After reading Crime and Punishment, I reflected on many aspects of the text: content, symbolism, and questions that were left marked in my mind. One of the most fascinating aspects for me, as a reader, was simply the plot. From the first page, I was drawn into Raskolnikov's world, and intrigued by his contemplation of the "terrible act." The intensity and clarity of the details provided by Dostoevsky allowed me to feel as if I were there in the streets of Petersburg with Raskolnikov. I must admit though, that throughout the epilogue I did feel a bit let down. Where was the rich detail I had gotten accustomed to? It seems as if Dostoevsky went to great lengths throughout the majority of the text to highlight even the smallest of details and interactions. However, the epilogue lacks this, and comes across as a brusque attempt to finish tying up the pieces of the novel. I wonder if this was done on purpose? Did the brevity serve some purpose, that is not clear to me? I'm really not sure.
             While my next observation is fairly random, I cannot seem to reconcile it. Why did Raskolnikov leave his change on the windowsill, for Marmeladov's family, after walking him home? I understand the purpose of leaving them money, because he was struck by their misfortune. However, it's difficult for me to rationalize how this extremely generous and compassionate action and the act of murdering two women can come from the same person. Despite looking at the murders Raskolnikov committed through the lens of nihilism...I still can't quite accept that two such actions could originate within the same being. I've tried to rationalize this for myself, but I can't get past it. Even though he regrets leaving the money, and even though he almost returns to the window to take it back--something within him cause him to leave it. It's a little terrifying for me to think that the same thing that ca...