I could never get into Futurama – nor the Simpsons, I must confess. I feel that the cultural tides have moved on, leaving me stranded on a beach where The Prisoner is more real to me than Lost.

Great discussion! I think, though, you might have missed Prof. Zaidenberg’s point. He dwells on a rich tradition of interpretation of Crime and Punishment. To begin with, the very name Raskolnikov is significant. It is derived from the Russian word raskol (’split’) and means ‘one who is split in two’. (This is not my translation but Prof. Richard Freeborn’s.) It is common among interpreters of Dostoevsky to see Raskolnikov as a divided personality (or possibly as one who attempted to split his soul in two – in a non-magical way, to be sure).

Now, Voldemort was the first to create six/seven Horcuxes. Before him practitioners of the Dark Arts split their souls in two… This is somewhat similar to Raskolnikov.

I should probably add that Prof. Zaideiberg is known in Russia for his enormous respect for Harry Potter novels. He has done a lot to overcome anti-JKR prejudice among churchgoers (though some interpretations are likely to remain controversial).

Snape’s sin is a compound of becoming a Death Eater – i.e. embracing evil – and betraying the woman he loves so that she and her husband are killed. Rodya goes through a similar process: he sees morality, good and evil, as something that only applies to ordinary people. He sees himself as above that. The murder of the pawnbroker is his attempt to prove that he is beyond the law and morality. Both characters are presented as gifted and yet socially alienated prior to their crimes; they are both poor, and see themselves as better than their richer, more socially successful peers. When they embrace evil, they are trying to reclaim the status which they feel they should have.

In both cases, things go horribly wrong as soon as they act upon their beliefs. In Snape’s case, the woman he loves and an innocent person (James) die. In Rodya’s case, after killing his designated victim, he inadvertantly kills her sister. Her death was not a part of his plan; killing her makes him a murderer even in his own eyes.

They are both struck by horror and remorse at their deeds.

Another interesting comparison we could make is between Porfiry Petrovich, the detective who pursues Rodya, and Dumbledore. Porfiry has been called the original Columbo: he hides his intellect and sharp observational skills behind the mannerisms of a clown. He knows that Rodya is the murderer from the start, and pursues him relentlessly, and urges him to confess. The relationship between Rodya and Porfiry is more antagonistic than between Snape and Dumbledore, but there is still a sense of one man guiding the other towards a more moral course of action.

Another simlarity between the characters is Snape’s decision to take responsibility for Harry – left an orphan because of his actions – and Rodya’s decision to take care of the Marmeladov family, left destitute after their father dies.

A major difference is that Snape’s arc starts by losing the woman he loves, and everything beyond that is his atonement and redemption. In Rodya’s case, he only find the woman he loves through his suffering and atonement.

But I think the major difference between the two is how important they are in the eyes of their authors. Rodya – with his descent into sin, his suffering and his redemption – is Dostoevsky’s protagonist (and possibly based partially upon the author himself). Snape, to the regret of many of us, is not Rowling’s protagonist, and his sin and redemption is background to the main story.

Great analysis. It’s been awhile since I’ve read Crime & Punishment but I remembered the basics, i.e. Raskolnikov felt remorse for his crime whereas Voldemort never felt any remorse for anything he ever did.

Your analysis essentially blows apart the argument that there’s any connection between Raskolnikov & Voldemort. I don’t even have to read the argument for such a case now, although I probably will.

“According to Zaidenberg, Volan De Mort “splits his soul through a murder and this rupture is a sign of demonism. A person splits himself and stops existing in a certain way, he isn’t responsible for his actions anymore.”

“Rowling pretty well realized Dostoyevsky’s prophesy about a person who consciously brings himself to a rupture which is an extreme degree of separation from his core and from the Lord.”

I think what supports the argument is the fact that both Raskolnikov and Voldemort commit murder, and that the act is bad for their souls. But I also think the simlarities end there.

There are numerous differences: Voldemort kills frequently and often indifferently; Rodya kills only once (albeit two people) and with great resulting personal anguish. Voldemort kills specifically to “rupture” his soul so he can be immortal. Rodya kills to prove that he is above morality. Voldemort grows increasingly inhuman and cold with his murders; Rodya becomes much more human, more capable of suffering and empathy. Voldemort is incapable of loving anyone. Rodya loves his mother and sister (and even has a best friend, if I remember correctly). He is redeemed through his love for the saintly Sonya. And most importantly, he starts to feel remorse from the moment he kills the two women. His remorse almost drives him insane, and he can only find a measure of peace by confessing and embracing his punishment.

This is not Voldemort’s character arc. No remorse, no anguish, no love, no redemption for old Snake Eyes. Just a child with flayed skin whimpering under a bench at King’s Cross.