This is at the same time bad and good. The thing is, this person is good-hearted, responsible and conscientious. If she'd be a different kind: more decisive, more cruel, more selfish - she'd do it a long time ago. And it didn't have to be murder, she could just divorce the man and take half of the combined income.
But there's got to be something that prevented her in her earlier years, maybe love, but more likely economics. I could have speculated on it, but the 750 words limit didn't allow me. )))
The good thing is she didn't commit the crime. For a conscientious person committing a crime becomes a horrible tragedy. That's what Crime and Punishment is all about.
Dostoyevsky! I never understood what on earth he was trying to say, maybe even especially in Crime and Punishment. That's the one with the guy who kills an old woman who lent him some money, right? Then he goes nuts from the guilt - that one? Can't remember his name, but it's long and starts with an R.
Yes, Raskolnikov. He was basically thought that the old hag was completely useless and even harmful for everyone. And having her money he could have done some good deeds. He also thought that be it, Napoleon, in his place, he'd not waver for a moment if she stood an obstacle to his plans.
But let me put it this way... Raskolnikov wasn't Napoleon. He was a conscientious guy and, if anything, wanted to prevent his sister to marry a man she didn't love because his sister wanted to do it because she could help him.
But when he did kill the old hag, he experienced horrible torments of consciousness and that was his punishment. He couldn't even use the money that he stole as he became nauseous even thinking about it. So when the detective eventually figured it out and sent him to Siberia to do his time in penal servitude, he felt relieved. )))
This is at the same time bad and good. The thing is, this person is good-hearted, responsible and conscientious. If she'd be a different kind: more decisive, more cruel, more selfish - she'd do it a long time ago. And it didn't have to be murder, she could just divorce the man and take half of the combined income.
But there's got to be something that prevented her in her earlier years, maybe love, but more likely economics. I could have speculated on it, but the 750 words limit didn't allow me. )))
The good thing is she didn't commit the crime. For a conscientious person committing a crime becomes a horrible tragedy. That's what Crime and Punishment is all about.
Dostoyevsky! I never understood what on earth he was trying to say, maybe even especially in Crime and Punishment. That's the one with the guy who kills an old woman who lent him some money, right? Then he goes nuts from the guilt - that one? Can't remember his name, but it's long and starts with an R.
Yes, Raskolnikov. He was basically thought that the old hag was completely useless and even harmful for everyone. And having her money he could have done some good deeds. He also thought that be it, Napoleon, in his place, he'd not waver for a moment if she stood an obstacle to his plans.
But let me put it this way... Raskolnikov wasn't Napoleon. He was a conscientious guy and, if anything, wanted to prevent his sister to marry a man she didn't love because his sister wanted to do it because she could help him.
But when he did kill the old hag, he experienced horrible torments of consciousness and that was his punishment. He couldn't even use the money that he stole as he became nauseous even thinking about it. So when the detective eventually figured it out and sent him to Siberia to do his time in penal servitude, he felt relieved. )))