9/16/11

2002. Morally ambiguous characters -- characters whose behavior discourages readers from identifying them as purely evil or purely good -- are at the heart of many works of literature. Choose a novel or play in which a morally ambiguous character plays a pivotal role. Then write an essay in which you explain how the character can be viewed as morally ambiguous and why his or her moral ambiguity is significant to the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

As a viewer watches a television show such as Dexter or House, he struggles with the decision to root for or to oppose the morally ambiguous main character.  In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the reader falls into a love-hate relationship with the protagonist, Raskolnikov, on one hand, a murderer, but on the other, a desperately poor brother and son who wants to change the world.  Dostoyevsky first draws the reader into the complex mind of his main character, and then uses this conflicted individual to make the reader question the validity of a black and white world.

The reader finds Raskolnikov in two of the most opposite situations, solidifying his status as morally ambiguous.  Within the first few chapters, Raskolnikov murders an old woman and her sister, two women he hardly knew. Dostoyevsky vividly describes the murder, choosing words that make the reader cringe, almost able to feel Raskolnikov’s axe crashing down on the heads of his victims.  The reader is sure this man must be pure evil.  How could anyone who commits such a horrible crime be anything short of a monster?  Then, however, Raskolnikov is shown in a new light.  After receiving a letter from his mother and sister, the softer the protagonist comes out.   Though just pages before, the reader was sure Raskolnikov was not even human, now he seems capable not only of emotion, but love.  Suddenly, the reader does not know whether to love or to hate Dostoyevsky’s complicated little creation.

Raskolnikov’s moral ambiguity makes the reader question definitions.   Raskolnikov cannot be pigeon-holed into the category of “hero” nor “villain”, casting a shadow of doubt on other labels.  How does one know what is right and what is wrong?  Yes, murder is labeled “wrong”, but who decides on these labels? Maybe the murder of Alyona Ivanovna, the old pawnbroker, was not a crime, but in fact a good deed.  After all, this old woman was very wealthy, yet still bitter and useless.  Raskolnikov states at the beginning of the novel that he intends to use her money for good.  He could give it to the poor, or use it to finance his education.   Further, Rakolnikov justifies his action by asserting that all “great men” must remove obstacles in order to become great, often equating himself with Napoleon.  Christopher Columbus slaughtered large numbers of Native Americans, and modern American society deemed him so great there is a day named after him.  How is this different than Raskolnikov’s so-called “crime”? 

The fact that it is impossible to discern whether Raskolnikov is a good or bad is central to Crime and Punishment.   This situation allows the reader to transition from the smaller question “Is Raskolnikov good?” to the much larger “What is good?” very easily.  Without this morally ambiguous central character, the reader would feel uncomfortable asking if indeed, murder was okay.  Raskolnikov provides a smooth transition, guiding the reader to the ultimate question.  He provides the reader with basis, so when asking these questions, the poor reader, probably a bit morally confused himself at this point, does not seem like a raving lunatic.  Raskolnikov’s moral ambiguity is a gateway, elevating the novel from mere story to philosophical text.