Did Humanity subdue the Theorist ? A look at the characters Raskolnikov and Sonya in "Crime and Punishment"

Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoevsky
(Tr. by Constance Garnett )
================================

"In what way, was my theory stupider than others that have swarmed and clashed from the beginning of the world? One has only to look at the thing quite independently, broadly, and uninfluenced by commonplace ideas, and my idea will by no means seem so... strange. Oh, sceptics and halfpenny philosophers, why do you halt half-way!""Why does my action strike them as so horrible? Is it because it was a crime? What is meant by crime? My conscience is at rest. Of course, it was a legal crime, of course, the letter of the law was broken and blood was shed. Well, punish me for the letter of the law... and that's enough. Of course, in that case many of the benefactors of mankind who snatched power for themselves instead of inheriting it ought to have been punished at their first steps. But those men succeeded and so they were right, and I didn't, and so I had no right to have taken that step."

 The above extract probably presents the Dilemma that troubled Raskolnikov ever since  he committed the crime. The troubled Raskolnikov never concede  theoretically, that he should repent the crime he committed. Yet his punishment begins from the moment he committed the crime, and not when he was sentenced to Siberia. He was so much troubled, that the authorities got suspicious of him, due to his own behaviour. Even then they couldn't prove it, until his troubled consciousness makes him confess his crime.

Upon him arriving in Siberia towards the end of the book, he still attempts to argue on behalf of the theorist in him:

He was ashamed just because he, Raskolnikov, had so hopelessly, stupidly come to grief through some decree of blind fate, and must humble himself and submit to “the idiocy” of a sentence, if he were anyhow to be at peace.

Vague and objectless anxiety in the present, and in the future a continual sacrifice leading to nothing—that was all that lay before him. And what comfort was it to him that at the end of eight years he would only be thirty-two and able to begin a new life! What had he to live for? What had he to look forward to? Why should he strive? To live in order to exist? Why, he had been ready a thousand times before to give up existence for the sake of an idea, for a hope, even for a fancy. Mere existence had always been too little for him; he had always wanted more. Yet, a sudden change happens within him, between this contemplation in Siberia and the end of novel, where he becomes hopeful of a future, disregarding his theoretical stance. Life had stepped into the place of theory and something quite different would work itself out in his mind.  What was it that affected Raskolnikov to such a degree. that he couldn't stick to his theory ? ; a theory he was convinced of, even after he was sentenced, a sentence and a post-sentence life which he looked at with scorn. When thinking over the character of Raskolnikov, I couldn't but identify two tangents of his character, which explain this change. 1- For all the theory that Raskolnikov tried to embrace and stick to, he was a humanist at heart, and many an example of this is shown throughout the novel. Besides,  the main reason he becomes attached to  Sonya, is due to this same quality of hers. Upon identifying this quality in her much earlier in the novel, Raskolnikov states that: " I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity" It is this same humanity which makes Sonya follow Raskolnikov to Siberia, in order to save him ( more instances  of Sonya's humanity  is exemplified earlier in the novel.) It is Sonya's persistence which makes a shift in the attitude towards life in Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov, an atheist, yet keeps the bible that Sonya lends, near him, although he never opens it.While it is apparent that Dostoevsky hints that it is the religious faith in Sonya which makes her undergo such hardship on others' behalf, the subtlety of how he presents it quite mesmerised me.It is almost weightless against the flow of the novel - but then I am talking of a master that the whole world has identified, and my small self, is still waking up to ( I have only read Karamazov Brothers from the author previously ). 2- The Second Point that I need to mention is, did Raskolnikov bite off more than he could chew, when he thought that he could put his theory into practice. The panic that he let himself become a victim of, immediately after his crime, totally forgetting the purpose of his crime suggest that he was more of a "wannabe" theorist, than his conscience could ever grant him to be. Hence it is this space which a "Sonya" could manipulate; in essence this "space" that a humanist could work, wouldn't have been available in "a Napolean" for example - men who go all the way to make a change in the world and taste ultimate success. These are but a few thoughts which arose in my mind upon completion of the novel a little more than 24 hours ago. I haven't tried to review this book, for I feel that it borders on the absurd, for an average reader like me to review a book of this grand scale. Hence, in stead of trying to review this book, I tried to see whether I could get near to grasping the essence of Dostoevsky's  texture. Note , that the ideas presented here are simply stated without reference to any other reviews ( I, in fact opted out reading the introduction by Keith Carabine, which the printed copy contained ). I am sure that the views stated herein are not new, but it is hoped that they will serve in opening a worthy dialogue about this book.