obstacles, but only if this is absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of his mission of his idea on which the well-being of all humanity most likely depends" (276), however, Raskolnikov's attempt to use the ideology of utilitarianism to justify the murder is undermined by his horror face. to the beating of the horse in his dream Although he tries to justify the murder of the old woman using the principles mentioned above, he cannot escape his horror at the idea of ​​actually having to pretend to commit the crime. His first dream illustrates this aspect of his psyche, this aspect dominated by Razumikhin's character and conscience. This conflicts with the dream because the peasant who beats the horse is not an "extraordinary" man and killing a horse. serves no greater purpose. However, the crowd in this dream does not entirely disapprove of the horse's beating; some even participate. This seems to imply that a part of society supports crime, even if it is senseless and fundamentally wrong, thus adding another layer of confusion. Raskolnikov, in his dream, is horrified that people allow the beatings to continue, thereby undermining the reasons for his own murder. HASWhen he wakes up, he is completely convinced that it is impossible for him to commit the crime. However, after the dream, Raskolnikov has an experience that bizarrely unites religiosity and utilitarianism in its justification of the crime. He inexplicably takes a detour on his way home and, "in a sort of predestined turn of fate," he learns that Lisaveta Ivanovna must be absent from home at the expected time of her sister's murder (79-80). Upon learning this, Raskolnikov “suddenly felt with all his being that he no longer possessed any freedom of reasoning or will, and that everything was settled at once and irrevocably” (81). Thus, Raskolnikov, forgetting his dream and Razumikhin, rationalizes the murder by attempting to reject his free will and rely on predetermination. Raskolnikov's second dream occurs after the murder. He returns home after burying the stolen items and visiting Razumikhin. It is important to note that upon visiting Razumikhin, Raskolnikov becomes overcome with rage, "it had not occurred to Raskolnikov that he would have to meet him face to face"; he cannot bear to meet Razumikhin face to face because he represents his conscience (130). On his way home, he is beaten in the street by "a carriage driver... [who] struck him very painfully on the back with his whip" (131), much like the mare in his first dream. When he finally arrives home, he “undresses and, trembling like a winded horse, he [lies] on the sofa... and immediately [falls] into a deep sleep” (133). Coincidentally, the animal imagery surrounding the second dream connects it to the first. He then dreams that his landlady is brutally beaten on the stairs. Like his previous reaction, he is horrified and “could not imagine such brutality, such frenzy” (133). The crowd, representing the company, looks on in shock, but not a single person attempts to intervene. They are too weak to intervene; they simply view the deputy superintendent as a monster, which is perhaps what Raskolnikov fears he has become. Once Raskolnikov makes his choice and commits murder, he must face the negative consequences of his actions. From a utilitarian point of view, the choice made by Raskolnikov may have served the common good; However, the psychological repercussions - the negative consequences and the state of suffering - that the murder brings to Raskolnikov, far eclipse any "good" that might have resulted from his crime. This is evidenced by his dream, which horrifies him, and yet which concerns a crime not entirely different from his own. He sees no reason, much less any common good, for having beaten his landlady. Raskolnikov's third dream occurs when he returns home after frantically leaving Razumikhin and meeting the craftsman on the street. Raskolnikov's spilled psyche is rampant in this scene. He is afraid of betraying himself, and yet he is frustrated that Razumikhin has not realized his guilt: “Razumikhin is there, and yet he does not seem to have noticed anything. This innocent idiot never notices anything! (271). Raskolnikov – or at least part of Raskolnikov – wants his conscience to prevail, wants Razumikhin to understand him, and wants to be held accountable for his crime. Amidst Raskolnikov's conflicting thoughts, behaviors, and anxiety over his crime, there is an ideological debate between Porfiry and Razumikhin. Razumikhin states: ...Socialists reduce everything to a single common cause: the environment. Environment is the root of all evil... Human nature is not meant to exist... That's why they hate the living process of life so much!... Human nature wants life.. .You cannot jump over the human. nature by logic alone! Logic can only predict three possibilities, but., 1976.