The extraordinary man in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is presented in three fashions: the first is Dostoevsky's theory of the extraordinary man, the second is the main character's, Raskolnikov's notion of himself as an extraordinary man and the third is Dostoevsky's view of the protagonist's attachment to his self-identification with the extraordinary. Dostoevsky's ideas about the extraordinary man are given in Raskolnikov's speech to Porfiry Petrovich on pages 242 and 243. Dostoevsky's view is expressed as Raskolnikov's, and is concerned with defining what exactly an extraordinary man is. Lending the protagonist definition, however, does not signify the author's acceptance of Raskolnikov's supposed extraordinariness. Dostoevsky satirizes Raskolnikov's declaration of having extraordinary qualities inasmuch as he conjoins the adjective, extraordinary, with dream states, transformations, delirium and chance. The last way in which the extraordinary man is presented is through Raskolnikov's self-representation, his interpretation of events and his attempt to reconcile his ideas with his actions. Dostoevsky is not satirizing the idea of an extraordinary man; on the contrary, he is proposing it as a possibility- a possibility that is hardly possible. This unlikelihood is described with the statistics given in Raskolnikov's speech to Porfiry: "People with new ideas, people with the faintest capacity for saying something new, are extremely few in number, extraordinarily so, in fact" (page 245). Rather than the concept of the extraordinary man, Dostoevsky is satirizing people who think that they have the right to act like extraordinary men; the characters of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are representative of such people, and their ultimate fate is supposed to teach the lesson of knowing one's place and knowing which bounds you can overcome and by which bounds you are constrained. Raskolnikov is not the hero of the novel, but the fool.

Raskolnikov's speech to Porfiry, in which he defines what it is to be extraordinary and where he justifies the actions of extraordinary men, is a definition and idea that can be attributed to Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov gives the speech as though he were detached from it; he doesn't realize the implications of what he is saying, he doesn't realize that what he is describing is not him. This speech should have made Raskolnikov reflect; it should have made him question his situation, especially after the murder he commits and his self-identity crisis (extraordinary or ordinary). But Raskolnikov's speech has no such effect; he speaks as though reading a transcript or reciting a memorized poem, as if somebody is talking through him and as if the words had no affect on his conscience. He looks at the ground while speaking, as if frightened of the implications of the theory for his own life, but he never voices this fear, he simply moves on. Why doesn't Raskolnikov ever stop to reflect on his own essay, when it holds the key to his self-identity crisis? Why does he never question the murder he committed, why doesn't he try and discern whether his crime is extraordinary or ordinary? He has not come to terms with his identity or the nature of the crime, yet he never tries to reconcile these identities with "his own" essay. Raskolnikov also ignores the fact that he is acting, out of sickness, literally the same way that he describes an ordinary man playing at being extraordinary, "for they never go very far. Of course, they might have a thrashing sometimes for letting their fancy run away with them and to teach them their place, but no more; in fact, even this isn't necessary as they castigate themselves, for they are very conscientious: some perform this service for one another and others chastise themselves with their own hands" (page 245). Raskolnikov's detachment from his speech identifies it as Dostoevsky's. The speech is so clearly allegorical (which is exactly why Porfiry wishes to bring it up) that Raskolnikov should have a hard time not applying his theories to his actions, but he does not do it. Raskolnikov, unlike extraordinary men, has no new "word" to bring to the world and therefore his crime is just ordinary (page 242). The "new word," Raskolnikov's argument for justifying crime, is that "all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals- more or less, of course" (ibid). The description of the extraordinary man given in this speech are Dostoevsky's, and they build the foundation for satirizing the characters that act out of role.

Dostoevsky satirizes people who presume themselves to be extraordinary-but who are actually ordinary-by always attributing the adjective "extraordinary" to the fantastic and the unreal. On page 52, dreams are described as having "a singular actuality, vividness and extraordinary semblance of reality." "Extraordinary" is later used to describe an impression of a random coincidence: "Of course it was a chance, but he could not shake off a very extraordinary impression…" On page 66, "extraordinary" is used in correlation with drowsiness and stupefaction, "And his drowsiness and stupefaction were followed by an extraordinary, feverish, as it were distracted haste." On page 152, "extraordinary" is used to describe Raskolnikov's state after a transformation took place: "Raskolnikov's set and earnest face was suddenly transformed… and in one flash he recalled with extraordinary vividness of sensation a moment in the recent past…" "Extraordinary" is also referenced to describe Razumihin while he is not quite himself: "Razumihin was in extraordinary excitement… he was in a state bordering on ecstasy, (185-86). On page 236, Razumihin describes Raskolnikov's escape while he was delirious as extraordinary, as if Raskolnikov's sickness and simultaneous ability to act makes him extraordinary. Over and over, each instance of "extraordinary" describes a situation that is abnormal, has dreamlike qualities, or is equivalent to delirium. Extraordinary is also a term used by people who are in the aforementioned states. The adjective is out of place in the context, making it apparent that Dostoevsky uses "extraordinary" in this ridiculous way because he is equating somebody's notion of being extraordinary with the unreal or absurd. By using "extraordinary" this way, Dostoevsky showing the reader why Raskolnikov thinks he is above the average man and, in turn, he shows us that anyone who thinks that he or she is above the average man thinks that way. Those who believe they are extraordinary think and act like this because they are delirious, because they are dreaming, because they are drunk, because they are sick, because they perceive chance as something they have the ability to create. It is plain that Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov to satirize everyone who thinks that he/she is above the ordinary, and that those who think that they are extraordinary are actually mad, or sick or drunk! This explains Dostoevsky's persistence in using "extraordinary," to describe states in which the character is not himself. If the character were not in a state that caused him/her to act out of character and instead acted normally within the bounds of their established personality, "extraordinary," does not appear. We do, however, almost always find use of this adjective associated with characters in an abnormal state, or when the narrator describes abnormal states such as dreams and sickness. Dostoevsky thinks that men and women who believe that they are extraordinary are only lying to themselves, or that they are acting out of character (stepping over boundaries). Dostoevsky also believes that being extraordinary is not something that an extraordinary man can ponder because it is not something that an extraordinary man can know. He cannot know if he is or is not extraordinary because "the same masses set these criminals [the extraordinary men] on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them… The first category is always the [ordinary] man of the present, the second the [extraordinary] man of the future" (page 243). I understand these passages as saying that extraordinary men do not spend their time reflecting on whether or not they are extraordinary, rather that they "move the world towards the future" (ibid). They "move the world" inasmuch as they break down the ancient laws and build new ones in their place. Raskolnikov admits to his friend, Razumihin, that his essay is nothing new: "You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before" (ibid). Raskolnikov admits to not creating anything, he is instead reinforcing ancient thoughts, philosophies and ideas concerning men and women who are extraordinary. The reason behind the masses setting the extraordinary men on pedestals a generation later is that it takes time for them to stop being the enemy of this change, and it takes time to become an ally of the man and the movement, which they fought so hard to deny.

How can one posit himself as an extraordinary man, given Dostoevsky's definition? If the extraordinary man is to be the man of the future, then it seems ridiculous for him to try to experiment with his extraordinary attributes (even if we assume that he has these attributes). Extraordinary men commit crimes for a cause, so the masses put them on a pedestal a generation later. What is the cause for which Raskolnikov committed his crime? He only wants to free a couple of poor people from the wrath of a pawnbroker. Raskolnikov understand that this is only a preliminary step to committing crimes for greater causes, but the fact is that Raskolnikov does not have a great cause, a fact that keeps him ordinary. It is because he lacks that essential characteristic of the extraordinary man that he is ironically and satirically described as extraordinary when he is in fact sick, delirious, or acting otherwise abnormally.

One character that deserves attention is Svidrigailov. Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov's double inasmuch as he shares the quality of having fooled himself into believing that he is extraordinary. Svidrigailov sees ghosts, has wild dreams and commits suicide because he is denied the love of Raskolnikov's sister, Dounia. Like Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov is constantly living in an abnormal state; he is not extraordinary, he is a fool. His madness is another tool that Dostoevsky uses to make his point concerning those who deceive themselves and think that they are extraordinary. The only character that Dostoevsky allows the possibility of being extraordinary is Porfiry, who looks "with extraordinary simplicity at Raskolnikov (which startled him and instantly put him on his guard)" (314). Porfiry's "extraordinary simplicity" frightens Raskolnikov because he realizes that he is in the presence of someone higher than him: he is in the presence of someone who makes him unconsciously recognize his ordinariness.

Dostoevsky wrote a novel about a fool, and his intended audience is the fools who think they see the extraordinary in themselves. In the guise of Raskolnikov's speech to Porfiry, Dostoevsky defines what an extraordinary man is for those who not only do not know, but who pretend that they do know (i.e., Raskolnikov). The intention of the speech is to make such people reflect and, in reflecting, learn their ordinary place in the world, much like Raskolnikov does.

Bibliography
Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky (Bantam Classics, 1981, New York) Translation done by Constance Garnett.