This book is a long one, but the length has a specific purpose as it takes us on a dynamic journey through the mind of Raskolnikov (or Rodya). The plot is simple: a man decides to commit a crime and is forced, or rather forces himself, to bear the punishment for such act. We witness his state of mind before, during and after he murders two women and this is where the brilliance of the author comes to life, because despite the villainy and prejudice the reader cannot help but to understand Raskolnikov or even agree with his actions. This becomes evident when during the narrative one starts to secretly hope he doesn’t get caught by the authorities. This empathy is achieved because despite the apparent indifference and contempt for almost everyone we get to see his flaws, despair and suffering. The swirling of emotions and rationalizations allied to his illness puts oneself in the protagonist shoes. You can’t help but root for him despite the murder. And yet, he still manages to surprise us through bursts of kindness and generosity. The full and complex range of emotions paired with a superior intellect gives rise to certain ideologies that we may or may not agree with, but in the end, we end up suffering with Raskolnikov just like the one’s around him.

Raskolnikov’s Background

The whole transformation of the protagonist is my favourite part of the story but I feel it’s important to note how well constructed the character’s background is. It wouldn’t work if it weren’t for this. For example, from the story we can conclude that he grew up most of his life without a father and it shows. The lack of a father figure makes him somewhat lost in life as he has no one to look up to. Instead, he turns to figures like Napoleon whom he based on to commit his crime. Moreover, he never had a rite of passage from adolescence to manhood and as a result he unconsciously finds that the act of committing murder would confirm that he was in fact a great man. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why he did what he did. He’s simply lost in a harsh world. I also believe this is a problem in our current society: there’s a lack of strong men and role models. We emasculate our own men while celebrating masculinity in women. Boys become men much later in life compared to previous generations and it is even considered sexist when one tries to express its own masculinity. Ironically, Russia and Slavic countries seemed not to follow this trend and I wonder what would Dostoevsky think of that.

Moreover, being raised by his weak and submissive mother Pulcheria, and living with his sister Dunya did not help him at all. It might even had the opposite effect: by being the recipient of the unconditional motherly love and his sister’s deep affection made him spoiled and dismissive of others. This might help explain the complete disregard for others he has to the point of extreme arrogance. Had he not been unconditionally loved by his mother and sister, he might have given more value to other’s affections and human relationships. For it is not enough to be loved, one has to accept that love. Here it is portrayed a dark side of feminine love (especially motherly love): the incessant concern for the ones they love can become suffocating for the recipient and create resentment in the long run. Rodya finds annoying that Pulcheria is always worried about him and he is firm to deny the sacrifices his sister makes for him. But in this regard, he shows his emotional immaturity once again as he refuses to be loved and yet lives off others’ good will and money. He later acknowledged this and calls himself a ‘parasite’ and it’s a fitting metaphor – he lives off his host, but his presence is harmful to it. That is not to say that he did not love his family back because he clearly did. It’s just that he’s not aware of it as well as us, the readers. It is a complex and difficult relationship he has with these two women: he loves them yet he can hate them; he wants the best for them yet refuses to love them back; he wants to protect them yet cannot even protect himself to begin with. In his heads he keeps telling himself how great and strong he is but at the same time his heart keeps pulling him back to emotions he can’t cope with. He wonders why he thinks in a certain way yet his emotions firmly contradict his logic. He can’t deal with this cognitive dissonance and hence an emotional rollercoaster ensues during the events of the crime. I would even go as far as to claim that his illness is a result of such a mental battle, a mere reflection of his inner turmoil.

Thirdly, there’s Razumikhin. He’s Raskolnikov’s best friend in an one-way relationship. It follows the same pattern as his family’s relationship but in here he is far crueller and colder but still the recipient of a loyal friendship. If in the first instance, we can justify such irrational behavior due to family ties, in the latter it is harder to understand why Razumikhin behaves the way he does. I find two justifications for this which I believe can provide a critique for human behavior. Firstly, there is a tendency for the weak to associate themselves with the strong either for protection or emotional support. The truth is that Razumikhin looks up to Raskolnikov: he’s handsome, bright and independent. Qualities that not everyone has, indeed, Rodya argues that the geniuses who should be allowed to commit crimes possess these qualities and should be celebrated for that. In fact, the vast majority of the population is, in his eyes, regular sheep who need to obey and fulfil their duties on this earth – procreate and follow the rules that innovative geniuses propose. Of course, such an argument is made by the protagonist from the perspective that he’s one of the geniuses himself. Razumikhin, in my view, represents the quintessential regular person who Raskolnikov despises so much. Secondly, there’s confirmation bias and emotional investment. By investing so much in the relationship and wanting to believe that Rodya is a good person, Razumikhin tolerates intolerable behavior. It’s a noble yet foolish persistence in maintaining the friendship and one can’t help but feel how much little self-respect he has for himself. To justify his own tolerance, every little act of generosity of attention he receives from Rodya is seen as confirmation of greatness, compassion and intelligence. He’s not strong enough to break free perpetuating the vicious circle. It’s a simple yet beautiful metaphor: Razumikhin is not the brightest or strongest man there is but he’s the one, in the end, who provides and protects his family and fulfils the role Raskolnikov should have. He possesses all the qualities he hasn’t: nobility, loyalty and capable of loving. By ignoring these, Rodya has ignored his own humanity and by doing so, he wasn’t capable of dealing with his feelings after committing the crime. For the big tragedy of his life is realizing that he is a “regular” person who could not deal with the consequences of being great. In his petty crime he can neither find the guiltless joy of transgressing the rules, nor can he justify his action in name of Humanity since he’s killed for himself and himself alone. Razumikhin reminds us of what it is to be a good human being and the values a society should strive for, while Raskolnikov’s story reminds us that, unless you’re a psychopath, a human can only deal with his own guilt if the crime is done in name of a perceived greater cause.

Lastly, there’s the socio-economic background at the time in Russia. In order to have a more complete picture I would have to read the book again as I’m sure I missed many details of the current environment and how that influences the characters living in it. However, there are some aspects that stand out in the story development. To begin with, Raskolnikov lives in a state of extreme poverty and at the time it seemed this was the norm instead of the exception, contrary to our modern times. Obviously, this has a huge impact on the protagonists and all the remaining personalities. What’s remarkable about this is that most characters (including Rodya) seem to blame poverty for their problems and yet gravitate to it like a moth into flame. We’ve seen Rodya spend money carelessly and not thinking about what to eat the next day; Sonya’s stepmother spends all her money making sure her husband has a proper funeral while her children starve; Dunya refuses to marry a wealthy man based on her moral principles; men spent their entire salaries drinking vodka; etc. In my opinion this shows two things: firstly, poverty can be a state of mind and if fed for too long most people start associating their identity with it and, consciously or unconsciously, they stick to it because it’s part of who they are. Secondly, in the greatest of poverties we can also find the greatest of virtues; those who don’t have much have a tendency to share or give away all they have. One can more easily find true detachment from money in such environment. Rodya’s payment of an acquaintance’s funeral or Dunya’s rejection of Luzhin reminds us that in poverty you can find the highest of moral values. Furthermore, at the time (as described in the book) the dominant theory was that one’s external conditions were the sole cause for the existence of crime, in other words, if everyone was well off crime simply wouldn’t exist. Again, it seems poverty was the scapegoat for most people’s problems. Fast forward to today’s western society were poverty is the exception rather than the rule, it is safe to say that it does in fact play a role in crime rate but the theory crumbles in its absolution. What seems to happen is that once people are better off there’s two things happening: we have the means to entertain ourselves better and longer unlike Humanity has ever seen (TV, video games, books, internet, music, food, etc) which in turn pacifies the population since we’re constantly numb to our pain if we wish to do so. If in the book’s era the challenge was to access resources needed, today the challenge is to filter what we consume and shapes our thinking. It is no coincidence that before the murder, Raskolnikov spent months in his room by himself thinking without talking to anyone and it is hard not be driven into madness in such conditions. One can always wonder what would if he had access to all the entertainment we have today, would he have committed the crime still? Another aspect of more people achieving financial independence is that the criminal doesn’t disappear from within them, the type of crimes committed simply shift to something else. Where a poor man might commit an act of violence, a rich man might be tempted to commit fraud in order to get even more money he does not need (we see this all the time with tax evasion); whereas a poor man might be tempted to steal in order to eat, a rich man might be tempted to steal merely for the thrill of it. External conditions do affect the likelihood of a crime happening no doubt, but the point is that the driving force to break the rules comes from within. Hence, in poverty we see the greatest of virtues because there’s all the more incentives to murder, rob or steal and yet many unsung heroes refuse to do so based on their moral values (or from Raskolnikov’s perspective they refuse because they can’t simply not follow the rules imposed to them). To conclude the topic of poverty, it appears that the poorest are the ones who have the more reasons to hate and destroy the system that traps them, but are the ones more conditioned by it and who perpetuate it, especially under moral judgement. This became evident when Katerina (Sonya’s mother) spent all her money on a grandiose funeral (for her standards) to show there’s still nobility left in her and her deceased husband. She’s trying to impress the ones she admittedly hates during her various ramblings. The result is that instead of being able to provide for her family and pay the rent, she squanders it on a funeral that no one attended. Those who are powerful and rich exert a more powerful influence on a moral level than on a capital level. Societies are controlled by those who make and impose the rules and moral values, and unfortunately there’s a strong correlation between people in political power and wealth. You can only truly maintain a large population under control if you have the power to dictate what is right and what is wrong. The powerless (usually the poorer) are the first to fall under these rules because they are the first ones to pay the consequences for their transgressions. To escape these intangible barriers, it is necessary to transcend the rules themselves and this is what Raskolnikov tried to achieve by killing another human being. In a way, he wanted to break free from these invisible bonds.

The Crime

The crime is the main of event of the story in which the protagonist decides to kill an old woman whom he considered worthless as a human being. During the act of he is forced to kill her sister when she unexpectedly appears at the murder scene.

Why did Raskolnikov decided to kill, risking his own life and freedom? Why that woman? Before we continue, it should be noted that this wasn’t out of hunger or need. Despite living in extreme poverty and stealing some goods from the victim he didn’t even bother trying to sell them or cash in any way for financial benefit. On the naked eye this might make the murder even stranger and more unforgivable. Was it the pleasure of killing, or maybe the thrill of not getting caught? I do not believe so. Despite his arrogance and contempt for everybody, he was not a psychopath devoid of emotions and he didn’t take pleasure in watching others suffer. In fact, throughout the story we seem him capable of genuine acts of generosity. I already partly explained how his background led him to do this, or in other words, put him in the position to think and feel a certain way about killing. However, this was his decision and a planned, conscious one. He wasn’t forced to do so as a victim of his circumstances. He did such a thing out of his own selfish reasons – he wanted to prove himself a great man capable of breaking the rules that characterize those he most admired (in his own logic). Ending another person’s life, considered to be the greatest of sins (especially under a Christian doctrine, the dominant religion at the time), would be the ultimate test for him. In a way, it was the rejection of society, its values and norms, and the proof the he was above these if he was not caught. This is an important detail: getting away with the murder. If he was merely trying to prove a point to himself, he wouldn’t be so careful about planning and erasing all the evidence. There’s a certain appeal to those who seem to be above the law.

Furthermore, he deliberately chose his victim. A rude, abusive old woman who mistreated her sister and made everyone around her more miserable. His target decision was based on his moral judgement of that woman, the first warning that he would struggle coping with the guilt of killing. Had he chosen a random victim, kill for necessity, or for a greater cause his own internal dialogue post-murder would be different: in the first case, the act of killing would be the end in itself and no rationalization needed; for necessity it would be for survival; and it were for a greater cause it gets easier to justify the means through the ends. But he was blind to this. If  he chose a random victim, let’s say a decent woman and good mother to her children, it would truly test him and he wouldn’t have the courage to do it revealing to himself his true nature. Deep down I believe he was a good but misguided man.

One can counter this by saying “He killed the innocent Lizaveta and never once has he shown remorse for her death” which would be true. However, I believe that if given the choice he would not kill Lizaveta. He’s forced to do so having set his mind on killing the old woman. This was a murder out of necessity, of a completely different nature from the first one. Actually, his sentiment towards the death of Lizaveta is much closer to what he ought to have felt when killing the old woman, the characteristic of greatness he saw from those who break the rules. His downfall was not feeling guilt about the death of any of his victims, his downfall was feeling guilty about feeling guilty. Why was he feeling such suffering and pain? Why did he almost turn himself in more than one occasion? He panicked often and couldn’t live with himself. He wasn’t strong enough as he thought he was, not as composed as those men before him were. This begs the question: how would a Napoleon feel and rationalize such a sin? Either you’re a psychopath with no sense of empathy or you’re so mentally independent that you’re comfortable enough in ignoring society’s values and rules. Raskolnikov was neither. His ‘why’ wasn’t strong enough to support him during the internal dialogue that would follow the crime. Had he killed for a greater cause (this cause doesn’t have to be something extraordinary to an outsider as long it is of vital importance to the crime doer) which he firmly believed in, he would be able to rationalize and justify it to himself. Killing just to prove to oneself that he’s capable of doing so achieves nothing but a corpse and guilt.

The storytelling aspect of the whole murder scene is nothing short of fantastic, from the build-up up to that point until the end of the chapter where he is apparently safe from being caught. Although the book starts off a little slow, either intentionality or not, it works in favor of the story. When firstly introduced to Raskolnikov, I felt a certain aversion and pity but slowly and surely I began to feel in his shoes, transporting my consciousness into a troubled mind. After a reading session I felt tired, confused, dizzy and even repulsed by such a character. However, I came back to the story time and time again always wondering if he was going to kill or not (I haven’t read any synopsis or knew the tale). Midway through the story I was able to so clearly feel and think like Raskolnikov that I was thinking to myself “Am I really able to do this?”, “Did I make the right preparations?”, “Why would I risk my life for this?”. All the questions that were crossing his mind were crossing mine too. The heaviness of spirit and the anticipation were there. I remember one of the most distinct feelings was the anxiousness of letting go – “Please, make myself a favor and be done with this, whatever happens, happens but I must do this!” I wanted to get rid of this weight out of my heart and stop obsessing over such act. I felt like the murderer himself! This culminated into a feeling of relief when Raskolnikov got home unscathed and without getting caught. It’s a display of the full range of emotions within the human spectrum and a deep look into our experience as conscious beings. To me this is a consequence of great storytelling. Writing these words shortly after reading the book, it is easy to make cold and rational judgements but I can guarantee that while reading the whole murder chapter I wasn’t thinking right, in fact I will say that Rodya was way more careful and decisive than I would ever be.

Porfiry and Suffering

“Because suffering is a great thing- that suffering has a purpose”

Porfiry was the head of the investigation department. He correctly guessed and deduced that Raskolnikov committed the crime. They’re the protagonists of the climax of the book during a dialogue where Rodya almost gave himself up to him.

From one point of view Porfiry is the exact opposite of Raskolnikov. Whereas the latter is handsome, smart, arrogant and exudes an aura of superiority; the former is short, overweight and average looking, plays dumb all the time, and has a very easy-going nature. But after some deep reflection I would say it’s fairer to say they’re different sides of the same coin.

During the first instance where these characters met, the reader could immediately feel the danger of this investigator despite the harmless look. The protagonist was also quick to identify this but fell for almost every trap laid upon him by this cunning man. And throughout the book he revealed Raskolnikov’s biggest weakness: his reliance on intellect alone and misunderstanding of human nature. He was forced to play a game that he was not ready to play, the game of emotions and of the irrational. It’s often the downfall of very smart people (and one that plagues our current tech industry) in which they think and act as if we live in a rational world and assume the others behave in a rational matter too. Worst of all, they’re incapable of seeing their own irrationality because they’re too good at rationalizing they’re own irrational behaviors. Quite the conundrum. Porfiry wasn’t relying on a miscalculated step or a contradiction of facts because he knew Raskolnikov was too smart for that. But he knew that chance and the murderer’s logical behavior would eventually give him up for no amount of planning can account for all the randomness in the world. Most importantly, he knew that Rodya’s heart would betray him. This is masterfully shown during their conversation in the police department where Porfiry would have Raskolnikov confess his crime without any proof. Raskolnikov escaped, ironically, by luck alone. He didn’t throw at him facts and logical arguments, instead he threw at him assumptions and supercharged emotional claims provoking a strong and unnecessary reaction from the murderer. He understood Rodya like no one else, and for that he also admired him.

Yes, there’s also respect for Raskolnikov despite the villainous act. He realized how hard it was for him to commit the crime and live with the guilt. But he also understood him. Porfiry saw the lack of guidance in Rodya’s life and his over-reliance on intellect and theories: “This is a contemporary case, in which material comfort is preached as life’s only aim. It’s a case that involves dreams derived from books, a heart that has been overstimulated by theories.” He realized the protagonist was a victim of his environment .A poor and ambitious young man living in such an age can feel a hole in his soul, for a man of greatness will suffocate if his only aim in life is to fight for survival. So Raskolnikov embraced his own questionable theories to acquire meaning and derive strength from and he stuck with them. And for that, Porfiry respects him. It is why in their last conversation he acts almost as a mentor and tries to ease his pain by offering him the chance of turning himself in, greatly reducing the sentence. This is better explained in this little excerpt: “You concocted a theory, and were then ashamed that it didn’t hold water, that it turned out to be most unoriginal! But even so you’re not a hopeless villain. I think you’re one of the kind who even if his intestines were being cut out would stand looking at his torturers with a smile – as long as he’d found a God, or a faith.” But first, he would need to go to prison, he would need to suffer and accept his punishment. For that would be his only salvation and teacher.

What does Porfiry’s character represent? I believe he serves the role of justice, experience and wisdom. He doesn’t believe in crime and his job is to catch crime doers. He’s lived long enough to distinguish evil crimes from misguided ones; and yet he manages to have a positive outlook on the life of these people and guide them on a better path. He’s all that Raskolnikov is not and yet Raskolnikov could have been just like him had his circumstances been different, perhaps even greater. He teaches us that in our reality rationality is just part of the equation and that an understanding of human nature is more important to survive in this chaotic world where sometimes nothing seems to make sense.

Sonya and Redemption

Sonya was a prostitute, not by choice, but a victim of her family circumstances. Her father was a drunk man and she suffered constant abuse from her stepmother. Still, she was a loving woman with the innocence of a child despite her tragic upbringing. This is her most remarkable trait, and one quality that the older one gets, the more you admire it: to be happy in adversity and to not let evil and sadness take away your purity and good will. And Sonya, despite her weak and fragile personality, is a stalwart of good and one can’t avoid the need to protect and lover her back just as she loves the world. Not even the cold Raskolnikov can resists this feminine charm – the willingness to love other human beings for simply existing despite not being worthy of love in the first place. A transformative love indeed to those who receive it. This quality is clearly shown numerous times throughout the story but it’s most revealing when Rodya confesses the crime to Sonya. Her first reaction is genuine suffering, not because she’s afraid or knew the victim, but because he suffers too. The genuine empathy caught him off guard and makes him reconsider if he really understands human nature.

It’s as if this couple is like Yin and Yang and the attraction becomes inevitable. He’s desperate for love, trapped in his cold and purely logical world while Sonya needs a hero to save her from the life destiny has bestowed upon her. Their life’s context complements each other perfectly. It’s the classic love archetype of the knight in shining armor rescuing the trapped princess. It’s as true today as it was 200 years ago when the book was written.

“Go immediately, this very moment, go and stand at the crossroads, bow down, first kiss the ground that you’ve desecrated, and then bow to the whole world and tell everyone out loud: “I have killed!” Then God will send you life again.” From this moment on, Sonya had the moral superiority over Raskolnikov, and not only Sonya but society as well. By accepting the guilt and let other’s values dictate his fate the battle is lost. This is my biggest disagreement with the book: where the author intended to show redemption and salvation (my interpretation) I see conformity and weakness – I see the dismantling and reprogramming of a man. From my perspective, one can take the blame, the suffering and the punishment but never take the guilt because by doing so it’s no longer an individual’s world but someone else’s – it’s the ultimate loss of individual sovereignty and free thinking.  Guilt sucks the greatness out of men and won’t let them stand up again. Obviously, I’m not arguing that a person should not conform to any values and higher orders but do so willingly and from one’s own reasoning and experience. Follow from within, not from outside. It is fair to argue that Raskolnikov felt genuine guilt and so this form of punishment was necessary. I’ll counter that with the fact that he should in fact take accountability for his actions, yet reflect on them on his own. It is different to act based on feeling guilty or based on knowing that one can do better, the former is conformity while the latter is improvement. He accepted his punishment because of his own emotions, not because he realized it was wrong to take an innocent life – the reason why such a social convention exists in the first place. By taking the guilt and punish himself on such a vulnerable moment it didn’t truly come from his own heart. With that, he’ll be unable to fulfil his own potential as an individual expression in this world.

Both of them looked pale and thin; but in these ill, pale faces there now gleamed the dawn of a renewed future, a complete recovery to a new life. What had revived them was love, the heart of the one containing an infinite source of life for the heart of the other. Was this a cliché back then or did it become a cliché after such masterpieces like this book were published? Again, I might be judging too harshly based on a misunderstanding of the current era. This excerpt is on the epilogue and basically concludes the book. In the author’s eyes Raskolnikov found redemption through Sonya, by loving her infinitely and being loved equally. The unification of two human souls, when two become one. I find it hard to be satisfied with such an ending. The reason is twofold: firstly, I do not believe such love is possible and even if it is, it’s such a rare occurrence that the common mortal cannot aspire to such fate, especially one that’s beyond one’s control. Secondly, and more importantly, this type of salvation is of the lazy kind. It’s the type of salvation where one says “I found God”; “I found my reason to live”; and so on. Why do most people seem to have these flashes of enlightenment? Mostly, because they have given up and passed control to some other authority. It’s a twisted form of nihilism, less honest. Whereas a nihilist admits his own insignificance and acts accordingly to such existence, this type of enlightenment covertly accepts their insignificance and attributes it to a higher power who can tell them what to do and give meaning to their lives either by following a god, religion or another human. They simply let go but forsake their own individuality while a nihilist is able to maintain theirs not matter how worthless it is. But it doesn’t not matter to them because it’s such a relief for their own tortured souls that this loss of freedom is worth the price. But I’d much rather see Raskolnikov find salvation from within. By accepting his weaknesses and overcome them. By taking his punishment in his own way. By contributing to the world with his own individuality. For living through and for others is a disservice to one’s existence itself. If there’s one lesson modern science has taught us is this: we cannot seem to find a meaning for our existence, we seem to exist purely by chance. Statistically, we should not even be here. Obviously, this creates a void in our soul we need to fulfil. To solve this, we try to attribute meaning to our lives by telling ourselves there’s some reason behind it all, that we are not worthless and finite.  However, isn’t that a blatant contradiction? We learned that the probability of our existence is practically zero and yet we try to justify it to something greater. It’s like winning the lottery and complaining we have too much money. Isn’t our existence itself the greatest achievement of all? The true meaning of our existence is existing! But by clinging to it we devalue it and take the magic out of it. The same applies to the book. The protagonist found redemption and meaning on an external force through Sonya and love and not from his greatest gift – himself.

Conclusion

I do believe this book is a masterpiece, the storytelling, character development and human psychology is remarkable. The fact that I disagree with the author’s conclusion takes nothing away from it. Perhaps if I had to have a conversation with Dostoevsky in the 21st century he would agree with me, or he would show me his wisdom and convince me why my reasoning is flawed. But I’m grateful to him for writing such an enjoyable book and allow me to experience these sensations during the story. And more importantly, for making me think and challenge myself in my beliefs – that’s when I know that I’m reading a classic with a legacy that will carry on for many generations.