What do you think of Raskolnikov, the hero in Crime and Punishment?

I have read this book, and I am glad to answer your question. I can't answer with a few common adjectives, but I will answer according to the contents of the book. The hero is a kind person who sympathizes with the weak and has an almost instinctive pity for the suffering life. This is not what most people call compassion. The hero's heart raised this feeling to a new height. His pity and sympathy are not superficial alms given by the rich to beggars, nor exaggerated pity, nor man-made savior, but the protagonist liberates slaves and the priest preaches to the poor. He sincerely helps the unfortunate people. This can be seen from the fact that he helped the widow of a civil servant and begged drunken people not to whip horses in their dreams. Sympathize with the weak and hate the stingy rich. Although an old man was killed, his age does not constitute respect and contempt. The hero has a set of "superman" and "material" theories in his mind, and he is not afraid of the landlord's jokes. I have the same idea, but I have less courage than Raskolnikov. He didn't kill for money, just to prove his theory, or to take the first step from theory to practice, but obviously he failed. When he fails, he thinks that his failure is not a theoretical failure, but a failure in action, not a theoretical point of view. It's just that his will is not firm enough. Of course, he woke up at the end of the book. This shows the protagonist's paranoia about things. The hero is a person who has his own opinions, pursuits, ideals and is unwilling to be extraordinary. He wants to do Napoleon's feat of conquering the world, but his idea is too dreamy. Although the motive is great. The hero cherishes his relatives very much, has a keen judgment on human accidents, is opinionated, is not blind, believes in his own ability, but does not believe in the power of religion. This is the first sentence. Generally speaking, he is very kind, because he saves people, he is very cynical, because the environment in which he lives is realistic, and good people are doomed, while rich and powerful bad people live well and have ambitions. That theory didn't make him a hedonist, but he wanted to stand on the commanding heights and help all beings. His shortcomings are also very prominent, such as bad temper, not gentle enough, blind persistence and so on. Because I have only read this book once, it is definitely not accurate enough. Hope to understand, ask: thank you! But I think I should think more about him! Some places are still incomprehensible.