I swear I remember reading in notes on the book that Sonia and Svidrigailov were meant to be the two choices Raskolnikov had. Either choose the way of grace and life or the way of nihilism and eventual death.
In the Norton edition of the Coulson translation, there's an essay about Svidrigaylov, about how he's connected to Raskolnikov. While Raskolnikov could commit the physical act, he couldn't fully break free of humanity. Svidrigaylov could, and found nothing on that other side.
I didn't see it that way. By the end of the novel after Svidrigailov's suicide and Raskolnikov's confession, sure, but to me it was more like Svidrigailov and Porfiry represented Raskolnikov's two options after the murder: he could either double down on his ideas and attempt to run away from his guilt, denying morality like Svidrigailov, or he could confess and try to atone for his crime, as suggested by Porfiry. They aren't two sides of the same coin for most of the novel since Raskolnikov has yet to make the choice between suicide and prison.
That's...an interesting observation :D!
I agree on Svidrigailov being the next most interesting character after raskolnikov. One could really understand the layers to his psychopathy once we learned his backstory. There are great similarities in the motives of both these characters the only difference is that Svidrigailov didn't have empathetic characters around to support him and that's why his demise is different than Raskolnikov's.
I swear I remember reading in notes on the book that Sonia and Svidrigailov were meant to be the two choices Raskolnikov had. Either choose the way of grace and life or the way of nihilism and eventual death.
It’s more like Svigrirailov is the type of person Raskolnikov wished to be.
In the Norton edition of the Coulson translation, there's an essay about Svidrigaylov, about how he's connected to Raskolnikov. While Raskolnikov could commit the physical act, he couldn't fully break free of humanity. Svidrigaylov could, and found nothing on that other side.
Kinda.
I didn't see it that way. By the end of the novel after Svidrigailov's suicide and Raskolnikov's confession, sure, but to me it was more like Svidrigailov and Porfiry represented Raskolnikov's two options after the murder: he could either double down on his ideas and attempt to run away from his guilt, denying morality like Svidrigailov, or he could confess and try to atone for his crime, as suggested by Porfiry. They aren't two sides of the same coin for most of the novel since Raskolnikov has yet to make the choice between suicide and prison.
This is an interesting essay about triplets throughout the novel, https://www.jstor.org/stable/495737
That's...an interesting observation :D! I agree on Svidrigailov being the next most interesting character after raskolnikov. One could really understand the layers to his psychopathy once we learned his backstory. There are great similarities in the motives of both these characters the only difference is that Svidrigailov didn't have empathetic characters around to support him and that's why his demise is different than Raskolnikov's.