Did Raskolnikov deserve fame?

[Hind]

If Napoleon could obliterate entire families and achieve grandeur- since that's how people accord greatness to men- why should Raskolnikov not take his infant step towards the same eternal glory?

[Sweetchilibullfrog]

well, i think it's clear near the end of the book that raskolnikov is no napoleon. as he himself states during his confession to sonia, "I wanted to murder for my own sake, for myself alone! . . . It wasn’t to help my mother. . . . I didn’t do the murder to gain wealth and power... I murdered myself, not her! . . . I crushed myself once and for all, forever.". although he was disgusted by the act of suicide, he wanted to end his life so he murdered the Ivanovna sisters instead. his crimes were commited as a symbolic suicide, not to achieve grandeur. so no, i dont think he deserves to reach eternal glory since he fails to even glorify himself.

[Hind]

Thanks for the reply! You state that Raskolnikov is no Napoleon, yet that could only be said with regards to the success of his endeavors. Both the people concerned indulged in what they did based on one single true motivation; that of helping themselves. They both covered this up in layers of ideals and principles to give it a noble appearance.
Despite the similarity in their methods and approaches, Raskolnikov fails to attain an ounce of the level of grandeur that Napoleon eventually did. Therefore, he is scorned and treated as a petty criminal and murderer whereas Napoleon shall remain in annals of history so long as they last.
As regards the inclination to suicide that you mentioned, I see no sign of it in the contemplations of Raskolnikov. These contemplations contrapuntally are regarding the elevation of the current state of Raskolnikov, both mentally and practically.