Epilogue by Megan

Christina Farkas

cfarkas — 2017-02-02 18:18:42 UTC

With the background that is established in Russian imprisonment-it seems a well enough punishment for a murder of two women. He is a mental case from the beginning, and also confesses to the crime so it was evident that a lighter sentence would be made. Hard labor is a factor that gives in, and stresses or overly exhausts the body. It will be something that happens day after day which can be pure torture no matter your condition. Also the fact that it is in Siberia plays another drastic role as conditions are horrible in those plains. It is interesting to have placed the epilogue as you can imagine the happenings that had taken place after the confession and what will happen with everyone else in the future. I think it would give the reader something to think on, as what happened after? If we see what was happening, we want to know what happened after since it took so long to go through. I think the epilogue was important since it is good to know what happened next. With Sonia, she reminds me of someone who gives me a guilty conscience when I do something wrong. Whenever I think of how he looks at her at the staircase and how he puppies back, I imagine how I'd be if the person I knew did the same. I'd feel guilty as well, and go back. With the fact I am perfectly fine with Sonia. She gave the push of Rask to confess as it was the right thing to do. With Rask, I'm glad that in the end he had confessed even if I was hoping for this thing to go down between Sonia and Rask, but theoretically in my eyes he had to confess and it was the right thing to do. I just wonder of Sonia as she may be doing the same thing for the rest of her ongoing circle now that Rask is a prisoner and is gone.

Amanda Gorr

2017-02-02 18:18:59 UTC

Raskolnikov does receive the punishment of hard labor in which he does indeed suffer for his crimes. Yet, he has already internally been punishing himself throughout the entire novel. Either of these punishments, or a combination of the two, has created a rebirth within in him. One in which he accepts his fate and feels reconciled. The epilogue does not however leave the ending up for interpretation. Instead, it tells readers exactly what happens after the book ends. This may upset some people because it is not as open-ended and the story just kind of dies off. If this part was omitted, it would leave the audience wondering what would happen to the characters but also leaves room for several possibilities. In addition, the story would end with Raskolnikov's acceptance of his fate which is the main highlight of the ending. With the epilogue, his punishment and life during takes some of the light from his epiphany. Sonia is still a kind-hearted person while she stays with Raskolnikov. I do believe she deserves a life with someone who does love her and a chance to escape her past life as a sinner. Raskolnikov got what he deserved and is repenting.

Emma Brockett

ebrockett — 2017-02-02 18:19:04 UTC

I believe the punishment did not fit Raskolnikov right. He killed those women with an axe which seemed very brutal. It was also premeditated. For a while he was trying to decide whether or not he should go through with it like someone might be hesitant about getting a new haircut. He thought about it too much for it to be treated so lightly. However, this leads me to the topic of his mental state. If there was something genuinely wrong with him, he should have been put into a more therapeutic place rather than in prison for a couple years.

I feel like if the epilogue was left out, people might be able to sleep easier about the ending. Their imagination could fill in the rest and maybe make a conclusion that suits their own needs as well, but maybe the author wanted the reader to feel disturbed afterwards. Maybe the point was to have the story get underneath your skin.

I am actually sort of disappointed in Sonya. With the burden her family lifted, I felt as though she could've wiggled her way out of prostitution and given herself a better life. As for her relationship with Raskolnikov, maybe she just likes bad boys? A murderer seems a little hefty for my taste but, who am I to judge?

I'm glad that Raskolnikov is ready to change some things in his life, however, I have a had time trusting him. From the very beginning of the book he has changed his mind countless times.

Mary Gaffney

2017-02-02 18:19:11 UTC

To some extent the punishment fits the crime. I believe that it makes sense for the punishment to be lessened for Raskolnikov; it may anger some because his crime was so severe, but when you think about it, the amount of mental suffering and guilt he endured makes up for it. Personally I do not think that this portion of the novel should be omitted because I like that it ties up all the loose ends of the novel. The last chapter was very open ended and so by adding the epilogue, Dostoevsky leaves nothing to the imagination. It is nice to see what happened after Raskolnikov confesses otherwise there would be many unanswered questions left about what happens to the characters.

Alyssa Gall

alyssagall1999 — 2017-02-02 18:19:16 UTC

From the outside looking in like the cops and everyone else who doesn't truly know Raskolnikov, it seems like a fitting punishment because they think that he was mentally unstable and ill when he murdered and he did confess. However, since we read the book and know why he truly committed the crime, the punishment does not seem fitting. He killed two innocent people that weren't entirely louses because they did contribute to society through pawning items. I feel like he should of had to serve more than eight years. As for the epilogue, it gave a sense of closure because we got to find out Raz and Dunya got married, Pulcheria died, that Raskolnikov truly loves Sonya, and that Raskolnikov did rescue kids from a fire and commit other "good Samaritan" actions while he was ill. We also grow a deeper appreciation for Sonya because we knew Sonya vowed to stick by Raskolnikov's side and that she would go with him to Siberia. So the epilogue showed us that Sonya was sticking to her words despite everything raskolnikov did, such as be rude to her and kill her friend Lizaveta. As for Raskolnikov, you don't really like him for ignoring Sonya for a while after she followed him all the way to Siberia, but you're kind of happy when he comes to his senses and admits that he loves Sonya and can't wait for his sentence to be up.

Rachel Rigole

rrigole_flute_99 — 2017-02-02 18:19:19 UTC

Honestly, I do believe Raskolnikov's punishment fits his crime. He suffered more mentally then he ever would in prison- even for life. Even to the end of the novel he was still stubborn and believed he was justified in murdering Aloyna, but his conscience followed him wherever he went. At the end of the book, when he is reborn and realizes his love for Sonia, Raskolnikov truly feels the remorse and guilt for his crime. This achievement is the goal of imprisoning criminals- so they can become competent members of society again by repenting and learning from their crimes. Eight years is a long period of time, and Raskolnikov has proven his willingness to change and serve out the rest of his sentence, coupled with the everlasting guilt he will feel for his murders, which is why I believe he deserves his punishment as it stands. Honestly, I believe the Epilogue is absolutely essential to the novel as a whole. The theme of rebirth is finally unveiled at the end, which is foreshadowed throughout the book, but finally occurs in the last few pages. I believe it wraps the book up nicely, tying up loose ends, which I like because I don't like being kept guessing. I am amazed at Sonia's perseverance to follow and stick with Raskolnikov no matter how terribly he treats her. She truly believed in him and I respect her greatly for putting up and dealing with Raskolnikov even though he mistreated her. I am still angry with Raskolnikov for the way he acts towards Sonia, even though they both have a mutual love for each other. She does not deserve to be treated the way he does towards her, and if the book was to continue, I would hope he would respect and treat her the way she truly should.

Rose Walgenbach

2017-02-02 18:19:31 UTC

To begin with, I don't think the punishment fit the crime at all. He only got eight years for a double homicide. Most people would have gotten a much longer sentence. However, because he knew people, he got let off easy. On the other hand, I think the readers are meant to feel like the punishment is fitting in itself because Raskolnikov had been shown suffering throughout the entire novel -- either physically or mentally. So some people might think his internal suffering paired with eight years without his "savior" (Sonya) is a justifiable punishment for what he had done. I think omitting the epilogue would take away from the novel's concept; it wouldn't show Raskolnikov's short sentence nor his chance at a new life with Sonya, who stayed with him through it all. As for Sonya, I feel happy for her and because after all of her hardships, she deserves some kind of peace and joy. Even if it comes at the expense of living with Raskolnikov. I never felt this way towards him until the epilogue, but now, I think all I feel towards Raskolnikov is amusement. He suffered over his guilt through and through to the end -- what his punishment would be, what will happen to him, what others will think -- only to get an eight year sentence. So, really, he worried all that time over a blip in the timeline of his life. And this all leads to the big point of nihilism. Individual suffering does not matter because it doesn't last, no matter how huge it may seem in the moment. The universe doesn't care.

Deven

2017-02-02 18:19:36 UTC

I think that the punishment does, in fact, fit the crime. Although it could be argued that, compared to his crime, the punishment was rather light, Raskolnikov will have to bear his own guilt. What I do know, though, is that the epilogue should have been taken out. Although it is not awful, it doesn't really add a whole lot onto the book as many thought it most likely would. Instead, it ways the book down. It is not as well-written as the rest of the book, but is able to succeed in tying down loose ends. Sonya could do much better, but ultimately decides to stay with Raskolnikov because he makes her happy, and, in the end, that is truly the only thing that matters. Who is anyone to say if oneis justified in loving another?

Brianna Maloney

2017-02-02 18:19:43 UTC

In my opinion, Raskolnikov's punishment fits his crime. The overall idea of prison is to leave these criminals alone to reflect on what they have done. Raskolnikov, in my eyes, learned from his sins. Does he regret what he did? No. But he has to live with himself and his guilt everyday for the rest of his life. Guilt is the most torturous crime out there. He learned from his mistakes because I believe he would never put himself through that type of mental abuse again.
In real life there is not always a happy ending, but most people still expect them anyways. The epilogue gave a reader what most people crave -- a happy ending. The ending can be seen as happy because Sonya pushed Raskolnikov towards his rebirth. Also, the epilogue simply tied the story together. In my eyes, the critics are wrong, the story benefited from the epilogue.
I do not understand how a woman like Sonya can love a man like Raskolnikov. She is so pure -- even though she is a prostitute-- and compassionate. Sonya will put her family and loved ones before her self in a heartbeat, while Raskolnikov is selfish. Although I admire her compassion, I do think she is setting herself up for a life of torture with Raskolnikov

Jenna Stafford

jenna_staff — 2017-02-02 18:19:49 UTC

I think that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. He got a very light sentence for what was a pretty terrible crime, especially because it's not like people were really better off without her or her daughter in the world anyways. He didn't even distribute the money, so it seems like a total waste. Also, I think it's a problem that he really doesn't find the murders to be that big of a sin and views them more of a mistake. I think his light sentence only encouraged his righteous mentality. I also believe that the epilogue is needed. Without it, readers would miss a lot of insight to Raskolnikov's "afterlife."I never really had much of an opinion on Sonia in the first place, but I'm glad they are in love or whatever because I think Raskolnikov needs someone who is selfless like she is if he's going to be with anyone.

Nicole Rhein

nrfrenchhorn — 2017-02-02 18:19:51 UTC

I understand the importance of the epilogue, but I would have preferred it end after Part 6. However, the epilogue explains the trial and the sentencing of 8 years of hard labor. Personally, I don't think that's enough. Although, hard labor is 'cruel and unusual punishment,' it still doesn't seem fair. Raskolnikov killed two people. Today, the sentence would be several years in prison to life. Although the book explains that Raskolnikov was a charitable saint in college and that he was insane, this shouldn't justify a light sentence. Speaking of Raskolnikov's charitable acts, they ruined Raskolikov as a character. They make him out as a helpful saint. It doesn't make sense that an Ubermench grows out of someone so humane. It also doesn't make Raskolnikov's journey to redemption with Sonia as touching. Through his pervious acts, Raskolnikov's change in heart doesn't seem as significant. If the epilogue were omitted, one could still see the love Raskolnikov had for Sonia at the end of the epilogue but just in a different manner. This love is seen when Raskolnikov sees Sonia and turns around to go back and confess for her. This is much more touching than the annoyance he felt for her in prison leading to his weeping at her feet. Although, I admit, I see the epilogue as being important for Raz and Dunya, and the death of Raskolnikov's mom, redemption is fully understood at the end of part 6.

Mikala Evans

2017-02-02 18:19:53 UTC

I don't believe the punishment fit the crime enough. He murdered two women and only got 8 years. Although he was subject to endure not only an immense amount of physical labor but mental suffering as well, that is the price he should have to pay for taking not one, but two people's lives. It's understandable as to why critics disliked the epilogue, however, I do feel like it gives the reader a sense of closure knowing that he did have to suffer the consequences of his actions. It also reveals a soft spot within Raskolnikov that we do not see throughout the novel. Sonya's dedication to him even after knowing all these horrible things and going with him to Siberia to serve his sentence proved that love trumps all.

Emma Kettel

emmakettel — 2017-02-02 18:19:54 UTC

I believe that the punishment does fit the crime because he knew he did something wrong and wouldn't do it again so 8 years of hard labor sounds very fit for what he did. if this portion would leave readers wanting to know with opened ended theories. omitting the end would defeat the purpose of the book because it gives a lot of detail in the end especially with the relationship Sonya and Raskolnikov have. After finishing the book I still see Sonya as almost a Christ figure of the book. She sticks by Raskolnikovs side even when he admitted to do wrong and forgave him for all he did wrong. She renewed Raskolnikov and loved him no matter what. Raskolnikov is a changed man at the end. He knows he did wrong but all he wants is Sonya even if its gonna take him 8 years to get to her again. He starts classes again and doesn't even think of this work as work but a path to Sonya. He is different than he has been the whole book being he no longer carries the guilt on his shoulders and he is providing for himself and Sonya. Overall I really liked the book and I'm glad Razmuhkin and Dunya got married because I love a good love story.

Luci

2017-02-02 18:19:55 UTC

The punishment didn't really fit the crime. He killed two people and only got eight years for it. I expected more given that it was two people he killed. However, I guess the characters in the book believed that he was mentally unstable when he commuted the crime, so I'm sure the punishment he got makes sense to them. Since we read the novel, we know that he wasn't losing his marbles when he committed the murders, which is why I think the punishment was unsuitable for the crime.
As far as the epilogue goes, it seemed to fit into the book just fine but it also seemed unnecessary. The last chapter concluded the story well enough that I think the epilogue was unneeded as an add-on to what was already written. Besides, the book is already quite long without the epilogue added on.
I sort of feel bad for Rodya only because he was kind of losing it at the end, which is why he got off with only eight years instead of what he should have gotten for murdering two people. So, part of me wants to feel bad for him and the other part doesn't really care to consider his mental stablility purely because he became that way as a reprocussion of his crime.
I didn't really have an opinion of Sonya. I was happy that they found love and whatnot but I never really liked or disliked her. She seemed alright. I know she was a good person for everything she was trying to do for all the people she cares about and also I felt bad for everything she put herself through to try to take caden of those people. Aside from that, I didn't really have an opinion of Sonya.

Carrie Maro

2017-02-02 18:19:58 UTC

I believe to some extent that the punishment fits the crime. I believe that Ras should get a longer sentence, but he did confess. However, Sonya did push him towards his rebirth. Would he have confess if he didn't know Sonya? I feel that there wouldn't be an conclusion to the novel if there was no epilogue. The readers would be asking questions on what happen after Ras went to Siberia. They wouldn't know that he truly does love Sonya. It answers a lot of questions the readers would have. I feel Sonya is a important character. She needed to be there to convince Ras to confess and to find God. She is a helpful character to the plot. I feel that Ras might be under the spell of Sonya. Does he really feel sorry about his crime? Did he only confess because Sonya pushed him to?

Angelica Barrows

2017-02-02 18:20:03 UTC

I don't personally feel the punishment fits the crime, because he got a //very// light sentence for a double murder. Of course, he did suffer a lot internally for what he did.
And I do see where critics are coming from with the whole omitting the epilogue thing. I read A Clockwork Orange, and Burgess kind of had the same issue with people thinking about omitting the last chapter (they didn't even include it in the movie). In both cases, it's because it would make the books more exciting. If there was no epilogue, we wouldn't know much about his rebirth; same goes for Alex in A Clockwork Orange and the entire last chapter. Some people would rather end with the suspense of what happens to them after. When it comes to religion, those novels both have a similar feel and I always thought of that during class.
When it comes to Sonya, I never really liked her or hated her. I just kind of felt bad for everything she went through. I'm happy Rodya found love, I guess, and is 'reborn' because of Sonya. To be honest, I don't have much of an opinion on it.

Brooke Fanale

2017-02-02 18:20:16 UTC

The epilogue did fit crime and punishment, but I do not think it was necessary at all. I think the last chapter did a nice job of setting up the ending. But, the epilogue was a nice touch because it shows people what happens after Raskolnikov gets caught. Omitting the epilogue would just take away what people would expect to happen in the future. Everything that it discussed I had already had come to the conclusion that it could happen such as Razumihin marrying Dounia. Plus, I already suspected the trial would be quick and the sentence would not be extremely strict. Porfiry told Raskolnikov that it was going to happen this way which it did. So I do not think it would hurt the novel at all. I feel Sonya is a rather kind-hearted person for putting up with Raskolnikov. I have always liked her in the novel because of her personality and this did not change at all throughout the entirety of the novel. I did like Raskolnikov at the beginning but as time went by I began to dislike him more and more--especially after learning the reason her murdered two people. He seems like someone who got what was coming to him, and I cannot stand him at all now. I think this was a really good story not as grim as everything else, but I hated how long it was. Also, I kind of with Dostoevsky focused a bit more on Marfa herself so I could understand why anyone would want to marry a deranged pedophile.

Raechel

2017-02-02 18:22:16 UTC

I think the punishment does fit the crime by societies standards, but not morally because Raskolnikov never actually learns anything valuable. I can definitely see why critics would say that the novel should stand alone. The epilogue was definitely overly simplistic and predictable compared to the rest of the novel. I liked it though, because I like a solid definite ending. Razumihkin+ Dunya= <3. If omitted, the ending would be more ominous compared to the relatively happy ending that the epilogue offers.
Sonya is definitely a homie. I don't understand why she loves Raskolnikov but she's definitely a sweetheart. I feel like she loses some admirability in holding out for a loser like Raskol, but the fact that she is happy with him redeems her choice.